Sign in to follow this  
Davin

Western Digital Raptor Preview

Recommended Posts

  Times four and I'd have 108GB available after RAID with four separate spindles to read from.  I'd love it.

Thoughts?

Sounds like an incredibly unsafe way of holding 108gb to me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Times four and I'd have 108GB available after RAID with four separate spindles to read from.  I'd love it.

Thoughts?

Sounds like an incredibly unsafe way of holding 108gb to me :)

No, read it again. He was talking about putting them in a RAID-5. (4*36 is 144, when you remove the capacity of one drive for the parity, you get 108GB, or 3*36.) RAID-5 is a very SAFE way of holding 108GB. (I'm seriously thinking about doing this myself in my home server. I'd like a storage medium that is fast enough AND large enough for my digital video files, plus secure. Right now I'm just storing them on my unsafe 80GB*2 RAID-0.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm moronic :)

I think 4 drives is a little excessive, but that's just me - it's quite small for 4 drives :(

but hey different needs for different folks - although 4x50+mb a second drives, (even if it's not 4x50mb, but maybe 3.5x50mb) still sounds like you'd be nearing SATA's limits?

I NEED a bloody SATA "roundup" so I know which is *THE* sub 50$ US controller to get for the WD Raptor.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I NEED a bloody SATA "roundup" so I know which is *THE* sub 50$ US controller to get for the WD Raptor.......

:lol: same here :lol:

except "sub $50" ??? I take it you're not really interested in RAID, eh?

my 2 posts on the previous page are exactly on the issue of having these great WD Raptors become available to buy online, while still being totaly clueless about *THE* controller that I should pair my 2 WD Raptors with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I NEED a bloody SATA "roundup" so I know which is *THE* sub 50$ US controller to get for the WD Raptor.......

:lol: same here :lol:

except "sub $50" ??? I take it you're not really interested in RAID, eh?

my 2 posts on the previous page are exactly on the issue of having these great WD Raptors become available to buy online, while still being totaly clueless about *THE* controller that I should pair my 2 WD Raptors with...

nk2k

It's killer man :( I'm dying for more replies on this hard disk.

I wanna see not only the full writeup but which controller is the way to go to run this baby at best performance :(

SIGH

I REALLY want some info... but I guess Eugene is busy.

As for an SATA roundup - Eugene would be good at it, I'd trust his results definately - but he's almost too thorough.

Can you imagine him, with three SATA hard disks and say 4 controllers - every combination (he'd do it too) just to be certain we know exactly which controller is the best one to get)

I DID want the 3112A that tomshardware reviewed, but after Eugenes comments I might consider the promise, I just think it's a bit weird that their findings are damn near opposite to each other (sigh)

I didn't think there'd be that much of a perf delta with controllers as it is! - 2-4% sure but some of the figures on Toms are just huge.......

BIG sigh

NEED reviews asap :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SIGH...BIG sigh...NEED reviews asap :(

Didn't wanna keep up the quote craze, sorry :oops:

I don't know what to say ... on one had Tom's hardware has been almost PERFECT at some benches they've published, and my system fell into the EXACT results that were suggested by their stuff...

on the other, there have been fakes on that website ... that caused a MAJOR flamewar accross many boards but the proof of the images being edited was pretty much there and that's when a good amount of people lost all respect for that website...

nowwww back to the controller dilema, I won't repost my whole original post (now that it's on the previous page I can only hope people ever see it) but this thing about Promise keeps bothering me as I *might* fall into the cathegory:

Originally posted on Tom's Hardware Guide

The SATA150 TX2 achieved good performance figures in the Winbench 99 2.0 applications benchmark and in the H2benchw application test. It was marked down because of the interface transfer rate with motherboards using Intel chipsets, where it cannot achieve any more than 63 MBytes/sec. Comparative measurements with an Athlon system using a KT400 chip and VT8235-Southbridge showed a healthy 82 MBytes/sec.

High Point's card seemed perfect but why the hell is WD not working with High Point? Perhaps Tom's Hardware missed mentioning 'em...heh

lastly, I wonder if the soft raid vs hardware raid thing is still true with SATA ... I mean supposevly only 3ware's got a true hardware raid IDE card, while Promise and High Point are at some point/level software ... there I go with summary of my second post again :oops:

Okay, anyhow, I bought me twice more ram so now I don't have money for the 2 WD Raptors AND the controller so that should stop me until the end of the week, at least ... I hope for many reviews by the time I get a hold of my new paycheck :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can't answer your controller questions, as we both know we are trying to find the same information.

