Printable View
that's what I do, 37GB scsi for speed, 120GB and 80GB ide for storage.Quote:
Originally posted by coolqf
Food for thought:
When considering the Raptor HD but the space if a worry, you always have cheap alternatives to solve that. Just get a 2nd WD SE HD to serve as primarily storage (such as MP3 as Colossus pointed out).
If RAID is a requirement when going raid for some then the HD can be plased in the secondary or even consider a firewire or USB 2.0 HD.
Raptor for $139. Very good buy.
Those were the cheapest I could find. Unless I went with something like a 2940 that was 40MB/s :) I even checked ebay. Either way it came out to $300+ with the drive... and a controller that is not fully supported on my system versus a $139 raptor that was already supported by my system.Quote:
Originally posted by pudad
You don't need the most expensive SCSI controller if you are using regular pci and have only 1 or 2 drives... A controller that is good enough will range from 50 - 150 bucks. SCSI drives are getting a lot cheaper too it seems. The way I see it, if you are going to pay the permium for sata drives (especially the raptor) why not pay a little more and get the real-deal?
Eric
yeah mine was 42 buck @ newegg (but it didn't come with anything so make that another 30 or so w/ a cable and other stuff the manufacturer would package. It is a good drive if you are operating on a desktop system (no 64bit or pci-x slots), and it is Ultra160. It does the job if you are only connecting 1 or 2 drives on a regular pci slot. I mainly got into this because I don't think it is much more expensive than a raptor, SCSI is a more mature standard, best storage system for a server, and I just wanted to learn how to set it up (just from what I learned [not to mention the greater overall performance] I consider it to be worth the extra 100-200 bucks). But if I mainly used my system for gamming, I wouldn't even buy a raptor, a fast pata drive would be where I'd turn.
Most of the reviews I have seen showed a single Raptor drive being around 42MB/s - 44MB/s average from Sandra 2003...Quote:
Originally posted by ewitte
I'm actually referring to the first sandra benchmark here. For my purposes the access time matters the most. The 80GB drive is there for storage. I think it is an older version of Sandra. The newer one gives a single raptor about 48,000. What kind of score are you getting?
Eric
But my RAID 0 array of IBM 120GXP 80GB drives (2 drives) scores 52MB/sec average from Sandra 2003.. I had just ran it to make sure :)
I can show you a 4 drive array for Sanrda :D :D
wow, that is abnormally good for a ide raid0. acording to the bench you are scoring at the level of a 15k rpm drive on with ultra 320. shows ide raid0 w/ 8megs of cache @ around 40ish along with where the raptor is and u160 15k drives. not badQuote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Most of the reviews I have seen showed a single Raptor drive being around 42MB/s - 44MB/s average from Sandra 2003...
But my RAID 0 array of IBM 120GXP 80GB drives (2 drives) scores 52MB/sec average from Sandra 2003.. I had just ran it to make sure :)
I can show you a 4 drive array for Sanrda :D :D
hehe, 15k scsi raid0 with ultra320 is ungodly fast...
something to work towards :cool: == another 500 bucks or so
heh
True, But we both know that 8mb of cache doesnt make a difference... Since my IBM drives are faster then my Western Digital SE drives which have 8mb of cache :D :DQuote:
Originally posted by pudad
wow, that is abnormally good for a ide raid0. acording to the bench you are scoring at the level of a 15k rpm drive on with ultra 320. shows ide raid0 w/ 8megs of cache @ around 40ish along with where the raptor is and u160 15k drives. not bad
But It all depends on how you optimize the array :)
That was an array with a Promise 2000TX instead of onboard raid...
The cheapest thing at newegg at the moment is $150 from some brand I've never heard of. I did find a LSI on pricewatch for $40. However the cheapest one from a place with a good rating was about $65. Why did I not find this when I was looking :) Anyway all I needed fast access time, cheap and a good sturdy drive. The raptor was all of those. No current PATA drive meets those requirements (except for cheap). It also tends to beat SCSI on "desktop performance" for some reason. The server/SQL scores are low compared to SCSI but that is not what I'm using it for. Technically I would have worried about running U160 on PCI. I'm not paying all that money for something that my system does not support. All you need is 2 drives to saturate the bus. Two raptors would be almost identical or even faster in many cases without full native support. To be honest if I had the bandwidth I would love to run a few drives on a SCSI controller with 128MB cache :) I see the $$ right now!Quote:
Originally posted by pudad
yeah mine was 42 buck @ newegg (but it didn't come with anything so make that another 30 or so w/ a cable and other stuff the manufacturer would package. It is a good drive if you are operating on a desktop system (no 64bit or pci-x slots), and it is Ultra160. It does the job if you are only connecting 1 or 2 drives on a regular pci slot. I mainly got into this because I don't think it is much more expensive than a raptor, SCSI is a more mature standard, best storage system for a server, and I just wanted to learn how to set it up (just from what I learned [not to mention the greater overall performance] I consider it to be worth the extra 100-200 bucks). But if I mainly used my system for gamming, I wouldn't even buy a raptor, a fast pata drive would be where I'd turn.
