Make your life easy.

Get an eSATA. It'll work great. The upgrade path works for you.

SCSI is expensive and could be overkill. I was just being anal when I got the SCSI. I like it but I'll bet if I sat down with a system with eSATA I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind fold test. Just consider SCSI the 'Monster Cable' of disk transfer protocols. [:D]

@Plowman said:

Maybe I need to reconsider this reflex, but when I hear SCSI, I'm back in the 90's...

SCSI-- a term used quite regularly with such terms as "floppy disk" and "VGA". Your reflex is justified, and Mr. Weaver's advice about eSATA is sound.

Perhaps this ranks highest among the reasons why SCSI is not talked about. So many other elements of computer technology have come a long way-- it's actually a bit shocking to see that SCSI rates are still holding their own at this late date.

8-Core rumored to have a PCIx slot? Hmm. I sort of hate to see a precious slot *wasted* on PCIx. It would have made more sense with the sudden switch to Intel that Apple would have kept a PCIx slot on the 2006 models. The transition back then was quite a problem for many Intel buyers who cringed at the expensive of changing their cards over to PCIe. This sort of feels like a step backwards for the 8-Core, but I understand the reasoning. Now, if Apple would be so kind as to add a PCIx slot to the existing PCIe slots without a trade off, then I'd feel a lot better. If three open slots are all we get, then I'm max'd out already without having yet spent a dime!

The transition is frustrating, indeed. It's all I can do from running down to the Apple Store like an 'astronaut wearing a diaper'.

JWL,

Not that what we have heard about will make any difference in what really shows up in the final offering, but the way I heard it there will be 3 PCIe slots and a legacy PCIx slot. So it could be the best of both worlds. [H]

FWIW, the reason I went for UltraSCSI was the 4ms access time on the faster rotational speed disks. The best I saw on SATAII was about 11ms. I really wonder what happens with those arms when they're trying to access 2 stac. 16th notes at 160BPM in a phrase with several other differing articulations.

Sometimes I'm in awe of how well computers really work. Other times, well...

Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

Actually I managed to bring m disk back to life.
After two failed attempts to re-format it (quick), I did a bit level re-format and a chkdsk which seems to have sorted it out.

Thanks.

I have a dual 2.5GHz G5 and an external 1 terabyte SATA RAID 0 with two Seagate 500GB drives that I put in an inexpensive enclosure from Other World Computing. I use a 4 external port Firmtek PCI-X card. Firmtek cards have the added benefit of being one of the only - or perhaps the only - - E-SATA cards from which you can boot an external drive. This feature can be important if, as I do, you use hard drives for backup. I have an inexpensive hotswap external SATA enclosure (available from MacGurus) and several backup drives in interchangeable trays so that I can store all but the current backup offsite. Some aof the backups are in the form of clones of the startup disk (made with SuperDuper) - - which is useful for two reasons

1. if the main disk fails, you have the exactly the same data and software on another disk so you can keep working. (The only thing that doesn't work are authorizatons of Native Instruments software - - which have to be replaced.)

2. if you want to test a new or beta version of software on a system that is not your main startup disk, you can do it easily on a disk that is identical to your startup disk.

You can also create a disk which has disk images of your Vienna Instruments DVDs
and use these images instead of the DVD's to install your libraries. Since this disk will only be used during installations it should have a long life. (theoretically).

One important fact about SATA drives is that the they do not need bridge circuits as do FireWire drives - - the circuitry is in the card. I've had several FireWire drive enclosures fail because something went wrong on their bridge circuits. (Didn't lose data, but had to buy another enclosure).

As far as the functionality of the SATA RAID 0 array is concerned there have, so far, been no problems even with passages involving highly complex textures with multiple patches playing simultaneously (and switching around as well) including 16th spicatto quintuplets racing by at 210bpm, together with fast legato triplets and every other sort of thing. However, if I were doing this again, I'd probably use Western Digital RE2 drives which are specially designed for use in RAID arrays and have significantly lower power consumption - - and lower operating temperatures - - than the Seagates.(Least expensive source for drives I've found is Newegg.com.)

Hope this is helpful.

I agree with the Newegg citing. Good people, good service, good prices.

Helpful, stevesong. Thanks.

Newwegg's done right by me so far too.

I'm now researching the RE2's. On WD's website, I saw this curiousity: "Your operating system, as well as your hardware, must support the hard drive you choose..." And then, WD SATA Hard Drive Compatability says "no" next to Mac OSX. That can't be so. Either I'm misunderstanding, or this is a very dated document.

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/resources/DriveCompatibilityguide.asp

I am currently running external Western Digital SATA drives as backups for my G5 and one WD drive is the startup drive for my G5. I wrote to Western Digital a year ago to tell them that the information on the website was incorrect - - essentially what they are conveying is that Macs once had ATA rather than SATA capability. I pointed out that this misinformation would likely steer quite a number of potential customers away from purchasing WD drives. They said they would update the info on their website, but it seems that the corporate wheel turns slowly. It is true, however, that some Western Digital SATA drives (and some SATA drives of other manufacturers) are not compatible with the native (motherboard) SATA implementation in some G5's. To run these drives inside a G5 you'd need to have a SATA card with internal ports. (To discover which drives are and are not compatible with the G5's internal SATA implementation, you might check out the Other World Computing website.) WD drives are completely compatible with Firmtek and other SATA cards with either internal or external ports. So if you are going to create an external RAID for your samples, there is not going to be a problem. Nor would there, I believe be any problem with using WD drives internally in a new (Intel) Mac Pro.

sATA (and in the near future SAS = serial attached SCSI) as a fairly new standard has still some teething troubles, dpending if your controller and disk are sATA I (1,5 Gb/s) or sATA II (3 Gb/s) and the respective fallback or backward compatibility works or not.
there have been similar problems from pATA 5 (100 Mb/s) to pATA 6 (133 Mb/s)
sATA III is on the horizon (6 Mb/s) and some sATA I devices cannot handle NCQ correctly if applicable, because this became standard not till sATA II

currently device multipliers can be found on some motherboards and controllers (up to 15 sATA devices on a single bus) which does also not work in all configurations - often you need to configure a drive manually (using jumpers or a tool) ... this troubles will pass by within the next year or so ...

WD's responsability seems to be not too quick - i've been 15 minutes on an international line today and finally gave up ... too bad the raptors are really great drives.

you might want to look at the new seagate products too - up to 133 MB/s throughput, around 9 ms latency though ... all using perpendicular recording meanwhile ... the 750 GB seagate drives are pretty usable for VSL libraries

christian

"I pointed out that this misinformation would likely steer quite a number of potential customers away from purchasing WD drives."

I hope it is of some vindication that I so exactly proved your point. From WD, I also followed a link to Apple on this subject that was dated 2002, which in computer years would be the Jurassic Age. Who's minding the store?

Thanks to you and Christian for your timely advice.