[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: More storage for my Ultra10

On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 11:05:33AM -0700, darin strait wrote:
> Questions:
> Unless I'm mistaken, my Ultra10 will only hold 2 drives in addition to
> the CDROM. Is that right? 

I think that officially, there are just 2 locations for a hard disk in addition
to a CDROM, but you might try to fit in a 3rd one somewhere. IDE controller
should support it I think. I don't know about the extra heat generated by an
extra hard disk, or if it would block airflow or consume too much power, but I
think it should be okay (unless the system is really on the edge).

> My understanding that the on-board IDE will only support 128GB drives.
> Is that true? 

132 GB I think.

> So, if I want to add a lot of storage to the machine, I need to add a
> new storage adapter of some sort. USB and SCSI are out (lack of speed
> and lack of affordability.) Am I better off buying a PATA or SATA card?
> SATA cards seem to be more expensive, but perhaps I am future-proofing
> myself a little bit.

You could consider a USB 2.0 card. I've added one to my Ultra 5 (same
motherboard as a U10, but in a desktop case, I've been told). I just went to the
local computer shop and bought a 4 port USB 2.0 card (VIA chipset, label on the
box said the brand was Sitecom IIRC).

It worked fine with my USB 1.1 printer and USB 2.0 mp3 player (iRiver ifp 799
with usb mass storage firmware - I got speeds up to 2 MB/s, which is close to
the limitation of that player I believe). I used kernel 2.6.9 iirc (compiled it
myself). I can't check any more, as the machine is dead now (empty battery in
prom chip I think). I didn't have to do anything unusual or anything different
than on an x86 machine.

I've heard one story about someone who didn't have so much luck though. He tried
to get a 4 port VIA usb 2.0 card working in his U5 but without much (any?)

If you're as lucky as I was to get the USB card working without much hassle, I'd
go for a USB <--> IDE thingy.


Reply to: