Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Western Digital's VelociRaptor 10K RPM SATA Drive

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the spinning-really-fast dept.

250

MojoKid was one of a number of people to submit about WDs new 10k RPM SATA Drive. He says "Western Digital's Raptor line of Hard Drives has been very popular with performance enthusiasts, as a desktop drive with enterprise-class performance. Today WD has launched a new line of high-performance desktop drives dubbed the VelociRaptor, and the product finally scales in capacity as well. The new SATA-based VelociRaptor weighs in at 300GB with the same 10K RPM spindle speed, but with one other major difference — it's based on 2.5" technology. Its smaller two-platter, four-head design affords the VelociRaptor random access and data transfer rates significantly faster than competing desktop SATA offerings. Areal density per platter has increased significantly as well, which contributes to solid performance gains versus the legacy WD Raptor series."

cancel ×

250 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ARGH! Stupid WD! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23144064)

They used a non-standard connector layout so it won't work in the Mac Pro.

Re:ARGH! Stupid WD! (1)

gyranthir (995837) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145502)

They used a nonstandard connector layout because it's a 2.5inch drive...

Re:ARGH! Stupid WD! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23145882)

Uh, if it's a Mac you own/use I suspect that you've missed the part on the contract (er, "purchase agreement"; you know, that thing you signed in blood when you sold your soul to Saint Jobs) that specifies that you're not allowed to, for any reason whatsoever, at any time, or in any way, use (or even acknowledge the existence of) products not made-or-branded-by-apple-for-apple-headed-apple-users-at-double-market-apple-prices(tm)...

Guess you didn't read the fine print... :)

-AC

Re:ARGH! Stupid WD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23145952)

Uh, actually, hard drive upgrades are easier in the Mac Pro than in any other computer I have ever owned. Memory, too. It's very slick.

Re:ARGH! Stupid WD! (3, Insightful)

What Would NPH Do (1274934) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146120)

Yeah, cause plugging in the power cable and then connecting the SATA cable to the motherboard is just such a hard task. I'm surprised anyone is able to muster the enormous amount of skill that's required by such a task.

Re:ARGH! Stupid WD! (1, Insightful)

What Would NPH Do (1274934) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146404)

What exactly is flamebait about my post? Did I get some Mac fanboi's panties in a twist? I guess next time I should karma whore and parrot the Mac line about how simple basic tasks are impossible on a PC so you have to buy a Mac. Lord knows the world would be unable to plug in hard drives and memory sticks into their motherboards if not for paying that 1000+ dollar Mac premium.

You misunderstand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23146774)

I didn't say it was particularly hard in a PC, just that the Mac is much easier. You slide out a little metal tray, put the drive in the tray, slide the tray back in. Tada. Memory... you slide out the memory card, put in your dimms, and slide the memory card in. I have big hands, so putting in memory has always aggravated me.

Re:ARGH! Stupid WD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23146284)

Uh, actually, hard drive upgrades are easier in the Mac Pro than in any other computer I have ever owned.
What is supposed to be hard about a hard drive upgrade anyway? You plug it in, go into your operating system and format the drive. Exactly how could owning a Mac make this very basic task any simpler?

Memory, too. It's very slick.
So without a Mac it would have been too hard for you to stick the memory stick into the slot and boot up the computer? That's about as hard as any memory upgrade has been for me. It's all of a 10 second task.

Compared to solid state? (3, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144106)

Interesting to see that 2.5" form factor disks are now faster than their desktop-size cousins. In a way it's a shame that WD decided to bulk out the case with extra heatsinks... it would have been more fun for them to ship a properly sized 2.5" drive you could put in your laptop.

The review only compares the new drive to older models from the same manufacturer, and it turns out to be faster - duh. How does the performance compare with those expensive solid state disks that are starting to appear?

Re:Compared to solid state? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144342)

Interesting to see that 2.5" form factor disks are now faster than their desktop-size cousins. In a way it's a shame that WD decided to bulk out the case with extra heatsinks... it would have been more fun for them to ship a properly sized 2.5" drive you could put in your laptop.

Yeah it's a shame since I like to watch my hard disks fry. Clearly, you enjoy watching your laptop fry as well.

Re:Compared to solid state? (4, Informative)

Sivar (316343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144552)

Power usage = heat.

From the StorageReview.com article [storagereview.com] :

When spinning up from a cold start, the WD3000BLFS maintains its prowess with a very economical showing on its 12V rail. At just 9 watts, the VelociRaptor weighs in a full 6 watts (66%!) lower than any other drive SR has ever encountered.

