I have noticed that all the builds usually have 3.5" drives in them. And that is understandable, as they tend to be cheaper and larger capacity, but is there any other reason persons don't use 2.5" disks?

 

They use the same SATA cabling and I would assume that they would handle heat and shock better not to mention use loads less energy as they are built for laptops!

 

Imagining having five of these guys, all of your space requirements would be solved.

 

 

http://www.icydock.com/goods.php?id=114

For me its the cheaper and more storage of the 3.5 is why I haven't spent much time or effort on 2.5 drives.

 

Of course like you said you could probably build some serious coolness into a stack of 2.5 inch drives.

They are too expensive, they are slower (many are 4200 rpm), and in my experience they don't last as long.  I do think it would be a fun project to build a full 2.5" server, though.

I've had some 2.5" that took quite a beating. Never had one fail on me though.. Speed wise 4200 may be a bit slow but I am sure we could get some that are 5400 rpm.

 

I think some photoshop is in order

They make 15k 2.5" SAS drives, we have them in some of our Dell servers - but you're going to pay for them

 

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/enterprise-ssd-hdd/

They make 15k 2.5" SAS drives, we have them in some of our Dell servers - but you're going to pay for them

 

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/enterprise-ssd-hdd/

 

I bet But very nice disks for high speed write/read systems.

 

But the capacity is max 146.8GB - too little for unRaid - mayby as the cache disk......hmm nice

 

 

I always figured that someone out there was using at least two 2.5inch 1TB drives in the top of those Norcos...

I just bought a new 60 GB SSD for my desktop, so I'm considering using my older 30 GB SSD as my unRAID cache drive.  Considering I generally write about 10-20 GBs of new data to the server per day, it should be just about perfect.  If I do that it will go on one of the top slots in my Norco 4220.  However, I'm also tempted to use it in my HTPC, since it would be much faster than the SD card I'm currently using.  Decisions, decisions....

You can achieve slightly higher density using 1tb 2.5" drives,  but the disks themselves are 2x the price and thats before taking into consideration that you need twice the controller ports.

But imagine

 

5 x this enclosure + Atom MB + Small case = Killer Server

It could become economical if the 2.5" HDDs came in 2TB size (like 3.5" HDDs) even if there price was 50-75% more because these enclosures are ~1/2 price that of the 5-in-3s for 3.5" drives.

 

Take into account cheaper cases (only need 5-6 5.25" slots), smaller PSUs (2.5" are less wattage) you could indeed get the same storage volume with a much smaller footprint, heat, noise but slightly higher price.

 

On the topic of 2.5 vs 3.5in HD's, how would you rate the reliability of a 2.5" vs a 3.5"? Being that 2.5 are smaller and all, I would assume that the 2.5" disk would have a tenancy to fail/wear out quicker than a 3.5", under the standard/general circumstances? But again, I would also assume they'd be built to take more shocks and bumps as well given the purpose of these disks being used in Laptops only.

It is interesting this topic as these days some HP storage servers are moving to from 3.5" to 2.5" disks, albeit using disks that are designed for 'Server' standard conditions, ie: constant read/writes, 24/7 running times, etc... Their interest in this is to conserve/consolidate footprint space, cramming more storage in one location and saving power I'd imagine too.

If price and speed wasn't a difference, you'd be able to build a 40TB unraid server easily using the same footprint of a standard desktop PC case (re-modding  the case would be required no doubt), less power consumption and noise to boot. But given the cost is a factor and speed differences as well, it would be like a lead balloon in some ways.

In my personal experience (having fixed desktops and laptops for the past 5 years or so), 2.5" hard drives are far less reliable than 3.5" hard drives.  I would generalize that 2.5" HDDs last about a year or two, whereas 3.5" HDDs last 3-5 years.  HOWEVER, there are a ton of extraneous factors to consider, such as 2.5" HDDs being subjected to far more abuse in a laptop than any 3.5" HDD.  2.5" HDDs live in a much hotter environment, they are jostled while running, etc.  Also, they are often packed to the brim, since laptops tend to not have easily expandable storage.  Similarly, 3.5" external drives tend not to last as long either because they are subjected to similar abuse.  The final confounding factor are that most prematurely dead 2.5" drives I've come across have come from either Toshiba or Hitachi.  Hence, I try to avoid these brands whenever possible.  I would definitely trust WD's 2.5" HDDs more, though I have seen one of those die early as well.

