Attributions corrected.
Anna wrote in news:cqWdne01vL_L26nVnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@comcast.com
> "Gerald Abrahamson" <jerryab@visi.com> wrote in message news:jpa8349ecaa8e3ou28bv82tr3fh9uga926@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:39:33 -0700, Ken <noreply@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the info. I was actually looking to add disks to my
> > > computer, but reading through your post, I began questioning why I
> > > should keep the disks running all the time when I really would not be
> > > accessing them frequently in the least (they are for storing music, my
> > > backups, movies). It might make much more sense to purchase an external
> > > housing such as you are using. I will have to think about that.... I
> > > already have an eSATA that is part of the motherboard and could just
> > > hook up to that...
> >
> > My systems are left running 24/7. Power on/off is the
> > hardest on computers and drives.
> > Verify the eSATA port on your mb is really correctly
> > implemented (can be used as removable drive port). And what
> > is its speed (150 or 300?). If 150, you want 300. To play
> > music, no problem using 150. But for data transfer of larger
> > volumes (movies, whole backups), you will want 300.
> >
> > Plus, you have ONE eSATA port---but you could have multiple
> > eSATA devices (each in a separate box--music, movies, backup
> > hard drive). Thus, the possible need for multiple eSATA
> > ports in use. The onboard port can be used for music 24/7
> > even if it is 150, but other applications will mean you want
> > 300 because of the time saved.
>
> Presumably if the motherboard is equipped with an eSATA port it meets the
> SATA 3 Gb/s data transfer specification. At least we've never come across
> a motherboard that didn't under those circumstances.
>
> In our experience
> (and I would be interested in learning of Gerald's experience should it be different)
Guess not.
The cowardous idjut chose to hide in another post trying to divert attention away
and make an even bigger fool of himself.
> we have found no real-life difference (or
> virtually no difference) between HDD data transfer rates involving so-called
> SATA-I (1.5 Gb/s data transfer) and so-called SATA-II (3.0 Gb/s data
> transfer) where motherboards support the 3.0 Gb/s data transfer capability.
> I suppose the issue is rather moot at this point in time since virtually all
> SATA HDDs manufactured during the past three years or so have all been
> SATA-II HDDs.
Oh really? How time flies.
> In any event should a user be working with a SATA HDD of the
> "older" SATA-I variety I certainly would *not* recommend disposing of
> it to purchase a SATA-II HDD merely because he or she would believe a
> significantly faster data transfer rate would result as a consequence.
It most likely will, simply because it is a newer generation with higher density
platters drive resulting in faster data rates. Whether it's significant rather
depends on the generation difference of the older drive and that of the newer.
Gerald Abrahamson said the following on 5/22/2008 8:14 AM:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:32:07 +0200, "Squeeze"
> <rubberduck@duckies.au> wrote:
>
>> Idjut alert.
>
> Thank you for confirming you know the status of your posts,
> who makes them (Idjut is you)--and confirming it publicly.
>
> As you failed to understand the original posting, I have
> removed the extraneous material you could not comprehend.
>
>>>> (they are for storing music, my backups, movies).
>
> Nowhere does he say these are on the same drive or even in
> the same box. It would make more sense for him to have
> multiple external boxes--one (or more) for each purpose.
> Thus, he could have multiple eSATA boxes connected and
> operating simultaneously via multiple ports.
Thanks, Gerald.
Yes, I appreciate you having presented some other strategies to me. My
old system had 6 hdds, 4 of which (including one that was a Kingwin
mobile rack) were filled with movies, photos, and music with some
redundancy for "insurance". One of the drives was dedicated to nightly
backups (full and incremental) of my system and my wife's, as well as my
laptop (on demand) and both of my daughters' systems (on demand when
they return from university, although I have them trained to do their
own now). I figured the chance of both the original and the backup
dieing at the same time would be theft or fire. On occasion, I have
made backups using a mobile rack tray and keeping it at my office.