I think the heatsink is mostly for show, and to make the drive fit into a normal case. Still, it would be nice if they made it easily removable.

Re:Compared to solid state? (1)

kipman725 (1248126) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145594)

I find it amusing that they think the raptor should have the greatest power consumption when it has SMALLER platters than any of the other drives.

Re:Compared to solid state? (3, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145864)

They did make the heatsink easily removable, but the drive is designed for the 15mm enterprise form factor (servers, for example), not laptop form factors.

The heatsink (which reduces average temperatures by 5-7 degrees) does work (it's not for show), but these things will never go in laptops.

Re:Compared to solid state? (1)

adisakp (705706) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146362)

That 9 watt figure is for spinup power which doesn't really contribute to overall heat for the drive considering spinup takes a second or two.

What you want to know is idle and seek power for the VelociRaptor which is 4.2/6.9W. The 3.5" WD GP has an idle power which is lower at 3.8W and a seek power which is higher at 7.6W. What you can see from the charts is that the VelociRaptor is indeed low powered compared to most drives and should only generate marginally more heat than a 3.5 WD GP.

However, that temperature resulting from the power usage in a much more due to the smaller package (2.5" drives take up less than 1/2 the volume of a 3.5" drive which concentrates the heat and they have much less surface area to disperse the heat). You have to consider temperature as well as heat.

Re:Compared to solid state? (3, Informative)

adisakp (705706) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146460)

FWIW, 2.5" HD's generally use between 2 to 3 watts of power during seek and writes and even less during idle. This is about 1/2 to 1/3 the power of the VelociRaptor (6.9W) during a write.

Re:Compared to solid state? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146584)

Friction also equals heat. I imagine that a hard drive spinning at 10,000 RPM would generate quite a bit of friction.

Re:Compared to solid state? (5, Informative)

SD-Arcadia (1146999) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144854)

Actually, you can remove the 3.5" container (I believe running it like this voids your warranty) but it still won't fit in a laptop because apparently although 2.5" form factor, it is several mm too high for a laptop. Not that you should attempt to run a 10K drive inside a laptop in the first place, especially without that heatsink thingy. The performance seems to be equal or better than SSD's. source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/HDD-SATA-VelociRaptor,1914.html [tomshardware.com]

Re:Compared to solid state? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146290)

It's NOT a notebook drive. It's a 2.5" server hard drive put into a funky heat sink, presumably so it would work fine in desktop systems where the system designer or the owner might not have considered proper cooling, or to simplify cooling requirements.

Re:Compared to solid state? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146808)

I still can't understand how this can be faster than a 3.5" 10krpm drive at the same density?

At first I thought that maybe they had put two 2.5" drives in there.. Maybe even in a 5 1/4" case. Imagine say 4 drives in that case using raid configuration or whatever.

Laptop drive? (2, Interesting)

danielsfca2 (696792) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144108)

When you say 'based on 2.5" tech,' does that mean this IS a laptop drive? Or is it a 2.5" drive in a 3.5" shell?

I assume the power requirements would be intense though, so even if you could fit it in a laptop I suppose it would be unwise unless you're always plugged in.

And also being a WD drive, as far as reliability goes you'd probably be better off just keeping your important documents in RAM.

Re:Laptop drive? (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144376)

Please RTFA. It is 2.5" drive (only a little taller) mounted on 3.5" massive heat sink (IcePAK).

Re:Laptop drive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23145498)

Fantastic! So you're saying that even though the laptop CPU will still melt my sperm, my wiener won't burn to a crisp???

Re:Laptop drive? (1)

Banzai042 (948220) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144390)

Based on TFA it looks like smaller platters in a 2.5" shell with a desktop motor and a heatsink to fill out the rest of the space of a normal 3.5" drive. Oddly enough the article also indicates that the velociraptor has the lowest power consumption of the drives tested, so it would appear that power wise it would be no different from trying to power any normal desktop hard drive from a laptop. The main problem I would see with sticking this in a laptop would be the heat. If the heatsink is really necessary to the life of the drive then sticking one of those in a laptop would probably be a death sentence.

Re:Laptop drive? (2, Informative)

giverson (532542) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144586)

2.5" != laptop drive. Many SAS drives are 2.5" but they won't fit in a laptop anytime soon.

Re:Laptop drive? (1)

Sivar (316343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144690)

Power usage is 60% lower than any drive ever encountered [storagereview.com] (see earlier post). Apparently the huge heatsink is epoxied (or something like that) onto the drive. Not very bright on WD's part, unless I'm missing something.

The enterprise version is supposed to use a standard connector, so those who want their laptop disk IO to outperform most desktops, including most RAID0 arrays, may be able to use those.
For reliability, I have an old 74GB Raptor that's still working fine, but StorageReview's reliability benchmark says they are more reliable than "12%" of other drives. Not that it's scientific, but it isn't promising.

Re:Laptop drive? (5, Informative)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144846)

When you say 'based on 2.5" tech,' does that mean this IS a laptop drive?
It is not a laptop drive. Here, take a gander [hothardware.com] .

I assume the power requirements would be intense though
According to TFA, the Velociraptor consumes the least power [hothardware.com] out of the drives compared (all WD, including a Raptor 150).

And also being a WD drive, as far as reliability goes you'd probably be better off just keeping your important documents in RAM.
I've had 1 drive out of over 20 fail on me in the last 6 years, all made by WD (including several Raptors, which run hot as hell but never seem to skip a beat). The one WD drive that did fail did so only after 3+ years of constant usage in a server.

I guess I don't understand all the WD bashing. They do have warranties, you know, and I hear they even honor them.

Besides, why are you relying on a single drive? If you have Important Documents you need redundancy + backups, not a "better" hard drive. You should check this [nongnu.org] out. It's saved my butt on more than one occasion.

Re:Laptop drive? (3, Informative)

michrech (468134) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146024)

Probably comes from people who, like me, used a ton of WD200, WD400, WD800, and some others, that had over 90% failure rate in the first 6 months. The only reason the OEM I worked for even used the drives is that they were cheaper (by only a few bucks, but every buck counts in this business!) than the others.

Yes, they did replace them all, but when you count in all the time in rebuilding OS installs, shipping, phone calls to get RMA's, etc, it's just not worth it.

Once we switched to Seagate, we never had to deal with all of that again. Yes, we might have 1 drive go bad once in a blue moon, but no where near what we had with WD.

I had sworn off of WD drives in the mid/late '90's because of similar issues. No matter what, though, I couldn't talk my boss out of using them. He learned to listen to my opinions after that, though...

Now, before I start getting modded down to hell, here; yes, I realize there are people (like you) that seem to have had very good luck with WD's drives. Unfortunately (for WD), your experiences seem to be far and few between.

I guess I don't understand all the WD bashing. They do have warranties, you know, and I hear they even honor them.

Re:Laptop drive? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146896)

Less power than a normal 3.5" drive, probably much for a 2.5" drive.

Re:Laptop drive? (2, Informative)

camperslo (704715) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145464)

Even without the cooling, the 2.5" based core is still way too thick/hot for a laptop.
At $1/gig it is still way cheaper than solid state drives, but expect those to get cheaper faster.

It's frustrating that the power benchmark they're using is measuring the whole computer.
You'd think someone doing benchmarks would use a small separate supply for the drive(s) to do the measurement. If the standby consumption and efficiency under load were measured for a small separate supply (easily determined with resistive dummy-loads), one could then get pretty accurate numbers for the drive by measuring the input power to the supply and doing a few simple calculations.

If the power and connector locations were compatible it'd be fun to see one of these in a 24" Core 2 iMac. For those using the iMac as a 1080i PVR, it'd really speed things like extracting the commercial-free version of a tv recording.

Re:Laptop drive? (1)

PawNtheSandman (1238854) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145516)

And also being a WD drive, as far as reliability goes you'd probably be better off just keeping your important documents in RAM.
10 years ago that might have been true, but WD's Raptor lines have been very reliable. Or you could have replaced WD with Maxtor and your sentence would be correct.

Re:Laptop drive? (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145838)

The "guts" are mostly similar to a 3.5" desktop drive, although the platters themselves have a 2.5" diameter, reducing the rotational inertia, weight, and surface area of said platters, allowing the drive to spin faster, and with less power.

Similarly, smaller platters also allow for faster seek times.

Re:Laptop drive? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146844)

As if WD drives would be more unreliable than anything else? It also has 5 years warranty (which doesn't mean that it will survive longer, but anyway.)

Hell yes, a Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23144128)

Just make those checks out to "Western Digital, C/O Slashdot" please.

Welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23145342)

to journalism. Don't forget to tie your shoe, and wear a sweater. -

Noise Level (4, Interesting)

MankyD (567984) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144132)

I've always wondered - what's the noise like on a 10k drive? I would think its safe to assume that they're louder, but with smaller platters, who knows. I'm always working to make my machine quieter, and sometimes this seems to come into conflict with making it faster.