Eric
Definately faster than my SE drive. At least having the low system partition performance issue :(Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
True, But we both know that 8mb of cache doesnt make a difference... Since my IBM drives are faster then my Western Digital SE drives which have 8mb of cache :D :D
But It all depends on how you optimize the array :)
That was an array with a Promise 2000TX instead of onboard raid...
Eric
one step at a time, look under addon cards @ newegg btw. yeah scsi is optimised for server use for the most part. I plan on tapping into that (as well as all the normal desktop uses), so it is a better choice for me. for the most part, a desktop load isn't worth having all of that throughput anyways. What scsi drive are you comparing the raptor to btw?Quote:
Originally posted by ewitte
The cheapest thing at newegg at the moment is $150 from some brand I've never heard of. I did find a LSI on pricewatch for $40. However the cheapest one from a place with a good rating was about $65. Why did I not find this when I was looking :) Anyway all I needed fast access time, cheap and a good sturdy drive. The raptor was all of those. No current PATA drive meets those requirements (except for cheap). It also tends to beat SCSI on "desktop performance" for some reason. The server/SQL scores are low compared to SCSI but that is not what I'm using it for. Technically I would have worried about running U160 on PCI. I'm not paying all that money for something that my system does not support. All you need is 2 drives to saturate the bus. Two raptors would be almost identical or even faster in many cases without full native support. To be honest if I had the bandwidth I would love to run a few drives on a SCSI controller with 128MB cache :) I see the $$ right now!
Eric
8mb cache makes a good bit of difference (not insainly huge, but it is quite a bit), comparing a 120gxp to a wdse drive is like comparing apples and oranges. They are totally different drives. But that is still funny, I would have though the wd would have been faster than then ibm. Anyways, I don't trust ata raid arrays anymore, but still a nice score.
They do not list LSI there. I did just find it by looking up products by brand though. My SE just has specific problems. Only the system partition is slow reguardless of position on the drive. Configured any other way it is much faster. It was fine during the first XP install. About a month later I installed XP again I started having the problem. I'm sure it will do just fine as a second drive. Most tests compare the raptor to an Maxtor Atlas 10K.Quote:
Originally posted by pudad
one step at a time, look under addon cards @ newegg btw. yeah scsi is optimised for server use for the most part. I plan on tapping into that (as well as all the normal desktop uses), so it is a better choice for me. for the most part, a desktop load isn't worth having all of that throughput anyways. What scsi drive are you comparing the raptor to btw?
8mb cache makes a good bit of difference (not insainly huge, but it is quite a bit), comparing a 120gxp to a wdse drive is like comparing apples and oranges. They are totally different drives. But that is still funny, I would have though the wd would have been faster than then ibm. Anyways, I don't trust ata raid arrays anymore, but still a nice score.
Eric
http://www.newegg.com/app/manufactor...alog=73&DEPA=1
sorry, "LSI LOGIC" ;)
and it works fine in xp, newegg is wrong AGAIN. xp has freaking built in drivers (a plus since I don't have a floppy anymore).
I was looking under http://www.newegg.com/app/manufactor...alog=11&DEPA=1Quote:
Originally posted by pudad
http://www.newegg.com/app/manufactor...alog=73&DEPA=1
sorry, "LSI LOGIC" ;)
I could have got a nice 15K RPM 36GB drive and that controller for *only* about $325 :) If your going SCSI why not pay extra for 15K? Its only about 40-50 more than the 10k solution.
Eric
that is what I just said lol ;)Quote:
Originally posted by ewitte
I was looking under http://www.newegg.com/app/manufactor...alog=11&DEPA=1
I could have got a nice 15K RPM 36GB drive and that controller for *only* about $325 :) If your going SCSI why not pay extra for 15K? Its only about 40-50 more than the 10k solution.
Eric
But that is just BS... It doesnt make a difference at all in real world performance.. It just looks good so people buy it :D :DQuote:
Originally posted by pudad
8mb cache makes a good bit of difference (not insainly huge, but it is quite a bit), comparing a 120gxp to a wdse drive is like comparing apples and oranges. They are totally different drives. But that is still funny, I would have though the wd would have been faster than then ibm. Anyways, I don't trust ata raid arrays anymore, but still a nice score.
