Guest Eugene

Maxtor Atlas 10K V

Recommended Posts

Guest Eugene

Maxtor's Atlas 10K IV has enjoyed nearly two years atop the StorageReview Leaderboard partly because it has taken forever and a day for the next generation of SCSI drives to arrive.

Finally, however, we're starting to see new-breed SCSI units hit the channel with the first being none other than the Atlas 10K V. What improvements does this long-awaited successor deliver? Let's take a look!

Maxtor Atlas 10K V Review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this bodes well for the 15k ii, which looks set to stomp even the raptor for single user performance.

Unless I read the single user results wrong, doesn't the 10K V already stomp all over the raptor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene

We had to make a decision on whether to include results for the Raptor with TCQ enabled (which helps server scores but decimates non-server scores) or without (which leaves the Raptor even further behind in server scores). In the Raptor's defense, its quite easy to use or disable TCQ at the user's behest. Yet it was difficult to include results for both TCQ and non-TCQ since the review is about the Atlas, not the Raptor. Ultimately, we went with the TCQ representation since WD markets the Raptor as an enterprise-class rather than enthusiast-dream product.

The Raptor's performance without TCQ is quite close to that of the Atlas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCsi really seems for those companies whom produce large servers for large large business in general. other mid-card server contender companies have realized for a while that even though ATA is NOT as realiable as SCSI; this can be overcome with various forms of RAID and backup solutions to eliminate down time.

Now we keep hearing on the internet how come companies say there gonna release their newest SCSI models, only to have to wait for them to actually a suprise. I think that we are more interested in actually seeing there test scores than actually wanting to buy them. So it is no surprise that hard drive manufacturers put their SCSI lines in the face of OEM way before the consumer. THe companies know that their consumer sales suck, so they are willing to sacrifice those sales for the ones they can makes thru companies like IBM, DELL, HP / COMPAQ, etc.

That is why if i could afford it, I would buy SCSI, but with the price so high, and my need for raid out the wazoo, i am content on ATA will suffice; with just as much reliability as scsi thru proper storage techniques!!!!...

JUST my two cents.

SCSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For people like us, we don't really need SCSI for server loads. In my opinion, you would use 1 fast SCSI drive or two under RAID-0~1 as main drives to handle most of the tasks and a bunch of high capacity ATA drives under RAID-5 or so for storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why has the 73 gb Raptor with 36 gb platters a higher End Transfer Rate than the 300 gb Atlas 10k V with 73 gb platters?

There are a number of factors that impact transfer rates. Platter size, rotation speed, density and zoning configuration all affect to varying degrees. The Atlas 10k V may be zoned in such as way that it has lower BPT (bits per track) on the inner tracks.

Or more likely is that the platter is smaller, with the end tracks being closer to the centre of the platter, providing less space to store data on that track. Each rotation of the platter therefore provides less data per rotation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great for enterprise, not really good for home use.  I still like the Hitachi 400 gig, or even the maxtor 300 gig for building servers!

Just my two cents.

SCSA

Huh? The drive tops every benchmark in home use, and provides no signficant benefit in performance for enterprise use. It's nice for enterprises that need high-speed higher-density storage, but otherwise it represents a drive that is nearly identical to the previous generation for a larger price tag.

Obviously its scores in home use are tempered by the market limitations of its interface, but if it excels anywhere, it's in "home" use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15k SCSI drive vs. 2 raptors @ RAID 0

On my system I have (among other drives) a 15k SCSI drive and 2 36Gig WD raptors drives raided at 0 (@128bit stripes). virtual 73Gig

I chose the one plater Raptor drives over the 73Gigs, because with fewer platers per HDD, it allows for (slightly) faster seek times.

The SCSI drive (IBM)/Hitachi 15k 18Gig

PERFORMANCE: here is what I noticed

loading games off the 2 raptors is noticably faster than the 15K SCSI drive

{about 15%-20% faster with large campaign style games}

when capturing video on both drives however, I noticed that the 2 RAIDED raptors were dropping lots of frames of video (about three dozen or so a minute) when converting a DV file to MPEG2 in real-time.

{drive defragged and less than 15% usage)

The SCSI drive however (not even defragged) , consistently lost less than 2 frames per minute, and on several runs dropped none.

{drive about 40% usage}

The quality of the recorded video was also incredible different. For playback, the SCSI video file looked WAY better than the (RAIDED) Raptors. I was suprised, I thought there would be little difference.

After doing this test, I find it hard to image that anyone could recommend an IDE/SATA raid solution for video editing.

System

MB: ASUS P4PE OC @ 800Mhz FSB

CPU: P4EE 3.4

memory: 512 Corsair @ 2-2-2-5

SCSI card:adaptec29160

software: Power Director Pro 3.0

camcorder:a Sony DV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I chose the one plater Raptor drives over the 73Gigs, because with fewer platers per HDD, it allows for (slightly) faster seek times.

The SCSI drive (IBM)/Hitachi 15k 18Gig

Unfortunately, you were mistaken with regard to the Raptors - while that's true (marginally faster seek times with fewer platters) when all else remains the same, all else is not the same with the Raptors. WD tweaked the Raptor when they released the 74 GB version - they gave it fluid dynamic bearings (quieter, better shock resistance), revised firmware, and newer, faster actuators. So the Raptor 74GB actually has a lower seek time than the 36 GB version.

Also, the IBM SCSI drives tend to be rather slower than the equivalent SCSI lines of other brands. See the performance database for details.

Was your OS, pagefile, or any other data being accessed (apart from the app you tested) located on the Raptors or the 15K drive? That would skew your ratings. I wouldn't expect the Raptors to be so much slower, so I feel like you must be missing something that's putting the Raptors at a disadvantage.

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