 

While a 2.5" server would be a very fun project, I really don't think it will be economical for some time.

  However, I'm also tempted to use it in my HTPC, since it would be much faster than the SD card I'm currently using.  Decisions, decisions....

 

HTPC + SSD = Awesome!

HTPC + SSD = Awesome!

 

Agree completely.  I have an SSD in the JetWay Mini-Top I am setting up for my new XBMC machine and it is fast.  I think it is about 20 seconds before XBMC is up and ready to use.

HTPC + SSD = Awesome!

 

Agree completely.  I have an SSD in the JetWay Mini-Top I am setting up for my new XBMC machine and it is fast.  I think it is about 20 seconds before XBMC is up and ready to use.

Takes my Revo 1600 about 25 seconds to boot the latest beta2 version of XBMC.  I am using a 4Gig CF card in an CF-to-SATA adapter installed in the case.   (works just like the SSD, but less expensive.  I did not need more space, XBMC installs and runs just fine in 4Gig)

 

The CF-to-SATA adapter was $7.99  (from amazon.com)

and the 4Gig CF card was $12.49.

 

I realize your SSD has far more storage capacity, but for XBMC in a nettop, my solution is a fraction of the price.  If I purchased a high-speed compact-flash drive I'll bet my boot times would rival yours.

^^ The Class 10 SDHC cards are super fast too

Takes my Revo 1600 about 25 seconds to boot the latest beta2 version of XBMC.  I am using a 4Gig CF card in an CF-to-SATA adapter installed in the case.   (works just like the SSD, but less expensive.  I did not need more space, XBMC installs and runs just fine in 4Gig)

 

The adapter was $17.98

and the 4Gig CF card was $12.49.

 

I realize your SSD has far more storage capacity, but for XBMC in a nettop, my solution is a fraction of the price.  If I purchased a high-speed compact-flash drive I'll bet my boot times would rival yours.

 

Yup, i know i could have gotten the same speed out of an CF/SD card.  the reason i wanted to avoid the SD card was so that i could us the SD slot in my XBMC machine if i ever wanted to.

 

I might partition the drive and and install a full linux distro on the machine also... when i get the time.  I gave myself the extra space just in case i want to mess with it later.

Take a group of three 5.25 slots.

 

You can have 12) 2.5 drives or 5) 3.5 drives.

 

with 2TB 3.5 drives, you get 8TB of data and 2TB of parity for $500

 

with 1TB 2.5 drives you get 11TB of data and 1TB of parity for $1300... plus cost of 7 extra controller ports.

 

No thank you.

I realize your SSD has far more storage capacity, but for XBMC in a nettop, my solution is a fraction of the price.  If I purchased a high-speed compact-flash drive I'll bet my boot times would rival yours.

 

The fast boot time is the smallest advantage a SSD gives a HTPC frontend.

 

The largest advantage is the fact that SSDs have super low seek times, and super fast random reads, so if you use media software that is fanart/diskcover heavy (aka XBMC) the interface will be much faster as the fanart files are pulled up at the speed of SSD!

Anyone with a good suggestion for a small cheap SSD for my revo?

Anyone with a good suggestion for a small cheap SSD for my revo?

 

I would suggest an OCZ Agility:

 

30 GB for $80 after MIR

 

60 GB for $90 after MIR

 

Obviously the 60 GB version is a better value, but for an HTPC the capacity really doesn't matter.  However, the 60 GB version is quite a bit faster than the 30 GB (at least in terms of sequential reads/writes - I don't know about random/seek).

 

These definitely aren't the fastest SSDs on the market, but I think they are the best value.

 

The 30 GB one I've had for a while and is what I'm considering putting in my HTPC.  I just ordered the 60 GB one as a new boot drive for my desktop.

What about this guy? After Rebate: $65.98

 

http://www.directron.com/oczssd21onx32g.html

 

What about this guy? After Rebate: $65.98

 

http://www.directron.com/oczssd21onx32g.html

 

performance looks terrible according to the stats on that page,  not much better than mechanical.  (Obviously seek times will still be far superior to mechanical).