On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:28:56 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid>
wrote:
> "Rarius" <rarius rarius.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The Samsung F1 Spinpoint drives (500Gb and 1Tb) are the current
> > leaders in almost every review I have seen in the last few
> > months... You can have a 1Tb Spinpoint for under œ100 and its just
> > as fast as a Raptor, especially with 32Mb of cache!
>
Raptor is old hat. Uses more power than other drives its
physical size and much noisier. It also only goes 1.5GB/second,
which uses valuable "cable" time if using a port multiplier.
The VelociRaptor WDC WD3000GLFS-01F8U is 300GB for US$300, so still
expensive per byte, but quieter and faster, and more bytes
than the Raptor. Faster for creating lots of small files.
For large amounts of disk space I suggest a 1tB disk in two
partitions: 500GB for typical data, 500 GB for large file needing
sequential access only. Even the slow part of the disk can go
at several times Blu-Ray speed, so you can edit together 1920x1080p
clips to an output file on the same disk "real time" with no problem.
(Typical Blu-ray about 36GB/7200 seconds = 36MB/7.2 seconds
about 5MB/second. My 5 year old system can do 30MB/second (30 in+30
out) when copying within the first half of a VelociRaptor, but
only 17MB/second when copying with the first half of a Seagate
ST31999239BA [oops ST31000340NS - its hard typing with one hand]
Using a new machine and SATA 3.0 GB/s instead of EIDE 150 probably
would give higher numbers, but you can see how the VelociRaptor
wins big for operations where seeking is involved: 30/17)
couldn't merge 2 streams to one output all on the same disk)
(The original poster saw a deal on a Raptor, so he still might be
interested in it for system disk or paging.)
That's an HD Tach short test. Average read speed of my 150 GB Raptor
is 75.5 Mb per second. That beats everything in their comparison list
except RAID 0, and it beats the first five RAID 0s.
If you supply another benchmark, I'll be glad to show how fast my 150
GB Raptor is on that too. Every benchmark I've run my Raptors through
here has them much faster than everything except RAID 0.
In message <zuMnk.4061$zv7.3988@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com> John Doe
<jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>Mark F <mark49607@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Raptor is old hat.
>
>Your opinion might be removed from reality.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2751920854/
>
>That's an HD Tach short test. Average read speed of my 150 GB Raptor
>is 75.5 Mb per second. That beats everything in their comparison list
>except RAID 0, and it beats the first five RAID 0s.
> <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Mark F <mark49607@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Raptor is old hat.
>>
>>Your opinion might be removed from reality.
>>
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2751920854/
>>
>>That's an HD Tach short test. Average read speed of my 150 GB Raptor
>>is 75.5 Mb per second. That beats everything in their comparison list
>>except RAID 0, and it beats the first five RAID 0s.
>
> *cough*Seagate 7200.11 1TB*cough*
Looks good. It has a significantly slower random-access time (8.5 ms
for the Raptor compared to 12.7 ms for the Seagate). And apparently
real users are not impressed with the Seagate as they are with the
Raptor.
Seagate 7200.11 1TB
Excellent 117 reviews 58%
Good 30 reviews 15%
Average 11 reviews 6%
Poor 15 reviews 8%
Very poor 25 reviews 13%
Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB
Excellent 711 reviews 74%
Good 158 reviews 16%
Average 40 reviews 4%
Poor 27 reviews 3%
Very poor 32 reviews 3%
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:19:13 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid>
wrote:
> DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
> > <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>Mark F <mark49607@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Raptor is old hat.
> >>
> >>Your opinion might be removed from reality.
> >>
> >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2751920854/
> >>
> >>That's an HD Tach short test. Average read speed of my 150 GB Raptor
> >>is 75.5 Mb per second. That beats everything in their comparison list
> >>except RAID 0, and it beats the first five RAID 0s.
> >
> > *cough*Seagate 7200.11 1TB*cough*
>
> If it's so good, why don't you have one?
>
> > http://www.i4u.com/full-review-318.html
> > "average read speed was 86.3MB/s"
> >
> > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2206423,00.asp
> >
> > 245MB/s burst read speeds, 85MB/s write speeds.
