1TB+ Raid0 in old computer- what controller?

[megadork]

Alright. I've got an old Gateway box that is pretty much good for nothing. I am wanting to turn it into a fileserver. I am thinking to get 4x 300gb seagate drives. I know they're having a weekend sale right now that's got them down to $94.99.

What controller should I use? I am trying to go on the cheap side- not looking to expand it any time soon... What do you all recommend?

 

[rayman2k2]

what is going to be used for? if you are going to store files on it I would seriously recommend not going with the RAID0 option, but rather a RAID 0+1 or a RAID 5 option

RAID0 = 1.2tb's of space -> one drive fails, the rest are useless
RAID 0+1 = 600gb's of space -> one drive fails, nothing is lost, get a new one and your set
RAID 5 = 900gb's of space -> one drive fails, nothing is lost, get a new one and your set

 

[mikeblas]

We'll need to know more about the host machine. Does it have PCI? 64-bit PCI? 64 MHz, 64-bit PCI? PCI-X?

Given that, you'll have a list of cards to choose from. I'd pick one that's on the verified compatible list for your operating system.

if you are going to store files on it I would seriously recommend not going with the RAID0 option, but rather a RAID 0+1 or a RAID 5 option

What on earth would you do with a disk system than other store files on it?

RAID0 = 1.2tb's of space -> one drive fails, the rest are useless

You should clarify that; the drives aren't useless--it's just that all drives on the set are lost since some of the file system's data is gone. This is true for even a single drive; if the single drive fails, the data is gone. You need to back up your data if you're using RAID0 or not.

 

[rayman2k2]

What on earth would you do with a disk system than other store files on it?

meant to say 'important' files.

 

[mikeblas]

meant to say 'important' files.

So you're just parroting this "RAID0 is bad" advice? A backup strategy is just as prerequisite to using a single drive as it is to using RAID0 or RAID5.

 

[rayman2k2]

So you're just parroting this "RAID0 is bad" advice? A backup strategy is just as prerequisite to using a single drive as it is to using RAID0 or RAID5.

who woke up on the wrong side of the bed today?



Yes I am parroting this "RAID0 is bad" advice. Why? Cause fileservers TYPICALLY - on the single user level or even for a home - BACKUP files. Why the hell would I want to stick a RAID0 array in there when I have to BACKUP it up every week/month/etc.? Why the hell should I have to deal with backing up a backup? RAID0 is volatile - one drive goes down and you have three more that have 3/4 of your data. RAID 0+1 and RAID5 are not as volatile. One drive goes down, and you can rebuild the array. With RAID0 backing up all of my important files, I'd be damned if I were able to sleep well at night, I'd end up backing the damn array up every week. With RAID 0+1 and RAID5, I'd feel a little bit better.


Frankly, I don't give a fucking rat's ass what your affinity and love affair with RAID0 is. The truth is, if one drive fails, everything else might as well - what is the point of constantly backing up a fileserver when RAID5 will let allow you to do it less often?


AND, before you say anything else, yes I have a RAID0 array and yes I have a RAID5 array. They both have pros and cons. My RAID0 array functions as a scratch disk whenever I use Premiere and Maya. My RAID5 array backs up all of my movie files.

 

[mikeblas]

Frankly, I don't give a fucking rat's ass what your affinity and love affair with RAID0 is. The truth is, if one drive fails, everything else might as well - what is the point of constantly backing up a fileserver when RAID5 will let allow you to do it less often?

The truth is, RAID5 doesn't give you any reason to backup less often. You can loose the data at any time. Backup frequency is not dependent on the storage technology.

Using RAID 0+1 RAID5 doesn't excuse you from backing up your data. If it makes you feel better, that's great--but it's a false sense of security.

 

[Deleted member 21895]

The truth is, RAID5 doesn't give you any reason to backup less often. You can loose the data at any time. Backup frequency is not dependent on the storage technology.

Using RAID 0+1 RAID5 doesn't excuse you from backing up your data. If it makes you feel better, that's great--but it's a false sense of security.

I wouldn't call it a false sense of security, the chances of 2 hard drives failing vs 1 hard drive failing is a lot less likely...

the only way im losing all my data is if 2+ hard drives fail, or if something like my house catches on fire or floods or something... with Raid 0 if any hard drive dies all is lost... So, if I had to bet my money on which would happen first.. losing 1 hard drive.. or losing 2 hard drives at once.. my money is on losing 1 hard drive...

