New Bench comming in hmmm78 hours...
- Thread starter Sabastian
- Start date
FAT32 vs NTFS
I'm also running NTFS (for my 1022 score). The new 120GXP drives are fast.
FYI, it is a wrong assumption to state that NTFS is inherently slower than FAT32. The larger the partition, the more benefit to switching to NTFS in terms of Performance. Only in cases where you have small partitions with tons of small files will FAT32 have an advantage.
I'm also running NTFS (for my 1022 score). The new 120GXP drives are fast.
FYI, it is a wrong assumption to state that NTFS is inherently slower than FAT32. The larger the partition, the more benefit to switching to NTFS in terms of Performance. Only in cases where you have small partitions with tons of small files will FAT32 have an advantage.
Why do you say that?
The new 120GXP drives are probably the best IDE drives you can get now. They are certainly the fastest. I've been installing Maxtor, WD and these new IBM drives (not the older 85GXP drives). The only drives I haven't tried yet (that I want to try) are the WD performance series w/ 8MB cache.
Where did you get the 333 hour thing?
The new 120GXP drives are probably the best IDE drives you can get now. They are certainly the fastest. I've been installing Maxtor, WD and these new IBM drives (not the older 85GXP drives). The only drives I haven't tried yet (that I want to try) are the WD performance series w/ 8MB cache.
Where did you get the 333 hour thing?
Althornin, I see what you are eluding to now. First, the box is not a server. Second, I have not had any more experience of failures with IBM than any other brand (Seagate, WD, Maxtor, etc.).
In the past 3 years I've had 3 Seagates, 1 WD and 1 Maxtor drive fail. So far I've had no failures with IBM--even some of the old 10GB 7200rpm drives are still going strong (if a bit slow).
Sometimes I think people take things too far out into left field. 333 hours a month is a lot of up time--more than a standard work week would require. In addition, to assume that if you break that you'll be in trouble is also a bit strong.
Along this same line, there have been arguments on both sides of the "never turn off your box" and "turn it off when you don't need it" issue for ages.
Thanks for the info though--even if it was just an attempt to put a buket of cold water on something.
In the past 3 years I've had 3 Seagates, 1 WD and 1 Maxtor drive fail. So far I've had no failures with IBM--even some of the old 10GB 7200rpm drives are still going strong (if a bit slow).
Sometimes I think people take things too far out into left field. 333 hours a month is a lot of up time--more than a standard work week would require. In addition, to assume that if you break that you'll be in trouble is also a bit strong.
Along this same line, there have been arguments on both sides of the "never turn off your box" and "turn it off when you don't need it" issue for ages.
Thanks for the info though--even if it was just an attempt to put a buket of cold water on something.
windfire, you havent been keeping up on current events, have you
I wouldnt touch another IBM drive with a 10-foot pole:
http://www.storagereview.com/
I recommend actually checking this place out, as its top-notch!
Read the first page news. IBM drives have accrued recent lawsuits dealing with reliability, and now this. No thanks.
Check the reviews of the WD 8MB cache drives, now those are impressivly fast!
Heres a nice quote from the front page of Storage review, a quote from talks they had with IBM folks.
Holy Shit Batman!
I wouldnt touch another IBM drive with a 10-foot pole:
http://www.storagereview.com/
I recommend actually checking this place out, as its top-notch!
Read the first page news. IBM drives have accrued recent lawsuits dealing with reliability, and now this. No thanks.
Check the reviews of the WD 8MB cache drives, now those are impressivly fast!
Heres a nice quote from the front page of Storage review, a quote from talks they had with IBM folks.
I find the last answer nice and funny....Oddly enough, when our drives are only run 8 hours out of the day instead of 24, we have less failures
Holy Shit Batman!
damn you!
I take the time to compose a nice informative post, and you crap on my hard work by posting while i'm composing it!
You SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
j00 teh l00z3R!!!!!!!!1111
(note, i am kidding)
Not really attempting to put a bucket of cold water on ya, just saying that I leave my machine on 24/7 so i would never use a drive that is reccommended for 8 hours only a day. And your experience of failures goes counter to other annecdotal stories and my personal experience with friends systems and my own. I was honestly just rying to warn you incase you didnt know!
Personally, if i had the money, i'd want a nice RAID 1 of those WD 120GB 8MB cache drives....i have the mobo, just not the drives.
Also, sorry to Hijack this thread with HD stuff.
Note: i find PCmark2002 to be totally crappy. some people are scoring in the 13000's for HDD, mem, and CPU.
rediculous...
I take the time to compose a nice informative post, and you crap on my hard work by posting while i'm composing it!
You SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
j00 teh l00z3R!!!!!!!!1111
(note, i am kidding
)Not really attempting to put a bucket of cold water on ya, just saying that I leave my machine on 24/7 so i would never use a drive that is reccommended for 8 hours only a day. And your experience of failures goes counter to other annecdotal stories and my personal experience with friends systems and my own. I was honestly just rying to warn you incase you didnt know!
Personally, if i had the money, i'd want a nice RAID 1 of those WD 120GB 8MB cache drives....i have the mobo, just not the drives.
Also, sorry to Hijack this thread with HD stuff.
Note: i find PCmark2002 to be totally crappy. some people are scoring in the 13000's for HDD, mem, and CPU.
rediculous...
Yes, I actually reviewed that information when you brought the information up.
Your point is taken. However, you need to realize the context of the entire issue. It is one thing to have a general problem, it is another to have a techy-site that by its very nature draws problem reports like ants to honey. In other words, issues are magnified and often exagerated because of the passion involved.
And lawsuits (class action or not) are not uncommon.
To be frank, it would be foolish to have a serious server using IDE storage anyway. That is where SCSI and RAID come in. I realized everyone can't afford a SAN, but even a moderate company can afford a reliable Raid SCSI system (we use RAID5) with drives that are created for that very purpose.
Your point is taken. However, you need to realize the context of the entire issue. It is one thing to have a general problem, it is another to have a techy-site that by its very nature draws problem reports like ants to honey. In other words, issues are magnified and often exagerated because of the passion involved.
And lawsuits (class action or not) are not uncommon.
To be frank, it would be foolish to have a serious server using IDE storage anyway. That is where SCSI and RAID come in. I realized everyone can't afford a SAN, but even a moderate company can afford a reliable Raid SCSI system (we use RAID5) with drives that are created for that very purpose.
LittlePenny
Regular
I am curious why no one has ever used PassMark's Performance Test. http://www.passmark.com/download/index.htm
It is a small download and it's output is very descriptive in what it tests, and how your computer scored on each test.
It is a small download and it's output is very descriptive in what it tests, and how your computer scored on each test.
Similar threads
