In need of a new PC

[neil_g]

I wouldn't trust RAID1 as a backup.

THIS.

Hi, could you please elaborate a bit more?

I know software RAID can sometimes be a bit of fail, so one should always go with the hardware RAID if possible. Also on top of that, regardless what type of RAID you using or what setup (ie, RAID1, RAID5, etc ) you should always backup the data externally... but assuming that's done, what would be the risk of running RAID1 setup? (I assume once the disk develops the fault, you replace it ASAP, and NOT leave it running for like a month ^^)

RAID1 does not protect against:

deletion, corruption, fire, theft, flood. it also does not protect against some types of hardware failure. example, an array controller (server grade) that has failed and it writes bad data all over each of the attached drives. on that occasion cue a restore from tape which saw me on site to 3am then back in at 7am.

if you are going to use RAID, no matter what level, ALWAYS have a at least 1 other copy on another device(s). i dont care how good devices are these days at supposedly letting X amount of disks fail or whatever to not have another copy is plain lazy and silly concidering the cost of storage these days.

 

[arad85]

Also on top of that, regardless what type of RAID you using or what setup (ie, RAID1, RAID5, etc ) you should always backup the data externally...

And you've just said the same as I did - RAID isn't a method of backup. Always store on another drive/DVD/BR/tape/offsite etc..

I currently have the original data plus two backups across two machines. This really isn't enough as the two machines are within 5 feet of each other. I will shove a network disk the other end of the house and backup to that one day.

 

[Blundred77]

Still hunting for best prices, almost purchased a system from ALTERA computers but the price kept getting higher (even though I took of bits, lol). Then almost purchased from Overclockers to build myself but there prices change daily.

Now have supplier sorted but have one question

Which to go for

i5 2500k "sandybridge" or i7 2600k "sandybridge"

I would love the i7 but that will use up all available funds where as the i5 lets me have a little cash for something else.

 

[arad85]

i5 2500k "sandybridge" or i7 2600k "sandybridge"

The main difference is in the number of threads available. Both these processors have 4 cores, it's just the i7 has 2 threads per core. That means, when you are running something that is computationally difficult and can be split into parallel tasks (e.g. applying most filters to images or encoding video) you can get a boost in performance (the boost will be somewhere between a factor of 1 and 2 on the i7). You have to have software that is designed to make use of this though (PS and LR are).

As to which one - the i7 is going to be faster. Have a look through the review I posted (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083) to give you a feeling for how much faster. For most benchmarks, you are getting a 10% quicker machine with the i7 (there are some where you are close to 50-60% faster - look at the Visual Studio compile, but that's compiling a web browser - something which is pretty specialised ). To put this into perspective, an overclocked i5 would probably beat a stock speed i7. You'd need to overclock the i7 to get back the lead.

If you're going with K parts, make sure you get a motherboard based on P67 or Z68 chipsets. That way, you can use the potential of the unlocked multiplier and get a good overclock by upping the turbo multiplier.

 

[Blundred77]

Thanks for the reply. I had read about the threads being the only real difference but I was not aware of what the "real terms" difference would be. The motherboard I will be getting is the ASUS P8P67 PRO as this seems to be a very good board, looked at the Sabretooth version as well due to its cooling etc but may just stick with the PRO

 

[arad85]

I have the P8P67 standard. It does fine for me....