However, I can answer the questions about "semi software" raid vs true super expensive hardware raid.

in my opinion on the desktop, if you got over 1.5ghz (true, not AMD "pretend" rating or 1.8ghz p4) it should be fine .... I've used an iwill "cheap" 100$ (AUD) basic raid PATA card and was very impressed with the performance for the cost.

I could be wrong and eugene / other hardcores may dispute it, but either way it shoukldn't be too bad at all.

I just want my review ASAP :(

sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...if you got over 1.5ghz (true, not AMD "pretend" rating or 1.8ghz p4) it should be fine...

ughh...I'm a 1.6A...I'm DOOMED :(

not that I don't OC to 1.8 or even 2.1 when I want to hit some high score in some benchmark but I've never considered running my system constantly OC-ed...alternative is saving up for a CPU, but I kinda wanna wait for the new generation.

meanwhile, I suppose for hardware SATA RAID the only thing I can do is save 360 bucks (seriously tho, what's 3ware thinking? *sigh*)

16-116-012-02.JPG

The above's newegg's 3WARE Escalade 8500-4 Serial ATA RAID Controller Card RETAIL BOX, only why does it look to me like it should be called 3WARE Escalade 8500-2 Serial ATA RAID Controller Card (cheap edition) :D /the 2 connectors instead of 4???/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

once again I find myself in need of the "edit" button...oh well...

about the above post, I suppose it IS with 4 connectors - 2 on top and 2 on the bottom of the board.

Wish 3ware cared about people on a budget/non-enterprise individuals(aka gamers or else enthusiasts for other reasons).

/me wonders if 3ware will release a special edition of the 8500 later on with 2 connectors, sorta like they did back with the 7000-2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but hey different needs for different folks - although 4x50+mb a second drives, (even if it's not 4x50mb, but maybe 3.5x50mb) still sounds like you'd be nearing SATA's limits?

Nope. S-ATA is 150MB/s PER DRIVE. Each drive is on its own channel, therefore each drive has its own 150MB/s limit. Of course, if you're using a 32-bit, 33MHz PCI controller card, you end up with 132MB/s limit for the whole card...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what the heck? :(

Mark1Computers just changed the ETA on the WD Raptors to 3/26/03 ... not that I was gonna buy 'em on day 1 but come on...I thought people'd get them and post comments, since they were *supposed* to be selling starting today (I'm not counting pre-orders)

awww...

oh well, more wait = more time to research/decide on controller for the drives ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what the heck? :(

Mark1Computers just changed the ETA on the WD Raptors to 3/26/03 ... not that I was gonna buy 'em on day 1 but come on...I thought people'd get them and post comments, since they were *supposed* to be selling starting today (I'm not counting pre-orders)

awww...

oh well, more wait = more time to research/decide on controller for the drives ...

Yeah this is true,...... none the less I would have liked them to be "out" there so more people can post comments on them.

I'll just sit tight and wait I guess - nothing else I can do.

BTW 300+$ for a SATA controller card just seems wrong to me,.... for that kind of money you could just get SCSI practically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your going to spend that kind of money, why not spend it a mobo that already has the controller built on it, besides I believe it would cost less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your going to spend that kind of money, why not spend it a mobo that already has the controller built on it, besides I believe it would cost less.

well to be honest I'm very tempted to just go with the proven tech and affordable 3ware 7000-2 card at about 150 bucks, there's my true hardware RAID 0 with 2 80 Gig WD SEs (storage amount is not a priority) and everything's buy-able right now. (newegg even has sub-100 dollar price on the 80 Gig HDDs)

WD HAD to complicate my life ... I doubt that I'd be sorry in the end (unless they come up with solid state desktop drives 2 days after I buy my WD Raptors :oops:) but things just have to be all complicated, don't they?

If you check out my initial post you'd notice I was all set for HighPoint RocketRAID 1520 before I heard about the whole hardware and not-so-hardware RAID deal and the issues some folks got with the card and naturally WD had to mention every other company BUT HighPoint unless that Tom's Hardware article I read was all totaly wrong or somethin'.

now the real dilema's between the two below, issues with the Promise card mentioned on Tom's Hardware Guide scare me but the benches on here make me wanna go for it and whatever the hell happens, so be it :lol:

again, any advice/info on either controller would be welcome!

Thanks in advance all! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:cry: no edit button :cry:

well there's a reason for this post, don't worry ... I just saw this:

Adaptec Serial ATA RAID 1210SA Kit

Just what we needed to add to the confussion :evil: ...

