<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robin Gilks <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:g8ecj@gilks.org">g8ecj@gilks.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Hoskin<br>
> <<a href="mailto:jonathan.hoskin@gmail.com">jonathan.hoskin@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> No, just getting a SCSI based box, but I have access to lots of 140Gb<br>
>>> SCSI drives and a big 14 bay array to put them in.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Crikey - you must also have a lot of shares in a power company.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> 14 x 15W each = 210W worst case. It's not nothing but it's not really<br>
> anything to get excited about either. They'll draw about twice that during<br>
> startup though.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Ouch<br>
<br>
I'm spinning 5Tb with a AMD 5050e CPU on an ASUS m/b and sit at 80W idle,<br>
85 when recording a couple of channels and 95W commflagging. That includes<br>
the Sky box, ADSL modem and UPS...<br></blockquote><div><br>Obviously if you care about a couple of hundred watts then you're better off with SATA where the GB/W metric is about 10x better. In my case I've got a 400W plasma screen that rather makes everything else look pretty trivial.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Steve<br></div></div>