The last poster wins

[Werne]

how often should one put thermal paste on the CPU/GPU thingy???

I do it every year when I blank my hard drives (every two cleanups), that way I avoid damaging my components. Most people would say it's an overkill, and it probably is, but I intend to use this PC as a LAN server for at least the next 10 years. :smile:

 

Generally, it's advised to do it every 2-3 years (1-2 years for laptops) in order to avoid problems with disassembling the PC or changing/upgrading components. :yes:

 

5-7 years tops (3-4 years for laptops) but then you risk damaging your CPU/GPU when the paste hardens, it becomes a huge pain in the arse to remove the CPU/GPU from the heatsink without destroying them, especially so on laptops where they are smaller and more fragile. :pinch:

 

It's different for laptops since they usually operate on higher temperatures and have small, dense heatsinks that gather a lot of dust, they require better maintenance, like cleaning them with compressed air every 3 months as opposed to 6 like PCs and replacing the thermal paste more often.

[naomis8329]

 

how often should one put thermal paste on the CPU/GPU thingy???

I do it every year when I blank my hard drives (every two cleanups), that way I avoid damaging my components. Most people would say it's an overkill, and it probably is, but I intend to use this PC as a LAN server for at least the next 10 years. :smile:

 

Generally, it's advised to do it every 2-3 years (1-2 years for laptops) in order to avoid problems with disassembling the PC or changing/upgrading components. :yes:

 

5-7 years tops (3-4 years for laptops) but then you risk damaging your CPU/GPU when the paste hardens, it becomes a huge pain in the arse to remove the CPU/GPU from the heatsink without destroying them, especially so on laptops where they are smaller and more fragile. :pinch:

 

It's different for laptops since they usually operate on higher temperatures and have small, dense heatsinks that gather a lot of dust, they require better maintenance, like cleaning them with compressed air every 3 months as opposed to 6 like PCs and replacing the thermal paste more often.

 

 

Thanks for that honey :D

[Thor.]

I bought this awesome ssd enclosure because it allows for a secondary ssd to be fitted in for a raid setup. I might do that in the near future and put it up to a 1tb with the same make.

 

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4473411&CatId=2783

 

maybe when black friday comes along, easy fit to.

[naomis8329]

Goodnight Nexus :D

[Werne]

I bought this awesome ssd enclosure because it allows for a secondary ssd to be fitted in for a raid setup. I might do that in the near future and put it up to a 1tb with the same make.

I don't advise a RAID setup, data is shared between storage drives and if one fails, everything you have is lost with only a very slight chance of recovery. Not to mention that even though Windows is a mainline OS, getting RAID to work is tricky. Personally, I believe you'd be better off splitting them or do a union mount if Windows supports it. Otherwise just leave them separate.

 

In case you wonder why, under an NTFS file system RAID is, how shall I say this... useless.

 

NTFS operates in a way that fragments data easily, with a RAID setup files are only fragmented further due to being shared between storage drives, resulting in a performance drop sooner than expected. On SSDs the performance drop is not much compared to HDDs, but it happens. And since SSDs can be badly damaged (or you can seriously shorten their life cycle) by defragmenting, that is out of the question.

 

Rule of thumb is, think before you do and weigh all options before making a decision, otherwise you end up sitting with a thumb up your arse asking "What the hell just happened?".

 

And in case you want to know more about union mounts:

Plan 9 OS has native support for union mounts while UNIX/Linux have UnionFS (among some others). I intend to implement UnionFS on Debian, it can overlay smaller file systems (partitions) to create a single large file system, similar to what RAID does but with partitions physically separated, the merge is not done using hardware but using the OS (more specifically, kernel) instead.

 

That way in case of a partition failure data can be recovered and everything that was on other partitions is intact. However, since file blocks are not shared among hard drives, the speed remains the same as speed of a single hard drive, unlike the RAID setup where the read/write speed is increased due to block sharing.

 

Put simply - Union is safer and slower while RAID is not so safe and faster, so using one or the other depends on the need.

 

 

 

@Naomis Good night, see you tomorrow. :smile:

[billyro]

Hello everyone...

 

 

... and goodbye. Xbox time. :P

[Thor.]

Here is a size difference from standard hdd from ssd's lol, its a massive difference.

 

[brokenergy]

Thor, I win

[Thor.]

Something big is going to be announced via Sony :blink:

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/07/09/sony-tweets-mysterious-teaser-image

[brokenergy]

Ring, the musical