Something else I've been wondering about...

would I be able to boot up in any OS with the not-so-true hardware RAID adapters :?:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as I can get my hands on 2 Raptors, I'll let you know the performance on my two mobo's (Asus's A7V8X with Promise PDC20376 controller & A7N8X Deluxe with Silicon Image's Sil 3112A). It was Tom's Hardware review of these mobo's that made up my mind on what controller to get (great performance on both apparently). The benefit of getting a separate contoller is that you can put it on any mobo, but I like saving the extra PCI slot and not using the slow 32 bit bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...not using the slow 32 bit bus.

just what do you think you're using then? it's just not a card that you insert, but as far as I know built in solutions are on the same track, no?

I did a ton more research on semi-hardware RAID vs true hardware RAID and wow, even 850 Mhz AMD is faster than 3ware's IDE card, and I doubt that things suddenly change with SATA...

NOW I'm finally leaning back to HighPoint RocketRAID 1520 2-Channel Serial ATA RAID Host Controller- Retail from newegg but your benchmarks, along with these of many online websites, will be heard before I take action (I sure hope I can wait that long :P then again I HAVE survivied on 5400RPM drives all the way till now, I think it's just the excitment of moving up by 2, rather than 1 step, that's all :D).

I know Tom's Hardware Guide made it seem impossible to get a card with SI chip but if that turns out to work the best, I'll be sure to dig one up from somewhere...

Summary of my post: At last I'm realxed about getting a card that isn't 100% hardware RAID now *phew*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, both motherboard contollers run on the 66Mhz bus, not the 32Mhz bus. If you are like me, then you want maximum performance and settling for the slower bus will not suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know, both motherboard contollers run on the 66Mhz bus, not the 32Mhz bus.  If you are like me, then you want maximum performance and settling for the slower bus will not suffice.

first you're talking bits, then you're talking Mhz...now YOU are confusing me :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An Advanced Look at the WD Raptor

...a small point, but shouldn't this article title read "An Advance Look..."

Normally I try to ignore such word misusage (especially on US websites), but this one is so prominent it bugs me everytime I open the home page at SR.

Cheers,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I'm not quite sure myself,  but I believe a 32 bit bus is 33 Mhz, a 64 bit bus is 66 Mhz.

Not quite - standard PCI is 32 bit, 33 MHz. This is all you'll get on a single CPU board these days, including any onboard devices (unless it is an unusual and expensive Supermicro - based board).

Most dual-CPU boards come with either 64 bit, 33 MHz or (more usually) 64 bit, 66 MHz, as well as some regular PCI slots. Some older dual CPU boards had 32-bit, 66 MHz, but I believe this is unusual. New server boards often come with PCI-X, which currently does 64-bit at up to 133 MHz, depending on how many devices are using it.

So while most implementations are 32-bit, 33 MHz or 64-bit, 66 MHz, other combinations are quite common too.

Regarding onboard devices bypassing the PCI bus, this only applies to devices integrated into the southbridge itself - other controllers (including SCSI, SATA and RAID) on the motherboard are attached to the same PCI bus as everything else.

That said, the forthcoming VIA 8237 southbridge (to go with the KT400A chipset) and the Intel 755 and 765 (Springdale and Canterwood) chipsets will all have SATA integrated into the southbridge, and this WILL be independent of the PCI bus, able to run at the full 150 MB/sec (though only when reading from the drive's cache). The 755 & 765 will do SATA RAID from the southbridge, too.

Confused?

Spod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused?

Not as much anymore after what you said :D

I mean I had seen bits and pices of that as I was searching around the forum and in other websites but I didn't have enought to confidently tell SCAJ something like "You're wrong, it's not this way, it's that way..."

I guess if I get HighPoint's card I'll be using it with the WD Raptors until I upgrade my motherboard to either one of the new Intel mobos and then I'd be starting to use the SATA to IDE converters with a few of my older drives in another PC, as the raptors will be hooked directly to the motherboard ...

I hope to see a HighPoint vs Promise comparison on here...Tom's Hardware certainly made it look like HighPoint's card is the fastest thing for a basic non-raid connection but I'm curious how it'd compare to promise's "cheap" 2 connections card because Tom's Hardware also made getting SI-based card seem impossible so I have a slight doubt about things :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question, why is it that the larger drives are scoring better marks?  It seems to me that if you fill up these larger drives it will take longer to access the information stored on them.   I have WD1200Jb drive with XP on it and it takes several hours to Speeddisk that drive, extremely slow and poor performance if you ask me.  On my other drives, Quantum Atlas 10K (Ultra 160), Fujitsu's MAN3367 (Ultra 160) and Maxtor's 30 GB (ATA100)  drive take no time at all to defrag the hard drives.  Are the results better on those drives because they are smaller or is it that WINME runs Speeddisk faster?

