Well that's OK with me. Like my dual gigger. My computer can always be faster computing wise but I really want is faster transfer (open, save, copy) speed for 500mb Ai files.
[quote]However, why in the world is that graphics center using a SCSI array to do back ups? All the graphics centers I've ever been in use CD's or DVD's for archiving. <hr></blockquote>
We've got about 60GB of archived jobs at my work place. (4 person graphic/web design shop)
That's on CDR. We've got many GB more of old jobs locked up on tape backup somewhere.
It gets REAL OLD burning CDs.
Trust me. Not to mention the occasional burn error we get.
Plus, if you wanna pull stuff off of em, it's a pain to look files/jobs up.
We're looking into getting a fileserver for such a thing, now. Much easier!
Hmmm. I'd like to bring up again the thing about execs filing to sell stock. How long does it take for the paperwork to go through? Considering most government agencies, (is the SEC part of the government?) and my perceived slowness of them, what's the chances that the paperwork gets filed and finally goes through something like 2.5 months later? That way the execs would be only filing, not selling, and the actual selling goes on after MWNY.
<strong>Most graphics design centers we work with are MOVING BACK to the macOS. It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of a machine to work 1.5 times faster on batch processing...it has to do with support costs. When you can cut IT staff by $140,000/year the move is VERY attractive. Especilly when you can pay designers $9-$20/hour.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and he said that for "work" a Mac is still optimal, because it simply runs. But for "processing" or any computing intensive task there are PCs (and he's right).
And designers who demand 9-20/hour must be, pardon me, ****ty designers. No, wait, actually only graphic software users.
[quote]Originally posted by Mike:
<strong>Also, I COMPLETELY agree that IDE is NOT a good solution for a large graphics center. However, why in the world is that graphics center using a SCSI array to do back ups? All the graphics centers I've ever been in use CD's or DVD's for archiving. Also, there is no way to fit 5TB in a 3U form factor. Lets say that you can fit 14 drives in the 3U form factor...with 73G drives running NO raid would only yield 1TB of storage...and it would cost BIG bucks...and for just backups?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The RAIDs he showed me weren't much "bigger" than a 3U case, maybe even the same space as 2U (arranged differently). And yes, SCSI RAID backups. Why? Because they are not a graphics centre, they do printing. Not digital print, but high quality print. And they did their backups on CDs already. He showed me 5000 CDs worth of backup (yes, five thousand) and said "why ****ing bother, if I can but a 5TB RAID and when I run out of space I buy another". They can access all data without having to fetch one of/go trough 5000+ CDs. I also asked about DVDs and he said they're too easily damaged. He went for reliability, speed and space. CDs have little space, DVDs are unreliable and a SCSI RAID 5 is perfect for him.
The RAIDs he showed me weren't much "bigger" than a 3U case, maybe even the same space as 2U (arranged differently). And yes, SCSI RAID backups. Why? Because they are not a graphics centre, they do printing. Not digital print, but high quality print. And they did their backups on CDs already. He showed me 5000 CDs worth of backup (yes, five thousand) and said "why ****ing bother, if I can but a 5TB RAID and when I run out of space I buy another". They can access all data without having to fetch one of/go trough 5000+ CDs. I also asked about DVDs and he said they're too easily damaged. He went for reliability, speed and space. CDs have little space, DVDs are unreliable and a SCSI RAID 5 is perfect for him.
I'm sorry, but anyone actually doing their BACKUPS onto RAID is taking one hell of a risk. While the data is redundant on the drives, so if one drive fails, it can be restored easily, it doesn't satisfy the major reasons for a backup. A backup should be able to be taken off site or placed in a firesafe at the very least. Also, last I checked a virus has no qualms about destroying all the volumes of a RAID array. And then there's simple human error where someone deletes something they didn't mean to. You want to be able to go back to a week-old, month-old or even year-old backup to restore it. There's really no good solution to this other than DLT (preferably SuperDLT), DAT or potentially DVD-RAM (though I tend to agree about the reliability/damageability of DVD). To spend tensof thousands of dollars on multiple RAID arrays and not spend an extra couple grand on a good tape drive and media is very silly.