How is comparing a IBM 120GXP to a WDSE comparing apples to oranges???? They are both HD's just one with 2mb cache with the other at 8mb cache...
I would say that is comparing apples to apples...
I mean, why don't you compare a 2meg wd to an 8 meg. Or a 120gxp to a 180. Then why is it that 8meg cache drives just seem faster in general (maybe psycological lol) or that they score a good deal higher in benches. Hmm, actually, benches mean sh1t most of the time. yOU MIGHT BE RIGHT ON THIS ONE. Shoot! Their goes my caps, time to order a happy hacker keyboard! :p
not sure on this one, I mean if you compare a barracuda 7200.7 with 8mb cache to one with 2, the 8 performs a lot better (in benchmarks at least).
oh well, I only paid an extra 2 dollars for the 120gb seagate w/ 8mb cache, so it isn't like I paid a whole lot more lol.
Very benchmark I have seen where they had the same platter configuration but the cache was different, they scored the same...Quote:
Originally posted by pudad
I mean, why don't you compare a 2meg wd to an 8 meg. Or a 120gxp to a 180. Then why is it that 8meg cache drives just seem faster in general (maybe psycological lol) or that they score a good deal higher in benches. Hmm, actually, benches mean sh1t most of the time. yOU MIGHT BE RIGHT ON THIS ONE. Shoot! Their goes my caps, time to order a happy hacker keyboard! :p
not sure on this one, I mean if you compare a barracuda 7200.7 with 8mb cache to one with 2, the 8 performs a lot better (in benchmarks at least).
It probably seems faster since you reloaded the OS which 10 out of 10 times a clean OS runs faster then a few month old OS :D :D
But yes, They do perform the same... And if anything the 8mb cache is maybe .25% faster :D
But the 120GXP had always been faster then any WD drive except the SCSI or Raptor :D So it was still faster then the SE drives.. I wonder how well the 180GXP performed since its a 120GXP with 8mb cache :D
You mean the "Deathstars" :)Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Very benchmark I have seen where they had the same platter configuration but the cache was different, they scored the same...
It probably seems faster since you reloaded the OS which 10 out of 10 times a clean OS runs faster then a few month old OS :D :D
But yes, They do perform the same... And if anything the 8mb cache is maybe .25% faster :D
But the 120GXP had always been faster then any WD drive except the SCSI or Raptor :D So it was still faster then the SE drives.. I wonder how well the 180GXP performed since its a 120GXP with 8mb cache :D
Nope :)Quote:
Originally posted by ewitte
You mean the "Deathstars" :)
Out of what 300-400 IBM 60/75GXP I had 1 failure... Not a deathstar to me :)
Plus the 120GXP have a higher reliability rating then WD :)
I've just been unlucky with IBM. We had a batch where 8 out of 10 SCSI drives were bad. I've seen thier laptop drives die a lot. On top of that the model I had at home was the one that was famous for dying. I got an RMA for it and the new one died within 2 months. Generally I do not even use a drive very long anymore before upgrading.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Nope :)
Out of what 300-400 IBM 60/75GXP I had 1 failure... Not a deathstar to me :)
Plus the 120GXP have a higher reliability rating then WD :)
Eric
no, it is bad luck that you decided to buy those poses. it is bad engineering that made them fail on you, ibm is truly the last disk I would ever consider purchasing.Quote:
Originally posted by ewitte
I've just been unlucky with IBM. We had a batch where 8 out of 10 SCSI drives were bad. I've seen thier laptop drives die a lot. On top of that the model I had at home was the one that was famous for dying. I got an RMA for it and the new one died within 2 months. Generally I do not even use a drive very long anymore before upgrading.
Eric
You know it was considered a good drive when it came out. It had great reviews. Then about a year later everyone started complaining how unrealiable the were. Sure enough it died on me. I still have the RMA drive. It *may* work but I gave up on it when I got my WD SE drive.Quote:
Originally posted by pudad
no, it is bad luck that you decided to buy those poses. it is bad engineering that made them fail on you, ibm is truly the last disk I would ever consider purchasing.
Eric
I read somewhere that ibm has some exclusive stuff that make it perform nicely in benchmarks, but it's actual performance isn't as good as what benchmarks can tell. all I have to say is, any ibm I have owned (and I have been through 4 some 60 and 120 gxps) has seemed much slower in actual use than my barracuda 4. could be anything, but I juat lost my trust in ibm drive after my first 2 died on me. wd and Seagate are good in my book. never ran a maxtor, for the most part I am loyal to seagate, until their products start failing on me left and right (which I doubt).