I owned a SCSI 10k RPM HDD for a while and I did not fall over in my chair
because of some amazing performance boost although I'm sure with benchmark
software, better performance could be seen.
The HD always worked well but over time it got noisy, after 8 years, very
noisy, so, I pulled it and went back to a regular drive (under 10k).
"geoff" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote...
>I owned a SCSI 10k RPM HDD for a while and I did not fall over in my chair
>because of some amazing performance boost although I'm sure with benchmark
>software, better performance could be seen.
Back in the days of ATA33 and 66, I put together my P3/550 (later a dual) with
10K SCSI (the first generation of LVP drives -- 80 MBps SATA3?) HDs. They were
significantly faster than IDE HDs of the day, even on a 32-bit PCI bus.
Later I got a SCSI 160 controller and bigger Seagate Cheetah SCSI 160 HD. It
was faster and quieter. However, later when I put that controller in a new
machine alongside a pair of SATA 150 Raptors, the SCSI HDs were NOT any faster;
in fact, the Raptors were faster, especially in RAID 0. The SCSI controller was
choked by the 32-bit PCI bus, and individual HDs weren't capable of busting 80
MBps or so anyhow. When I later put a newer-generation Cheetah SCSI 320 HD on
the controller, it was quieter but no faster...
In RAID arrays you will be able to realize the performance potential of SATA 300
and SCSI 320 if the controllers are on the appropriate busses and the HDs are
physically capable. Remember also that individual 7200 RPM SATA HDs are no more
capable than their IDE brethren, since the physical HD reaches its I/O limit
well before the bus is saturated. However, with 64-bit PCI or PCIe-8x or 16x,
RAID arrays can take advantage of the much wider/faster busses.
Rotational speed is still the choke point for HDs, though higher data density
(e.g., the perpendicular media) helps on the slower-speed HDs. With everything
else equal, a 10K HD will outperform a 7200 RPM HD, and 15K will be better yet.
Successive generations of each have always been quiter...
> I owned a SCSI 10k RPM HDD for a while and I did not fall over in
> my chair because of some amazing performance boost although I'm
> sure with benchmark software, better performance could be seen.
A high-performance hard drive like a 10,000 rpm Raptor is not a
whizbang upgrade. It's a throughput upgrade that can save a lot of
time over the course of a day for someone who uses his computer a
lot. It's noticeable when loading applications and especially
advantageous for gaming when loading large maps. Go to Newegg and
search the user review pages for "load".
> The HD always worked well but over time it got noisy, after 8
> years, very noisy, so, I pulled it and went back to a regular
> drive (under 10k).
The Raptor's MTBF is over one million hours. In order to hear it,
you probably need a highly sensitive sound measuring device. If you
have heat issues with hard drives, buy a case that has a filtered
intake fan blowing over the hard drive rack. With that, hard drive
heat is no longer a concern here.
Most of the negative claims in this thread come from people who have
never used a Raptor and some from people who obviously have no idea
what they are talking about (like Man-wai Chang ToDie).
> Most of the negative claims in this thread come from people who have
> never used a Raptor and some from people who obviously have no idea
> what they are talking about (like Man-wai Chang ToDie).
I wouldn't have asked a question or posted a comment if I knew it...
your comment is really funny.
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.26
^ ^ 09:48:01 up 2 days 13:14 2 users load average: 1.03 1.03 1.00
? ? (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/
>> Most of the negative claims in this thread come from people who have
>> never used a Raptor and some from people who obviously have no idea
>> what they are talking about (like Man-wai Chang ToDie).
>
> I wouldn't have asked a question or posted a comment if I knew it...
So your comments were out of pure ignorance. That's what I said.
Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k) wrote:
>> Most of the negative claims in this thread come from people who have
>> never used a Raptor and some from people who obviously have no idea
>> what they are talking about (like Man-wai Chang ToDie).
>
> I wouldn't have asked a question or posted a comment if I knew it...
> your comment is really funny.
>
One more thing: Raptor hard disks are not cheap, unless you really need
that rush...
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.26
^ ^ 09:57:01 up 2 days 13:23 2 users load average: 1.01 1.02 1.00
? ? (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/
> So your comments were out of pure ignorance. That's what I said.