I feel a lot more safe/secure with raid 5 then raid 0... fault tolerance, wonderful thing..

 

[mikeblas]

I wouldn't call it a false sense of security, the chances of 2 hard drives failing vs 1 hard drive failing is a lot less likely...

Drive failure isn't the only cause of data loss. Further, the liklihood of failure doesn't influence backup frequency.

the only way im losing all my data is if 2+ hard drives fail, or if something like my house catches on fire or floods or something...

Or, if your power supply gets sick. Or data is overwritten, deleted, or corrupted. Or you have a problem with a virus. Or ...

Fault tolerant RAID does't help with any of those issues. As such, even when such a RAID level is employed, backups no less necessary than when using RAID0, or a single disk drive.

 

[rayman2k2]

I wouldn't call it a false sense of security, the chances of 2 hard drives failing vs 1 hard drive failing is a lot less likely...

the only way im losing all my data is if 2+ hard drives fail, or if something like my house catches on fire or floods or something... with Raid 0 if any hard drive dies all is lost... So, if I had to bet my money on which would happen first.. losing 1 hard drive.. or losing 2 hard drives at once.. my money is on losing 1 hard drive...

I feel a lot more safe/secure with raid 5 then raid 0... fault tolerance, wonderful thing..

Quoted-For-Truth and Quoted-For-Emphasis-So-Mikeblas-Can-Understand

The truth is, RAID5 doesn't give you any reason to backup less often. You can loose the data at any time. Backup frequency is not dependent on the storage technology.

Using RAID 0+1 RAID5 doesn't excuse you from backing up your data. If it makes you feel better, that's great--but it's a false sense of security.

No, your wrong. RAID5 DOES give me a reason to backup less often - like sniper said, it is less likely that you will have two drives fail at once. But you are right in saying "Backup frequency is not dependent on the storage technology" but it is dependent on the storage methodology.

When did I say you should never backup RAID 0+1 and RAID5 arrays? I back up my RAID5 array every two to three months. I feel better about my important files being on there rather than a RAID0 array -- and the sense of security is not false, it's elevated.


Put your important files on a RAID0 array, but don't go crying when a drive fails.

 

[mikeblas]

No, your [sic] wrong. RAID5 DOES give me a reason to backup less often - like sniper said, it is less likely that you will have two drives fail at once.

How do you relate the likilhood of an unpredictable failure to the backup frequency? Any other catastrophe can cause complete loss of the data, so why backup less frequently because one mode of failure has been reduced?

 

[unhappy_mage]

Raid 5 is an uptime boost only, as compared to raid 0. It is fault tolerant with regard to disks dying, true, but if you accidentally delete a file, or a virus corrupts the filesystem, you're just as screwed as with raid 0.

If your data is important to you, you need to have an external backup that isn't automatically continuously overwritten. This means raid 1 is *not* a backup, nor is raid 5.

However, for some things, there's really no need to back up - things that you can download again, for example, don't really need backing up. My solution to the backing up problem: if it's non-recreatable, make lots of copies. Digital photos, for example, get saved to an external drive, and some of them are sent to a webserver for display. DVD copies of things like band concerts get sent to relatives. But things like my collection of DVD rips or anime don't get any protection other than what raid 5 affords. The only difficulty with this strategy is determining what's replaceable and what's not. For example, I have 60GB of music ripped from my collection to flac; back it up or not? The answer depends on how long you're willing to sit around re-ripping CDs.

 

[rayman2k2]

How do you relate the likilhood [sic] of an unpredictable failure to the backup frequency? Any other catastrophe can cause complete loss of the data, so why backup less frequently because one mode of failure has been reduced?

Because if my house burns down, I have more to worry about than my files.


How can I relate the LIKELIHOOD of unpredictable failure to backup frequency? I can't. But I can assume that two drives wont break on me at once. I'm gonna say this again, because I don't think you understand:

one drive fails in RAID0 -> YOU ARE FUCKED
one drive fails in RAID5 -> YOU ARE NOT TOTALLY FUCKED

do you understand that?


And why the fucking hell do you care how often I backup my data? I am comfortable backing up by RAID5 array every month and a half to two months. If you want to prove me wrong, forcing me to back it up more often, why the hell don't you just do it for me?

 

[rayman2k2]

Raid 5 is an uptime boost only, as compared to raid 0. It is fault tolerant with regard to disks dying, true, but if you accidentally delete a file, or a virus corrupts the filesystem, you're just as screwed as with raid 0.

