32 GB memory stick

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

Yes, of course; that's certainly possible. However we are not talking
about a company here. This is an individual, and individuals very
seldom have rack-mounted systems.

I'm just trying to point out that it's not a good idea to put
everything in one box.

I had two racks until my wife decided to buy some furniture. Mind, one
of the racks was for fish tanks!


Steve

--
Neural network software applications, help and support.

Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

Yes, of course; that's certainly possible. However we are not talking
about a company here. This is an individual, and individuals very
seldom have rack-mounted systems.

Depends on whether they are married. A bachelor geek might have a rack
of servers next to the wall mounted, big screen plasma TV, or the beer
cooler.

 

[Joe Morris]

Ken Blake wrote:

Depends on whether they are married. A bachelor geek might have a rack
of servers next to the wall mounted, big screen plasma TV, or the beer
cooler.

....or both. Or, better yet, all of them in a single enclosure.

Joe

 

[Char Jackson]

That was going to be my next question--how do you have room for so
many drives. You have a *big* case!

It's a Norco 450B, modified to replace the 3 external drive bays in
favor of 5 more internal drive bays.
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811219030>

Here's a pic showing the first 15 drives installed, before the cables
were connected.
<http://tinypic.com/r/2ufvf4w/5>

 

[Char Jackson]

Hundreds of drives can be installed in 19" racks. The company I worked
for until I retired had lots of racks with lots of shelves with
drawers full of drives. Everything was triplicated.

As someone else said, that's hard to justify for an individual.

 

[Ken Blake]

It's a Norco 450B, modified to replace the 3 external drive bays in
favor of 5 more internal drive bays.
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811219030>

Here's a pic showing the first 15 drives installed, before the cables
were connected.
<http://tinypic.com/r/2ufvf4w/5>

Thanks. You got a lot in, without it looking like a giant case.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't clear what you meant.

It's a good thing I often read my own posts - sometimes I notice when I
mess up

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Thanks. Not only didn't I quote it, I didn't even see it. I read too
fast.

Careless reading, huh? I've embarrassed myself that way a time or two


After all, we should preserve Char's reputation ;-)

And I'm glad you took it as helping...

 

[Char Jackson]

After all, we should preserve Char's reputation ;-)

Thanks, I can use all the help I can get.

 

[Peter Jason]

From the part of Char's post you didn't quote:
"When I say tossed out, I mean I dropped off a big box of stuff at a
local computer shop. One person's junk is another's treasure."

But I agree about 1 TB to 500 GB being too small to be of use.

Maybe I need to start recording more video or something

Well, I use HDDs as partitions. Instead of partitioning a drive I
just add another HDD. It's working well so far.

 

[Char Jackson]

Well, I use HDDs as partitions. Instead of partitioning a drive I
just add another HDD. It's working well so far.

I understand what you mean, but one small correction. You still have
to partition a drive before you can use it, (it may come with one
partition). It has to have at least one, though, and it may or may not
encompass the entire physical drive.

I'm with you, BTW. My drives generally have just one partition.

 

[Peter Jason]

I understand what you mean, but one small correction. You still have
to partition a drive before you can use it, (it may come with one
partition). It has to have at least one, though, and it may or may not
encompass the entire physical drive.

I'm with you, BTW. My drives generally have just one partition.

That's right I have to tell the drive it has one partition.

 

[Peter Jason]

http://tinyurl.com/5t8c2zl

I bought one, and it works; or at least it has the once that I've used
it to backup my personal files.

Where's it all going to end? It's not that long ago that I bought a 1TB
hard drive, and now they're up to 3TB (And no, don't tell me if by the
time you read this they've got even bigger).

Ed

I've just bought a USB3 one and I tested it on the computer USB3
motherboard slot. It is giving a "transfer rate" of 137 - 152 Mb/sec
on the "benchmark" test.

It's a "Corsair Voyager" GT USB3

 

[Char Jackson]

I've just bought a USB3 one and I tested it on the computer USB3
motherboard slot. It is giving a "transfer rate" of 137 - 152 Mb/sec
on the "benchmark" test.