<strong>To spend tensof thousands of dollars on multiple RAID arrays and not spend an extra couple grand on a good tape drive and media is very silly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The backups they are doing are not "high priority" but rather "because we can". Well the guy in charge of the IT (the one I spoke with) has some weird views about how to do stuff and wont let anyone even suggest other solutions. Of course Tape backup is reasonable and for "real backup" one should use "real backup solutions" and not easily-scratchable DVDs or 5000 CDs.
[quote]Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist:
<strong>
From what I read, the array will be connected to the host using Fber Channel, which is a minimum of 1 Gb/sec and possibly 2 Gb if you use leading-edge technology. I can't remember the exact transfer rate of the proposed drives, but 1Gb divided by 10 drives is 100 Mb/sec/drive theoretical maximum or 12.5MB/sec given each drive having an independant path to the Fiber controller. Are the drives quicker than that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The XServe has 2 2Gb Fiber Channel ports, for 4Gb total bandwidth between 14 drives (that's a jaw-dropping amount of bandwidth for a SAN, for the record), or about 500MB/s. The 14 drives have a throughput in the general neighborhood of... 500MB/s (assuming 35MB/s per drive).
By way of contrast, the big, expensive Compaq SAN we just installed currently has a half-dozen Ultra160 SCSI controllers hanging off a single 1Gb FC controller. And we're loving it.
[quote]<strong>So you are then left with what is the slowest part of most companies' setup which is the LAN, which for most organisations is 100Mb/sec. If you have 10 workstations connected to the server, you are realistically only getting a couple of megabytes/second/client when running under average loading.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a SAN, what matters is throughput to the servers, not (just) to the clients. If the XServe(s) attached to the XServe RAID can get anywhere near 4Gb throughput in practice, Apple will have a lot of very happy customers. Believe me, if Oracle 9i can hit its database at 500MB/s, the people getting the results back will notice, even if they're only getting the results over fast ethernet.
<strong>Your buddy doesn't have a 5TB raid. At the prices the site you link show, that puppy would cost almost $160K out the door. You don't spent that kind of $$ on backups that flippantly. Heck, LucasFilm only has about 7TB online for their full up sound facility and they deal in $$ that probably make almost all printing shops budgets look like lunchroom change.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He said he has 5 TB. Maybe I messed up, because he showed me 2 RAID boxes, but still that would leave him with 2 times a 2.5 TB/RAID system. And I doubt you know better what he's running than he does himself. Besides, when people spend 50.000 $ for a Xerox machine just to have a A3 digital printer with nice colors for the office because their plotter doesn't have nice enough "colors" I don't think they lack money for equipment.
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>He probably has a reasonably small level 5 raid which is another matter all together. On such a different level that his current hardware does not look so obviously superior to Apples future Xraid offering, and probably not engineered as well either. Most current RAID arrays are cobbled together in basements by no-name bubbas with web sites, no real engineering at all. And wasted over-capacity in throughput does qualify as poor engineering, another case of specs do not tell the whole truth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think he has a "small Level 5 RAID" because such would make even less sense according to your logic. And _if_ he had a 120 GB RAID, for example, he'd have to buy one every few months. They are doing lot of work and high quality print data is not the kind to fit on a floppy. I don't know where his RAIDs are coming from, but I don't think someone who is spending money on Sun servers "because they work, unlike PC crap" will add a homebrewed RAID to it.
Anyhow, I am looking forward to seeing Apples server setup in a working environment and hope Apple does well in the corporate area. It would make a nice change and would sure add up to the OSX user count.
i'd love to believe the G5 is right around the corner, but unfortunately i don't think we're gonna see it anytime soon. instead, i think we'll see optimizations to the MOBO along with a wider system bus, DDR, ATA133 and a modest speed increase.
i do believe, however, that we'll see a new enclosure. personally, i'd like to see the new powermac adopt the slide-out drive bays of the Xserve. this would make adding or swapping drives a real breeze...especially for those professionals who rack mount their systems.
<strong> He said he has 5 TB. Maybe I messed up, because he showed me 2 RAID boxes, but still that would leave him with 2 times a 2.5 TB/RAID system. And I doubt you know better what he's running than he does himself. Besides, when people spend 50.000 $ for a Xerox machine just to have a A3 digital printer with nice colors for the office because their plotter doesn't have nice enough "colors" I don't think they lack money for equipment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you are saying he has 2 2u boxes or something? Even if he did the max you could fit in each would be 8 drives, 8x2 is 16, the biggest SCSI drives on the market are something like 136GB, so 16x136 is 2176, which is 2.125TB.