If your data is important to you, you need to have an external backup that isn't automatically continuously overwritten. This means raid 1 is *not* a backup, nor is raid 5.

However, for some things, there's really no need to back up - things that you can download again, for example, don't really need backing up. My solution to the backing up problem: if it's non-recreatable, make lots of copies. Digital photos, for example, get saved to an external drive, and some of them are sent to a webserver for display. DVD copies of things like band concerts get sent to relatives. But things like my collection of DVD rips or anime don't get any protection other than what raid 5 affords. The only difficulty with this strategy is determining what's replaceable and what's not. For example, I have 60GB of music ripped from my collection to flac; back it up or not? The answer depends on how long you're willing to sit around re-ripping CDs.

which is why every month and a half to two months, I make a DVD copy that sits in a fireproof safe.

 

[mikeblas]

do you understand that?

Of course. And I also understand that it is irrelevant when determining an appropriate backup frequency, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

 

[megadork]

Wow-- didn't mean to start a flame war here.... It's just a P3'ish motherboard with PCI slots and a 10gig IDE hard drive in it. I will be using it for single user access to movies, mp3, and documents.

I will most likely be running some form of linux on it and sharing the RAID as NFS. I will need to access it from both XP and OSX.

Any more info needed?

 

[rayman2k2]

Of course. And I also understand that it is irrelevant when determining an appropriate backup frequency, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

Fine than, how often do YOU back up?


Seemingly unlike you, I am more careful when it comes to accidental deletions and virii - and i save newer versions of files under different names.


I fail to see how you don't understand what I am saying - cause I understand what you are, even though it is excessive. In a nutshell -

Postulate #1:It is less likely to loose your data on RAID5 with one hdd failing when compared to RAID0.
Postulate #2: Backup often so you aren't totally screwed if an HDD's dies, but since loosing your data when an HDD fails is hard on a RAID5 array - to prevent yourself agains HDD's failing, you don't have to backup that often


Makes sense to me, and I haven't lost data yet.

 

[rayman2k2]

Wow-- didn't mean to start a flame war here.... It's just a P3'ish motherboard with PCI slots and a 10gig IDE hard drive in it. I will be using it for single user access to movies, mp3, and documents.

I will most likely be running some form of linux on it and sharing the RAID as NFS. I will need to access it from both XP and OSX.

Any more info needed?

Don't worry about it - mikeblas has a stick up his ass for some reason today


I would recommend going with RAID 0+1 or RAID 5 for maximum security against failure - obviously as noted in this thread (though taking alot more words than necessary) backup every now and then.


But don't listen to me, cause according to mikeblas my philosophy on hard drives is wrong - though it hasn't failed me yet

 

[megadork]

Don't worry about it - mikeblas has a stick up his ass for some reason today


I would recommend going with RAID 0+1 or RAID 5 for maximum security against failure - obviously as noted in this thread (though taking alot more words than necessary) backup every now and then.


But don't listen to me, cause according to mikeblas my philosophy on hard drives is wrong - though it hasn't failed me yet

Guys-- I'm not asking about which type of RAID... I am asking which CARD to put in the machine. There are some that as low as $20 and then there are some that are $450+! Which card is good for running in Linux/XP?

 

[mikeblas]

Guys-- I'm not asking about which type of RAID... I am asking which CARD to put in the machine. There are some that as low as $20 and then there are some that are $450+! Which card is good for running in Linux/XP?

Once you figure out what interface (PCI, PCI-X, PCI 64bit, etc) you need, you can go look at the list of Windows-compatible cards in the Windows Hardware Compatibility List. Then, figure out which one handles the load and has the features you want.

One of the most substantial differences is in implementation; is the parity calculation done in hardware, or software? The more expensive cards do more in hardware ot offlowad the work from the processor. This is more efficient. You might not need that, depending on your application.

 

[Drudenhaus]

IMO the best fault tolerant solution is to use RAID 5/10/whatever you want that's fault tolerant and your fucking brain.

That's right, your brain is an excellent tool to prevent data loss. Don't delete stuff 'accidentally' and for crying out loud, viruses? I haven't had a virus since like 1998 or something... If it's a file server then just put it in the corner, don't surf the web on it, and don't let the kids play with it.

Then you're pretty much down the non-drive hardware failure (PSU, etc) and file system corruption...

