32 GB memory stick

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:35:28 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 07:09:53 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 00:32:42 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:33:30 -0400, Paul wrote:

For capacity (but not necessarily speedy) expansion, you can
use port multiplier boxes. They're still too expensive ($20 per port),
but offer a way to expand if you're run out of other, practical options.
snip good info

Thanks, Paul. The way I'm headed is to just build a second server one
of these days. My current server can only properly mount 15 3.5"
drives, so the 16th drive is a 2.5" unit (not SSD) mounted in a PCI
slot. I'm not only out of SATA ports on that system, I'm also out of
places to install more internal drives.


That was going to be my next question--how do you have room for so
many drives. You have a *big* case!

It's a Norco 450B, modified to replace the 3 external drive bays in
favor of 5 more internal drive bays.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811219030

Here's a pic showing the first 15 drives installed, before the cables
were connected.
http://tinypic.com/r/2ufvf4w/5


Thanks. You got a lot in, without it looking like a giant case.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:36:09 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:05:35 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:04:22 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

But I agree about 1 TB to 500 GB being too small to be of use.

Meaning I agree with Ken...

Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't clear what you meant.

It's a good thing I often read my own posts - sometimes I notice when I
mess up :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:35:35 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:04:22 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:36:32 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:06:25 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

I recently did my annual cleaning of my computer junk box and tossed
out 5 80GB drives, 2 500GB's, 2 750's, and a 1TB. I figure they're
just too small to be of any real use and aren't worth wasting a SATA
port

1TB, and even 750GB and 500 GB, are "just too small to be of any real
use"? Yes, there are some bigger drives these days, but not a whole
lot bigger. Although I agree with you in principle, I certainly don't
agree with you in the details.

And even the 80GB drives, there are undoubtedly some people who could
use them, and would like to have them. At the very least, if you don't
want to try to sell them, give them away to those who want them.

From the part of Char's post you didn't quote:
"When I say tossed out, I mean I dropped off a big box of stuff at a
local computer shop. One person's junk is another's treasure."

Thanks. Not only didn't I quote it, I didn't even see it. I read too
fast.

Careless reading, huh? I've embarrassed myself that way a time or two
:-)

After all, we should preserve Char's reputation ;-)

And I'm glad you took it as helping...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 20:44:16 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

After all, we should preserve Char's reputation ;-)

Thanks, I can use all the help I can get.

--

Char Jackson

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:04:22 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:36:32 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:06:25 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

I recently did my annual cleaning of my computer junk box and tossed
out 5 80GB drives, 2 500GB's, 2 750's, and a 1TB. I figure they're
just too small to be of any real use and aren't worth wasting a SATA
port

1TB, and even 750GB and 500 GB, are "just too small to be of any real
use"? Yes, there are some bigger drives these days, but not a whole
lot bigger. Although I agree with you in principle, I certainly don't
agree with you in the details.

And even the 80GB drives, there are undoubtedly some people who could
use them, and would like to have them. At the very least, if you don't
want to try to sell them, give them away to those who want them.

From the part of Char's post you didn't quote:
"When I say tossed out, I mean I dropped off a big box of stuff at a
local computer shop. One person's junk is another's treasure."

But I agree about 1 TB to 500 GB being too small to be of use.

Maybe I need to start recording more video or something :-)


Well, I use HDDs as partitions. Instead of partitioning a drive I
just add another HDD. It's working well so far.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:01:28 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:04:22 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:36:32 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:06:25 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

I recently did my annual cleaning of my computer junk box and tossed
out 5 80GB drives, 2 500GB's, 2 750's, and a 1TB. I figure they're
just too small to be of any real use and aren't worth wasting a SATA
port

1TB, and even 750GB and 500 GB, are "just too small to be of any real
use"? Yes, there are some bigger drives these days, but not a whole
lot bigger. Although I agree with you in principle, I certainly don't
agree with you in the details.

And even the 80GB drives, there are undoubtedly some people who could
use them, and would like to have them. At the very least, if you don't
want to try to sell them, give them away to those who want them.

From the part of Char's post you didn't quote:
"When I say tossed out, I mean I dropped off a big box of stuff at a
local computer shop. One person's junk is another's treasure."

But I agree about 1 TB to 500 GB being too small to be of use.

Maybe I need to start recording more video or something :-)


Well, I use HDDs as partitions. Instead of partitioning a drive I
just add another HDD. It's working well so far.

I understand what you mean, but one small correction. You still have
to partition a drive before you can use it, (it may come with one
partition). It has to have at least one, though, and it may or may not
encompass the entire physical drive.

I'm with you, BTW. My drives generally have just one partition.