Re:Noise Level (2, Informative)

Rakeris (1114111) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144264)

I have one, and it's very quite. It's makes about the same amount of noise as my 500GB samsung. The only difference is it makes a bit of light "clicking" whenever it's doing a lot of reading/writing.

Re:Noise Level (2, Informative)

skiflyer (716312) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144328)

Next to my 7800gt fan I don't even hear the two raptors I have clicking away.

Re:Noise Level (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23144912)

So the drive is quiet unless you're actually using it. Gotcha.

Re:Noise Level (1)

Artuir (1226648) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144380)

Think about it like this - a standard 3.5" drive of this variety would indeed sound like a velociraptor. The 2.5" drives sound more like a herd of fierce gerbils.

But they're *very* angry gerbils. Fitting for gaming hard drives.

Re:Noise Level (3, Informative)

Sivar (316343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144760)

The first 10KRPM drives sounded like what you'd get when you put ice cubes in a blender. I seriously ducked the first time I heard one start to seek.

The WD Raptor 74GB is alright. I can hear it, but I wouldn't say it's loud or annoying (and I have one of those open Lian-Li cases that have 50000 holes).

This new one is supposed to be one of the quietest drives ever measured.

Re:Noise Level (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145700)

i love the orginal 10k drive.s. i have a 36gb IBM 10k SCSI drive.. and man it is like a jet engine.. but sadly it is quite comparied to the 9.1gb 15k SCSI drives i have in one of the rack boxes.. when that box turns off the room is silent .. even though there is the whole of the rack still going..

Re:Noise Level (2, Informative)

mad zambian (816201) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144916)

I use a striped pair of 36GB Raptors for my system disk. (Data disk is 3 drive RAID 5) Speed is great, but the little brutes do need active cooling, and are anything but quiet. Maybe it is the pair of them doing synchronous seeks that make them so noisy, who knows? They are the noisiest disks I have used since a pair of 250MB Connors about 15 years ago. Happy with them? Oh hell yes. Next computer will have the same setup, but much more noise damping.

More interesting review (4, Informative)

Sivar (316343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144194)

The review is up on on StorageReview.com [storagereview.com] . You can use the database [storagereview.com] to compare this drive to every other drive out there in different kinds of tasks.

1 GB/$, ouch (3, Interesting)

rubeng (1263328) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144238)

It's a little better than the current Raptors' [diskcompare.com] 0.88 GB/$, but nowhere close to the 6.25 GB/$ for a Samsung Spinpoint F1 [diskcompare.com] . You gotta wonder if a RAID array of cheaper drives wouldn't give you overall better performance, and more than 2x the storage for way less money.

Re:1 GB/$, ouch (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144722)

I have always believed that is why RAID0 has been so popular.

You get better performance, bigger drive, and it's only pitfall is that if one drive dies, then they are both pretty toast.

Re:1 GB/$, ouch (1)

michrech (468134) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146166)

I always looked at it this way: If you have one really nice/fast drive and it fails, you *still* lose everything you had. I'd rather spend the same (or less) cash on two slightly smaller, slower drives and throw them into an array...

I have always believed that is why RAID0 has been so popular.

You get better performance, bigger drive, and it's only pitfall is that if one drive dies, then they are both pretty toast.

Re:1 GB/$, ouch (1)

Sivar (316343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144826)

RAID isn't going to give you better performance than this Raptor other than in STR (sustained transfer rate, like copying large files or streaming HD video). STR is about worthless for desktop computers, though RAID0 does improve performance for other things a bit.

  Just, not as much as people seem to think when they read a misleading benchmark written by some dope that thinks HDTach and Atto are worth the floppy disks they're installed from. (They are great tools for what they do, just, they are misused).

Re:1 GB/$, ouch (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145732)

You apparently know nothing about RAID.

Re:1 GB/$, ouch (0)

Sivar (316343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146872)

Are you saying this (it's incorrect, by the way) with regards to the comment about STR having little effect on real-world performance, or about the unlikelyhood of RAID0 giving significantly better performance than a Raptor 3000?

Before making judgments about my knowledge, look up my alias on the StorageReview forums and tell me again that I don't know anything about RAID.

Re:1 GB/$, ouch (1)

kitgerrits (1034262) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144838)


'Raptors have one simple advantage over F1's:
access times.

F1s are great drives for video editing, but Raptors are faster at loading Windows, holding your swapfile and loading games (not to mention databases).

That's why my (games) PC has two raptors (O/S and games) and one F1 (media).

Re:1 GB/$, ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23145840)

raid isn't for performance, unless your computer is doing boatloads of sequential stuff.

