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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ivan K <ivan_521521@...>
Cc: Linux Audio User <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Sunday, December 26, 2010 - 10:09 am

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Ivan K wrote:

> I was surprised to hear that so many people write their audio files to

SATA drives make almost no noise. You'll get more noise from your
processor and power supply fan than you ever will from even five or six
SATA disks.

> On a somewhat related topic, is there a brand of SATA drive that

I've never gone wrong with Seagate. I've had lots of problems over the
years with Western Digital. However, see recent threads about getting
even more performance by recording to ramdisk/memory, provided you're
secure about the stability of your system and your UPS/electrical supply
(and you don't think it's going to crash or lose power during
recording). Nothing will beat a ramdisk for performance.

> Also, even though Terabyte drives are inexpensive these days, would a

I haven't noticed any significant perfomance dropoff until you start
talking about the new 2TB drives. Those seem a little slow. The 1.5TB
drives are pretty fast as long as you be sure to get one with 7200rpm
spindle speed. They're starting to sell slower ones again, so you have
to look for that now. (Up until recently, they used to almost all be
7200rpm.)

> P.S.

SCSI hard drives are noisy and expensive! I used to record on a SCSI
setup myself. Those are loud drives. You won't believe how much
quieter SATA is. It's true that SATA has slightly higher CPU usage, but
it's still nowhere near as bad as regular EIDE drives used to be for
that. SATA gives performance almost as good as SCSI, but much quieter,
much cheaper, and much bigger disk sizes. The only thing I miss about
SCSI is that long ago when I was an Amiga user, it promised to be the
universal bus: Your hard drives ran on it, your CDROM, your scanner,
your tape drive, your zip drive...and because most of the standards were
part of the SCSI protocol itself, you didn't even need OS driver support
for most things. (Amiga users survived on that fact.) Now I think the
universal bus has become USB...which isn't quite the same thing.

I now only use SCSI for an old but great SCSI scanner that I refuse to
give up.

--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ Physical Sciences Div. + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ James Franck Institute + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

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], Brent Busby, (Sun Dec 26, 10:09 am)
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], 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)