--

Char Jackson

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:02:43 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:01:28 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:04:22 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:36:32 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:06:25 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

I recently did my annual cleaning of my computer junk box and tossed
out 5 80GB drives, 2 500GB's, 2 750's, and a 1TB. I figure they're
just too small to be of any real use and aren't worth wasting a SATA
port

1TB, and even 750GB and 500 GB, are "just too small to be of any real
use"? Yes, there are some bigger drives these days, but not a whole
lot bigger. Although I agree with you in principle, I certainly don't
agree with you in the details.

And even the 80GB drives, there are undoubtedly some people who could
use them, and would like to have them. At the very least, if you don't
want to try to sell them, give them away to those who want them.

From the part of Char's post you didn't quote:
"When I say tossed out, I mean I dropped off a big box of stuff at a
local computer shop. One person's junk is another's treasure."

But I agree about 1 TB to 500 GB being too small to be of use.

Maybe I need to start recording more video or something :-)


Well, I use HDDs as partitions. Instead of partitioning a drive I
just add another HDD. It's working well so far.

I understand what you mean, but one small correction. You still have
to partition a drive before you can use it, (it may come with one
partition). It has to have at least one, though, and it may or may not
encompass the entire physical drive.

I'm with you, BTW. My drives generally have just one partition.

That's right I have to tell the drive it has one partition.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:20:18 +0000, Ed Cryer
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/5t8c2zl

I bought one, and it works; or at least it has the once that I've used
it to backup my personal files.

Where's it all going to end? It's not that long ago that I bought a 1TB
hard drive, and now they're up to 3TB (And no, don't tell me if by the
time you read this they've got even bigger).

Ed


I've just bought a USB3 one and I tested it on the computer USB3
motherboard slot. It is giving a "transfer rate" of 137 - 152 Mb/sec
on the "benchmark" test.

It's a "Corsair Voyager" GT USB3

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:12:54 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:20:18 +0000, Ed Cryer
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/5t8c2zl

I bought one, and it works; or at least it has the once that I've used
it to backup my personal files.

Where's it all going to end? It's not that long ago that I bought a 1TB
hard drive, and now they're up to 3TB (And no, don't tell me if by the
time you read this they've got even bigger).

Ed


I've just bought a USB3 one and I tested it on the computer USB3
motherboard slot. It is giving a "transfer rate" of 137 - 152 Mb/sec
on the "benchmark" test.

It's a "Corsair Voyager" GT USB3

I don't have any USB3 stuff to play with at the moment, but your
transfer speeds look way too low, don't they? Even if you meant MB/sec
instead of Mb/sec, it still seems low.

--

Char Jackson

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:46:56 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:12:54 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:20:18 +0000, Ed Cryer
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/5t8c2zl

I bought one, and it works; or at least it has the once that I've used
it to backup my personal files.

Where's it all going to end? It's not that long ago that I bought a 1TB
hard drive, and now they're up to 3TB (And no, don't tell me if by the
time you read this they've got even bigger).

Ed


I've just bought a USB3 one and I tested it on the computer USB3
motherboard slot. It is giving a "transfer rate" of 137 - 152 Mb/sec
on the "benchmark" test.

It's a "Corsair Voyager" GT USB3

I don't have any USB3 stuff to play with at the moment, but your
transfer speeds look way too low, don't they? Even if you meant MB/sec
instead of Mb/sec, it still seems low.

Well, it's way faster than the USB2 ones I have been using. The
137mb refers to the read rate and the write rate is far slower. How
fast should it be? It's a 32GB size & uses the FAT32 system. The
blurb on the packet says the read rate is 135MB/sec & the Write rate
is 41MB/sec.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:50:56 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:46:56 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:12:54 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

I've just bought a USB3 one and I tested it on the computer USB3
motherboard slot. It is giving a "transfer rate" of 137 - 152 Mb/sec
on the "benchmark" test.

It's a "Corsair Voyager" GT USB3

I don't have any USB3 stuff to play with at the moment, but your
transfer speeds look way too low, don't they? Even if you meant MB/sec
instead of Mb/sec, it still seems low.

Well, it's way faster than the USB2 ones I have been using. The
137mb refers to the read rate and the write rate is far slower. How
fast should it be? It's a 32GB size & uses the FAT32 system. The
blurb on the packet says the read rate is 135MB/sec & the Write rate
is 41MB/sec.

Ok, sorry, I was going by the USB3 spec. I see now that the bottleneck
isn't the USB3 port but rather the device itself. If the packaging
suggests a read rate of about 135MB/sec and you're only getting
137-152 Mb/sec, then something is still wrong. (Unless you're still
confusing Mb with MB? Megabits versus Megabytes)

--

Char Jackson

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:50:56 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:46:56 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:12:54 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

I've just bought a USB3 one and I tested it on the computer USB3
motherboard slot. It is giving a "transfer rate" of 137 - 152 Mb/sec
on the "benchmark" test.

