Protecting HD while transporting machine

I am building a file server which will be on the move. I will be
taking the server to a venue, setting up the network of computers,
then put them to use. Once I am done, I am going to tare down and
move to the next venue. Depending on security, I might be moving the
server at the end of everyday! So the point is, this server is going
to be on the move a LOT and I want to protect the hard drives as much
as possible.

After searching around a little I found the Kingwin KF-812 mobile
rack's that claims to have anti-vibration. Anyone have any experience
with this mobile rack? Any thoughts on if this would be adequate
protecting for hard drives for a system that will be moved around as
much as the system I am building, or might there be a better option
out there?

I am considering purchasing a hard case that has foam in it and
cutting out space for the two (mirrored) hard drives and transporting
them that way, but would prefer to leave the drives in the computer
all the time. One less thing to setup;)

Cartoper

Cartoper wrote:
> I am building a file server which will be on the move. I will be
> taking the server to a venue, setting up the network of computers,
> then put them to use. Once I am done, I am going to tare down and
> move to the next venue. Depending on security, I might be moving the
> server at the end of everyday! So the point is, this server is going
> to be on the move a LOT and I want to protect the hard drives as much
> as possible.
>
> After searching around a little I found the Kingwin KF-812 mobile
> rack's that claims to have anti-vibration. Anyone have any experience
> with this mobile rack? Any thoughts on if this would be adequate
> protecting for hard drives for a system that will be moved around as
> much as the system I am building, or might there be a better option
> out there?
>
> I am considering purchasing a hard case that has foam in it and
> cutting out space for the two (mirrored) hard drives and transporting
> them that way, but would prefer to leave the drives in the computer
> all the time. One less thing to setup;)
>
> Cartoper

There is some discussion on the subject here.

http://www.chassis-plans.com/white_p...vibration.html

Paul

On Jul 5, 1:03*am, Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote:

> There is some discussion on the subject here.
>
> http://www.chassis-plans.com/white_p...vibration.html

Paul,

Not really a discussion, but an outstanding white paper, thank you!!!
It is clear that the best option is not to use the shock mount units
and simply remove the drives to specially padded cases, if I want to
go to that degree. It was also interesting to see that WD hard drives
can take twice the G Force than that of the Seagate.

Sam

Cartoper wrote:
> On Jul 5, 1:03 am, Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote:
>
>> There is some discussion on the subject here.
>>
>> http://www.chassis-plans.com/white_p...vibration.html
>
> Paul,
>
> Not really a discussion, but an outstanding white paper, thank you!!!
> It is clear that the best option is not to use the shock mount units
> and simply remove the drives to specially padded cases, if I want to
> go to that degree. It was also interesting to see that WD hard drives
> can take twice the G Force than that of the Seagate.
>
> Sam

Actually, you should look at a few spec sheets for the various drives.
The 2.5" drives have better shock specs. But maybe you're after the
3.5", so you can get 1TB capacity. If so, make sure it is cooled well
(active cooling with a fan).

There are some drives, with an extended temperature spec, intended
for tougher environments, but their capacity is tiny. This one
is even rated to run at a higher altitude (if you're going to
Denver, check your drive specs...).

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/pro...Series_5400.2/

Paul

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 06:17:34 -0700 (PDT), Cartoper
<cartoper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 5, 1:03*am, Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote:
>
>> There is some discussion on the subject here.
>>
>> http://www.chassis-plans.com/white_p...vibration.html
>
>Paul,
>
>Not really a discussion, but an outstanding white paper, thank you!!!
>It is clear that the best option is not to use the shock mount units
>and simply remove the drives to specially padded cases, if I want to
>go to that degree. It was also interesting to see that WD hard drives
>can take twice the G Force than that of the Seagate.
>
>Sam

Being spec'd for twice the shock does not necessarily mean
it would survive a greater shock. One might simply be
spec'd more conservatively than the other.

The whitepaper was interesting but lacks something crucial -
testing. It posed theory that seems good on the surface but
whether the significance of some ideas is meaningful can
only be put to tests before being relied upon. For example
shock mounts are quite likely to be sufficient considering
most systems ship without any shock mount at all and the
drives survive. Such a mount need not completely absorb the
shock, only lessen the severity of it since the 70G+ spec'd
are fairly high and therefore easier to prevent.