× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Larry,

All great points, but I have to ask some questions anyway...

What's the smallest drive you ever had to rebuild a raid set on in an i or
it's predecessors? How long did it take? If you take a 140gb, divided by
the size of this smaller drive, and multiply the time it took to rebuild
this smaller drive would you get the time it took to rebuild the 140? Or
have they drastically changed the speeds of the newer drives to bring down
the time? Do you think that if IBM came out with a 1TB drive raid time
would be a direct multiple of the time of the 140?

70GB are off the market, aren't they? And we found new 140's for about
the same price for the 70's. We ended up buying the same number of 140's
as we would if they were 70's. (And the system is only 35% full.) I
wonder if 1TB's were the same price as 140's if they would still buy the
same number. (I'm having a feeling of deja vu on this paragraph. Didn't
we discuss this in the last year or so?) I can see some people gagging at
the thought of buying new disk when they are only 5% full though.

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.