Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #53946 > unrolled thread

External HD Recommendation

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-28 09:21 -0800
    Re: External HD Recommendation William Hanna <whanna@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-28 09:44 -0800
      Re: External HD Recommendation Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-12-29 09:37 -0800
        Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-29 10:08 -0800
          Re: External HD Recommendation android <here@there.was> - 2013-12-29 19:15 +0100
    Re: External HD Recommendation billy@MIX.COM - 2013-12-28 20:21 +0000
      Re: External HD Recommendation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-28 14:59 -0800
        Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-28 15:28 -0800
          Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-28 20:17 -0500
          Re: External HD Recommendation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-28 17:34 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-28 21:06 -0500
        Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-29 04:18 +0000
        Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 04:38 +0000
          Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-29 21:36 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-30 01:58 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 10:20 -0500
              Re: External HD Recommendation Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-12-31 07:32 -0800
                Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-31 11:46 -0500
            Re: External HD Recommendation Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-30 09:37 -0800
              Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 18:07 +0000
                Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-30 13:13 -0500
                Re: External HD Recommendation Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-30 10:27 -0800
                  Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 14:15 -0500
                    Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 22:43 +0000
                      Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-30 18:09 -0500
                      Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 22:34 -0500
              Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-30 13:54 -0600
                Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-30 13:14 -0800
                Re: External HD Recommendation Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-30 14:49 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 18:01 +0000
      Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-29 03:59 +0000
        Re: External HD Recommendation George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-29 07:47 -0600
    Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-28 17:52 -0500
    Re: External HD Recommendation Earl Grey <earl@t.net> - 2013-12-29 10:06 -0500
      Re: External HD Recommendation yellow label <here@there.was> - 2013-12-29 17:01 +0100
    Re: External HD Recommendation John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2013-12-29 16:27 -0500
      Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-29 21:29 -0500
        Re: External HD Recommendation claudel@sonic.net (Claude V. Lucas) - 2013-12-30 12:36 +0000
          Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-30 08:55 -0600
        Re: External HD Recommendation John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2013-12-30 10:29 -0500
          Re: External HD Recommendation Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2013-12-30 19:56 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2013-12-31 19:18 +1100
              Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-31 15:30 +0000
                Re: External HD Recommendation Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-12-31 07:34 -0800
                  Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-01 17:51 +1100
                    Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2014-01-01 10:14 -0600
                    Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-01 17:39 +0000
                      Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-02 11:54 +1100
                        Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-02 01:09 +0000
                          Re: External HD Recommendation Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-01 20:38 -0700
                            Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-02 16:47 +0000
                          Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-09 08:13 +1100
                            Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-08 21:19 +0000
                        Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-02 02:35 +0000
                Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-01 17:47 +1100
                  Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-01 02:24 -0500
                    Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-02 02:38 +1100
                      Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-01 11:55 -0500
                      Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-01 13:34 -0500
                      Re: External HD Recommendation Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-01-01 19:01 -0800
                  Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-01 09:45 +0000
                    Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-02 02:28 +1100
                      Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-01 15:36 +0000
                      Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-01 11:55 -0500
    Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-29 16:00 -0600
      Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-29 22:01 +0000
        Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-29 16:19 -0600
          Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-29 14:45 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#54105

John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> writes:

> J Burns wrote:
> >
> > I've come to like 2.5" disks.  Are there advantages to 3.5" disks?
> 
> That's a very good question.
> 
> My take (and it could certainly be wrong): I'm thinking that 2.5"
> drives have come a long way, in that they've reached a point where
> they may actually be "more rugged" than 3.5" drives. My rationale is
> that 2.5" drives are designed to go into laptops, and designed to
> endure the jolts and bumps to which laptops are subject.
> 
> I've had 3.5" drives fail. But I haven't had a failed 2.5" drive yet.

We've had a few 2.5" drives fail in the last few months.  We use them
in mirror pairs to hold the OS on some of our fileservers, so we
haven't lost any data since the failed ones were mirrored.  They (or
some of them anyway) may indeed be better at withstanding bumps such
as those a laptop suffers, though I feel a whole lot safer with an SSD
in my laptop.

We have many more 3.5" drives, many hundreds of them, and over time
we've had dozens of them fail as well, as you would expect.

Martin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54118

On 30 Dec 2013 19:56:41 -0800, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford
daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote:

>John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> writes:
>
>> J Burns wrote:
>> >
>> > I've come to like 2.5" disks.  Are there advantages to 3.5" disks?
>> 
>> That's a very good question.
>> 
>> My take (and it could certainly be wrong): I'm thinking that 2.5"
>> drives have come a long way, in that they've reached a point where
>> they may actually be "more rugged" than 3.5" drives. My rationale is
>> that 2.5" drives are designed to go into laptops, and designed to
>> endure the jolts and bumps to which laptops are subject.
>> 
>> I've had 3.5" drives fail. But I haven't had a failed 2.5" drive yet.
>
>We've had a few 2.5" drives fail in the last few months.  We use them
>in mirror pairs to hold the OS on some of our fileservers, so we
>haven't lost any data since the failed ones were mirrored.  They (or
>some of them anyway) may indeed be better at withstanding bumps such
>as those a laptop suffers, though I feel a whole lot safer with an SSD
>in my laptop.

SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing.

>Martin

================>
Why did the chicken cross the Mobius Strip?
To get to the same side!
  
A neutron walks into a bar.
Says to the bartender, 'How much for that drink?'
Bartender says, 'For you no charge.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54129

In message <1dv4c95dm2154g4o96634f865ut6sktgmv@4ax.com> 
  Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2013 19:56:41 -0800, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford
> daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote:

>>John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> writes:
>>
>>> J Burns wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I've come to like 2.5" disks.  Are there advantages to 3.5" disks?
>>> 
>>> That's a very good question.
>>> 
>>> My take (and it could certainly be wrong): I'm thinking that 2.5"
>>> drives have come a long way, in that they've reached a point where
>>> they may actually be "more rugged" than 3.5" drives. My rationale is
>>> that 2.5" drives are designed to go into laptops, and designed to
>>> endure the jolts and bumps to which laptops are subject.
>>> 
>>> I've had 3.5" drives fail. But I haven't had a failed 2.5" drive yet.
>>
>>We've had a few 2.5" drives fail in the last few months.  We use them
>>in mirror pairs to hold the OS on some of our fileservers, so we
>>haven't lost any data since the failed ones were mirrored.  They (or
>>some of them anyway) may indeed be better at withstanding bumps such
>>as those a laptop suffers, though I feel a whole lot safer with an SSD
>>in my laptop.

> SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing.

That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
spinny discs, and much faster.

-- 
The reaper does not listen to the harvest. --Reaper Man

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54132

On 12/31/2013 7:30 AM PT, Lewis typed:
> That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
> spinny discs, and much faster.

Only if they were bigger and cheaper as old fashion HDDs... :(
-- 
..."Like me with the anthill in my backyard. I spent days watching the 
ants, trying to figure out which ones were good, and which ones were 
bad, but they all just looked like ants, so I started smiting all of 
them." "Well that's not --" "I was smiting them with the garden hose, 
and with lighter fluid, and with the lawnmower, and to be perfectly 
honest, I think I went a little crazy with the shovel. Those ants could 
have been praying to me all day, I wouldn't have heard them." "There was 
nothing they could do about it." "But, I don't think --" "Really, it's 
the same with us. There's nothing we can do about anything either, so 
why worry about it? Hey, this is making me feel better." "Well, that's 
good, but --" "I guess all we can do is live our lives with as much 
kindness and decency as possible, and try not to dwell on God standing 
over us with a giant shovel."...--Dewey and Teacher in Day Care episode 
from Malcolm in the Middle
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54177

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:34:25 -0800, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

>On 12/31/2013 7:30 AM PT, Lewis typed:
>> That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
>> spinny discs, and much faster.
>
>Only if they were bigger and cheaper as old fashion HDDs... :(

I had a Honeywell minicomputer in which the hard drive consisted
of one fixed and one removable platter. 14" diameter for a total
storage of 4.9 MB.

================>
Why did the chicken cross the Mobius Strip?
To get to the same side!
  
A neutron walks into a bar.
Says to the bartender, 'How much for that drink?'
Bartender says, 'For you no charge.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54193

On 2014-01-01 06:51:07 +0000, Barry OGrady said:

> I had a Honeywell minicomputer in which the hard drive consisted
> of one fixed and one removable platter. 14" diameter for a total
> storage of 4.9 MB.

The first computer I worked on, the ANFSQ7, had a number of drum 
drives, each drum being about a foot in diameter and about two feet 
long, and the capacity was, according to my memory, about 2,000 32 bit 
words.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54200

On 2014-01-01, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:34:25 -0800, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>>On 12/31/2013 7:30 AM PT, Lewis typed:
>>> That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
>>> spinny discs, and much faster.
>>
>>Only if they were bigger and cheaper as old fashion HDDs... :(
>
> I had a Honeywell minicomputer in which the hard drive consisted
> of one fixed and one removable platter. 14" diameter for a total
> storage of 4.9 MB.
>
>================>
> Why did the chicken cross the Mobius Strip?
> To get to the same side!
>   
> A neutron walks into a bar.
> Says to the bartender, 'How much for that drink?'
> Bartender says, 'For you no charge.'

