western digital raptor?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by lodore, Mar 11, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    hello,
    as you know from otehr threads im gonna build a pc for myself soon.
    i was wondering if a 36gb raptor is worth the cash or not?
    my profile on this pc is about 4gb that includes my documents which is 2gb
    music is around 5gb atm.
    it will only have a limited amount of apps on my new pc.
    so i thought why not splash out and get a raptor with the pc but i was wondering what people who have them thought of them first.
    i was thinking the 36gb raptor the smallest one i think.
    then use a second normal speed drive for data.
    lodore
     
  2. ThunderZ

    ThunderZ Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,459
    Location:
    North central Ohio, U.S.A.
    Asked this same question a while back. Got all positive responses. The 36 gig Raptor is in my PCs future as well.
    Had a chance to play on a Raptor equipped PC a while back. All I could say was "WOW". :D :thumb:
     
  3. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    it will be worth me saving up the extra then:D
    lodore
     
  4. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I even have two WD Raptors of 80 gb - 10000rpm in order to increase the speed of my computer along with double core CPU (= multi-tasking) and 2048mb RAM.
    I'm very satisfied with its speed. What I like the most on my new computer is the multi-tasking, which was a real problem on my previous computer.

    One WD Raptor for system and one normal harddisk for data is a very good decision.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2007
  5. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Get the 74 GB version. It´s faster, quieter and has decent capacity.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2007
  6. nick s

    nick s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Posts:
    1,430
    I use a 74 GB Raptor in both of my desktops to hold my OS partitions. A bit noisy, but well worth the extra money.

    Nick
     
  7. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    im not sure i could afford the 74gb version but i will see
    has any of you used to have a normal 72rpm drive as a system drive then switch to a raptor on the same mahcine?
    if so was the startup time alot faster?
    lodore
     
  8. FastGame

    FastGame Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Posts:
    677
    Location:
    Blasters worm farm
    WD Raptors are one of the best hardware investment I've made, I have the 36 (first model) & 74 gig.

    I would get the 74 gig and a cheaper large drive if you need lots of storage.
     
  9. nick s

    nick s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Posts:
    1,430
    It's been a while since I upgraded, but I recall a 30% or so improvement across various disk-intensive tasks.
     
  10. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    591
    Location:
    Canada
    For the same money you can probably buy 2 NEW Seagate SCSI drives that work on Ultra320 and use them in RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration (speed or security) as well as SCSI card. Check eBay.
    These last forever.
     
  11. VikingStorm

    VikingStorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    387
    I wonder how much better the new hybrid hard-drives will be. When they are out, you should also take a look at those.
     
  12. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    any links for those drives?
    i dont really wanna buy a drive off ebay.
    @fastgame im not sure i could afford a 74gb raptor so it might have to be a 36gb raptor.
    i should be the only person using that system so i shouldnt need to much space.
    i could get e.g. 36gb raptor and a 80gb 7200rpm drive for like £28 for data.
    but that means if the second drive goes ive lost my data because i would store images of the c: drive on the second drive and my data.

    1.can i use the raptor as the system drive and then have two drives the same e.g. two 80gb drives and have them as raid?
    so three drives. if its not possible tell me why im new to raid

    2.or what about if i couldnt afford a raptor and wanted just two 80gb drives as raid 1 (mirrored) and then stored a fresh image of windows on the raid array could i restore it on the same array as its stored or not? the image would be just be an image of the c: drive so i could restore it if anything software related went wrong.

    i want answers for both questions


    lodore
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2007
  13. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    591
    Location:
    Canada
    Just look for Seagate SCSI 68pin 15K (15000RPM) Ultra320. Usually you can get 74gb for aroun $100 from eBay. 36gb used to be less but I do not see them listed no more.
    If you decide to buy SCSI make sure its 68pin not 80pin.

    SCSI card that support Ultra320 standard cost around $45 on eBay.

    If you purchase this drive from the store its aroun $250...

    I used these drives 2x 36gb in RAID0 for gaming, they are very very fast. Mine were 10000RPM so 15000RPM should be even faster.

    This is Fujitsu 147gb http://cgi.ebay.com/FUJITSU-147GB-U...0094877528QQcategoryZ3666QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
     
  14. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    nice drive lol
    thanks for the link
    do any ship to the england?
    do you mean a SCSI raid controller?

    lodore
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2007
  15. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    IMHO raptors are only with the £££ where you need the continous transfer rate, for something like A/V work.
    Seek time and a big cache are what is most important for general use.

    I'd go for something like a Seagate Barracuda (in my local shop I can get a 250gb for the same price as a 36gb raptor) , which has a very very similar seek time and same cache (on the bigger sized ones) as the 36gb Raptor, and you should be able to afford far more storage space.
     
  16. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    you serious?
    can you give me any links for that harddrive?
    is it SCSI or sata?
    thanks
    lodore
     
  17. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,748
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Lucky me, Google worked
     
  18. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,748
    Location:
    The Netherlands
  19. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    ye google is your friend lol.
    two burricuda 80gb raid 1 could work well
    or two 160gb
    lodore
     
  20. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Hi lodore,

    As it's speed you're after, I guess you meant RAID 0 (striped) rather than RAID 1 (mirrored), which greatly reduces the data transfer rate for write operations.

    Regards
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2007
  21. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    i was looking for raid 1 mirror
    speed shouldnt be to bad
    but with raid 0 if one drive goes does all the data go?
    or is that a different raid?
    lodore
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2007
  22. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    RAID isn´t backup. RAID is a "always on" solution.
     
  23. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Oops! Sorry, I had "mirrored" and "striped" mixed up in my mind. Edited my post accordingly.

    RAID 1 (mirrored disks) will slow up read operations a little and write operations a LOT. In this case you are trading off speed for security (if one disk fails the data is still accessible).
    RAID 0 (striped disks) will greatly speed up both read and write operations but more than halve the theoretical mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) for a single disk. In this case you are trading off security for speed (if either disk fails, you loose your data).

    Regards
     
  24. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    591
    Location:
    Canada
    The best practise is to use 3 drives, 2 for RAID0 and third one for backup images. I have 40gb Seagate ATA100 that I use for backups only.

    Keep in mind that these SCSi drives are used for top of the line servers, they usually have 5 years warranty and are made to work 24/7, they are often 3 times more expensive that standard drives, They do not require surface scanning etc.. Also they have better electronic that monitor and fix read/write problems on the fly.

    These Fujitsu as I remember come with new fluid bearings, they are very quiet and last longer than ball bearing ones..

    Standard drives like Barracuda are not made to work 24/7 (they can work 24/7 but statistically SCSI is a lot more reliable). On Seagate web site you can find explanations about their lifetime where they explaned about this.
     
  25. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    is SCSI harder to setup thou?
    plus you need a SCSI controller.
    but if i could justify the cost of a 10k rpm or even 15k rpm SCSI drive for the system drive and use e.g a 80gb for a image drive then that would work out great.
    what is the smallest GB current gen SCSI drive?
    it depends on how much a SCSI harddrive and WSCSI adaptor is and how you set it up
    i agree with the raid 0 and three harddrives idea thou

    lodore
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.