I have two drives in a raid0, separate from system drive, and separate from my main storage (raid5). The raid0 is good for editing gigs of video footage. That's it.

raid0's usefulness is limited. you can go to some extravagant setups requiring 6 or more drives, but I don't see a desktop user doing that.

raid0 isn't going to make your xp or vista experience faster, whether it's general use, games, surfing, etc.

Re:1 GB/$, ouch (1)

Acererak (993318) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146090)

Well, Maximum PC [maximumpc.com] took a look at RAID performance of the Velociraptor as compared to a RAID of Raptor X drives (and two SSD drives). Still, it's going to be hard to beat the $300 price/performance equation, even if you string a series of cheaper drives together.

$300 (1)

Banzai042 (948220) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144274)

The main problem I see with this drive is the cost, for $300 you can get 2 750GB hard drives, put them in RAID 0 and get 5 times as much storage space and probably almost the same performance. Granted there is the risk of increased failure with a RAID 0 setup, but the increase in storage space is probably worth it.

Re:$300 (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145414)

You could also get three 500GB drives, giving you a terabyte of RAID5 storage. Or just JBOD for the same 1.5TB, which you're still better off doing than RAID0 unless you absolutely need the extra speed (meaning HD video capture, and almost nothing else). Of course 750GB drives are starting at $120 these days, so you can head to 2.25TB for $360. Blah blah blah.

The only really nice thing about having that kind of speed in a single self-contained drive is not having to futz with RAID support at an OS level, data integrity and security be damned. For day to day use the seek time of any 10K RPM drive is going to provide a decent improvement over your standard 7200RPM unit, though it's not too noticeable in my experience if you keep your drive defragged. The very tiny decrease in seek time of THIS unit over a normal Raptor is pretty minimal, and not likely worth the premium.

Solid State, Fast Disks... all for wimps (5, Funny)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144308)

If you want real performance and aren't afraid of having to do a complete rebuild on a regular basis then the best bet is to purely use a huge amount of RAM, not Flash or other solid state disks but real genuine RAM.

Okay so its insanely expensive and a power cut and UPS failure means you lose everything.... but the SPEED is fantastic.

I mean I'm running Vista Ultimate on a dual quad-core server with 500GB of standard RAM as a disk and I can boot in under a minute and use Outlook AND Word at the same time.

Re:Solid State, Fast Disks... all for wimps (1)

danielsfca2 (696792) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144404)

niiiiiice. I see what you did there.

Re:Solid State, Fast Disks... all for wimps (2, Insightful)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144452)

I'm running Vista Ultimate on a dual quad-core server with 500GB of standard RAM as a disk and I can boot in under a minute and use Outlook AND Word at the same time.
Wow... we're almost performing up to the level we were at in 1989.

Re:Solid State, Fast Disks... all for wimps (2, Informative)

MP3Chuck (652277) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144720)

I know you're trying to be funny, but there is such a thing [anandtech.com] . :)

Re:Solid State, Fast Disks... all for wimps (1)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145710)

If you want real performance and aren't afraid of having to do a complete rebuild on a regular basis then the best bet is to purely use a huge amount of RAM, not Flash or other solid state disks but real genuine RAM.

Okay so its insanely expensive and a power cut and UPS failure means you lose everything.... but the SPEED is fantastic


Talking about speed, this is an effective design. Multiple UPS and a separate computer that maintains the RAM will give reliability. Not sure if it's worth it just to boot faster, and I admit being scared by the volatility. Hard disk speedups have not been so easy to come by. It took 7 minutes to copy a 3 Gb file and everything felt slow when that was happening.

Having plenty of RAM does speed things up because files are cached in RAM. I do not miss the days when I had a lot more swapping even on a 1 Gb RAM computer.

Does anyone have any ideas about multiple heads? If the heads are swinging independently, the mechanics are quite complex, but what if the heads all swing in unison - all together at the same direction and speed? Then the heads can spend less time per cylinder. Heads can also be given a positional offset in order to be on different cylinders at the same time. Complex mechanics, but in today's level of technology, par for the course as the saying goes. Even a slower RPM drive can still have the performance of a fast RPM drive. If the drive isn't too busy, some heads can be kept parked. RPM Speedstep may also contribute to power savings.

Re:Solid State, Fast Disks... all for wimps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23145982)

I mean I'm running Vista Ultimate on a dual quad-core server with 500GB of standard RAM as a disk and I can boot in under a minute and use Outlook AND Word at the same time.

