DirectCanada
Again, Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 240GB $249.69 @ directcanada.ca
- SCORE
- Reason
Score breakdown ×
- Upvote
-
0%
- Not a good price
-
0%
- Bad product/service
-
0%
- Poor merchant reputation
-
0%
- Unable to get the deal
-
0%
- Other (downvote)
-
0%
- raphidy [OP]
- Member
- Nov 30, 2009
- 387 posts
- 185 upvotes
23 replies
- SuspectOnTheRun
- Deal Guru
- Nov 19, 2010
- 14958 posts
- 2921 upvotes
- Toronto
If it works well then this is a good deal.
CRAZY FAST SPEEDS.
http://www.mushkin.com/Digital-Storage/ ... GB-DX.aspx
CRAZY FAST SPEEDS.
http://www.mushkin.com/Digital-Storage/ ... GB-DX.aspx
- ZxExN
- Deal Addict
- Nov 30, 2005
- 1998 posts
- 1581 upvotes
- Ottawa, ON
Just bought one. I got the automaticated telephone call for pin verification and for some reason, when I typed it in, says it was incorrect. Anyone have any experience with ordering from this company before?
- iSimple
- Deal Guru
- Sep 13, 2007
- 11105 posts
- 6746 upvotes
- Toronto
- ticoune
- Newbie
- Feb 25, 2011
- 52 posts
- 19 upvotes
- zevnux
- Sr. Member
- May 18, 2009
- 523 posts
- 482 upvotes
- Richmond
Might as well price match NCIX if it's easier for a local pick up. Since DC is a sister company, they usually accept the PM easily.
- ZxExN
- Deal Addict
- Nov 30, 2005
- 1998 posts
- 1581 upvotes
- Ottawa, ON
Yeah my gf offered to buy it for me so the billing/shipping addresses are different. I guess I'll give them a ring Monday.
Good to know they're legit.
Good to know they're legit.
- hastur
- Jr. Member
- Jul 5, 2011
- 175 posts
- 174 upvotes
- Toronto
This OCZ is on sale at NCIX (I don't know which is better myself).
OCZ Agility 3 240GB 2.5IN SATA3 $239 or $219 after mail in rebate.
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=61052&vpn ... omoid=1101
OCZ Agility 3 240GB 2.5IN SATA3 $239 or $219 after mail in rebate.
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=61052&vpn ... omoid=1101
- Nikhilvoid
- Deal Fanatic
- May 16, 2011
- 5345 posts
- 7971 upvotes
- Burnaby, BC
hastur wrote: ↑This OCZ is on sale at NCIX (I don't know which is better myself).
OCZ Agility 3 240GB 2.5IN SATA3 $239 or $219 after mail in rebate.
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=61052&vpn ... omoid=1101
The Muskhin is "better."
But honestly, I don't see any real difference between my revodrive 3 and my last-gen Intel 320.
Go with the less expensive option.
- fd3styperz
- Member
- Dec 29, 2009
- 231 posts
- 25 upvotes
- Markham
wouldn't it be better to buy 2 120gb than 1 240gb?
if you raid 1 two 120gb it should be faster than 1 240gb with same available space
if you raid 1 two 120gb it should be faster than 1 240gb with same available space
- ASharp
- Deal Fanatic
- Jan 21, 2007
- 5330 posts
- 3052 upvotes
- Scarborough
fd3styperz wrote: ↑wouldn't it be better to buy 2 120gb than 1 240gb?
if you raid 1 two 120gb it should be faster than 1 240gb with same available space
No TRIM support in a RAID configuration. RAID 1 is for mirroring and would only give you the capacity of one drive to save data. If you meant RAID 0 then you increase the likelihood of losing your data since if one drive fails, you lose everything. Getting a 240GB drive like this Mushkin is around the same price and gives you great performance without the need for RAID.
- blazed16
- Deal Guru
- Jul 8, 2009
- 12833 posts
- 6665 upvotes
not bad considering this
- generaltao99
- Deal Addict
- Feb 24, 2007
- 3187 posts
- 2320 upvotes
- Toronto
- oldskool75
- Deal Addict
- Jan 20, 2007
- 1024 posts
- 329 upvotes
- GTA
generaltao99 wrote: ↑Either way, if a drive fails you lose everything (1x240 vs 2x120). Having two drives doesn't double your odds of failure either.
Not exactly true..