You are NOT comparing apples to apples here. Lets compare two imaginary drives 100GB and 20GB. Let's assume both drives only have 1 platter + 1 head (yeah i know it is impossible but let's assume). Both drives spin at 7200 rpms.

The hard drives are the same physical size yet 1 drive hold 5x as much data in the same space. The amount of data that can be stored in a given space is called arial density(AD). Why does AD matter? Because since all 7200rpm drives spin at the same rate the platter physically moves the same distance on all drives. HOWEVER the drive with higher AD will be able to read and write much quicker because that distance will hold more data. In 1 milisecond both drives will cover a physical distance of 1.5inches. However on the bigger drive 1.5inches means ~ 60,000 bytes and on the smaller drive it may be only 12,000 bytes. Since the smaller drive has to cover 5x as much distance to read the same data it would take 5x as long OR the drive would have to spin 5x as fast.

So all things the same (i.e # of platters, # of heads, cache, and rpms). the drive with the higher AD will win benchmarks and preform faster in real life.

Onto your comparison. You are comparing a 120GB drive with a 30GB drive and saying 1 takes longer to defrag than the other. WELL that may be true IF you have more data on the 120GB drive than the 30GB one. But that is not a fair comparison. That is like saying your neighbors pool takes twice as long to drain (btw it happens to be twice as big). To do a fair comparison the data on both drives would have to be equal. If you made a 30GB partition on the 120GB drive and compared it to the 30GB drive's defrag time you would find the larger drive preformed much faster.

Your best bet if to partition the 120GB drive into 2-3 smaller drives to maximize performance. For example I have a pair of 1200JB in RAID0. I do a lot of DVD editing which tends to churn up the drive. So I have 3 partition. System (50GB), Video (100GB), and Storage(70GB). System only contains system files, no docs, no mp3s etc. just programs and windows. video contains the video files, streams, and dvd images ready to be burned. storage contains all my documents, backup programs, and apps.

To all the RAID0 haters out there I know RAID0 is more dangerous than a single drive that is why the storage drive is backed up to DVD-R weekly. However the top three reasons for data loss are 1) accidental deletion, 2)system crash/system instability, and 3) virus or data corruption. Hard Drive failure is ranked like 7 or 9 in the top10. Single drives or even RAID0 wll not protect you from most data losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meanwhile, I suppose for hardware SATA RAID the only thing I can do is save 360 bucks (seriously tho, what's 3ware thinking? *sigh*)

16-116-012-02.JPG

The above's newegg's 3WARE Escalade 8500-4 Serial ATA RAID Controller Card RETAIL BOX, only why does it look to me like it should be called 3WARE Escalade 8500-2 Serial ATA RAID Controller Card (cheap edition) :D /the 2 connectors instead of 4???/

This is the 8500-4 because it supports 4 drives. There are 2 more SATA connectors on the backside of the PCB. 3ware also makes a 8500-8 and 8500-12 with the same PCB to save money (reason for the blanks on PCB). The 8 adds 4 more SATA connectors below the first four (2 on front, 2 on back), and another SATA controller chip. The 12 add 1 more controller chip and another 4 more SATA connector in the lower right (2 on front of board, 2 on back).

The 8500 is really overkill on any home system. The 8500 has hardware to do the XOR calculations because RAID5 involves some serious math. RAID0 or RAID1 can be done on any 1Ghz+ CPU in it's sleep. When copying a DVD image file from my software RAID0 drives (SI3112) the CPU usage never peaked over 3% (2Ghz system). Now RAID5 calculations could use 10%-15% of clock cycles even on a decent server so 3ware design a hardware RAID5 engine called Fusion5. That is why the price of this card is so high. However you really would only see max benefit under heavy load (webserver or database server) in a 64bit slot, running RAID5. For your casual home use a software RAID0 or 1 should be fine.

I saw some post comparing an onboard MB RAID and PCI RAID. If the PCI card does not have true hardware support i.e $200+. Then they are essentialy the same. PCI slots are 32bitx33mhz = 133MB/sec. Right now no MB have SATA in the core chipset so the SATA bridge is linked via the PCI bus so either a PCI card or onboard MB SATA would be limited to the PCI bandwith of 133MB/sec. Starting in Q4-2003 you will see SATA built into the southbridge which is linked to the northbridge and proc by 500MB to 2GB/sec links (depends on Motherboard). Then SATA will become unlinked from the PCI bus. This is a necessary because SATA-II will be 300MB/sec and SATA-III will be 600MB/sec. Plus having SATA in the southbridge will ensure virtually all MB in 2004 will have 2 or 4 SATA ports. This will lead to mass market and eventually 2005-2006 push PATA the way serial, and parallel ports.

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
Sign in to follow this