 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
depending on your audio card, you may be able to boost the gain on your mic. i remember a creative card had a +20db boost setting buried in the control panel somewhere.
Didn't want to buy a headset as I already have a good set of headphones.
Anyway it's kinda sorted as with negke's moral support / mocking disbelief, I hacked apart the stand from the desk mic and cut a notch so it can clip onto those headphones, hey presto DIY headset. Apparently it works although the quality is quite poor. It remains to be seen if you're ready to face Biff in an Ellis competition. Maybe some of the things mentioned in the FAQ can help improve the sound quality to an acceptable degree.
At the very least, you can do classic 11khz Shambler roars now. Worked in game last night but apparently Biff was usurped by his nephew so didn't get to do an Ellis-off...
if you have a set of identical hdds, but one of them already has data from a non-raid setup, is it possible to create the raid 1 set without loosing the data without having a third hdd to temporarily store the data on?
i couldn't find any information about what happened since most raid info pretty much assumed you were using brand new disks.
Be aware that RAID1 is only protecting you from harddrive failure. It is not a backup at all. You do not want RAID1 unless you are running a highly important service.
80gb Intel X25-M: http://jago.pp.fi/temp/SSD-LOL.jpg
1,5tb Seagate Barracuda: http://jago.pp.fi/temp/HDD-LOL.jpg Note that the Barracuda isn't really a "slow" disk at all, its actually one of the better traditional mechanical disks, it's just that NAND media wipes the floor with everything. Then I looked at the numbers, hehe.
Past 16MB the HDD has the lead in write speeds, is that because of a larger cache? Does it matter? Rendered irrelevant through the huge difference in latency? SSDs traditionally lose in raw sequential write throughput, but dominate in read speed and minimal latency (we're talking a difference of 7-8ms to 0.1ms). There are SSDs that have excellent writes as well, for example the Intel X-25E and a few others that push above 190mb/s writes, but these are enterprise grade drives where a 80gb disk will cost you over 650-800 euro.
The numbers you were looking at are not MBs, they are KBs. The test reads and writes 256mb files in blocks of 0.5, 0.1, 2, 4, 16, etc.
If you put your OS and favorite games on the SSD, then you would mostly be reading that data, not writing it.
No matter how smart and cunning you are when implementing your bulletproof storage solution, you are a complete retard if you expect "reasonable" performance from a disk controller card attached to a 66 Mhz PCI 32bit bus.
Individual disks on the controller: 75mb/s reads and writes 2 disks on the same controller in a mirror: 48mb/s reads and 28mb/s writes. this is if you want to start digging: http://jago.pp.fi/images/terminal.png
100 euro gets you this: http://jago.pp.fi/temp/intel40gbssd.png
Intel 40gb 2nd gen SSD, perfect for a budget performance system, great read speed, awesome 0.1ms seek time, but pretty low write speed. 200 euro gets you this: http://jago.pp.fi/temp/SSD-LOL.jpg Intel 80gb 2nd gen SSD, the true overall best consumer SSD, double the cost not only gets you double the space, but also noticably higher read and write speeds how could you consider that mainstream? 40gb is just barely enough for your os, and maybe a few content creation applications and a single game.
You can get 6 times more storage capacity for quarter of the price compared to the Intel drive. Hardly mainstream yet. I could see them as supplemental drives, though, at the moment.
Even budget laptops these days come with 320GB.
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |