The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

My current computer was/is a barebone. I needed a new computer, didnt wanna pay out the ***, wasnt TOO confident about building from scratch. When I got the computer, it was darn near ready to go. Install cpu, ram, HDD's etc. Front panel was already hooked up and ready to go. It gave me EXACTLY what I needed, without paying too much, or having to handle too much for the first time.
Though, Ive had my HP pavilion for 6 yrs atleast, and have been in and out of that case quite a bit. So handling components didnt bother me too much.
A few months later, I built two completely from scratch. One for my neighbor, one for my brother. My brothers computer taught me ALOT. I wanted to be sure everything meshed well, so I did my homework. My neighbor wasnt interested in a powerhouse, LOL. Hers was quite easy, and cheap. To date google has been my strongest teacher/advisor. However, as of late, afterdawn is my first stop

 

Thanks for the clarification Russ. Honestly I don't know why I feel like I need so much HDD space, I hardly use any of it now that I burn a lot of the rarely used stuff to dvds lol.

 

I think Creaky will think that I have committed a sacrilege. He has more storage than Ma Bell! LOL!! I would just rather have 4 250s than a 1TB drive. At least if one goes down you don't lose it all! I wiped a 500GB drive riddled with viruses with Killdisk 2 and You could go out for dinner and a movie and it might not be finished when you get home. I wouldn't wipe a 1TB drive unless it was overnight! I just like the manageability of 4 smaller drives! They will cost more, but the peace of mind, in my eyes is worth it! Just my opinion!

Russ

 

4 250's in raid 1...WOW!!! Just my thoughts. I dont even think about raid 0!!! Raid 0 is WAYYYY to risky! Now when they perfect SSD, THEN...

 

That's basically what I do, especially David Attenborough.

 

Having every thing stored on HDD is nice and I do prefer it, it's just that DVD's are so much cheaper at the moment and I can actually afford them. Some day when I can afford it I'll put together a server with a whole bunch of drives in RAID10 ;P

 

ONLY six internals. Your slacking creaky, LOL Heh heh, I only have 3 internals(actually ran). Though I can store ATLEAST 7 in my case. I dont like having them butted up to eachother. Seems wrong in my opinion. They can breathe better if I dont. I suppose I could if I got proper cooling. But I dont see the need for it. They average less than 36c even under extreme load. Though without my system drivers, windows 7 reports less on ALL sensors!

 

See this is where stereotypes get broken. So many Americans think that Brits are boring and yet here we are with essentially two individuals who don't even know each other sharing a common interest in some of the most exciting material ever to hit the silver screen. It all worked because Stephen Spielberg was directing and the CGI images and special effects in general were first rate. Attenborough played the perfect wealthy entrepreneur with no scruples. One could actually feel the breath of the Tyrannosaurus Rex as it chased them in their jeep getaway.

Wife enters the room and speaks: Say what? Not the same Attenborough? Brothers you say? Then which one of them played Gandhi?

Well I'm certain that the nature stuff has dinosaurs in it somewhere but sadly no careening fast vehicles, gunfire, and explosions.

 

Actually, both me and Creaky are english

 

Oman7,
Who said anything about Raid? That's way more risky than a 1TB drive! LOL!!

Russ

 

Actually that would be Creaky and I! And I thought you were English! ROFLMSOAO!!

Russ

 

Ah pff. It's late

 

Im more willing to risk raid 1 than 0. Raid 1 is simply two or more drives EXACTLY the same data. Increases read speed X2 X3 etc. Where as raid 0 utilizes both or more discs like a very large Single disc. Splits the data up(hense the risk). Raid 0 fails...and your very... eh hem, screwed!!! I brought it up because creaky brought up 4 identical 250 drives. It was simply my thoughts.

 

RAID 1 does not double the speed like RAID 0. To get double speed and redundancy you need RAID 10, and four drives.

 

I was under the impression that RAID 1 doubles read speed due to identical data on both or more drives. Write speed would be unaffected obviously,

 

Not really, it increases it, but perfectly streaming the same data twice off both drives isn't easy with mechanical hardware, especially when fragmentation occurs.

 

mmm hmmm. I suppose thats logical So... its theoretically possible, just unlikely. WONT BE STABLE

 

Raid 1 is mirroring! the only thing it does is increase the fault tolerance of the data on two drives. If one drive fails, you replace it with a new one and clone the drive to the new one, usually from a motherboard utility. In other words it doubles the redundancy of the data stored. I do that with a lot of business computers to protect against data loss if a drive fails, and I only need two drives. If anything, it is slightly slower than a single drive! What you are talking about is Raid 0 or striping, where data is shared between two drives, making data transfer faster. Raid 10 is raid 1+0, which is why you need a minimum of 4 drives. 2 mirrored and 2 striped. RAID 10 is implemented as a striped array whose segments are RAID 1 arrays to improve fault tolerance.

Best Regards,
Russ