Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by xXVERBXx, Jan 28, 2008.
My current old ass computer is the old ass flat thick wires, so is sata 3.0gb/s the way to go now?
For a home computer, yes, sata II or whatever they call it is the way to go.
I'm waiting for the SAS fanboys to get here though.
seagate series 11 ftw
a nice scsi drive or a raptor
The new 32 MB cached seagates kick dirt on the raptors.
Seagate SATA II's are great especially in RAID 1 or 5 screw raptors
link to this. i need some proof.
enjoy good read
Yes it is a good read, why are there so many 7200.11 sackriders when it isn't really that good?
ith 250GB platters, 32MB of cache, and a 7,200-RPM spindle speed, the Barracuda 7200.11 should be the fastest high-capacity drive on the market. Except that it isn't. Results from our performance testing are mixed at best, with the new 'cuda excelling in some tests but faltering badly in others."
"That makes it tough to recommend the 7200.11 for desktops, particularly when competing drives offer faster and more consistent performance."
SCSI RAID is still the fastest, and it probably always will be. The current iteration of SCSI is called SAS, and you can get drives up to 15,000rpm. Solid-state SATA is another option that reduces seek time to almost nothing, but it makes SCSI RAID look cheap by comparison -- a single 128GB solid-state SATA drive costs $3000.
Bandwidth on the big SATA drives is getting scary for sure.
But I would love to put a nice SAS setup together.
I love that the drives are only 2.5" and still so fast.
With a custom case, you could put together a really tiny build that would be freaky fast.
Lot of bucks though.
I admit to being an 11 series sackrider, but not because it is THE fastest, obviously. THE fastest drive is the Samsung spinpoints.
But I don't know enough about those drives to trust my data to them.
Seagate on the other hand, I have no trouble whatsoever trusting all of my data on. The 5 year warranty says a lot about them.
And if you look at those benchmarks, they are near the top on almost every benchmark. That's good enough for me.
Yeah, Western Digital needs to hurry up and bring out the next gen Raptors already.
I'm running a 74gb Raptor as the os on both of my main builds, but if I were putting a build together today, I would go with a 500gb 11 series, or WD, or maybe even a Samsung Spinpoint with a bigger backup drive.
Doc, the 7200.11 is not near the top in almost every benchmark. In the benchmarks that matter the most for a single user desktop it loses.
The five year warranty is nice but that in and of itself does not mean that the drive is any more reliable then any other.
Based on price/performance, the WD7500AAKS is a much better drive.
Average read, average write, maximum read, maximum write...
Those are the most important to me, and it's #2 behind the Samsungs on all 4.
Wow. Looks like Samsung wins. I wonder what the platter configuration is? The higher throughput suggests fewer platters with higher bit density, but the penalty there is the seek time is usually (slightly) higher because with fewer platters, it's more likely that the reader arm will have to move farther across the platters to get to the data it's looking for.
Seek time is still almost entirely affected by spindle RPM, though.
- - -
In other news, it's interesting to see that my Raptors are still holding their own. They might be mid-pack, but for older technology that's pretty damn good.
Can you pull up seek time info on those same drives? I'd also like to see transfer speed on random reads and writes, not just sequential reads and writes.
Go through the benches at
Count up how many the 7200.11 was in the top five vs. the WD7500.AAKS, especially ones that apply to single user desktop.
At the end of the day it's price/performance.
Actually, I did do that yesterday from that same link and the 11 series does quite well on a lot of those.
For me personally though, cost per gb has never been an issue.
Nor is cost/performance.
Like I said in an earlier post, I'm running Raptors on both of my builds.
All together, I have 2 74gb Raptors, and 2 150gb Raptors.
I should have mentioned that reliability is very important to me.
The Raptors are enterprise level drives, which is the main reason I went with them.
The fact that they were so fast was just a plus to that.
Ironically, I've had one fail.
I have to say, that I wish the Toms Hardware benchmark had a few more models in there.
For instance, the Western Digital WD1600AAJS is very fast, mainly because it's a single platter 160gb drive.
So I assume that the Seagate 11 series, being 250gb per platter, will be very fast in a 250gb model. But I'd like to see the numbers to verfiy that.
The same goes for the Samsung Spinpoint drives. I'd like to see a single platter tested. If it winds up being as fast as it seems like, I wouldn't mind running an os off of one, with a backup of course just in case.
And of course, the same goes for the Western Digital big drives. I'd like to see single platter versions of those too.
Price/performance doesn't matter anymore. Price per GB matters, but performance stands alone -- now that drives are so cheap, there's no other significant factor to weigh against performance, except maybe $/GB.
So maybe I'd say the be-all/end-all of hard drive rankings is Performance × Size ÷ Cost, but even then Performance is a combination of seek time and throughput, and which one is more important varies pretty significantly depending on application, though I suppose throughput matters slightly more for what normal people do.
dude, the samsung sinpoint and seagate 7200.11 are 1TB drives that costs around $280.
their 750GB counterparts are priced in the same range as the WD75000AKS.
Thanks. Good to see my Raptors can still outrun the competition in a drag race if not a road race, but nobody else has even bothered to make 10,000rpm drives for SATA yet.
wow, alot of good info in this thread.