«

wogers nemesis wrote:
> The biggest issue is dirty cdrs with ghost images on them..

network ghosting is the answer, it also solves the problem of having to
have more than one disk.

In article <>,
Dave@_no_spam_here_please_dave.net.nz says...
> wogers nemesis wrote:
> > The biggest issue is dirty cdrs with ghost images on them..
>
> network ghosting is the answer, it also solves the problem of having to
> have more than one disk.
>
too painful on 10 MBPS network

wogers nemesis wrote:

> In article <>,
> Dave@_no_spam_here_please_dave.net.nz says...
>
>>wogers nemesis wrote:
>>
>>>The biggest issue is dirty cdrs with ghost images on them..
>>
>>network ghosting is the answer, it also solves the problem of having to
>>have more than one disk.

> too painful on 10 MBPS network

10Mbit seems faster than the average speed you get from CDroms.
1x = 150Kbytes/sec
10x = 1500Kbytes/sec
52x = 7800Kbytes/sec

These are maximum speeds, and only attainable at the outer edge of the
disk, CDRs are burned from inside to out, so will average just over
1/2(in my experience) this speed at best, so you're looking at the
following.

1x = 75Kbytes/sec
10x = = 750Kbytes/sec
52x = 3900Kbytes/sec

Sure, 10Mbit is only 1024Kbyts/sec, but It certainly seems to complete
ghosts quicker.

Dave... now confused, as it does finish faster, but can't explain why.

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz

In article <who->,
whoisthis <> wrote:

> As for the rest, well then they should already have a backup at home, in
> fact it should be stored elsewhere in case of fire! Why is a backup only
> important when it may be too late ?

Because that's the only time people think of backups....
(Even businesses for whom a hard disk crash equals bankruptcy!)

> > Hard t imagine any sensible person NOT backing up their data before
> > taking theor Mac for repair - and srely they should back up their stuff
> > anyway.
>
> Because most people do not have the facility to back up large Hard
> drives easily. Try backing up 10G over USB, its start in the morning,
> then go to work and hope for the best time.

10GB? Try 40GB, the minimum size you can buy these days. And I'm often
surprised how many people are getting perilously close to filling that
up. It doesn't take iTunes and iPhoto very long at all.

True, most businesses have little call for the above apps, although
several of my clients are starting to use digital cameras routinely.


------
~IRO
My ambition in Life is to build something that will
REALLY last....at least until I've finished building it.

IRO wrote:
> 10GB? Try 40GB, the minimum size you can buy these days.

I used to do 40GB on USB2

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz

In article <>, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> wogers nemesis wrote:
>
>> In article <>,
>> Dave@_no_spam_here_please_dave.net.nz says...
>>
>>>wogers nemesis wrote:
>>>
>>>>The biggest issue is dirty cdrs with ghost images on them..
>>>
>>>network ghosting is the answer, it also solves the problem of having to
>>>have more than one disk.
>
>> too painful on 10 MBPS network
>
> 10Mbit seems faster than the average speed you get from CDroms.
> 1x = 150Kbytes/sec
> 10x = 1500Kbytes/sec
> 52x = 7800Kbytes/sec
>
> These are maximum speeds, and only attainable at the outer edge of the
> disk, CDRs are burned from inside to out, so will average just over
> 1/2(in my experience) this speed at best, so you're looking at the
> following.
>
> 1x = 75Kbytes/sec
> 10x = = 750Kbytes/sec
> 52x = 3900Kbytes/sec
>
> Sure, 10Mbit is only 1024Kbyts/sec, but It certainly seems to complete
> ghosts quicker.
>
I was going to grizzle about your speed calcs for 10Base network but 1280KBytes/s
and the overhead of a 1/2 duplex link is probably about right @ 1024Kb/s. Of
course it'd be MUCH slower with contention.
A 100 MB/s switched network is cheap these days, have you considered upgrading?

In article <>,
l says...
> In article <>, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>snip
> >
> I was going to grizzle about your speed calcs for 10Base network but 1280KBytes/s
> and the overhead of a 1/2 duplex link is probably about right @ 1024Kb/s. Of
> course it'd be MUCH slower with contention.
> A 100 MB/s switched network is cheap these days, have you considered upgrading?
>
Haha you don't know how funny that is. After many years..finally an
upgrade is going ahead.

wogers nemesis wrote:
>>I was going to grizzle about your speed calcs for 10Base network but 1280KBytes/s
>>and the overhead of a 1/2 duplex link is probably about right @ 1024Kb/s. Of
>>course it'd be MUCH slower with contention.
>>A 100 MB/s switched network is cheap these days, have you considered upgrading?

> Haha you don't know how funny that is. After many years..finally an
> upgrade is going ahead.

thats all good... you can *finally* setup network ghosting

and err, regarding my speed calcs, well, I was at work and guetimating
most of them, thankfully I have Gbit for ghosting in my office

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz