Re: [LAU] Which SATA drive? Size? [Was: Re: partition table]

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 6:22 pm

--nextPart2653362.VEIS1a7orK
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday 23 December 2010 18:09:20 Ivan K wrote:

Why should there be a performance benefit if the disk is smaller? If there =
was,=20
I still have a 650MB disk I could sell you...

You want the disk for storage, not for RAM-extension. And doing audio you w=
ill=20
read and write big files. Unless the disk-cache is big enough to hold the w=
hole=20
session, it will not make a significant impact.

What matters is reliability. And when you ask 10 people about that, you wil=
l=20
get 10 different opinions.
As you ask for that, here is my experience:
I had seagate disks fail, I have seagate disks running fine since 5 years. =
I=20
have western digital disks work fine since years. I had an IBM disk fail af=
ter=20
about two years. I have maxtor disks perform good since 5 years. My hardwar=
e=20
dealer recommended me samsung disks, but the first two I bought failed afte=
r=20
about two years. Lets see how the rest of them (bought later) performs...

Have fun,

Arnold

--nextPart2653362.VEIS1a7orK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk0Tk0YACgkQuYLL1cDjHx0qFgCdG45uhWsFp41fliGbcAqLFUHU
B74An1nqN/eo3DDjuITfDa5c9TNOTzxl
=MnzH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2653362.VEIS1a7orK--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] partition table, rosea.grammostola, (Fri Dec 17, 3:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Which SATA drive? Size? [Was: Re: partition table], Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Fri Dec 24, 11:22 am)
Re: [LAU] Which SATA drive? Size? [Was: Re: partition table], Arnold Krille, (Thu Dec 23, 6:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Which SATA drive? Size? [Was: Re: partition table], Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Fri Dec 24, 11:26 am)
Re: [LAU] Which SATA drive? Size? [Was: Re: partition table], Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Fri Dec 24, 6:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] Which SATA drive? Size? [Was: Re: partition table], Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Sat Dec 25, 1:49 am)
Re: [LAU] Which SATA drive? Size? [Was: Re: partition table], Fernando Lopez-Lezcano, (Sat Dec 25, 2:22 am)
Re: [LAU] Which SATA drive? Size? [Was: Re: partition table], Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Fri Dec 24, 4:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] Which SATA drive? Size? [Was: Re: partition table], Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Fri Dec 24, 6:09 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Peder Hedlund, (Mon Dec 20, 1:49 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Jeremy, (Sat Dec 18, 7:45 am)
Re: [LAU] partition table, david, (Sat Dec 18, 7:01 am)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Arnold Krille, (Sat Dec 18, 9:05 am)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Jeremy Jongepier, (Fri Dec 17, 8:14 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Ray Rashif, (Fri Dec 17, 5:54 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, fred, (Fri Dec 17, 4:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Arnold Krille, (Fri Dec 17, 4:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Joe Hartley, (Fri Dec 17, 3:33 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Jostein Chr. Andersen, (Fri Dec 17, 3:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Philipp Überbacher, (Fri Dec 17, 3:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, rosea.grammostola, (Fri Dec 17, 3:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Jeremy Jongepier, (Fri Dec 17, 8:21 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Folderol, (Fri Dec 17, 9:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Florian Faber, (Fri Dec 17, 3:18 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Fri Dec 17, 3:14 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Fri Dec 17, 3:09 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Mark Knecht, (Fri Dec 17, 3:08 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, rosea.grammostola, (Fri Dec 17, 3:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Mark Knecht, (Fri Dec 17, 3:49 pm)
Re: [LAU] partition table, Andrew C, (Fri Dec 17, 3:07 pm)