What makes the most sense, both in convenience and power consumption,
would be to have a mobile rack "tower" that would allow me to insert and
use the drives that I need, and then remove them. I have overcome an
issue that my Intel motherboard seems to have with recognizing the
Kingwin mobile rack by adding a Promise SATAII150 PCI controller card,
which had worked flawlessly (I am not sure what I am missing in data
transfer rate, but things are fast enough for me at the moment. Having
individual external racks would be a nightmare of cords and power
bricks, unless I am misunderstanding you. Do you (or anyone else) know
of any mobile rack free-standing towers that could be used in the manner
I suggested?
Gerald Abrahamson wrote
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:32:07 +0200, "Squeeze" <rubberduck@duckies.au> wrote:
>
> > Idjut alert.
>
> Thank you for confirming you know the status of your posts,
> who makes them (Idjut is you)--and confirming it publicly.
>
> As you failed to understand the original posting, I have
> removed the extraneous material you could not comprehend.
>
> > > > (they are for storing music, my backups, movies).
>
> Nowhere does he say these are on the same drive or even in
> the same box. It would make more sense for him to have
> multiple external boxes--one (or more) for each purpose.
> Thus, he could have multiple eSATA boxes connected and
> operating simultaneously via multiple ports.
"Gerald Abrahamson" <jerryab@visi.com> wrote in message
news:jpa8349ecaa8e3ou28bv82tr3fh9uga926@4ax.com...
>
> My systems are left running 24/7. Power on/off is the
> hardest on computers and drives.
>
>
>Yes, I appreciate you having presented some other strategies to me. My
>old system had 6 hdds, 4 of which (including one that was a Kingwin
>mobile rack) were filled with movies, photos, and music with some
>redundancy for "insurance". One of the drives was dedicated to nightly
>backups (full and incremental) of my system and my wife's, as well as my
>laptop (on demand) and both of my daughters' systems (on demand when
>they return from university, although I have them trained to do their
>own now). I figured the chance of both the original and the backup
>dieing at the same time would be theft or fire. On occasion, I have
>made backups using a mobile rack tray and keeping it at my office.
I don't trust the longer-term reliability of the mobile
racks due to the wear on the connectors, so I use USB2 and
eSATA for backup storage. The one chosen depends on the
volume and the drive. I use older drives (PATA) in new USB2
boxes for backups via USB2 because there are lots of small
files and it takes perhaps 5-15 minutes per backup. For
movies, etc (many GB of data/files), I use the eSATA.
>What makes the most sense, both in convenience and power consumption,
>would be to have a mobile rack "tower" that would allow me to insert and
>use the drives that I need, and then remove them. I have overcome an
>issue that my Intel motherboard seems to have with recognizing the
>Kingwin mobile rack by adding a Promise SATAII150 PCI controller card,
>which had worked flawlessly (I am not sure what I am missing in data
>transfer rate, but things are fast enough for me at the moment. Having
>individual external racks would be a nightmare of cords and power
>bricks, unless I am misunderstanding you. Do you (or anyone else) know
>of any mobile rack free-standing towers that could be used in the manner
>I suggested?
I would say to use the same arrangement I created. Each
older HDD (PATA/older SATA) into a new USB2 box to back
up/store whatever is appropriate via USB2. Use a powered
USB2 hub to run a back USB2 port to the front so it is easy
to connect/disconnect whatever you want. I use the front
USB2 ports on the PC for flash drives and use the USB2 hub
to connect all other devices (printer/scanner/fax, card
reader, USB2 HDDs, etc, etc).
