an ugly person
160 is a multiple of 40. Therefore, 40 is a factor of 160.
Is 5'3'' (160 centimeters)
The greatest common factor of 90 and 160 is 1090/10 = 9160/10 = 16The GCF of 90 and 160 is 10.
It is Equal to 104. :-)
Not evenly. The factors of 160 are: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16, 20, 32, 40, 80, 160.
Yes you can. They will work fine. These statements "they are not designed to do this and would not do it well" WRONG and "Performance would be terrible and the drives would fail much sooner" also WRONG. U320 drives are backwards compatible and should work without issue on a U160 controller, the performance will be the same as a U160 drive and will not affect the drive's MTBF. The drives will work fine !! The performance of the drives is NOT impacted at all --> they still rotate at the same speed; the seek times aren't any different; etc. The ONLY difference is that the interface speed is different (Ultra 160 vs Ultra 320). ... and it certainly has NO impact on the reliability of the drives !! [r.e. "... the drives would fail much sooner ..."]. ... in fact, unless you're using an array which could support a sustained transfer rate higher than Ultra 160 speeds, the ONLY time there would be any difference in performance (compared to an Ultra 320 controller) will be in transfers to/from the drive's buffers => a very low % of disk operations. Bottom line: Buy the disks you listed. They'll work just fine :-) Credits: http://www.experts-exchange.com/Hardware/Servers/Q_23496890.html
The maximum length of cable that can be used for SCSI-3 is 12 meters. This is applicable to Ultra2 Wide, Ultra 160, and Ultra 320.
SCSI, Fast SCSI, Ultra SCSI, Ultra2 SCSI: 8 devices Wide SCSI, Fast Wide SCSI, Ultra Wide SCSI, Wide Ultra2 SCSI, Ultra3 SCSI, Ultra160 and 160+ and Ultra320 : 16 devices Of course, the number of devices supported depends not only on protocol limitations, but cable length, number of cables used, etc.
160 MB/s
It used to, but no longer. These days, for individual harddrives, SATAII and SATAIII (SATA3) are significantly better in performance. However in terms of total throughput performance, SCSI can outperform even SATAII. Here's a breakdown of common interfaces and their bandwidth: ATA/100 (IDE): 100 MB/s Ultra ATA/133 (IDE): 133 MB/s SATA: 150 MB/s SATAII: 300 MB/s SATAIII: 600 MB/s Ultra3 SCSI: 160 MB/s Ultra-320 SCSI: 320 MB/s Ultra-640 SCSI: 640 MB/s SAS (Serially Attached SCSI): 300 MB/s USB1.0: 1.5 MB/s USB2.0: 60 MB/s Firewire: 50 MB/s Firewire800: 400 MB/s 100mbit Ethernet: 12.5 MB/s Gigabit ethernet: 125 MB/s Average Cable Internet: 1 MB/s It should be noted, however, that the world's fastest harddrives do not max out most of these interfaces. An Atlas 3k (15,000 RPM) drive uses SAS, Ultra-320 and Ultra-640 interfaces, but tops out at 145 MB/s average with 202 MB/s peak. As such, whether to use SCSI or SATA is of no importance to standard users. Only servers and mainframes typically need to worry. That, combined with the MUCH higher cost of SCSI drives and SCSI interface cards (and cables) has left SCSI unpopular and largely obsolete.
The 160 GB model is the better of the two, the 320 GB offers twice the memory for only $50 more (price of a game or controller)
about 160 miles
16 gb solid state drive holds 1/10th the capacity of a 160 gb hard drive. The solid state drive has no moving parts unlike a hard drive. Also the SSD has faster speeds than the HD
The Quantum DLT 160 GB DLT Tape Drive is a compact unit making it great for quick and easy installation.
At that rate you will go 160 miles in about 2 hours and 28 minutes.
Time = Distance/Speed = 160/80 = 2 hours
160/30 = 16/3 = 5 and 1/3 hours