"Western Digital Raptor WD740GD Review"
- Thread starter Wunderchu
- Start date
shouldnt you have linked to the actual review @:Wunderchu said:
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200401/20040126WD740GD_1.html
The alternative would have been to change the title to:
"preview of a Western Digital Raptor WD740GD Review" or something along those lines.
later,
epic
beyondhelp
Newcomer
Here's the Honest to god Review of the new Raptor. An actual Production model...
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200401/20040126WD740GD_1.html
Nice drive, although it doesn't hold a candle to my RAID0 setup with dual WD800JB-SE drives.
(EDIT: oops sorry, didn't notice the link already listed.)
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200401/20040126WD740GD_1.html
Nice drive, although it doesn't hold a candle to my RAID0 setup with dual WD800JB-SE drives.
(EDIT: oops sorry, didn't notice the link already listed.)
no biggie, i love that site. I wish they had a bit more success so they could review more products.beyondhelp said:
later,
epic
Did anyone bench that config? Because i wouldnt be so sure if i were you. Its gonna have much lower seek times/latency, but somewhat lower bandwidth (for random access, not sequential/burst, where it will have much lower bandwidth).beyondhelp said:
I'd like to see a comparison.
Either way, it would be great for raid, eh?
Not to mention the 5 year warranty...
epicstruggle said:
Uh, dude, the Raptor's gonna spank your raid0 array so bad it's not even funny on anything other than plain sequential transfer rates (which make little to nothing in the way of performance for almost all applications there are on this earth).
Sorry, it's true.
OK I have a clueless question why does the 74gb raptor do so much better than the 36 gb raptor. In fact the 36 GB one doesn't really show any better performance than my 7200 special edition drive...
I was under the impression that they were basically the same thing, one was just bigger.
I was under the impression that they were basically the same thing, one was just bigger.
beyondhelp
Newcomer
Guden Oden said:epicstruggle said:
Uh, dude, the Raptor's gonna spank your raid0 array so bad it's not even funny on anything other than plain sequential transfer rates (which make little to nothing in the way of performance for almost all applications there are on this earth).
Sorry, it's true.
Uh Dude...
I doubt it. Fast seek times aren't everything! And your right. The RAID setup destroys the Raptor in sequential reads. Which is what I was talking about mainly. It's your opinion based on the apps YOU use that sequential transfer rates aren't important. My usage patterns say otherwise. Do you OWN a Raptor and RAID setup and speak from experience, or are you just repeating what you heard somewhere. What are you basing your comments on? Gee I do! I have the RAID setup and my friend has the Raptor, so I have been able to use both, on otherwise similarly configured Machines. That's what I'm basing my Opinion on.
The Raptor, as good as it is, won't really shine until they include the much touted Command queing. (EDITED: When a suitable controller becomes available). That might make a telling difference, But as It stands now, Overall, I think my RAID array is faster than any single IDE drive solution. That's MY Opinion.
So thanks for the input... and remember Opinions are like A** H****, everbody's got one.
beyondhelp
Newcomer
beyondhelp said:
my understanding fo the drive is that it does support comand queueing.beyondhelp said:Guden Oden said:epicstruggle said:
Uh, dude, the Raptor's gonna spank your raid0 array so bad it's not even funny on anything other than plain sequential transfer rates (which make little to nothing in the way of performance for almost all applications there are on this earth).
Sorry, it's true.
Uh Dude...
Do you OWN a Raptor and RAID setup and speak from experience, or are you just repeating what you heard somewhere. What are you basing your comments on? Gee I do! I have the RAID setup and my friend has the Raptor, so I have been able to use both, on otherwise similarly configured Machines. That's what I'm basing my Opinion on.
The Raptor, as good as it is, won't really shine until they include the much touted Command queing, which the firmware still doesn't support (although it's supposed to be able to) Supposedly in an upcoming Firmware revision it will be enabled... That might make a telling difference, But as It stands now, Overall, I think my RAID array is faster than any single IDE drive solution. That's MY Opinion.
So thanks for the input... and remember Opinions are like A** H****, everbody's got one.
The problem is, just about every controller DOES NOT.
No mythical firmware upgrade can fix that, you need a controller with support.
Besides which, the command queueing will only really affect server situations, not single user type situations.
Did you even read the review?
beyondhelp
Newcomer
Althornin said:
I believe I already edited that faulty recollection from reading the review nearly ten days ago. After I typed it, and posted, it didn't sound right so went back to check the facts and then edited the original, as noted, to be correct.