A tip for you:

As you can see above, your cute little ================> line (is that
phallic on purpose I wonder?) which you apparently meant to separate
your post from your signature means replies to your posts will actually
include your witty signature text, which is a waste of space. 

If you instead use the standard two dash characters followed by a space
(-- ) on a line by itself (see my signature below for an example),
replies to your posts from well-behaved clients will automatically omit
your signature in the quoted text, which most agree is  preferable.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54232

On 1 Jan 2014 17:39:28 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>On 2014-01-01, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:34:25 -0800, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/31/2013 7:30 AM PT, Lewis typed:
>>>> That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
>>>> spinny discs, and much faster.
>>>
>>>Only if they were bigger and cheaper as old fashion HDDs... :(
>>
>> I had a Honeywell minicomputer in which the hard drive consisted
>> of one fixed and one removable platter. 14" diameter for a total
>> storage of 4.9 MB.
>>
>>================>
>> Why did the chicken cross the Mobius Strip?
>> To get to the same side!
>>   
>> A neutron walks into a bar.
>> Says to the bartender, 'How much for that drink?'
>> Bartender says, 'For you no charge.'
>
>A tip for you:
>
>As you can see above, your cute little ================> line (is that
>phallic on purpose I wonder?) which you apparently meant to separate
>your post from your signature means replies to your posts will actually
>include your witty signature text, which is a waste of space. 
>
>If you instead use the standard two dash characters followed by a space
>(-- ) on a line by itself (see my signature below for an example),
>replies to your posts from well-behaved clients will automatically omit
>your signature in the quoted text, which most agree is  preferable.

Done and thank you for your advice.

- 
If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54233

In message <65e9c9hfo7mlj4s4fqs8mpn9ck753clc59@4ax.com> 
  Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2014 17:39:28 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>>If you instead use the standard two dash characters followed by a space
>>(-- ) on a line by itself (see my signature below for an example),
>>replies to your posts from well-behaved clients will automatically omit
>>your signature in the quoted text, which most agree is  preferable.

> Done and thank you for your advice.

> - 
> If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

Not quite.

dash dash space eon-of-line. You have an en-dash instead.

-- 
"I hope someday you know the indescribable joy of having children, and
of paying someone else to raise them."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54245

In article <slrnlc9f1m.11vb.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > Done and thank you for your advice.
> 
> > - 
> > If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> dash dash space eon-of-line. You have an en-dash instead.

I suspect that's an auto-correct error.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54268

In message <010120142038093399%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnlc9f1m.11vb.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> > Done and thank you for your advice.
>> 
>> > - 
>> > If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!
>> 
>> Not quite.
>> 
>> dash dash space eon-of-line. You have an en-dash instead.

> I suspect that's an auto-correct error.

It's a really long line?

-- 
Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that
apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54522

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 01:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <65e9c9hfo7mlj4s4fqs8mpn9ck753clc59@4ax.com> 
>  Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 1 Jan 2014 17:39:28 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>>If you instead use the standard two dash characters followed by a space
>>>(-- ) on a line by itself (see my signature below for an example),
>>>replies to your posts from well-behaved clients will automatically omit
>>>your signature in the quoted text, which most agree is  preferable.
>
>> Done and thank you for your advice.
>
>> - 
>> If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!
>
>Not quite.
>
>dash dash space eon-of-line. You have an en-dash instead.

How is it now?

I don't know what an eon-of-line is nor what an en-dash is.

>-- 
>"I hope someday you know the indescribable joy of having children, and
>of paying someone else to raise them."

-- 
If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54523

In message <5pfrc9p0eh0h73l5ncen2mgh4g1q1ifhms@4ax.com> 
  Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 01:09:10 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>In message <65e9c9hfo7mlj4s4fqs8mpn9ck753clc59@4ax.com> 
>>  Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 1 Jan 2014 17:39:28 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>If you instead use the standard two dash characters followed by a space
>>>>(-- ) on a line by itself (see my signature below for an example),
>>>>replies to your posts from well-behaved clients will automatically omit
>>>>your signature in the quoted text, which most agree is  preferable.
>>
>>> Done and thank you for your advice.
>>
>>> - 
>>> If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!
>>
>>Not quite.
>>
>>dash dash space eon-of-line. You have an en-dash instead.

> How is it now?

Fine.

-- 
Every man over forty is a scoundrel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54239

On 2014-01-02, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2014 17:39:28 GMT, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>If you instead use the standard two dash characters followed by a space
>>(-- ) on a line by itself (see my signature below for an example),
>>replies to your posts from well-behaved clients will automatically omit
>>your signature in the quoted text, which most agree is  preferable.
>
> Done and thank you for your advice.
>
> - 
> If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

Almost. It should be two normal dash characters followed by a single
space, on a line by itself (-- ).