Not exactly. I have used hard disk speed from 3600 RPM (Seagate ST-251,
40G), to 5400rpm and now 7200rpm. I did feel the difference.
I am still worrying about head crashes when the platter is spinning at
10000rpm....
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.26
^ ^ 10:37:01 up 2 days 14:03 2 users load average: 1.00 1.00 1.00
? ? (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:12:24 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid>
wrote in part:
> "geoff" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > I owned a SCSI 10k RPM HDD for a while and I did not fall over in
> > my chair because of some amazing performance boost although I'm
> > sure with benchmark software, better performance could be seen.
>
> A high-performance hard drive like a 10,000 rpm Raptor is not a
> whizbang upgrade. It's a throughput upgrade that can save a lot of
> time over the course of a day for someone who uses his computer a
> lot. It's noticeable when loading applications and especially
> advantageous for gaming when loading large maps. Go to Newegg and
> search the user review pages for "load".
A test to do is use NewsBin Pro. Use this to download RAR files
which NewsBin Pro will automatically put together.
Therefore, if you are doing lots of downloads one has going on
at the same time:
.. downloading chunks
.. combining chunks into the RAR files
(I usually do the last needed part, combining the RAR files into
the real files manually.)
Typical sizes for chunks are 1 to 5 megabytes. Typical sizes for
RAR files 1 to 100 megabytes.
The goal is to not have any RAR files that have had all of their
chunks downloaded in a queue because the prior RAR files take too
long to get put together.
I keep the chunks on one disk and the RAR files on a separate disk.
I use a 500 gB partition on the outside of a 1tB Seagate ES.2
for the chunks. This seems to keep up with output of the chunks
and reading the chunks for recombining into the RAR files.
I send the RAR files to the system disk, which I have changed
through various models from a Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 200GB Ultra,
then to Seagate 7200.n (n 9,10,11) to 150GB Raptor then to outer
half of 300GB VelociRaptor. (The last 2, and perhaps the 7200.11
use(d) an SATA-PATA converter.)
I was running DSL except with the last 3 drives, where I started
running Verizon FiOS 50mb/second download.
The 7200.11 couldn't keep up with things if the RAR files were
as big as 5MB, the Raptor couldn't keep up with things when
the RAR files get above 15MB, the VelociRaptor usually keeps
up with RAR files up to 50MB. (Changing the ES.2 might
change the particulars, but my results show that the
outer half of a VelociRaptor faster than the Raptor.)
>
> The Raptor's MTBF is over one million hours. In order to hear it,
> you probably need a highly sensitive sound measuring device.
Raptor is much louder than VelociRaptor even when I do tests using
the entire drive, not just the outer half, which is how I have
my system disk setup. Raptor is also much louder than
Seagate ES.2 and Seagate 7200.11. (I can't tell if the
Raptor is louder than a 7200.7; I forget where 7200.9 and
7200.10 fit in.)
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:12:24 GMT, John Doe
> <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid>
>> A high-performance hard drive like a 10,000 rpm Raptor is not a
>> whizbang upgrade. It's a throughput upgrade that can save a lot
>> of time over the course of a day for someone who uses his
>> computer a lot. It's noticeable when loading applications and
>> especially advantageous for gaming when loading large maps. Go to
>> Newegg and search the user review pages for "load".
> I use a 500 gB partition
You gave that advice previously. Suggesting that everyone needs a 1
TB hard drive makes what you say look silly IMO. Many of us simply
do not need that much hard drive space. For me, 150 GB is more than
enough. If I ever see that a 300 GB VelociRaptor is much faster,
I'll probably buy one unless Western Digital puts out a smaller
drive that's even faster than that.
>> The Raptor's MTBF is over one million hours. In order to hear it,
>> you probably need a highly sensitive sound measuring device.
> Raptor is much louder than VelociRaptor even when I do tests using
> the entire drive, not just the outer half, which is how I have my
> system disk setup. Raptor is also much louder than Seagate ES.2
> and Seagate 7200.11.
I'm sure the noise level depends partly on your setup. In any case,
there are 700 reviews from verified purchasers of the Raptor 150 GB
model alone, on Newegg. Instead of reading the same claim from one
person over and over again here, the reader can simply go to Newegg,
include 100 reviews per page, and search for "noise".
Re: is 10,000 RPM worth the extra money ? 
Linear Mode