What's YOUR problem. It was fixed 10 minutes after the original post. That was hours ago. Been brooding about it that long?
wise ass
what the fuck is with the attitude?beyondhelp said:
I read what you said.
I just checked the thread.
YOU didnt edit it, you quoted your own post and changed it inside that.
Your inability to properly use the edit function is NOT MY PROBLEM.
When i see that a person has quoted their own post, i go "oh, he made a mistake" and move on. I dont check the quote for a tiny change
Maybe if you didnt have a problem using the edit function, you might have a point, but as it is, why are you so damn defensive and taking this so personally?
Holy shit, one would think that i shat in your cereal by simply calling you on a mistake!
Not only that, but despite your "edit", you are still wrong.
you are making a comparison and stating that command queueing will make a difference, and i tell you, it will not, in single user mode, which is the only mode you have compared them in.
The review (and my reply to you) state this quite clearly - hence my question - did you read it?
A bit late to the party are we?
Karma Police
Regular
Looks like Guden was right, although it took awhile to get the proof up.
Of course I was right, raid0 does almost nothing for desktop users (and if one drive fails all data goes kaput, which is bad), this is a well-known, established fact amongst those that know anything about storage.
Beyondhelp's highly humorous outburst "seek times aren't everything!" made me ROFL so bad I forgot to reply and educate him, but it doesn't change the fact he's wrong and I'm right.
All he'd have to do was to go to storagereview.com's FAQ and read it, it's there in plain black on white. Or black on grey, or whatever.
Beyondhelp's highly humorous outburst "seek times aren't everything!" made me ROFL so bad I forgot to reply and educate him, but it doesn't change the fact he's wrong and I'm right.
All he'd have to do was to go to storagereview.com's FAQ and read it, it's there in plain black on white. Or black on grey, or whatever.
beyondhelp
Newcomer
I Fail to see what I said as being particularly humorous or wrong. Please feel free to educate me Oh God of the Hard Drive world. Go into some detail so that I won't misunderstand please. I await with baited breath something of some substance from you.
As for your comment " Of course I was right, raid0 does almost nothing for desktop users (and if one drive fails all data goes kaput, which is bad), this is a well-known, established fact amongst those that know anything about storage."
Besides being quite egotistical and condescending, Why do I get the impression you think your right about everything? The operative in above para. is "almost" and only as far as it pertains to the Apps Anand used to test. If I looked around I'm sure I could find some equally valid Tests that would show a larger delta between RAID and single drive performance. The Fact is that the RAID0 setup outperformed the single drive in Anands test in all but a couple of tests, so It comes down to a matter of degree as to whether you think RAID is beneficial or not. It's a subjective matter, just like how many fps you think you need for a game to be playable. My Subjective experience with RAID is that it feels snappier, shortens load times and benefits some apps more than others. For Anand to make a broad sweeping statement that RAID does not benefit desktop users is only true as far as the usage patterns They tested for, and another person using different apps may get different results. Their Avg. desktop user may not jibe with my idea of an avg. desktop user regarding the apps they used. Of course these are only my opinions, which you seem to forget. I am not trying to pass them off as facts.
There is a big difference between the Theoretical reliability being halved with RAID0 with the real world truth. Single drive reliability being what it is, It's hardly a concern. Reliabilty is only a concern if you have critical data you don't want to lose. The Avg. user could care less as all he has to do is a new install on the new drive, and in that case, Losing a drive in a RAID array is no worse than losing a single drive. Either way, you lose it all, and you have to do a new install. If you have mission critial data, that's a different story. I have my RAID array backed up regularly to a 3rd large drive. Of course, anyone who knows anything about storage knows enough to back it up, right? Generally, in my experience, drives are either doa or they work for quite some time. I've had very few drives fail in regular use. (Unless they were quite old or had been abused somehow, like being dropped. This is based on having built something over 800 systems in the last 16 years. (btw, What were you doing in 1989 oh Great Drive Meister?) Some years ago, Drive failure rates were higher perhaps, and would have been a bigger concern for a RAID array, but more recently, Drives have become quite reliable by comparison. Because of this, I feel the reliability issue of RAID 0 to be moot. Irrelevent.
And you have yet to answer my question as to what RAID setup YOU have used and which Raptor model YOU have tested and just what FIRST HAND empirical data you have. Please educate me!
To Althornin: Terribly sorry I was tired and pressed the wrong button. Sorry if you misunderstood me whan I said Firmware revision. I meant the Controller firmware, not the drives' actually, but I went back and changed it to Controller to avoid future confusion. In doing that I clicked the wrong button. For that I will be eternally sorry.
As for your comment " Of course I was right, raid0 does almost nothing for desktop users (and if one drive fails all data goes kaput, which is bad), this is a well-known, established fact amongst those that know anything about storage."
Besides being quite egotistical and condescending, Why do I get the impression you think your right about everything? The operative in above para. is "almost" and only as far as it pertains to the Apps Anand used to test. If I looked around I'm sure I could find some equally valid Tests that would show a larger delta between RAID and single drive performance. The Fact is that the RAID0 setup outperformed the single drive in Anands test in all but a couple of tests, so It comes down to a matter of degree as to whether you think RAID is beneficial or not. It's a subjective matter, just like how many fps you think you need for a game to be playable. My Subjective experience with RAID is that it feels snappier, shortens load times and benefits some apps more than others. For Anand to make a broad sweeping statement that RAID does not benefit desktop users is only true as far as the usage patterns They tested for, and another person using different apps may get different results. Their Avg. desktop user may not jibe with my idea of an avg. desktop user regarding the apps they used. Of course these are only my opinions, which you seem to forget. I am not trying to pass them off as facts.
There is a big difference between the Theoretical reliability being halved with RAID0 with the real world truth. Single drive reliability being what it is, It's hardly a concern. Reliabilty is only a concern if you have critical data you don't want to lose. The Avg. user could care less as all he has to do is a new install on the new drive, and in that case, Losing a drive in a RAID array is no worse than losing a single drive. Either way, you lose it all, and you have to do a new install. If you have mission critial data, that's a different story. I have my RAID array backed up regularly to a 3rd large drive. Of course, anyone who knows anything about storage knows enough to back it up, right? Generally, in my experience, drives are either doa or they work for quite some time. I've had very few drives fail in regular use. (Unless they were quite old or had been abused somehow, like being dropped. This is based on having built something over 800 systems in the last 16 years. (btw, What were you doing in 1989 oh Great Drive Meister?) Some years ago, Drive failure rates were higher perhaps, and would have been a bigger concern for a RAID array, but more recently, Drives have become quite reliable by comparison. Because of this, I feel the reliability issue of RAID 0 to be moot. Irrelevent.
And you have yet to answer my question as to what RAID setup YOU have used and which Raptor model YOU have tested and just what FIRST HAND empirical data you have. Please educate me!
To Althornin: Terribly sorry I was tired and pressed the wrong button. Sorry if you misunderstood me whan I said Firmware revision. I meant the Controller firmware, not the drives' actually, but I went back and changed it to Controller to avoid future confusion. In doing that I clicked the wrong button. For that I will be eternally sorry.
Wow, the HDD god must loves you
Almost all of my earliest HDDs dies after about one year of service, with the exception of the first one, a 20MB MFM drive. Later HDDs are better, but some of them still have problems after several years of service. One HDD in my first RAID 0 set-up (which is for video capture and editing) died after one month of service. Not to mention the famous "Death Star" series.
Now I don't need RAID-0 for my video capture and editing works, since newer HDDs are already fast enough. So I failed to see how RAID-0 is useful for desktop users. Not only AnandTech, StorageReview.com also agree that RAID-0 is useless for desktop users.
Almost all of my earliest HDDs dies after about one year of service, with the exception of the first one, a 20MB MFM drive. Later HDDs are better, but some of them still have problems after several years of service. One HDD in my first RAID 0 set-up (which is for video capture and editing) died after one month of service. Not to mention the famous "Death Star" series.
Now I don't need RAID-0 for my video capture and editing works, since newer HDDs are already fast enough. So I failed to see how RAID-0 is useful for desktop users. Not only AnandTech, StorageReview.com also agree that RAID-0 is useless for desktop users.
beyondhelp said:
Which in turn doesn't hold a candle to my 2x Raptor RAID0 config.
Only the 37 GB version though. :/
Although, personally I don't really feel any difference with RAID0 on modern disks.
On next OS reinstall I'm gonna skip RAID0 and just use the two disks for OSes seperately (XP32 on one and XP64+Fedora64 on the other).
Similar threads