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54176

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:30:46 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <1dv4c95dm2154g4o96634f865ut6sktgmv@4ax.com> 
>  Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> On 30 Dec 2013 19:56:41 -0800, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford
>> daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> J Burns wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I've come to like 2.5" disks.  Are there advantages to 3.5" disks?
>>>> 
>>>> That's a very good question.
>>>> 
>>>> My take (and it could certainly be wrong): I'm thinking that 2.5"
>>>> drives have come a long way, in that they've reached a point where
>>>> they may actually be "more rugged" than 3.5" drives. My rationale is
>>>> that 2.5" drives are designed to go into laptops, and designed to
>>>> endure the jolts and bumps to which laptops are subject.
>>>> 
>>>> I've had 3.5" drives fail. But I haven't had a failed 2.5" drive yet.
>>>
>>>We've had a few 2.5" drives fail in the last few months.  We use them
>>>in mirror pairs to hold the OS on some of our fileservers, so we
>>>haven't lost any data since the failed ones were mirrored.  They (or
>>>some of them anyway) may indeed be better at withstanding bumps such
>>>as those a laptop suffers, though I feel a whole lot safer with an SSD
>>>in my laptop.
>
>> SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing.
>
>That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
>spinny discs, and much faster.

SSDs are not used in servers due to the wear problem thought I did
see an article where someone was claiming to b able to recover SSDs
using very high temperatures.

>-- 

================>
Why did the chicken cross the Mobius Strip?
To get to the same side!
  
A neutron walks into a bar.
Says to the bartender, 'How much for that drink?'
Bartender says, 'For you no charge.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54179

In article <vce7c9tm8fa2n7g9rngpbms9e5ldag67n8@4ax.com>, Barry OGrady
<atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

> >> SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing.
> >
> >That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
> >spinny discs, and much faster.
> 
> SSDs are not used in servers due to the wear problem thought I did
> see an article where someone was claiming to b able to recover SSDs
> using very high temperatures.

ssds are definitely used in servers.

they're more reliable and way the hell faster than hard drives.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54192

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 02:24:29 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <vce7c9tm8fa2n7g9rngpbms9e5ldag67n8@4ax.com>, Barry OGrady
><atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >> SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing.
>> >
>> >That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
>> >spinny discs, and much faster.
>> 
>> SSDs are not used in servers due to the wear problem thought I did
>> see an article where someone was claiming to b able to recover SSDs
>> using very high temperatures.
>
>ssds are definitely used in servers.
>
>they're more reliable and way the hell faster than hard drives.

Not reliable enough for server use according to a recent article.

================>
If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54197

In article <81d8c91msrogk2ndpuqm6hrt711v6b1cpn@4ax.com>, Barry OGrady
<atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

> >> >> SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing.
> >> >
> >> >That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
> >> >spinny discs, and much faster.
> >> 
> >> SSDs are not used in servers due to the wear problem thought I did
> >> see an article where someone was claiming to b able to recover SSDs
> >> using very high temperatures.
> >
> >ssds are definitely used in servers.
> >
> >they're more reliable and way the hell faster than hard drives.
> 
> Not reliable enough for server use according to a recent article.

the article is wrong.

this may come to you as a surprise, but not all articles you read is
correct.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54203

On 1/1/14, 10:38 AM, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 02:24:29 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <vce7c9tm8fa2n7g9rngpbms9e5ldag67n8@4ax.com>, Barry OGrady
>> <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>> SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing.
>>>>
>>>> That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than
>>>> spinny discs, and much faster.
>>>
>>> SSDs are not used in servers due to the wear problem thought I did
>>> see an article where someone was claiming to b able to recover SSDs
>>> using very high temperatures.
>>
>> ssds are definitely used in servers.
>>
>> they're more reliable and way the hell faster than hard drives.
>
> Not reliable enough for server use according to a recent article.
>

<http://www.anandtech.com/show/6824/inside-anandtech-2013-allssd-architecture>

Here's a 2013 article about switching to SSD in servers in 2008 or so, 
to beat the problem of sudden death in mechanical disks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54242

In article <81d8c91msrogk2ndpuqm6hrt711v6b1cpn@4ax.com>, Barry OGrady
<atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 02:24:29 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:

> >they're more reliable and way the hell faster than hard drives.
> 
> Not reliable enough for server use according to a recent article.

Please <cite> where your fact/hypothesis/notion came from.  

> ================>
> If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

Just tell us where you obtained your information and let me enlighten
myself. I will understand if it's a secret as will everyone else.

leo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web