It's a "Corsair Voyager" GT USB3

I don't have any USB3 stuff to play with at the moment, but your
transfer speeds look way too low, don't they? Even if you meant MB/sec
instead of Mb/sec, it still seems low.

 

[Peter Jason]

I don't have any USB3 stuff to play with at the moment, but your
transfer speeds look way too low, don't they? Even if you meant MB/sec
instead of Mb/sec, it still seems low.

Well, it's way faster than the USB2 ones I have been using. The
137mb refers to the read rate and the write rate is far slower. How
fast should it be? It's a 32GB size & uses the FAT32 system. The
blurb on the packet says the read rate is 135MB/sec & the Write rate
is 41MB/sec.

 

[Char Jackson]

Well, it's way faster than the USB2 ones I have been using. The
137mb refers to the read rate and the write rate is far slower. How
fast should it be? It's a 32GB size & uses the FAT32 system. The
blurb on the packet says the read rate is 135MB/sec & the Write rate
is 41MB/sec.

Ok, sorry, I was going by the USB3 spec. I see now that the bottleneck
isn't the USB3 port but rather the device itself. If the packaging
suggests a read rate of about 135MB/sec and you're only getting
137-152 Mb/sec, then something is still wrong. (Unless you're still
confusing Mb with MB? Megabits versus Megabytes)

 

[Paul]

Ok, sorry, I was going by the USB3 spec. I see now that the bottleneck
isn't the USB3 port but rather the device itself. If the packaging
suggests a read rate of about 135MB/sec and you're only getting
137-152 Mb/sec, then something is still wrong. (Unless you're still
confusing Mb with MB? Megabits versus Megabytes)

There is a table of values here. And they list 336MB/sec taking
protocols into account, for USB3 mass storage.

http://www.nordichardware.com/index.php?option=com_content&catid=112&lang=en&view=article&id=20792

To make USB3 pen drives, they have a problem fitting enough Flash
channels in parallel, to achieve the same rates we see from SSD drives.
The pen drives I've seen for sale, are already pretty fat and unwieldy.

Paul

 

[Peter Jason]

Ok, sorry, I was going by the USB3 spec. I see now that the bottleneck
isn't the USB3 port but rather the device itself. If the packaging
suggests a read rate of about 135MB/sec and you're only getting
137-152 Mb/sec, then something is still wrong. (Unless you're still
confusing Mb with MB? Megabits versus Megabytes)

Now I'm confused. I need a rest.

 

[Peter Jason]

There is a table of values here. And they list 336MB/sec taking
protocols into account, for USB3 mass storage.

http://www.nordichardware.com/index.php?option=com_content&catid=112&lang=en&view=article&id=20792

To make USB3 pen drives, they have a problem fitting enough Flash
channels in parallel, to achieve the same rates we see from SSD drives.
The pen drives I've seen for sale, are already pretty fat and unwieldy.

Paul

It's true that this latest USB3 thumb drive is longer & fatter than
all the USB2 ones. The market for them here is new and I was ripped
off recently by a couple of Chinese ones called "A-RAM" which were
only USB2s when they were labeled USB3. Beware.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Peter.

"Peter Jason" wrote in message

Now I'm confused. I need a rest.

I am not a techie, but...a non-techie refresher for anyone confused by MB
and Mb:

It takes 8 bits to make a byte, as most computer addicts know. But to SEND
a byte online, or even between disks or other devices within one computer,
the sender has to tell the receiver WHERE in the string of bits a byte
begins. So, before each batch of 8 bits it inserts a START bit, then it
ends each byte with a STOP bit, making a 10-bit transmission for each byte.
To send 1,000 bytes, the transmitter must send 10,000 bits.

The abbreviation for "bits" is "b", the lowercase "b"; the uppercase "B" is
used for "bytes". So 135 MB/sec is 10 times as fast as 135 Mb/sec.

Simple - but oh, so easy to overlook the often-subtle difference between "b"
and "B" when reading along. :^{

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1