When SSD drives fail, depending on the failure, it could become read-only only.. And don't know what happens to raid volume when one drive fails.. it may not have the same read-only state.. who knows.. I suppose that would depend on the raid controller / raid software.
And, with 2x120, that's twice the chances of failure, since you only need one drive to fail before it becomes unusable.
- SpoonyBard
- Deal Addict
- Feb 29, 2004
- 2440 posts
- 735 upvotes
generaltao99 wrote: ↑Either way, if a drive fails you lose everything (1x240 vs 2x120). Having two drives doesn't double your odds of failure either.
Incorrect; you are in fact almost twice as likely to lose all your data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_R ... ilure_rate
- oldskool75
- Deal Addict
- Jan 20, 2007
- 1024 posts
- 329 upvotes
- GTA
Hmm.. I was about to say, for us outside of BC, we should get it tax free ordering from DC.. but I noticed they're charging me the 13% HST.. Another fallout of the HST vs PST+GST?
Edit: Wow.. for kicks, I did an ASPM, and it came back successful already.. which is not really what I wanted since it's only good for 48 hours.. and the earliest I'd go would be wednesday.. lol
- ASharp
- Deal Fanatic
- Jan 21, 2007
- 5330 posts
- 3052 upvotes
- Scarborough
Indeed it is. Even without physical presence here in Ontario, they still have to charge HST which is the full 13%.oldskool75 wrote: ↑Another fallout of the HST vs PST+GST?
- generaltao99
- Deal Addict
- Feb 24, 2007
- 3187 posts
- 2320 upvotes
- Toronto
Vertigo wrote: ↑Incorrect; you are in fact almost twice as likely to lose all your data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_R ... ilure_rate
That's pretty dubious math/assumption, also not sourced. Let me ask you this:
-MTTF can roughly be understood as taking a a sample of hard drives and running them to failure, then deriving the MTTF value from the total hours of operation by the number of drives. So for example, 10 drives running at a combined 1M hours of operations til failure = 100K hrs MTTF. Or in other words, each drive should run on average 100K hrs before failing.
-a manufacturer creates only 10 hard drives and states their MTTF is "100K hrs", we'll call this MTTFbatch
-you buy them all and run them in (if it were possible) RAID-0, we'll call this MTTFgroup
-does the MTTFbatch now change simply because you're running the drives together? If it does then MTTF was never true to begin with.
MTTFbatch MUST = MTTFgroup
- SpoonyBard
- Deal Addict
- Feb 29, 2004
- 2440 posts
- 735 upvotes
I think, perhaps, you're missing the fact that for disks in a Raid 0 array, the array fails (i.e. you lose all data across all disks) if even just one disk fails.generaltao99 wrote: ↑That's pretty dubious math/assumption, also not sourced. Let me ask you this:
-MTTF can roughly be understood as taking a a sample of hard drives and running them to failure, then deriving the MTTF value from the total hours of operation by the number of drives. So for example, 10 drives running at a combined 1M hours of operations til failure = 100K hrs MTTF. Or in other words, each drive should run on average 100K hrs before failing.
-a manufacturer creates only 10 hard drives and states their MTTF is "100K hrs", we'll call this MTTFbatch
-you buy them all and run them in (if it were possible) RAID-0, we'll call this MTTFgroup
-does the MTTFbatch now change simply because you're running the drives together? If it does then MTTF was never true to begin with.
MTTFbatch MUST = MTTFgroup
Instead of looking directly at MTTF, it would be more intuitive to consider the chance of failure for a disk over a given period of time.
Let's say that a disk has a 5% chance of failing within 3 years. Let's put 2 of these disks into a Raid 0 array.
The simplest way to calculate the chance that the array will fail is to calculate the probability that none of the disks fail within 3 years and subtract that from all possibilities. Again, this is true because if one, the other, or both disks fail, then the entire array is toast.
So the chance of the array failing within 3 years is 1 - (0.95 * 0.95) = 0.0975
That is, the chance of a 2 disk array failing within 3 years is 9.75%, almost twice that of a single disk.
What part of this is "dubious"?
- zz000ter
- Banned
- Oct 19, 2010
- 7433 posts
- 1142 upvotes
- Mississauga East
Keep your data on thin metal punch cards
(think of the old paper punch cards with holes in them - but made of metal)
those have the lowest risk of data failure
(think of the old paper punch cards with holes in them - but made of metal)
those have the lowest risk of data failure
Thread Information
There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)