edge929

Next Generation Raptor?

Recommended Posts

Do you know if the NCQ feature will be designed in a way that improves performance this time around?

213490[/snapback]

www.techreport.com showed that NCQ does improve performance when multi-tasking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
interesting! i haven't heard about this till now .......

i'm curious as to why all drives now aren't like that .... sounds like something they should all be doing.

213486[/snapback]

Because until the advent of SAS and SATA, the differences between SCSI and IDE, both in physical pinout/connectors and protocol, prevented practical "dual personality" drives.

The reason this is possible with SAS and SATA is that SAS is a "superset" of SATA, from a protocol standpoint, and uses identical pinouts.

Edited by Trinary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of 15K.5 specs as we've migrated 100% to 2.5 Savio for our high IOPS requirements - more spindles means more IOPS even at only 10K.

I do know Savio will grow to 146Gb on current tech, and 300Gb on PR inside the next 18 to 24 months.

SG

any new news on upcoming 'new' raptors?? there hasn't been a buzz about raptors in awhile ....... ?

213202[/snapback]

213395[/snapback]

Perpendicular technology is coming in Enterprise for Cheeath 15k5 first before 2.5" Savvio2 comes around I believe..

213494[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because until the advent of SAS and SATA, the differences between SCSI and IDE, both in physical pinout/connectors and protocol, prevented practical "dual personality" drives.

213576[/snapback]

That doesn't explain why the drive mechanics aren't typically shared between the two families today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drive mechanics aren't shared because they target different markets and use models. It's always a balancing act between maintaining commonality between products (lower piece-part cost, fewer parts to track/stock, less overhead, etc.) and optimizing for specific niches (sometimes cheaper, often better suits a particular market).

There isn't a technological reason, but a financial reason not to make one HDA and swap a SCSI vs. IDE board, depending on customer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, desktop and enterprise markets have different goals which sometimes can't be met with the same mechanics. Desktop drives are supposed to be lower power and quiet (and cheap). Enterprise drives are supposed to be fast and reliable for 24/7 operation.

Edited by hddmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you know if the NCQ feature will be designed in a way that improves performance this time around?

213490[/snapback]

www.techreport.com showed that NCQ does improve performance when multi-tasking.

213563[/snapback]

Not on the Raptor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2004...40625TCQ_1.html

But Eugene said that otherwise it operates identically?

TCQ must be supported by both the controller and the hard drive itself. It was introduced to the SCSI world as early as 1990 and was formally codified into the SCSI-2 standard by 1994. The feature rapidly proved itself invaluable in the world of multi-user servers and is today consistently deployed across virtually all host adapters and disks. Likewise, TCQ was formally implemented in the 1998 ATA-4 standard. Unlike SCSI devices, however, ATA drives simply were not used in enterprise applications where features like hot-swappability and low access times were paramount. Further, the traditional ATA stronghold, single-user machines, just did not benefit from TCQ; indeed, in many cases the additional imposed overhead actually reduced rather than enhanced performance in these areas. As a result, the feature went largely ignored by the industry.

Today, however, the advent of Serial ATA, its associated hot swap features, and its promised interoperability with the upcoming Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) standard has resulted in a brightening future for ATA in the enterprise. The forthcoming SATA II standard includes provisions to incorporate tagged command queuing a la ATA-4's standard. Native SATA drive architectures such as the Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 and Maxtor MaXLine III tout the inclusion of "Native SATA" tagged command queuing, or "Native Command Queuing" (NCQ) for short. NCQ's fundamental paradigm is identical to that of tagged command queuing; the NCQ moniker simply differentiates the SATA II standard from the existing ATA-4 model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW have you guys seen the 80GB Raptor offered by Dell, as opposed to the normal 74GB Raptor? I found out from this thread.

I'm now trying to see if it's truly a different drive, or if I can still pair up the 80GB Raptor (that's coming with my Dell PC) with a normal 74GB Raptor in a RAID1 mirror?

