Comments on system build?

[rmccinc]

Hello, I am building a new sys from newegg products. I would appreciate
any input on the hardware I have selected:
-------------
Antec SONATA II Piano Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 450Watt
SmartPower 2.0 ATX

Thermaltake XRound Cable SATA-UV 18-Inch 2-Head (SERIAL ATA 150) Cable,
BLUE Model

Western Digital Caviar SE WD3200JD 320GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard
Drive - OEM

CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered
System Memory

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Processor Model
ADA3200BPBOX - Retail

ASUS N6200/TD/128 Geforce 6200 128MB DDR AGP 4X/8X Video Card - Retail

 

[jim dorey]

Hello, I am building a new sys from newegg products. I would appreciate
any input on the hardware I have selected:

i find the sonata series kinda ugly, i'd get a silverstone htpc case, or a
codegen, but for you, the sonata may be fine(check reviews at the mod
sites, they'll tell if it's easy to work with, i've seen a few that say
'not really').

CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered
System Memory

in some cases 2x512 would be lots cheaper, and no big hassle if you're not
going to add ram later, though you could pass it on to another computer
easily. if the board can take faster ram and you think maybe you'll
upgrade it later, may as well pay the least you can get away with now.

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Processor Model
ADA3200BPBOX - Retail

eeh, sure, go ahead, if you're not a gamer or serious image/video editor
it'll be fine, for everything but the next generation of games(they seem
to rely on brute video card power these days). if you're going by budget
right now, and planning to upgrade, you should think of price/performance
ratio(price per hundred mhz works ok), same as price per gig for hard
disks(compare granny smiths to braeburn though, same access
speed/buffer/platter speed).

ASUS N6200/TD/128 Geforce 6200 128MB DDR AGP 4X/8X Video Card - Retail

if you're getting a recent board, and most boards that support 939
processors are new, try for a serial pci interface, something with
parallel as well if you have older cards. some prices i've seen suggest
that parallel pci or 939 are sometimes much more expensive than the serial
varient.

it looks to me as i you're trying to build a value system with some of the
parts, and a speedy one from the other, would you be building a server?
if so i suggest two hard disks in a hardware raid type 1 config, and bear
in mind, some have had a bear of a time installing xp or other MS os's to
sata, and keeping them working. i've seen suggestions, and support the
suggestion of running a small pata drive for boot part.

 

[rmccinc]

thanks for the input, I am trying to build a good web dev and small
business machine. no time for games. value/speed/future is what im
shootin for now. I like the 1GB stick, mobo handles 4 of them, the one
I selected seems cheaper than most 2-512 setups and the CORSAIR
ValueSelect seems to get rave reviews, personally I have never had
issues with cheap ram.

The only issue I see is the sata hdd setup. I read that sata is faster
and and the hdd setup of the future. I have read the only issues is the
pre-install of the interface drivers at the begining of windows
install, which can be loaded via floppy. I could play it safe and go
with ide, but I like the false sense of speed. I am sorta conserned by
yout comment of "and keeping them working."

Not too familiar with creating a seperate boot partition other than the
win install partition??

 

[rmccinc]

another concern of mine is once I get XP install to recognize the sata
hdd, will the xp install partition manager be able to handle the 320GB
drive. I understand XP to not recognize partitons > 150GB. I plan on
breaking it up, but I wonder if the partiton part will go smooth
without a 3rd party partition manager of sort?? Never had a hdd this
large, guess I will find out.

 

[CBFalconer]

thanks for the input, I am trying to build a good web dev and small
business machine. no time for games. value/speed/future is what im
shootin for now. I like the 1GB stick, mobo handles 4 of them, the
one I selected seems cheaper than most 2-512 setups and the CORSAIR
ValueSelect seems to get rave reviews, personally I have never had
issues with cheap ram.

You should ensure you get ECC ram, and that the MB chipset is
capable of using it. All other portions of the normal data paths
have checking, and will not be fouled by random noise or cosmic
rays. Memory needs ECC for that. Then you can be confident of no
unnoticed foulups.

 

[Derek Baker]

another concern of mine is once I get XP install to recognize the sata
hdd, will the xp install partition manager be able to handle the 320GB
drive. I understand XP to not recognize partitons > 150GB.