It's a "Corsair Voyager" GT USB3
I don't have any USB3 stuff to play with at the moment, but your
transfer speeds look way too low, don't they? Even if you meant MB/sec
instead of Mb/sec, it still seems low.
Well, it's way faster than the USB2 ones I have been using. The
137mb refers to the read rate and the write rate is far slower. How
fast should it be? It's a 32GB size & uses the FAT32 system. The
blurb on the packet says the read rate is 135MB/sec & the Write rate
is 41MB/sec.

Ok, sorry, I was going by the USB3 spec. I see now that the bottleneck
isn't the USB3 port but rather the device itself. If the packaging
suggests a read rate of about 135MB/sec and you're only getting
137-152 Mb/sec, then something is still wrong. (Unless you're still
confusing Mb with MB? Megabits versus Megabytes)


There is a table of values here. And they list 336MB/sec taking
protocols into account, for USB3 mass storage.

http://www.nordichardware.com/index....ticle&id=20792

To make USB3 pen drives, they have a problem fitting enough Flash
channels in parallel, to achieve the same rates we see from SSD drives.
The pen drives I've seen for sale, are already pretty fat and unwieldy.

Paul

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:12:33 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:50:56 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:46:56 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:12:54 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

I've just bought a USB3 one and I tested it on the computer USB3
motherboard slot. It is giving a "transfer rate" of 137 - 152 Mb/sec
on the "benchmark" test.

It's a "Corsair Voyager" GT USB3

I don't have any USB3 stuff to play with at the moment, but your
transfer speeds look way too low, don't they? Even if you meant MB/sec
instead of Mb/sec, it still seems low.

Well, it's way faster than the USB2 ones I have been using. The
137mb refers to the read rate and the write rate is far slower. How
fast should it be? It's a 32GB size & uses the FAT32 system. The
blurb on the packet says the read rate is 135MB/sec & the Write rate
is 41MB/sec.

Ok, sorry, I was going by the USB3 spec. I see now that the bottleneck
isn't the USB3 port but rather the device itself. If the packaging
suggests a read rate of about 135MB/sec and you're only getting
137-152 Mb/sec, then something is still wrong. (Unless you're still
confusing Mb with MB? Megabits versus Megabytes)

Now I'm confused. I need a rest.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:37:30 -0500, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:50:56 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:46:56 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:12:54 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

I've just bought a USB3 one and I tested it on the computer USB3
motherboard slot. It is giving a "transfer rate" of 137 - 152 Mb/sec
on the "benchmark" test.

It's a "Corsair Voyager" GT USB3
I don't have any USB3 stuff to play with at the moment, but your
transfer speeds look way too low, don't they? Even if you meant MB/sec
instead of Mb/sec, it still seems low.
Well, it's way faster than the USB2 ones I have been using. The
137mb refers to the read rate and the write rate is far slower. How
fast should it be? It's a 32GB size & uses the FAT32 system. The
blurb on the packet says the read rate is 135MB/sec & the Write rate
is 41MB/sec.

Ok, sorry, I was going by the USB3 spec. I see now that the bottleneck
isn't the USB3 port but rather the device itself. If the packaging
suggests a read rate of about 135MB/sec and you're only getting
137-152 Mb/sec, then something is still wrong. (Unless you're still
confusing Mb with MB? Megabits versus Megabytes)


There is a table of values here. And they list 336MB/sec taking
protocols into account, for USB3 mass storage.

http://www.nordichardware.com/index....ticle&id=20792

To make USB3 pen drives, they have a problem fitting enough Flash
channels in parallel, to achieve the same rates we see from SSD drives.
The pen drives I've seen for sale, are already pretty fat and unwieldy.

Paul

It's true that this latest USB3 thumb drive is longer & fatter than
all the USB2 ones. The market for them here is new and I was ripped
off recently by a couple of Chinese ones called "A-RAM" which were
only USB2s when they were labeled USB3. Beware.

Hi, Peter.

"Peter Jason" wrote in message
...

SNIP
Ok, sorry, I was going by the USB3 spec. I see now that the bottleneck
isn't the USB3 port but rather the device itself. If the packaging
suggests a read rate of about 135MB/sec and you're only getting
137-152 Mb/sec, then something is still wrong. (Unless you're still
confusing Mb with MB? Megabits versus Megabytes)

Now I'm confused. I need a rest.

I am not a techie, but...a non-techie refresher for anyone confused by MB
and Mb:

It takes 8 bits to make a byte, as most computer addicts know. But to SEND
a byte online, or even between disks or other devices within one computer,
the sender has to tell the receiver WHERE in the string of bits a byte
begins. So, before each batch of 8 bits it inserts a START bit, then it
ends each byte with a STOP bit, making a 10-bit transmission for each byte.
To send 1,000 bytes, the transmitter must send 10,000 bits.

The abbreviation for "bits" is "b", the lowercase "b"; the uppercase "B" is
used for "bytes". So 135 MB/sec is 10 times as fast as 135 Mb/sec.

Simple - but oh, so easy to overlook the often-subtle difference between "b"
and "B" when reading along. :^{

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX

Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1