Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Andyb on 25 December 2009, 21:49:17

Title: hard drives
Post by: Andyb on 25 December 2009, 21:49:17
Any one on here recommend and nice quiet hard drive must be reliable too
specs are
500mb max x2
needed for a nas server
and any ideas on places to obtain them apart from egay
discuss please  :y
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: tunnie on 25 December 2009, 22:03:26
i use eBuyer for all my tech stuff, not always the cheapest, but always had brilliant service from them.

Which ever on you get make sure its 7,200 rpm
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Mr Skrunts on 25 December 2009, 22:05:07
Aria or ebuyer.  I put 2 x500 seagates in mine, but I do like the samsung spinpoints
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Andyb on 25 December 2009, 22:18:16
Quote
Aria or ebuyer.  I put 2 x500 seagates in mine, but I do like the samsung spinpoints

for what reason skruntie
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Mr Skrunts on 25 December 2009, 22:20:22
Quote
Quote
Aria or ebuyer.  I put 2 x500 seagates in mine, but I do like the samsung spinpoints

for what reason skruntie


Smooth, quiet and a reasonable brice, deciding factor was they also have 32mb cache on the 1TB

Now have 6 x 1 TB and 2 x 1.5 TB never had a hiccup with any of them.

http://www.aria.co.uk/Products?search=32mb+cache&p_order=price_asc&p=

http://www.ebuyer.com/search?sort=pricelow&q=32mb%2Bcache&limit=50&page=1
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Mr Skrunts on 25 December 2009, 22:23:59
2 links in last post as well now.

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/167819
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Andyb on 25 December 2009, 22:31:20
thank you sir will have a look see  :y
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Andy H on 25 December 2009, 22:32:22
Is there any advantage (noise? power consumption?) to using 2.5" or 1.8" drives?
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Mr Skrunts on 25 December 2009, 22:35:50
Quote
Is there any advantage (noise? power consumption?) to using 2.5" or 1.8" drives?


Possibly, but in this case they need to 3.5 drives to fit the NAS box snuggly.
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: TheBoy on 26 December 2009, 10:41:57
I like the spinpoints.  So much so that OOF runs from a couple (admittedly via an HP P400 SMART array controller).

Not sure I agree with Tunnie about the 7200 - unless you really need to constantly thrash them (in which case, 10k pr 15k disks).  I know use a 5400 1.5Tb in the media centre (an app that you'd think would cry out for faster disks), same performance as the old 1Tb 7200 spinpoint.


Spinpoints are also pretty quiet as well.
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Kevin Wood on 26 December 2009, 11:46:23
Quote
... Not sure I agree with Tunnie about the 7200 - unless you really need to constantly thrash them (in which case, 10k pr 15k disks).....

Very true. In addition, the density of the data is so high on these drives that an awful lot of data comes off the platters in one revolution. The limiting factor is probably getting it into the PC or the time lost in seeking the track in the first place.

In this application a slower drive will be quieter, cheaper to run, run cooler and probably last longer all things being equal.

I've had a WD10EADS Caviar Green drive running in my music server for the last year and it's been fine. Bit long in the tooth now, of course, so probably not the best choice any more.

Kevin
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Ken T on 26 December 2009, 12:09:20
CCL online http://www.cclonline.com/ are not bad. They have Seagate 500G's for around £37. I am a bit spoilt as they are only just up the road from me.  :y

Ken
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Mr Skrunts on 26 December 2009, 13:27:39
Daft question time.  Is there a reason that these NAS boxes only use upto 500gb, or can they be upgraded to take higher capacity drives.


I have a linksys NAS drive, it only allows upto 500GB per drive.
Title: Re: hard drives
Post by: Andyb on 26 December 2009, 16:51:00
i think it depends on maker
one i seen its 2x500mb
but its cheap there are more expensive that will take up to 4tb but for home network too expensive to be  viable