Unless your little buddy has this thing sitting in a wind tunnel to cool it off, there is no way he is going to fit 5TB in around 4u of space. It just can't happen.
That, and the drives used in SCSI RAIDs are usually relatively low capacity, for speed reasons.
If your tech has a SAN, it's not uncommon to refer to the whole rig by the number of terabytes of data it can hold in a common configuration. I can believe a SAN that can hold 5TB worth of SCSI RAIDs. But 5TB of SCSI drives in a 3U? Not unless they're Barracudas, or some other (relatively) low performance SCSI drive, in which case a move to XServe RAID would probably increase throughput.
The fast SCSI drives - the 10k and 15k varieties - are very fast, very loud and very hot, and they don't hold nearly as much individually as their slower ATA kindred. They have a distinct, high-pitched whine, and the fans needed to cool them probably don't help.
[quote]Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist:
<strong>My first point is that the people who say the G5 is cancelled or otherwise in Apple's roadmap don't have any solid proof to back that up, anymore than I have the proof to say that it exists and is currently in alpha testing somewhere ready to be released at SF 03.</strong><hr></blockquote>
not necessarily true. i have proof that the g5 exists and who is building it. will i offer that proof up to anyone else? no. why not? because i'd like to protect the people who know that information. just because YOU don't know the proof doesn't mean proof doesn't exist.
this site is ridiculous. i know a lot of people troll about having information and whatnot. but when people do have information, no one will believe them anyway. it's really a no-win situation here at the ai forums. even people who seemed to have accurate information in the past are constantly "debunked" by others later for no good reason other than personal whimsy of being a dissenter. folks, this is a rumor site! choose to take everything with a grain of salt and use your own cognitive reasoning to figure out what you'll believe. it's not the end of the world one way or the other.
<strong>Unless your little buddy has this thing sitting in a wind tunnel to cool it off, there is no way he is going to fit 5TB in around 4u of space. It just can't happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He has it in a separate case and the room is constantly at around 10-15°C. He has a nice air condition sitting there.
Now look, I'm not saying the guy is either right or that the stuff he said is 100% true. I didn't bother to open the case up and check on the 5 TBs, I'm just saying that there seem to be people who use such setups as well.
<strong>That, and the drives used in SCSI RAIDs are usually relatively low capacity, for speed reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, speed isn't important with those backups.
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>If your tech has a SAN, it's not uncommon to refer to the whole rig by the number of terabytes of data it can hold in a common configuration. I can believe a SAN that can hold 5TB worth of SCSI RAIDs. But 5TB of SCSI drives in a 3U? Not unless they're Barracudas, or some other (relatively) low performance SCSI drive, in which case a move to XServe RAID would probably increase throughput.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's what I told him as well, but he constantly was putting XServe and IDE RAIDs down as "just not being able to cut it". It all looked a lot like he's too lazy to get some information newer than 1994 when SCSI was the oh-good-jelly of storage. I pointed out that many IDE drives nowerdays achieve speeds similiar to SCSI drives and that with backups one doesn't need the abilities of SCSI neccessarily, especially not in a RAID environment. Well, he laughed at me. It might have also been the fact that he made the company spend a _lot_ of money on those SCSI RAIDs and thus was unable to admit it might have been stupid.
I hope Apple has an answer for these processors which according to <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/25411.html"; target="_blank">The Register</a> are going to know the socks off everything!
not necessarily true. i have proof that the g5 exists and who is building it. will i offer that proof up to anyone else? no. why not? because i'd like to protect the people who know that information. just because YOU don't know the proof doesn't mean proof doesn't exist.
this site is ridiculous. i know a lot of people troll about having information and whatnot. but when people do have information, no one will believe them anyway. it's really a no-win situation here at the ai forums. even people who seemed to have accurate information in the past are constantly "debunked" by others later for no good reason other than personal whimsy of being a dissenter. folks, this is a rumor site! choose to take everything with a grain of salt and use your own cognitive reasoning to figure out what you'll believe. it's not the end of the world one way or the other.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>we can design and build PowerPCs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if we're Motorola we'll our sweet time doing it too.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: glurx ]</p>
MWSF '03: New (NEW) PowerMacs
sorry kids
<strong>MWNY: Bumbped iMacs and new iDevice
MWSF '03: New (NEW) PowerMacs
sorry kids</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that's OK with me. Like my dual gigger. My computer can always be faster computing wise but I really want is faster transfer (open, save, copy) speed for 500mb Ai files.