Okay, the last part of what you said must be a joke, but the boot time???
A fairly cheap homebrew Core 2 system running a Seagate 500 GB Barracuda SATA drive boots OS X (patched) in about 15 seconds.

(posted as AC out of fear of offending all 0.0107 horde of fiercely loyal Vista users)

Re:Solid State, Fast Disks... all for wimps (1)

elmartinos (228710) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146320)

Ever tried to reboot a system where *all* its data, including the operating system itself, is stored in RAM?

Re:Solid State, Fast Disks... all for wimps (1)

ShannaraFan (533326) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146854)

I'm running OS/2 Warp in 256MB of RAM, and I can format a floppy disk and still run other programs at the same time...

Has only one application (0)

gweihir (88907) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144386)

As others pointed out, you can get more space and faster throughput with current 7200 rpm drives for less money. The only application left for this drive is one that has massive amounts of small accesses all over the drive. Typically this is swap space (invest the money into more RAM instaed) or database servers (10000 rpm do not matter much there, get a proper 15000 rpm drive for these). Soem may think they would be good for webservers (get more ram and that 15000rpm drive if you need more performance. Alternatively get a number of smaller drives, which will likely give even better performance.)

Bottom line: There is no market for these things except people that do not understand what it really offers (or does not).

Re:Has only one application (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144658)

Couldn't this be useful for gaming? Typically lots of small images, textures, audio, etc. get loaded throughout gameplay.

I'm not a game developer, so I'm just speculating.

Re:Has only one application (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23144686)

I agree, this also includes 'workstation' class systems from the likes of dell/hp/etc...

Re:Has only one application (3, Interesting)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144880)

So...this beats the data throughput of any of the 7200 RPM drives by about 50%, and outperforms them in real world benchmarks by about the same, and it does it while consuming LESS power than the WD Green Power drives. It also for the first time comes within about 10% of the speed of a 10k SCSI disk for server-tasks, while using far, far less power. This sounds like a great low end server drive to me, and it's clearly the best single user drive by a large margin. Check out the storagereview.com review, since they actually know what they're doing.

Re:Has only one application (4, Informative)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145920)

I would suggest you check out the storagereview.com review since they don't support the claims you are making. In applications benchmarks the margins are far, far less than 50%.

Re:Has only one application (1)

Sivar (316343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145186)

The 300GB Seagate Cheetah 15K.5 is $675.00 at Dell (source: Google [google.com] , while the Raptor is (supposedly) about $300.

That's 2.25 times the cost per megabyte.

According to this performance database [storagereview.com] (choose IOMeter 8 I/O. I can't link to it directly, it doesn't seem to support that), the Seagate drive does 293 IOPS vs. the Raptor 3000's 228, so it's only 28% faster (on an 8-deep workload, which is a fairly common one, maybe a little deep).

Cost-per-IOPS wise, the Raptor blows the 15K SCSI drive away. Of course, the Seagate is an SAS drive, which is far more robust for large server installations and such, but for smaller ones, I think the Raptor would be fine. Of course, for most smaller ones, a cheap-o 250GB 7200 RPM RAID1 array would be fine, too.

Re:Has only one application (1, Interesting)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146246)

I beg to differ. After waiting for rev2 of these drives, I'm going to use 4 of them in RAID10 for my database server.

I've currently got 4x 74gb drives, and I've been waiting for the next gen Raptor drives for a while now. I'm glad they are here, and I'm glad they are finally at a more usable size for modern applications.

It was pretty cool when. . . (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23144466)

the VelociRaptor drive got pwned by the TRex drive right before they escaped the park.

Re:It was pretty cool when. . . (1)

Sivar (316343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145256)

You obviously haven't used one. The TRex drive requires a separate room [data-mountain.co.uk] just for the storage. At least the Raptor fits in a normal case (and, if you have a crowbar to remove the damn black metal thing, in a laptop!

So sad (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144500)

After all so many years, drives are still so slow.

7.6ms random access write. 119MB/sec transfer - that's less that 1Gbps.

So still have to stick lots and lots of drives together.

It's a shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23144584)

They won't even publish the platter to head transfer rate. I luckily picked up a free 146GB SCSI drive about 6 years ago that does a blazing 108Mb/s from the platter to the head. I am still looking for an SATA drive that is comparable :/

Raptors? Run! (5, Funny)

Nushio (951488) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144594)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is constantly reminded of XKCD when someone mentions Raptors [xkcd.com] ...

