[Eugene]

Eugene, on Jan 4 2006, 01:08 AM, said:

Page 2's content remains under NDA until tomorrow 10 PM EST. The article should have waited for complete publication until then, but since the cat is out of the bag, rather than pulling the entire writeup (one option), we've honored WD's request and modified certain parts of the article regarding another product. The full version will be restored tomorrow evening.

With another NDA lifted, the article has been expanded to include discussion on the clear-window "Raptor X" and the differences between the two versions.

[rad73]

Excellent review. However a lot of people use raid arrays these days, so some data in this area is needed.
Especially for the 74 gig raptor. Since it is half the price and half the size, it would be nice to see if this beats a single 150gig raptor in raid 0, if this is the case, then it would be better to buy 2 x 74gig drives setup in raid 0 than 1 x 150 gig drive.
RAD

[rad73]

This is the part that really bugs me in an otherwise excellent review that is out before everyone else. Good work!

But back to the problem. There is according to many sources 2 versions of this drive. Not even mentioning this in the review (at least it wasn’t mentioned in the one I read) is discouraging. WD complained about you stealing thunder from there CES announcement?


Hey Mate
If you read the review carefully, the only difference between the two drives is cosmetic, not performance.
RAD

[Eugene]

Reading reactions to the reivew around the net has been quite interesting.

It seems there remain, however, many anachronistic assertions that simply don't wash. Let's informally address a couple of them here:

The first:

Quote

the Raptor can't hold a candle to my 15K SCSI drive!!

You're right, it can't... as long as you're usiing your 15K SCSI drive run, say, Oracle databases. But as a drive in a single user system? To boast of a 15K SCSI drive there is to brag about a tractor-trailer that's can haul 20 tons when others are discussing the speed and ride characteristics of sports cars. SCSI drives are designed for access patterns vastly different than even the heaviest of single-user loads.

Individuals who spout this garbage:

# 1) Failed to take a real look at the single-user graphs throughout the article

and

# 2) Failed to read and consider this paragraph:

Quote

A Word of Caution to Power Users

It is all too common for an enthusiast to believe that his or her usage pattern is closer to that of a server's rather than a desktop's. This idea arises from a variety of sources- "I multitask a lot," "I hear the hard drive grinding away," "I deal with lots of huge files," etc. The truth is, however, that even the heaviest, grinding multitasker experiences disk access patterns that are far more localized in nature than the truly random access that servers undergo. Individuals who choose a hard drive based on its prowess in IOMeter with the belief that their usage habits mimic a server simply do themselves a disservice. It is measures such as the SR Office and High-End DriveMarks that most accurately depict a non-server's response, whether it be the sheer speed experienced under intense disk access or the "snap and feel" associated with intermittent but bursty operations.

Let's move on to the other big misconception:

Quote

Twice the price of a 74GB? For that much money I could get 2 WD740GDs and RAID them for much better performance!!

Wrong. Here's a look at how two RAIDed configurations of the WD740GD on a basic RAID controller compare vs. a single WD1500ADFD:



These figures were drawn from a large database of results compiled in perparation for a future article that will examine the performance of the WD740GD, the Seagate NL35, and the WD4000YR in multidrive configurations operating off of three separate RAID controllers. As demonstrated above, even a four-drive RAID0 array matches the WD1500 in only one out of five cases. I can already hear "but RAID0 suxx, what about RAID5??!!" RAID5's performance is -vastly- worse than RAID0s when it comes to single-user patterns. Results have been omitted to avoid muddying the issue.

The internet is huge, and replete with those who will posit premises based on nothing but stubbornness and intractability. I hope, however, that we can -eventually- start moving on and spread the word that servers and desktops, and the drives designed for each, are largely different beasts... and that RAID's applications arise more in the server world than in the desktop, despite what every major taiwanese manufacturer would have you believe.

[Spod]

I admit I'm curious about where the single Raptor 74GB scores on those graphs, but I guess I'll have to wait for the RAID article for that. It's irrelevant anyway, given what Eugene just posted - it's great to see clear evidence that a single user is better off with one Raptor 150 GB than two Raptor 74 GB drives in RAID 0.

[Eugene]

Spod, on Jan 5 2006, 09:01 AM, said:

I admit I'm curious about where the single Raptor 74GB scores on those graphs

Whoops, good point. The "software controller" in question is the SI3124 with its RAID bios (our reference controller features a non-RAID bios), so, while there are some -small- aberrations here and there, for the most part you can assume that the single drive performs identical to the one represented throughout the WD1500 article.

[TechNet]

Eugene, on Jan 5 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

Reading reactions to the reivew around the net has been quite interesting .....

Good post mate.

Furthermore I have just checked trade prices in the UK for the 1500 and they are only 60% more than the 740 coming in around £167+vat.

Was hoping in an earlier post you could shed some light on this TLER utility for me

[Adam Zonker]

I thought I read somewhere that there also was going to be a new WD74 with 16mb cache?

[Green Hills]

Though the WD1500 remains a speedy unit when NCQ is enabled, we recommend disabling NCQ in non-server settings to obtain the best possible performance.

Ok, how is this done (and more importantly to me - how is TCQ disabled on the WD740GD)?