Because I didn't order a second 80GB Raptor with the PC, as the only choice Dell offered was to pair the two drives in RAID 0. And now I can't seem to find out how to order a second drive separately from Dell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they're not the same drive. There really are two flavors of the Raptor, a 74 GB and a 80 GB, and by now a 36 GB should be out, too (i.e. not the first-gen Raptor, but the second-gen one with faster mechanics and FDB motor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let's do a little math to translate marketing-speak to tech-speak.

80 GB = 80,000,000,000 bytes, at least according to those who prefer round decimal numbers for measurement of HDD capacity

Take that #, divide by 1073741824 (1 GB in binary).

You'll see that it works out to 74 GB (in binary), which happens to be the same size as the Raptor.

So, yes, they really are the same drive. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's the controversy others have also mentioned:

http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?...opic=20654&st=7

What's confusing is that Dell's "80GB" Raptor drives are actually labelled "Raptor WD800GD" which is different than the normal variant's label of "Raptor WD740GD". Dell itself is apparently selling both drives with the different labels.

See:

http://saiyanmanxl.wiredhub.net/Raptor_01.jpg

http://saiyanmanxl.wiredhub.net/Raptor_02.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone that has the 74 GB Raptor drive confirm what its actual capacity is? If it's 74 GB in binary, then maybe the 80 GB really is just an alternate way of defining size. If it's 74 GB in decimal, then the 80 GB is a different drive. My suspicion is we're talking two different capacities, not different ways of defining capacity.

Edited by Mickey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not the 6GB that is making people's day, its the fact that it looks like Dell has a custom 80GB version of the raptor being built for them. That's kinda interesting.

The 74GB was in decimal just like every other hard drive sold today, so the 80GB may very well be a larger unit. Dell can't legally round up 74GB to 80GB. If it is a regular 74GB Raptor, then people could complain about false advertising.

Edited by hddmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is that my new system is coming with the WD800GD Raptor, and now I need to get another identical drive to pair it for RAID 1 mirroring.

Yet I haven't been able to find Dell selling the WD800GD Raptor separately, only as an upgrade at the time of system purchase. The Raptor that Dell is selling separately is advertised as the normal WD740GD (even if it's Dell-branded).

The reason that I didn't get a second WD800GD with my system order is that Dell only offers it in a RAID 0 striping configuration, which I don't want. At the time, I thought that the "80GB" was just a typo, and that I would be able to just get another 74GB Raptor myself after the system purchase to do the mirroring.

But if the "80GB" is truly a different drive, then I don't know what I'm going to do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can still mirror the disks. Both will simply appear to be 74GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, hehe :D

The Raptor is coming with the PC set up as the system boot drive (the only drive actually), and I guess I was being lazy in not wanting to have to image the hard drive, repartition/reformat it, then restore. If I wasn't lazy then I'd have chosen the RAID 0 configuration from Dell in the first place then do the same (image, repartition/reformat, restore) to convert it to RAID 1...

But you're right, I guess it's not impossible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could someone that has the 74 GB Raptor drive confirm what its actual capacity is? If it's 74 GB in binary, then maybe the 80 GB really is just an alternate way of defining size. If it's 74 GB in decimal, then the 80 GB is a different drive. My suspicion is we're talking two different capacities, not different ways of defining capacity.

213969[/snapback]

I suspect that they are different capacities as well, since the LBA parameters are different. The 80GB in the picutures above LBA value is larger than that posted on the WDC website for the 74GB variation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hey good call on that...

Oh, hehe :D

The Raptor is coming with the PC set up as the system boot drive (the only drive actually), and I guess I was being lazy in not wanting to have to image the hard drive, repartition/reformat it, then restore.  If I wasn't lazy then I'd have chosen the RAID 0 configuration from Dell in the first place then do the same (image, repartition/reformat, restore) to convert it to RAID 1...

But you're right, I guess it's not impossible...

213989[/snapback]

Then again, what if the two drives are actually different, and different in some specs (like slower/faster) that lead to them being unsuitable for RAID pairing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now