 

[mikeblas]

Fine than, [sic] how often do YOU back up?

I don't see how that's relevant.

It's also something that I can't answer concisely: I've got about two dozen machines that I'm directly responsible for, each with different data, different users, and different requirements and different backup schedules. I use many other machines, again each with different applications and requirements.

I guess I can try to collect a list for you, but you'll need to convince me that it's worth the effort to do so.

Seemingly unlike you, I am more careful when it comes to accidental deletions and virii - and i save newer versions of files under different names.

How careful I am doesn't matter, either, as I'm not the only one using the machine.

I fail to see how you don't understand what I am saying - cause I understand what you are, even though it is excessive. In a nutshell -

Postulate #1:It is less likely to loose your data on RAID5 with one hdd failing when compared to RAID0.
Postulate #2: Backup often so you aren't totally screwed if an HDD's dies, but since loosing your data when an HDD fails is hard on a RAID5 array - to prevent yourself agains HDD's failing, you don't have to backup that often

I understand it. I just think it's wrong. Postulate #1 I can agree with, stipulating that drive failure is the most likely cause of data loss. It actually isn't; user error is.

Postulate #2 simply doesn't make sense. You want a backup that's current so you can loose less work when recovering. That's got nothing to do with how likely a drive failure is.

 

[rayman2k2]

IMO the best fault tolerant solution is to use RAID 5/10/whatever you want that's fault tolerant and your fucking brain.

That's right, your brain is an excellent tool to prevent data loss. Don't delete stuff 'accidentally' and for crying out loud, viruses? I haven't had a virus since like 1998 or something... If it's a file server then just put it in the corner, don't surf the web on it, and don't let the kids play with it.

Then you're pretty much down the non-drive hardware failure (PSU, etc) and file system corruption...

precisely

 

[Deleted member 21895]

That's right, your brain is an excellent tool to prevent data loss. Don't delete stuff 'accidentally' and for crying out loud, viruses? I haven't had a virus since like 1998 or something... If it's a file server then just put it in the corner, don't surf the web on it, and don't let the kids play with it.

thats another good point, I can't recall when the last virus I had was... considering most everyone that uses this forums knows something about computers so they know enough to have a good virus scanner that is kept up to date... if you don't go asking for trouble, generally you don't receive trouble...

 

[Monkey34]

I just do it the easy way.........................one HDD, no back-ups.

Its the "over the top" excitement I've been looking for in life.

 

[mikeblas]

Let me fix that for you:

precisely wrong

Here's how you can prove it yourself:

1) Get an IT job at a bank. (Hope they dont' ask any questions about disaster management; otherwise, you won't get hired!)
2) Let a VP (there will be hundreds of them--not hard to find one) delete a directory full of important data.
3) Tell the VP that they should've used "their own fucking brain" to defend against the data loss.
4) Explain to the VP that, since you decided to do less frequent backups because you bought more reliable drives, you'll roll him back to last week instead of yesterday.
5) Get a new job.

 

[jellyhead]

Let me fix that for you:


Here's how you can prove it yourself:

1) Get an IT job at a bank. (Hope they dont' ask any questions about disaster management; otherwise, you won't get hired!)
2) Let a VP (there will be hundreds of them--not hard to find one) delete a directory full of important data.
3) Tell the VP that they should've used "their own fucking brain" to defend against the data loss.
4) Explain to the VP that, since you decided to do less frequent backups because you bought more reliable drives, you'll roll him back to last week instead of yesterday.
5) Get a new job.

Spot on.

I'm responsible for many TBs of data across a number of organizations. Mainly there are only 2 things I really need to worry about when dealing with them.

1. Are their systems up?
2. Do they have a backup from yesterday?

Ideally they're running Veritas 10d with Continuous Protection Agent.

To the OP - maybe go for something from Highpoint - their 'Rocket' range (1640 4-channel SATA RAID 5 Host Adapter - approx £80). Reasonably priced; however should you need more capacity - 2220 8 Channel SATA II Host Adaptor - approx £180.

 

[bexamous]

Yea because working at a bank and storing movies on a file server at home is pretty similar ?

Everyone should invest in a tape backup so they can do nightly backups and put them in a fireproof safe.... that obviously the minimum steps that should be taken for a home file server... anything less is all exactly the same- not enough.

BUT NO! I'll probe you wrong! I say you need to alway save 2 sets of backups at idfferent locations because if a bomb blows up and kills your fireproof safe obviously are screwed... might of just been using raid0. If you don't have 2 sets of backups in different locations then you're just stupid.