We've got about 60GB of archived jobs at my work place. (4 person graphic/web design shop)
That's on CDR. We've got many GB more of old jobs locked up on tape backup somewhere.
It gets REAL OLD burning CDs.
Trust me. Not to mention the occasional burn error we get.
Plus, if you wanna pull stuff off of em, it's a pain to look files/jobs up.
We're looking into getting a fileserver for such a thing, now. Much easier!
Imagine a medium sized company.
We're talking hundreds of GB.
:eek:
<strong>is the SEC part of the government? </strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml"; target="_blank">Yes</a>.
<strong>Most graphics design centers we work with are MOVING BACK to the macOS. It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of a machine to work 1.5 times faster on batch processing...it has to do with support costs. When you can cut IT staff by $140,000/year the move is VERY attractive. Especilly when you can pay designers $9-$20/hour.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and he said that for "work" a Mac is still optimal, because it simply runs. But for "processing" or any computing intensive task there are PCs (and he's right).
And designers who demand 9-20/hour must be, pardon me, ****ty designers. No, wait, actually only graphic software users.
[quote]Originally posted by Mike:
<strong>Also, I COMPLETELY agree that IDE is NOT a good solution for a large graphics center. However, why in the world is that graphics center using a SCSI array to do back ups? All the graphics centers I've ever been in use CD's or DVD's for archiving. Also, there is no way to fit 5TB in a 3U form factor. Lets say that you can fit 14 drives in the 3U form factor...with 73G drives running NO raid would only yield 1TB of storage...and it would cost BIG bucks...and for just backups?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The RAIDs he showed me weren't much "bigger" than a 3U case, maybe even the same space as 2U (arranged differently). And yes, SCSI RAID backups. Why? Because they are not a graphics centre, they do printing. Not digital print, but high quality print. And they did their backups on CDs already. He showed me 5000 CDs worth of backup (yes, five thousand) and said "why ****ing bother, if I can but a 5TB RAID and when I run out of space I buy another". They can access all data without having to fetch one of/go trough 5000+ CDs. I also asked about DVDs and he said they're too easily damaged. He went for reliability, speed and space. CDs have little space, DVDs are unreliable and a SCSI RAID 5 is perfect for him.
<a href="http://www.4raid.com/scsi.htm"; target="_blank">SCSI RAID example</a>
<strong>
The RAIDs he showed me weren't much "bigger" than a 3U case, maybe even the same space as 2U (arranged differently). And yes, SCSI RAID backups. Why? Because they are not a graphics centre, they do printing. Not digital print, but high quality print. And they did their backups on CDs already. He showed me 5000 CDs worth of backup (yes, five thousand) and said "why ****ing bother, if I can but a 5TB RAID and when I run out of space I buy another". They can access all data without having to fetch one of/go trough 5000+ CDs. I also asked about DVDs and he said they're too easily damaged. He went for reliability, speed and space. CDs have little space, DVDs are unreliable and a SCSI RAID 5 is perfect for him.
<a href="http://www.4raid.com/scsi.htm"; target="_blank">SCSI RAID example</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, but anyone actually doing their BACKUPS onto RAID is taking one hell of a risk. While the data is redundant on the drives, so if one drive fails, it can be restored easily, it doesn't satisfy the major reasons for a backup. A backup should be able to be taken off site or placed in a firesafe at the very least. Also, last I checked a virus has no qualms about destroying all the volumes of a RAID array. And then there's simple human error where someone deletes something they didn't mean to. You want to be able to go back to a week-old, month-old or even year-old backup to restore it. There's really no good solution to this other than DLT (preferably SuperDLT), DAT or potentially DVD-RAM (though I tend to agree about the reliability/damageability of DVD). To spend tensof thousands of dollars on multiple RAID arrays and not spend an extra couple grand on a good tape drive and media is very silly.
<strong>To spend tensof thousands of dollars on multiple RAID arrays and not spend an extra couple grand on a good tape drive and media is very silly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The backups they are doing are not "high priority" but rather "because we can". Well the guy in charge of the IT (the one I spoke with) has some weird views about how to do stuff and wont let anyone even suggest other solutions. Of course Tape backup is reasonable and for "real backup" one should use "real backup solutions" and not easily-scratchable DVDs or 5000 CDs.
Besides, storage wise, EMC is where it's at.
<strong>
From what I read, the array will be connected to the host using Fber Channel, which is a minimum of 1 Gb/sec and possibly 2 Gb if you use leading-edge technology. I can't remember the exact transfer rate of the proposed drives, but 1Gb divided by 10 drives is 100 Mb/sec/drive theoretical maximum or 12.5MB/sec given each drive having an independant path to the Fiber controller. Are the drives quicker than that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The XServe has 2 2Gb Fiber Channel ports, for 4Gb total bandwidth between 14 drives (that's a jaw-dropping amount of bandwidth for a SAN, for the record), or about 500MB/s. The 14 drives have a throughput in the general neighborhood of... 500MB/s (assuming 35MB/s per drive).
By way of contrast, the big, expensive Compaq SAN we just installed currently has a half-dozen Ultra160 SCSI controllers hanging off a single 1Gb FC controller. And we're loving it.
[quote]<strong>So you are then left with what is the slowest part of most companies' setup which is the LAN, which for most organisations is 100Mb/sec. If you have 10 workstations connected to the server, you are realistically only getting a couple of megabytes/second/client when running under average loading.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a SAN, what matters is throughput to the servers, not (just) to the clients. If the XServe(s) attached to the XServe RAID can get anywhere near 4Gb throughput in practice, Apple will have a lot of very happy customers. Believe me, if Oracle 9i can hit its database at 500MB/s, the people getting the results back will notice, even if they're only getting the results over fast ethernet.
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>Your buddy doesn't have a 5TB raid. At the prices the site you link show, that puppy would cost almost $160K out the door. You don't spent that kind of $$ on backups that flippantly. Heck, LucasFilm only has about 7TB online for their full up sound facility and they deal in $$ that probably make almost all printing shops budgets look like lunchroom change.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He said he has 5 TB. Maybe I messed up, because he showed me 2 RAID boxes, but still that would leave him with 2 times a 2.5 TB/RAID system. And I doubt you know better what he's running than he does himself. Besides, when people spend 50.000 $ for a Xerox machine just to have a A3 digital printer with nice colors for the office because their plotter doesn't have nice enough "colors" I don't think they lack money for equipment.
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>He probably has a reasonably small level 5 raid which is another matter all together. On such a different level that his current hardware does not look so obviously superior to Apples future Xraid offering, and probably not engineered as well either. Most current RAID arrays are cobbled together in basements by no-name bubbas with web sites, no real engineering at all. And wasted over-capacity in throughput does qualify as poor engineering, another case of specs do not tell the whole truth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think he has a "small Level 5 RAID" because such would make even less sense according to your logic. And _if_ he had a 120 GB RAID, for example, he'd have to buy one every few months. They are doing lot of work and high quality print data is not the kind to fit on a floppy. I don't know where his RAIDs are coming from, but I don't think someone who is spending money on Sun servers "because they work, unlike PC crap" will add a homebrewed RAID to it.
Anyhow, I am looking forward to seeing Apples server setup in a working environment and hope Apple does well in the corporate area. It would make a nice change and would sure add up to the OSX user count.
i do believe, however, that we'll see a new enclosure. personally, i'd like to see the new powermac adopt the slide-out drive bays of the Xserve. this would make adding or swapping drives a real breeze...especially for those professionals who rack mount their systems.