Then have a new eSATAII drive in a new eSATAII box for the
larger files (movies, etc). Note the continuous transfer
rate should be 115MB/sec or so. My new drives are that
speed, but the old drive (C) is only 50-75MB/sec continuous
transfer (also SATAII), and it does drop to 52-57MB/sec,
which is the limiting factor for the moment. I will
eventually replace the C drive with a faster drive, or maybe
add a new (faster) D drive as the data drive for C and leave
the OS on the slower C drive. The cable for the eSATA is
about 4-6 ft long, so you can run it out front of the
computer also--thus making it easy to swap drives on the
same cable or to have multiple cables connected to multiple
ports in back (but the drives themselves where you can
easily get at them). Also have these drives connected to a
UPS (not a power strip--unless it is connected to a UPS), so
they don't crash if the computer has a problem or if there
is a lightning strike nearby.
I am running Vista 64/Home Premium, 4gb of memory (2 x 2gb,
2 memory slots free), 24" HD LCD monitor, and have had few
problems with it since I got it last Nov. I have two older
PATA HDDs I put into USB2 cases to back up the Documents
folder (monthly--maybe 3gb) and I capture movies/shows over
the air and store them on the HDD. *One* hour of HDTV is 4.5
to 7GB (about 6gb average), so you can see why storage space
was so important over time (22 shows/season x 6gb = 132gb).
"Gerald Abrahamson" <jerryab@visi.com> wrote in message
news:0end3418503r7ru10t8gaoqr5qrl7oq3op@4ax.com...
> I don't trust the longer-term reliability of the mobile
> racks due to the wear on the connectors, so I use USB2 and
> eSATA for backup storage. The one chosen depends on the
> volume and the drive. I use older drives (PATA) in new USB2
> boxes for backups via USB2 because there are lots of small
> files and it takes perhaps 5-15 minutes per backup. For
> movies, etc (many GB of data/files), I use the eSATA.
>
>>What makes the most sense, both in convenience and power consumption,
>>would be to have a mobile rack "tower" that would allow me to insert and
>>use the drives that I need, and then remove them. I have overcome an
>>issue that my Intel motherboard seems to have with recognizing the
>>Kingwin mobile rack by adding a Promise SATAII150 PCI controller card,
>>which had worked flawlessly (I am not sure what I am missing in data
>>transfer rate, but things are fast enough for me at the moment. Having
>>individual external racks would be a nightmare of cords and power
>>bricks, unless I am misunderstanding you. Do you (or anyone else) know
>>of any mobile rack free-standing towers that could be used in the manner
>>I suggested?
>
> I would say to use the same arrangement I created. Each
> older HDD (PATA/older SATA) into a new USB2 box to back
> up/store whatever is appropriate via USB2. Use a powered
> USB2 hub to run a back USB2 port to the front so it is easy
> to connect/disconnect whatever you want. I use the front
> USB2 ports on the PC for flash drives and use the USB2 hub
> to connect all other devices (printer/scanner/fax, card
> reader, USB2 HDDs, etc, etc).
>
> Then have a new eSATAII drive in a new eSATAII box for the
> larger files (movies, etc). Note the continuous transfer
> rate should be 115MB/sec or so. My new drives are that
> speed, but the old drive (C) is only 50-75MB/sec continuous
> transfer (also SATAII), and it does drop to 52-57MB/sec,
> which is the limiting factor for the moment. I will
> eventually replace the C drive with a faster drive, or maybe
> add a new (faster) D drive as the data drive for C and leave
> the OS on the slower C drive. The cable for the eSATA is
> about 4-6 ft long, so you can run it out front of the
> computer also--thus making it easy to swap drives on the
> same cable or to have multiple cables connected to multiple
> ports in back (but the drives themselves where you can
> easily get at them). Also have these drives connected to a
> UPS (not a power strip--unless it is connected to a UPS), so
> they don't crash if the computer has a problem or if there
> is a lightning strike nearby.
>
> I am running Vista 64/Home Premium, 4gb of memory (2 x 2gb,
> 2 memory slots free), 24" HD LCD monitor, and have had few
> problems with it since I got it last Nov. I have two older
> PATA HDDs I put into USB2 cases to back up the Documents
> folder (monthly--maybe 3gb) and I capture movies/shows over
> the air and store them on the HDD. *One* hour of HDTV is 4.5
> to 7GB (about 6gb average), so you can see why storage space
> was so important over time (22 shows/season x 6gb = 132gb).