UNTIL(!!!) 2 bombs go off in 2 different locations killing both sets of tape backups!!! WTF!? SO obvioulsy anything less than having 3 sets of backups in differnet locations is all the same- not enough.

With any backup theres still a possiblity you lose your data, even if you stick it in a fireproof safe the chance of lsoing it is super small but it will never be 0. You might say raid5 is not a substitue ofr backups, I say one set of backups in a fireproof safe is not a subsititue for having 1000 sepreate copies in different locations in fireproof safes.

I'm right because my data will be safer.

 

[jellyhead]

Bank or home, it matters not - it comes down to how 'mission critical' your data is to you.

If you worship your data to the point that losing it might push you to a nervous breakdown, then back it up a couple of times. For example I keep really important stuff backed up on 2 separate HDDs, with a further backup to DVD. 3 separate locations. That should do, and if it doesn't - I've taken reasonable measure, beyond which I'd file it under 'sh1t happens'.

 

[unhappy_mage]

Bank or home, it matters not - it comes down to how 'mission critical' your data is to you.

If you worship your data to the point that losing it might push you to a nervous breakdown, then back it up a couple of times. For example I keep really important stuff backed up on 2 separate HDDs, with a further backup to DVD. 3 separate locations. That should do, and if it doesn't - I've taken reasonable measure, beyond which I'd file it under 'sh1t happens'.

QFT

 

[mikeblas]

Bank or home, it matters not - it comes down to how 'mission critical' your data is to you.

Of course!

There's also the bicycle lock problem, as bexamous seems to be trying to explain. At some point, you're solving a problem that's profoundly unlikely. By then, you might be spending more money than the replacement cost of what you're trying to protect.

The point is that backup frequency doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of the storage. It has a lot more to do with how hard the data is to recreate or replace.

 

[TeeJayHoward]

The point is that backup frequency doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of the storage. It has a lot more to do with how hard the data is to recreate or replace.

That's just the way I see it.

A) If the data is so important that you cannot live without it (Ex. - Family photos), I'd recommend copying it to an external hard drive or DVD and giving it to a friend to hold on to for you.
B) For anything less important than that or sensitive materials(Ex. - Resume, Financial Information, etc), I'd have a backup copy on an external HDD somewhere in my own house.
C) For recoverable data that'd just be a pain to recover (Ex. - Anime you downloaded), I'd recommend nothing more than a RAID-5 setup.
D) For any data that's easily recoverable (Ex. - Software isntallers), don't bother backing it up. Chances are, by the time you'd need to restore from your backup, you're using a new version anyway.

 

[lithium726]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816115015

I just got that for my file server

Going to be running 3x 250's in RAID5 with a DVD backup I just made of my stuff.

 

[rayman2k2]

Let me fix that for you:


Here's how you can prove it yourself:

1) Get an IT job at a bank. (Hope they dont' ask any questions about disaster management; otherwise, you won't get hired!)
2) Let a VP (there will be hundreds of them--not hard to find one) delete a directory full of important data.
3) Tell the VP that they should've used "their own fucking brain" to defend against the data loss.
4) Explain to the VP that, since you decided to do less frequent backups because you bought more reliable drives, you'll roll him back to last week instead of yesterday.
5) Get a new job.

sorry i don't ever plan on going into IT



just to make you happy mikeblas, i'm gonna backup my RAID5 array every minute for the rest of my life - and store the copies in safe locations throughout the world



shit happens, things you cant control and things you can. i personally don't have the time to worry about backing shit up constantly. i am not an IT professional - nor do i plan to be.

but one thing that i have is common sense. i have four accessible copies of my dissertation. one in 'my documents', one in my raid5 array, one on my webserver, and one on my usb pen drive. all my photos are backed up, and most important files are backed up in quite a few places (pc, raid5, backup server). I've had a few drives die on me in the past, but i've never had two or more die on me at once. i'm comfortable with my RAID5 array for personal use, and I don't think the thread creator runs a multi-billion dollar corporation.


i'm gonna quite bickering with you, cause it's like telling a white wall to color itself yellow - your not changing your opinion nor am i changing mine. however (just to make you happy and shut up) - if i do run a multi-billion dollar corporation, i would hope that my backups would happen nightly, but since i dont, I don't really give a fucking rats ass.

 

[mikeblas]

i'm comfortable with my RAID5 array for personal use, and I don't think the thread creator runs a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Maybe he does run a large company; even if he doesn't, he probably has data that he needs to correctly manage. As such, we owe it to him to give complete and competent advice.

Since you can't back up your assertions and instead focus on rhetoric, vulgarity, and incendiary comments, I simply don't find you very convincing.

 

[rayman2k2]

Maybe he does run a large company; even if he doesn't, he probably has data that he needs to correctly manage. As such, we owe it to him to give complete and competent advice.

Since you can't back up your assertions and instead focus on rhetoric, vulgarity, and incendiary comments, I simply don't find you very convincing.

Alright. I've got an old Gateway box that is pretty much good for nothing. I am wanting to turn it into a fileserver. I am thinking to get 4x 300gb seagate drives. I know they're having a weekend sale right now that's got them down to $94.99.

riiiight, he IS running a large company....


and what the hell is there to back up? I am asserting my opinions, not fact. Backup your data every hour, what the hell do I care? I started by giving my opinion, you criticized. I stated why I liked my opinion, and yet you still continued to criticize. Frankly, you come off as a stuck up creep.

There is fine line between user level and corporations. I don't have the money to build up a tape backup system, nor do I have the patience to back everything every day.

Unfortunately, mikeblas, it seems you cannot distinguish opinion from fact. Everything I stated was opinionated (and I even stated that), I even stated that backup methodology should change on the corporate level. I have stated this time and time again: I backup enough for me to feel comfortable if a HDD is lost. For some reason, you still find the need to criticize my opinions as harsh as you do. So let me say it again:

I BACKUP ENOUGH FOR ME TO FEEL COMFORTABLE IF A HDD IS LOST


And I formally now give up. I don't care what you have to say, cause come tonight, I'm still going to be backing up the same way. Come tomorrow, the same way. Come next year, the same way. Congratulations mikeblas, you e-penus account has been credited with 1" of respect

 

[Monkey34]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16816115015. I just got that for my file server. Going to be running 3x 250's in RAID5 with a DVD backup I just made of my stuff.

GOLD STAR for lithium726 for being the only one in thread (myself included) to actually give a suggestion to the original question.

 

[rayman2k2]

Maybe he does run a large company; even if he doesn't, he probably has data that he needs to correctly manage. As such, we owe it to him to give complete and competent advice.

Since you can't back up your assertions and instead focus on rhetoric, vulgarity, and incendiary comments, I simply don't find you very convincing.

P.S. It's hard to back up the fact that I am comfortable with my data storage methodology. I'm sorry if everyone on [H] does not spout opinions to your liking - this is a message board, where the OP asked for other's opinions on a topic as well as how to execute the topic. He wanted RAID0 (something amazingly someone like the sherlock that you are has completely disregarded), and I told him that wont be good enough for data storage and data safety. Whatever you have said in this thread as also been your opinion and essentially, your only way to backup your assertion is if something statistically impossible becomes possible. In addition to that, your opinions are those where more people worry about them - you back up data for a bank. I back up data for myself. Your posts have been highly opinionated, and quite frankly, rude. Be rude to me, and I be rude to you. Quid pro quo. Not to mention, you actually haven't backed up any of your assertions either. I simply don't find you very convincing.

 

[rayman2k2]

Alright. I've got an old Gateway box that is pretty much good for nothing. I am wanting to turn it into a fileserver. I am thinking to get 4x 300gb seagate drives. I know they're having a weekend sale right now that's got them down to $94.99.

What controller should I use? I am trying to go on the cheap side- not looking to expand it any time soon... What do you all recommend?

I'm gonna try and answer this without being harshly criticized by mikeblas


Again, I recommend RAID5 - sorry mike, you didn't change my opinion. It's - IN MY OPINION - the safest out of all the RAIDs while allowing the most space. The card that lithium pointed out is a good card, but newegg has quite a few. Also, what is your budget? And do you want room to expand in the future (i know you said you didn't, but would you like the option?)?


Now, where's my gold star?

 

[jellyhead]

Since you can't back up your assertions and instead focus on rhetoric, vulgarity, and incendiary comments, I simply don't find you very convincing.

Hear, hear.

A goodly amount of contradiction too, and don't get me started on the young man's grammatical prowess

By the way, mikeblas, really enjoyed your neat reference to 'back up' when making reference to the chap's inability to substantiate his assertions