<strong> He said he has 5 TB. Maybe I messed up, because he showed me 2 RAID boxes, but still that would leave him with 2 times a 2.5 TB/RAID system. And I doubt you know better what he's running than he does himself. Besides, when people spend 50.000 $ for a Xerox machine just to have a A3 digital printer with nice colors for the office because their plotter doesn't have nice enough "colors" I don't think they lack money for equipment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you are saying he has 2 2u boxes or something? Even if he did the max you could fit in each would be 8 drives, 8x2 is 16, the biggest SCSI drives on the market are something like 136GB, so 16x136 is 2176, which is 2.125TB.
Unless your little buddy has this thing sitting in a wind tunnel to cool it off, there is no way he is going to fit 5TB in around 4u of space. It just can't happen.
If your tech has a SAN, it's not uncommon to refer to the whole rig by the number of terabytes of data it can hold in a common configuration. I can believe a SAN that can hold 5TB worth of SCSI RAIDs. But 5TB of SCSI drives in a 3U? Not unless they're Barracudas, or some other (relatively) low performance SCSI drive, in which case a move to XServe RAID would probably increase throughput.
The fast SCSI drives - the 10k and 15k varieties - are very fast, very loud and very hot, and they don't hold nearly as much individually as their slower ATA kindred. They have a distinct, high-pitched whine, and the fans needed to cool them probably don't help.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>My first point is that the people who say the G5 is cancelled or otherwise in Apple's roadmap don't have any solid proof to back that up, anymore than I have the proof to say that it exists and is currently in alpha testing somewhere ready to be released at SF 03.</strong><hr></blockquote>
not necessarily true. i have proof that the g5 exists and who is building it. will i offer that proof up to anyone else? no. why not? because i'd like to protect the people who know that information. just because YOU don't know the proof doesn't mean proof doesn't exist.
this site is ridiculous. i know a lot of people troll about having information and whatnot. but when people do have information, no one will believe them anyway. it's really a no-win situation here at the ai forums. even people who seemed to have accurate information in the past are constantly "debunked" by others later for no good reason other than personal whimsy of being a dissenter. folks, this is a rumor site! choose to take everything with a grain of salt and use your own cognitive reasoning to figure out what you'll believe. it's not the end of the world one way or the other.
<strong>Unless your little buddy has this thing sitting in a wind tunnel to cool it off, there is no way he is going to fit 5TB in around 4u of space. It just can't happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He has it in a separate case and the room is constantly at around 10-15°C. He has a nice air condition sitting there.
Now look, I'm not saying the guy is either right or that the stuff he said is 100% true. I didn't bother to open the case up and check on the 5 TBs, I'm just saying that there seem to be people who use such setups as well.
<strong>That, and the drives used in SCSI RAIDs are usually relatively low capacity, for speed reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, speed isn't important with those backups.
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>If your tech has a SAN, it's not uncommon to refer to the whole rig by the number of terabytes of data it can hold in a common configuration. I can believe a SAN that can hold 5TB worth of SCSI RAIDs. But 5TB of SCSI drives in a 3U? Not unless they're Barracudas, or some other (relatively) low performance SCSI drive, in which case a move to XServe RAID would probably increase throughput.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's what I told him as well, but he constantly was putting XServe and IDE RAIDs down as "just not being able to cut it". It all looked a lot like he's too lazy to get some information newer than 1994 when SCSI was the oh-good-jelly of storage. I pointed out that many IDE drives nowerdays achieve speeds similiar to SCSI drives and that with backups one doesn't need the abilities of SCSI neccessarily, especially not in a RAID environment. Well, he laughed at me. It might have also been the fact that he made the company spend a _lot_ of money on those SCSI RAIDs and thus was unable to admit it might have been stupid.
Oh well, SCSI probably sounds better.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</p>
<strong>
not necessarily true. i have proof that the g5 exists and who is building it. will i offer that proof up to anyone else? no. why not? because i'd like to protect the people who know that information. just because YOU don't know the proof doesn't mean proof doesn't exist.
this site is ridiculous. i know a lot of people troll about having information and whatnot. but when people do have information, no one will believe them anyway. it's really a no-win situation here at the ai forums. even people who seemed to have accurate information in the past are constantly "debunked" by others later for no good reason other than personal whimsy of being a dissenter. folks, this is a rumor site! choose to take everything with a grain of salt and use your own cognitive reasoning to figure out what you'll believe. it's not the end of the world one way or the other.</strong><hr></blockquote>
PM me your info, I'll believe you.