I've got a single 186 GB partition on my C: drive, under XP SP2.

 

[Alceryes]

hdd, will the xp install partition manager be able to handle the 320GB

drive. I understand XP to not recognize partitons > 150GB.

Are you referring to the 137GB limit? I think that was fixed in Win XP SP1,
wasn't it? In any case this is no longer a limit of an up-to-date Windows XP
system.

 

[GT]

thanks for the input, I am trying to build a good web dev and small
business machine. no time for games. value/speed/future is what im
shootin for now. I like the 1GB stick, mobo handles 4 of them, the one
I selected seems cheaper than most 2-512 setups and the CORSAIR
ValueSelect seems to get rave reviews, personally I have never had
issues with cheap ram.

If you are not bothered about 3d and games performance, then save money on
the graphics card - just get a motherboard with on-board graphics, or a
cheap card - go for a passively cooled one - less irritating whiney noise!

The only issue I see is the sata hdd setup. I read that sata is faster
and and the hdd setup of the future. I have read the only issues is the
pre-install of the interface drivers at the begining of windows
install, which can be loaded via floppy. I could play it safe and go
with ide, but I like the false sense of speed. I am sorta conserned by
yout comment of "and keeping them working."

The SATA standard allows for faster data transfer, but there are no drives
out there yet that are fast enough to need it. EIDE is still fast enough for
the latest drives! SATA is future proof, but not necessary yet.

 

[GT]

another concern of mine is once I get XP install to recognize the sata
hdd, will the xp install partition manager be able to handle the 320GB
drive. I understand XP to not recognize partitons > 150GB. I plan on
breaking it up, but I wonder if the partiton part will go smooth
without a 3rd party partition manager of sort?? Never had a hdd this
large, guess I will find out.

When you install XP it asks you which partition you want to use. You have
the option of creating new, so just do that and select the size you feel is
necessary, then once XP is installed, you can use the drive manager to
configure the remainder of the hard disk.

 

[Duddits]

CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered
System Memory

If you want to reap the benefit of dual channel ram that socket 939
provides, you'll have to have 2 sticks of memory (2x256/512/1024)

regards

Dud

 

[Bob]

if so i suggest two hard disks in a hardware raid type 1 config

Is that really necessary? I mean, with S.M.A.R.T., you know well in
advance when a HD is going bad.

I would opt for a daily/weekly backup system instead. That way you can
recover from a short-term problem and a longer-term problem.


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

 

[jim dorey]

Is that really necessary? I mean, with S.M.A.R.T., you know well in
advance when a HD is going bad.

I would opt for a daily/weekly backup system instead. That way you can
recover from a short-term problem and a longer-term problem.

i don't trust smart for everything, but yeh, daily/weekly backups would do
the deed. he'd still need the storage for the backup and dvd-rw's ain't
exactly goin for peanuts these days, cheapest $/gig is a second hard
disk. so, may as well put it in a raid 1 array, then the backup will be
instant, no app overhead or triggering a cron job/task scheduler session.
smart and raid both guard against hardware failure, and if it's true
hardware raid the os won't even know, or care, that the raid is there.
software problems are the next thing, virii, trojans, idiot sisters
installing the latest media player with every feature known to cracker,
can't guard against everything, but the most common threats can be dealt
with.

 

[kony]

Is that really necessary? I mean, with S.M.A.R.T., you know well in
advance when a HD is going bad.

Yes it is definitely necessary. At best, SMART only tells
you AFTER there's already been some kind of
failure/problem/etc. SMART also presumes that:

A) Drive identified the error, it was working enough to do
so.

B) Drive contined to keep working (at least to this minimal
extent of reporting) till it could report the error.

I would opt for a daily/weekly backup system instead. That way you can
recover from a short-term problem and a longer-term problem.

Agreed, that is also a good option. Taken together the two
alternatives are even better.

 

[Bob]

so, may as well put it in a raid 1 array, then the backup will be
instant, no app overhead or triggering a cron job/task scheduler session.
smart and raid both guard against hardware failure,

RAID 1 does not allow you to rollback if something goes wrong with
your system, eg, a bad install.