Re:Raptors? Run! (1)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145676)

You're definitely not the only one. First thing I did after seeing this news title in the RSS feed was to wonder: is the data secure?!?

http://xkcd.com/87/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Raptors? Run! - apologies to Yakov Smirnoff.. (2, Funny)

CdBee (742846) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146378)

In corporate America, geeks consume Velociraptors..

Re:Raptors? Run! (1)

drquoz (1199407) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146522)

No, you're not the only one. Honestly, the first thing I thought when I saw the headline was "has anyone told Randall?"

Not buying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23146580)

...Since its not resistant to grapefruit juice...

Re:Raptors? Run! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146646)

My highschool physics teacher used to put Keanu Reeves and speeding buses into a lot of his questions. Made things a little more interesting.

Might be worth it (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144632)

I've never seen the point in Raptor drives. This is making me think about getting 1 or 2 (RAIDed) Raptors to use in installing my games and movie files on. Tom's Hardware has a pretty thurough review, and it perorms very well all across the board.

Depending on price, I may go and pick one up.

Hmm... 2.5" (0)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#23144974)

I just saw a SATA Backplane at Fry's for 2.5" drives. It fit Four 2.5 SATA drives in the space of one 5.25 slot on your machine. You could fit a RAID5 Array of these little (noisy?) guys into just about any desktop, or more drives than you'd have RAID cards (and power?) for in some of the bigger cases (CM stacker, et al)

Re:Hmm... 2.5" (2, Insightful)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145380)

Well... the drives have a heatsink on them that bumb them up to 3.25" size. You can take them out, but it will raise the temp on each drive 4-5 degrees C. Plus add the heat from packing them so close together, and I'm not sure that's such a good idea.

Plus, if you take them out of the heatsink, you void the warranty.

my oh my, hope it's not like the "mybook" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23145016)

Well, if these drives are anything like the mybook, the speed won't make any difference, since they will become boat anchors within a few weeks. Don't bother calling for a new one, since the indian call center can't figure anything out anyway. My next one won't be a western digital, that's for sure.

2.5 Uber Alles! (0, Flamebait)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145092)

The 2.5" form factor seems to have been standard in the server world for some time now. I could be wrong, but I think this is driven by the need to cram more and more computing power into finite rack space. And once the drive makers tooled up to make 2.5" drives for servers, it was bound to drive down the cost of 2.5" desktop drives.

But here's the sad thing: most of this technology is both produced and consumed in countries that have long since gone to the metric system. But because the U.S. sets the standards, everybody uses English Traditional units for linear measure. Which helps to advertise our arrogance and backwardness. Not as bad as starting pointless wars, but it doesn't help!

Avoid Imperial entanglements (1)

Namlak (850746) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146298)

These fit fine in my 63.5mm drive bays.

Screw Western Digital... (1)

Desert Tripper (1166529) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145192)

After having not just 1, but TWO WD Caviar drives (one 80gb and one 100gb) fail in '03 due to the same faulty motor controller chip, I vowed never to buy WD again. And I haven't. The drives are still in my dustbin waiting for me to get the patience to unsolder the chip and put a different one in so I can recover data (I had about 80% of it backed up; it's the other 20% that hurts.) The drives were technically under warranty but they wouldn't listen to any option that would allow me to recover my data. (Yeah, I realize that policy is industry wide, but when the problem is obvious - a chip with a crater in it - they could have at least been nice shipped me a replacement controller board.) If their new drive really needs that much heatsinking, there's gotta be some kind of design problem. If I want an electric heater, I'm not buying it from WD. WD may come out with new and fun stuff, but until it's been proven with stellar MTBF rates (and they back it up with a full 5 year warranty like Seagate's) I'm holding onto my $ and data.

Re:Screw Western Digital... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146032)

Exactly how important is this data that you haven't needed for the past 5 years?

Re:Screw Western Digital... (1)

Namlak (850746) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146438)

Buy a new drive, swap the board, and return your "new" drive under warranty. Effectively the same thing as getting a replacement from WD. And I agree with you about WD. I don't touch them. I'm a Quantum...errr...Maxtor...errr....Seagate guy myself. (But I've liked Seatgate all long, too, so I'm OK with it).

Raptor (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145196)

I just recently replaced a dead Seagate HDD that held the OS (WinXP in this case) with a 36GB Raptor, after looking into SSDs but deciding the price point wasn't really there yet. The Raptor is pretty great: XP is ready to go 30 seconds after turning on the power (this is a stripped down version of XP using nLite, so YMMV on XP boot times.. but I've discovered XP is actually a decent desktop OS once you strip out all the extra crap). So I'm happy.