>
> Looks good. It has a significantly slower random-access time (8.5 ms
> for the Raptor compared to 12.7 ms for the Seagate). And apparently
> real users are not impressed with the Seagate as they are with the
> Raptor.
As I indicated, my machine is 5+ years old and I run the drives
through a SATA-PATA converter, so I don't get to see the highest
speeds. (When I run with an SATA controller it goes through a 32-bit
PCI bus, so things are even slower.)
However:
1. VelociRaptor is much quieter than Raptor and
2. VelociRaptor is much faster than Raptor when seek is the limiting
factor.
3. Copying a large file to the same disk is significantly faster
on VelociRaptor which is significantly faster then ES.2 and 7200.11
(All though SATA-PATA converter) I forget if ES.2 is faster or
slower than 7200.11. I tried using the full disks and 1/2 of
disks, but I didn't control for the relative locations of the
files, so that is a weakness in my tests.)
I use the ES.2 instead of a 7200.11 for my system even though the
7200.11 is likely faster since I want higher reliability and believe
the manufacturer's relative comparisons between their own devices.)
I use 7200.11 for backups since they will only get used for 1 to
about 5 backups and comparisons before they are 5 years old
are taken apart, passed though a 1.5 Tesla field, heated
above the Curie point, sand papered, and then REALLY mishandled.
In message <lw_nk.7679$cn7.5134@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com> John Doe
<jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark F <mark49607@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Raptor is old hat.
>>>
>>>Your opinion might be removed from reality.
>>>
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2751920854/
>>>
>>>That's an HD Tach short test. Average read speed of my 150 GB Raptor
>>>is 75.5 Mb per second. That beats everything in their comparison list
>>>except RAID 0, and it beats the first five RAID 0s.
>>
>> *cough*Seagate 7200.11 1TB*cough*
>
>If it's so good, why don't you have one?
I have four of those right now, and more then half a dozen other 7200.11
drives of different sizes.
I've also owned a couple different Raptors over the years, they simply
don't compete.
Now the Velociraptor does show promise, by reducing the number of
platters and platter size, they've brought the density back up, reduced
the overall distance the heads need to seek (which dramatically reduces
seek times), while maintaining 10,000rpm, plus rumour has it that WD
actually has NCQ working, something they haven't managed on the previous
Raptor drives.
I haven't gotten my paws on one just yet, but it's on the todo list once
I have time to tear my system apart and shuffle a bit to accommodate the
cooling requirements.
Random access time is across the entire drive though, try again by
benchmarking a 150GB partition and you'll find the Seagate holds it's
own against the Raptor as well.
>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2751920854/
>>>>
>>>>That's an HD Tach short test. Average read speed of my 150 GB
>>>>Raptor is 75.5 Mb per second. That beats everything in their
>>>>comparison list except RAID 0, and it beats the first five RAID
>>>>0s.
>>>
>>> *cough*Seagate 7200.11 1TB*cough*
>>
>>If it's so good, why don't you have one?
>
> I have four of those right now,
Then why not provide your own benchmark results?
> I've also owned a couple different Raptors over the years, they
> simply don't compete.
So all of my benchmark results showing that Raptors are faster than
almost everything else are illusion?
And the 700 user reviews of the Raptor on Newegg are all wrong?
Seagate 7200.11 1TB
Excellent 117 reviews 58%
Good 30 reviews 15%
Average 11 reviews 6%
Poor 15 reviews 8%
Very poor 25 reviews 13%
Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB
Excellent 711 reviews 74%
Good 158 reviews 16%
Average 40 reviews 4%
Poor 27 reviews 3%
Very poor 32 reviews 3%
>>the Seagate has a significantly slower random-access time (8.5 ms
>>for the Raptor compared to 12.7 ms for the Seagate).
>
> Random access time is across the entire drive though,
I'm posting the same HD Tach benchmark result.
> try again by benchmarking a 150GB partition and you'll find the
> Seagate holds it's own against the Raptor as well.
Why don't you run the benchmark on your Seagate and provide a link to
your results?
Eventually newer technology obsoletes everything, but that doesn't
happen overnight. You get what you pay for.
Re: WD Raptor or WD Caviar in RAID setup? 
Linear Mode
