trythil@lothlann trythil $ dmesg | grep hdf
ide2: BM-DMA at 0x7400-0x7407, BIOS settings: hde:DMA, hdf:DMA
hdf: IC35L080AVVA07-0, ATA DISK drive
hdf: 160836480 sectors (82348 MB) w/1863KiB Cache, CHS=159560/16/63, UDMA(100)
root@lothlann trythil # hdparm -t -T /dev/hdf
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.76 seconds =168.42 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.42 seconds = 45.07 MB/sec
trythil wrote:Assuming your motherboard is sufficiently modern:
A fast drive -- and I'm not just talking interfaces. Get one that operates at at least 7200 RPM, and supports at least Ultra DMA/100 (make sure your motherboard is capable of this, as well; otherwise, you can't use it!) if you're planning on purchasing an IDE drive. If you're going for SCSI -- well, I've not worked with that very much, but if you can do SCSI you should also be able to choose drives by yourself
Though, you may want to wait a bit for Serial ATA to become popular. It's a promising technology that looks to seriously increase the speeds of IDE hard drives; minimum-maximum transfer rates are expected to be 150 MBps -> 600 MBps, respectively. You will, of course, need a new motherboard (and the OS must evolve as well), but for speed gains like that I'd do it.
But for the here and now...I've an 80 gig IBM DeskStar (can't remember the model name, but perhaps the stuff I'm about to paste will help you) in this machine, and it works very well for capturing and editing digital video, if you're interested in pursuing stuff made by Big Blue:
Don't wait for Serial ATA. Sure, it'll be fast, but is it worth spending hundreds of dollars (or more) to upgrade your entire system - or even to buy a $100 add-on card - just to get a slightly fastar hard drive? Buy one of the current new-model large and fast drives.
Finally - and I can't stress this enough - <B>do not buy an IBM brand IDE hard drive</B>. New-model IBMs have published reliability problems. In fact, IBM officialy recommends that many of its newer hard disk models be powered on for only eight hours a day. (Compare this to other brands, which don't tend to experience unusual reliability problems when the drives are powered on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.)
trythil wrote:Hmm. I've had this computer on for much longer than eight hours a day routinely, this DeskStar in for a bit over six months, and have put the thing through more than its fair share of work (or I'd suppose constant reading and writing of multi-gigabyte files qualifies for that).
I've yet to experience any sort of data errors with the thing.
But if you insist...
jbone wrote:Do some research, you'll see IBM's published the information.
Odds are you won't experience any trouble - but isn't it better to choose a brand that <I>doesn't</I> have widely-published high-failure ratings?
jbone wrote:(For all practical purposes, the performance difference is negligible.)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest