Im wondering what disk should I use for raid?
2 IBM 120gxp or 2 maxtor ata133s...
I looks like the 120gxp beats the maxtor somewhat...
anyways which of the 2 or if you know of a dif drive please let me know.. I don't really want to but a Wd 8mb cache..

Hey whats up. I have a maxtor ultra ata 133 and it runs fast. I don't think the gxp 120 is that much faster than a maxtor 740D. With ultra ata 133 you get a 33mb more burst mode than the ibm gxp 120. Plus Ibm has had some issues with defective drives, so i would go with a maxtor

*Spectre 9600* The card that changed the vaporware world.

I would also go with the Maxtor D740X series. You won't see any difference in speed from ATA100 to ATA133, but the drive itself seems to perform fairly well!

I'm with the last poster, and wouldn't even dream about getting anything IBM after the problems that are going around. It's kind of like your local airport ... would you go on a plane ride if you heard that any plane out of that airport was dropping to the ground every time one took off?

<font color=red>People and hard drives are like bandwagon fans and sports!</font color=red>

Where did you get the ibm 120 benchmark data, I'd be really interested in seeing it.

May Fortune Favor The Foolish

When considering my own RAID 0 setup I looked at all available 60GB drives and decided on the Maxtor's - here's why:

Conditions-
24/7/365 99% read-only video streaming on a LAN
Bandwidth is primary issue - seek time is not
Data backup to slower large single hard disk on a nightly basis (rotated), so redundancy is not a primary issue.
Need the drives to out-live the warranty (I don't want redundancy to become a regular issue - I want the drives to last).

IBM - drives perform VERY well and are quiet, but:
60GXP's have longetivity problems - the drives will most likely require warranty exchange after 1-2 years of use.
120GXP's have not yet shown better reliablilty (and IBM recommending only 8-10 hours of daily use doesn't instill confidence).

Seagate:
Barracuda IV - shows excellent performance under single drive configurations, but a timing issue causes RAID 0 arrays to perform extremely poorly - sometimes worse than a single drive.

WD:
Current 60GB 7200RPM drives perform OK, but are near the bottom of the pile.
Single 100-120GB JB drives with 8MB cache perform extremely well, but not as well as a 120GB RAID array - These drives are expensive and I can get better performance from a 2 x 60GB RAID 0 array.

Maxtor:
ATA133 King - with 3-4 drive RAID 0 this becomes important.
current 60GB drives are very well priced and perform very close to IBM. They appear to be rebranded Quantum Fireballs (excellent reliability and performance) as Maxtor now owns Quantum.

Maxtor is not the performance leader, but considering price, performance, longetivity, and reliablility I went with Maxtor.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

What would you say to 2 x 120GB JB RAID 0 array? Or a 4 x 120GB JB array?

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> </b>

Go for it if you've got the cash (cache too...hehe). These are currently the fastest IDE drives available and have 8MB of cache. I would look at a 64bit PCI RAID card (and appropriate motherboard too) because you'll easily max out 32bit PCI with 4 of these drives in a RAID 0 array.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

With 4 drives, you have nearly 0.5TB of disk space!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

I'd never use all the space with my home needs, but I fancy the idea of 4 x 8MB cache.

I wish they'ed release smaller drives with more cache. I'd happily pay more. When I think about it, the difference in price between the BB and the JB of similar capacities are not that much different in price. I'd much rather have 4 x 40GB with 32MB cache!!!

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> </b>

I have an IBM 120GXP 120GB running 24/7 from about 5 weeeks.
It performs very well. Here are the results from ZD winbench99 disk inspection test: trasfer rate at the beginning of the disk 48 MB/s (after 30 GB is still 45.8 MB/s)
CPU usage 3.5 %, seek time 9.8 ms (it takes into account the complete seek operation) the transfer rate at the end of the drive is 23.4 MB/s but I cannot believe you can use all 120 GB of disk space to use the last slow cylinder.
HDtach reports the burst transfer rate is 91.5 MB/s
Sisoft Sandra 2002 score 31400.
But take care that not all disk drive multiply their performances when connected in RAID 0 configuration. IBM 75GXP is probably a champion because it is possible to "squeeze" all drive potential in this kind of configuration. It is somewhat better than 60GXP which is faster in single configuration. I don't know about the 120GXP but I will get you informed as soon I will buy an other 120GB 120GXP. In principle you should get up to some 93÷95 MB/s with only two drives (I got 94 MB/s with three 75GXP 30GB)
I believe 120GXP is a very good disk drive but having a server which need to run (evidently to make money) 24/7/365 I would go to SCSI RAID 5 that "probably" allows better performances and reliability.

IBM specifically states that the 120GXPs should not be run constantly more than 8-10 hours per day. They call it a "desktop" drive and recommend that you should not use it in a 24/7 or server environment. Yes these drives are excellent performers, but after the problems we've see with the 75GXPs and 60GXPs, and now this unprecedented warranty condition for the 120GXPs, I could never recommend them for a server. If you want to do RAID multiples of 120GB, go with the WD JB's or Maxtor ATA133s.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

According to <A HREF="http://www.storagereview.com" target="_new">storage review</A> the 333hours/month recommended power on time is not a warranty condition.

"<i>IBM stands by the 3-year warranty for the 120GXP. Power-on hours will not be a determining factor in negating the warranty</i>."

Not anymore, at least. But, IBM <i>did</i> try to sneak this one in under the radar and failed soley due to public outcry. This was (is) in an attempt to prevent users from being able to sue them over premature drive failure and data loss. Had a big deal not been made about it, people would have been getting regections on their 120GXP's after a failure - I can just hear it now - "OK, Mr. Smith, and one more question before we process your RMA - what type of system were you using your 120GXP in?"

I have been involved in RMA'ing countless devices over the years (not due to my error - ever - I promise, no really...). Many of the customer service agents have scripts specifically designed to entrap the customer in an "at-fault" situation where the company doesn't have to RMA the item - and I'm not talking about blatent user error either.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

It is NOT like this is something new. The Power on Hours were there for the 60GXP. They have been listed for the laptop drives for a while. I keep reading about how this came about because of the 75GXP. The info for the 60GXP was out before the lawsuit.

I guess I'm missing all of the fuss. Would you prefer they continue to list a mean time between failures like other manufactures. Do you really think 500,000 hours is a realistic failure estimate. That is 57 years. Show me a drive you have run for 57 years.

Obviously, they didn't present the information in the best way. But really, they have explained the stat already.

How? PCs weren't invented back then.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

They did exist, they just took up a little more room.

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> </b>