I have no confidence in anything from WD (2, Informative)

jskline (301574) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145228)

I've gone through 3 drives now from them for 2 of my 3 laptops. The first one made it 10 months and technically was still under warranty. But because the manufacture date stamp on the drive was more than 12 months, they would not honor my warranty. Yea, I had the receipt but the guy in India was not concerned with that and would only take a credit card number to order another one at full retail price! Screw em'. Drilled a big bad hole through the thing and put in recycle bin.

Two other drives didn't even make it more than a month! First one died after a month and was sent off to them under warranty, and they send another of the exact same drive. It worked quite well up until last week when it just arbitrarily died on the spot when I got into the office.

Mind you my Toshiba's, and Seagate have been outlasting these things hands down. And for the naysayers; I know there is not an issue with the laptops since other vendor drives work quite well and last.

I don't even want to talk about the 3.5" drives! I have had more premature failures with these and I'm officially sworn off of Western Digital. All they make is junk.

Re:I have no confidence in anything from WD (4, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145744)

Sounds like you're purchasing your drives from a dodgy OEM, especially since all of their laptop drives ship with 3-year warranty [wdc.com] .

I suppose this might have been different in the past, though judging a hard drive manufacturer purely based upon anecdotal evidence is a bit flimsy. There are people who say the same thing about every single other hard drive manufacturer out there.

I'll wholeheartedly agree that there can be bad batches of drives (which is most likely what you encountered), though any faults are usually rectified quickly enough that there doesn't seem to be all that huge of a difference across manufacturers when you look at the entire population.

If you've ever managed a computer lab (eg. large number of identical machines), you'll occasionally run into a batch of machines with particularly dodgy power supplies, hard drives, etc..... More interestingly, if you've got a large sample of "identical" machines that were ordered in separate batches, you'll also likely find that the patterns of failure differ somewhat between the two batches.

The only exception to this is that server/enterprise-grade drives tend to be more reliable then their counsumer-grade counterparts. This is why they cost (a lot) more.

Re:I have no confidence in anything from WD (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145902)

I've had 3 Western Digital drives in the past 5 years and they are all still working, no problems.

I don't doubt you've had yours die on you; hard drives fail sometimes. But I don't know that WD are any more prone to failure than other brands. (maybe they are, I just don't know)

IBM Deathstars (now Hitachi) on the other hand, I've heard a lot about.

Re:I have no confidence in anything from WD (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146020)

I like that "IBM Deathstars"... I had some of those early ones with a lot of faults--especially getting quite hot enough to melt plastic surroundings when they get older than a year!! Hitachi's I've not had much issue with but the branded IBM's from Hitachi were a problem. Toshiba and Seagates that I've had were quite stellar. No problems at all with them.

Re:I have no confidence in anything from WD (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146218)

The enterprise WDs don't seem to have that problem.

I have a couple desktop WDs that are over 1.5 years old and they're still running fine.

Re:I have no confidence in anything from WD (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146440)

I've noticed that of all my machines, the one I built myself has the longest MTBF as far as hard drives go. I'm pretty sure it's because the drive cage has a dedicated fan, keeping electromechanical devices cool greatly increases their lifespan.

recursive disposal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23146746)

Recycle bin?



Who exactly recycles that? Or do you mean you throw the hdd in the recycle bin, which contains the recycle bin that contains the hdd which contains the recycle bin....

Re:I have no confidence in anything from WD (1)

spagthorpe (111133) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146794)

Sorry for your experiences, but they don't match mine very well. I've had a long list of WD drives for years, and only recently retired two 250GB drives that had basically continual use over the last four years or so. I gave them to a friend, that is still using them without issue. I have not had a single WD drive fail on me.

When I replaced those drives, I did so with WD's new lower power GP drives, and have had no problem with them at all. Super quiet and seem (without actual benchmarks to back this up) faster than the 250s I replaced.

FWIW, my main system drive for two years has been a Raptor 150. I've very interesting in this new drive.

As with all drives I've owned, I make sure I have a fan blowing directly on them, and my case temps are rarely more than ambient.

Meh. Raptors Aren't All That Anymore (1)

neveragain4181 (800519) | more than 5 years ago | (#23145420)

This decent round-up here [custompc.co.uk] finished off the Raptor line for me. A SpinPoint is much cheaper, much larger and has a lot less noise too. So why bother? Maybe the VelociRaptor will perform better, but I've seen a lot of PC builders get obsessed with the 'badge', i.e. someone told them that their games will run faster with a Raptor...

But... (1)

twentynine (984768) | more than 5 years ago | (#23146754)

Does Jesus ride these new drives?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>