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

 

[Bob]

Yes it is definitely necessary. At best, SMART only tells
you AFTER there's already been some kind of
failure/problem/etc. SMART also presumes that:

A) Drive identified the error, it was working enough to do
so.

B) Drive contined to keep working (at least to this minimal
extent of reporting) till it could report the error.

You are being excessively critical of SMART. Indeed a HD can die
without warning, but that is not how most of them die. There is ample
warning of impending disaster with SMART.

Agreed, that is also a good option. Taken together the two
alternatives are even better.

My point is that a backup is better than RAID 1. Of course, if you do
not have any faith in SMART, and data currency is critical, then RAID
1 is essential. I am thinking in terms of the typical Internet SOHO
system, and therefore RAID 1 is overkill. If the machine is used for
some kind of mission critical data processing, then by all means
implement at least RAID 1. Maybe error correction would be better.


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

 

[jim dorey]

RAID 1 does not allow you to rollback if something goes wrong with
your system, eg, a bad install.

which i said, in a roundabout way, but it wasn't that roundabout. once
the hardware is stable and reaconably secure it's the software that can
f-up everything.

 

[kony]

RAID 1 does not allow you to rollback if something goes wrong with
your system, eg, a bad install.

Rollback?

Never use it, there are too many things a rollback won't
cover. Partition images stored on a different
drive/system/planet/etc are more comprehensive and thus
displace the benefit of the rollback.

 

[kony]

You are being excessively critical of SMART. Indeed a HD can die
without warning, but that is not how most of them die. There is ample
warning of impending disaster with SMART.

Nope, I"ve seen plenty of drives that just start clicking
when a box is turned on. Smart isn't even close to reliable
enough as an "early-warning" mechanism.

My point is that a backup is better than RAID 1. Of course, if you do
not have any faith in SMART, and data currency is critical, then RAID
1 is essential. I am thinking in terms of the typical Internet SOHO
system, and therefore RAID 1 is overkill. If the machine is used for
some kind of mission critical data processing, then by all means
implement at least RAID 1. Maybe error correction would be better.

ECC is not "better" they have completely different purposes
so neither replaces the other.

Same goes for backups and RAID... If somone had to choose a
backup is usually better for a small or isolated system, but
then again one can get a 2nd drive for around $40, it's not
that expensive or difficult to implement.

 

[Bob]

Rollback?

That's a term from danabase management. In this context it means
restoring the last backup.

Never use it, there are too many things a rollback won't
cover.

I do not understand you.

Partition images stored on a different
drive/system/planet/etc are more comprehensive

Please explain the use of the term comprehensive in this context.

and thus displace the benefit of the rollback.

Displace?

I am talking about keeping a complete hardware backup of the HD each
morning at 4:00 am. That way if something goes wrong during the day,
depending on the extent of the problem, you can recover the new data
onto a 3rd disk (eg. use xcopy /D and then replace the corrupted HD
with the backup version you made earlier that morning.

That's plenty comprehensive and displaces nothing I am aware of.




--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

 

[Bob]

Nope, I"ve seen plenty of drives that just start clicking
when a box is turned on. Smart isn't even close to reliable
enough as an "early-warning" mechanism.

I am talking about reliable drives like WD. I cannot vouch for crap
drives. I am sure you have seen just about everything. But since I use
quality drives, I have never had a problem.

I used to have problems with Seagate crap so I quit buying it and
switched to WD. In approx. 15 years I have never had a WD drive cause
me any trouble.

Or do you propose the OP buy crap hardware and then shore it up with
RAID 1.

Maybe error correction would be better.

ECC is not "better" they have completely different purposes
so neither replaces the other.

I did not use the term ECC. I use the term error correction, as in
RAID with error correction. I do not recall which RAID it is, but it's
the one where you have enough discs to keep extra information to
correct errors on the fly. Maybe it's RAID 5.

Same goes for backups and RAID... If somone had to choose a
backup is usually better for a small or isolated system, but
then again one can get a 2nd drive for around $40, it's not
that expensive or difficult to implement.

What is not that expensice or difficult to implement? RAID 1? That is
not the issue. The question I am raising is whether it is even needed
if you buy quality HDs to begin with and keep a daily/weekly set of
complete backup disks.


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin