1TB HD replacing 500GB - opinion

[zebra14]

Well, I chickened out after I combined two recording directories and realized one source drive was an IDE that I planned to keep in the box always. So, I cloned a 500GB SATA to the SATA 1TB, pulled the single 500 and have even more space now.

Used to be when one moved files, you had to leave the old path in place so Sage could re-find them. With the new advanced procedure, it appears that is no longer needed?

It's funny, but my Dad used to say "No matter how well you explain something, someone will misunderstand." Heh...

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by zebra14

Used to be when one moved files, you had to leave the old path in place so Sage could re-find them. With the new advanced procedure, it appears that is no longer needed?

Right -- one of the new properties allows SageTV to rematch files on paths that aren't currenlty visible. That's one reason not to leave that property set all the time.

- Andy

[Shield]

Without getting way too deep about the merits of Raid (which I run) or the pure performance perspective, and the end of the day it this:

250 GB IDE/SATA is going to be slower due to the technology than a 1 gb drive. Plus they take up FOUR molex connectors/sata connectors/Sata power connectors/IDE (pick any two). This is the deal breaker.

[garyellis]

Why would a 250GB drive be slower than a 1 TB drive...They both can be current technology?... I do understand the 4 SATA slots...I think I have about 12 on my MOBO...So, using 4 is not a big problem.

Gary Ellis

[Sam]

Originally Posted by garyellis

Why would a 250GB drive be slower than a 1 TB drive...They both can be current technology?

Because higher capacity drives also have a higher density. That is, although both may be spinning at 7200rpm, the 1TB drives have more bits passing under them in a given rotation.

[garyellis]

True, but I probably did not explain it right... The roadblock is access speed...if the 4 disks are being simaltaneously accessed, that would seem to be much faster than 1 disk being accessed.

Gary Ellis

[Djc208]

Originally Posted by garyellis

I've noticed this when I built my latest computer. Before I had (2) 250GB drives in a Raid config as 1 drive letter. Now I do not have them in a raid on the new computer and each is their own drive letter. I have noticed more spinning circles since I made the change. Yes, it could be other things. But, as I eliminate "causes", the problems point to read/write speed. And this becomes even more important as we go more toward HD recording.

Imagine the read/write accesses if you are recording 2 HD shows and watching 2 all at the same time from the same drive and maybe trying to run comskip, too...
Gary Ellis

I wouldn't think the separate drives to be much slower than the combined drives in RAID, even striped you still have the same number of read/write heads and just have to hope that multiple requests are not being handled by the same drive. With Sage recording to all these drive I would think it actually better than a RAID setup since Sage will record to the drive with the most space, so assuming they're all full (or empty) means the recordings should be spread across the drives fairly evenly.

The extra delays could be due to the power settings. I'd think 4 drives in a RAID would all spin up/down together, vice four separate drives only the needed one(s) would be up. Better for power management, worse for performance.

[Shield]

Originally Posted by Djc208

I wouldn't think the separate drives to be much slower than the combined drives in RAID, even striped you still have the same number of read/write heads and just have to hope that multiple requests are not being handled by the same drive. With Sage recording to all these drive I would think it actually better than a RAID setup since Sage will record to the drive with the most space, so assuming they're all full (or empty) means the recordings should be spread across the drives fairly evenly.

The extra delays could be due to the power settings. I'd think 4 drives in a RAID would all spin up/down together, vice four separate drives only the needed one(s) would be up. Better for power management, worse for performance.

Well, if he's running RAID1 (mirroring) the write performance is going to take a huge hit - remember it has to write everything twice! Read speed should be improved though.

[garyellis]

my drives were "striped" before...and thus in a "striped" array, 2 drives should perform faster than 1 bigger drive...

I think....

Gary Ellis