Just one comment re Gerald's comment re "I don't trust the longer-term
reliability of the mobile racks due to the wear on the connectors,..."
We've been working with mobile racks (removable HDDs) for about 10 years
now. During that time we've had considerable experience installing and
working with hundreds of these devices involving various makes & models. By
& large we have found these devices remarkably reliable - certainly we
haven't encountered any unusual degree of unreliability among these devices
as compared with any other major component of a PC. On the contrary our
experience has been they've proven quite reliable in day-in day-out
operations.
We are strong proponents of equipping one's desktop PC with at least one
(preferably two) mobile racks/removable HDDs whenever one or more vacant
bays are available to accommodate the device. The enormous flexibility one
gains from this hardware arrangement can scarcely be overestimated. In our
experience virtually every desktop PC user who has so equipped his or her
desktop PC has only a single regret - that they didn't do so earlier. It's
that good.
I most certainly agree with Gerald re the use of SATA external enclosures
providing SATA-to-SATA connectivity for data transfer purposes where the
system can accommodate that device together with SATA-to-SATA connectivity,
assuming the installation of mobile rack(s)/removable HDD(s) is not a viable
option.
Anna
Anna wrote in news:_OSdne-B3IlTYavVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@comcast.com
> "Gerald Abrahamson" <jerryab@visi.com> wrote in message news:0end3418503r7ru10t8gaoqr5qrl7oq3op@4ax.com...
> > I don't trust the longer-term reliability of the mobile
> > racks due to the wear on the connectors, so I use USB2 and
> > eSATA for backup storage. The one chosen depends on the
> > volume and the drive. I use older drives (PATA) in new USB2
> > boxes for backups via USB2 because there are lots of small
> > files and it takes perhaps 5-15 minutes per backup. For
> > movies, etc (many GB of data/files), I use the eSATA.
> >
> > > What makes the most sense, both in convenience and power consumption,
> > > would be to have a mobile rack "tower" that would allow me to insert and
> > > use the drives that I need, and then remove them. I have overcome an
> > > issue that my Intel motherboard seems to have with recognizing the
> > > Kingwin mobile rack by adding a Promise SATAII150 PCI controller card,
> > > which had worked flawlessly (I am not sure what I am missing in data
> > > transfer rate, but things are fast enough for me at the moment. Having
> > > individual external racks would be a nightmare of cords and power
> > > bricks, unless I am misunderstanding you.
> > > *Do you (or anyone else) know of any mobile rack free-standing towers
> > > that could be used in the manner I suggested*?
> >
[30-odd lines off topic to question snipped]
>
> Just one comment re Gerald's comment re "I don't trust the longer-term
> reliability of the mobile racks due to the wear on the connectors,..."
Which part of Idjut and Bull****ter did you not understand?
[big rant snipped]
> I most certainly agree with Gerald re the use of SATA external enclosures
> providing SATA-to-SATA connectivity for data transfer purposes where the
> system can accommodate that device together with SATA-to-SATA connectivity,
> assuming the installation of mobile rack(s)/removable HDD(s) is not a viable
> option.
Can you be a bit more abstruse please. Someone somewhere might still understand
what you mean. Did you practice long on that sentence or did it come naturally.
> Also have these drives connected to a UPS (not a power strip--unless
> it is connected to a UPS), so they don't crash if the computer has a
> problem or if there is a lightning strike nearby.
<edited>
Hello, Gerald:
In reality, it's a bad idea to plug a power strip into a UPS. This can
cause equipment failure and/or create a hazardous situation, perhaps!
The reverse practice (i.e., hooking up a UPS to a power strip) is okay,
on the other hand.
Re: Looking for a SATA 300 PCI-E x1 card 
Linear Mode
