Raptor Worth or "how worth"?

There is some doubt about questions comprehensiveness in pool about Raptor:

"The 10K Survey"

I think following (about proposed system of questions):
model of use of 10K drive is other than usual -
7200 is used for store massive information and speed for it is suffitient,
but for really working applications , and OS and GAME loading, 70GB is suffitient,
when the speed of loading often is critical of everyday suitability and pleasance of work
- the real benefit, it is really attractive,
of using.

Questions dos not reflect the that some new model, how I think.

Two drivers is better to use - 10K very fast but not big, and big 7200.
The smaller cost of 7200- the better - the data can be placed -reasonably.

The insurance in HD - is their main thins among tohers PC components,
so everyone must be happy to pay some more for that most critical parameter.


Question 1
Do you own a Raptor? b) No



Question 4
If you don't own a Raptor, what is the biggest reason why you don't

a) They cost too much per gigabyte


Question 5

If you said "they cost too much" in question 4, at what price per gigabyte would you buy a 10K IDE drive?

b) $2 a gigabyte



Question 7
Indicate whether or not you agree with the following statement:

"Raptors carry a five-year warranty, which is the same as for SCSI drives, and much longer than it is for other IDE drives. A good part of the reason why Raptors (and SCSI drives) cost more is that to keep them working at least five years, they are built to higher reliability standards, so they cost more to make and to sell."

a) I agree, and I'm happy to pay for the extra quality

If it not exceed normal meaningful sizes.


Does so correct?

Vladimir Grigoriev

If I could afford one, I would buy a raptor (Please get my meaning correct here - I have NO money, and since I am saving for a car, there is NO chance of buying anything for my computer for a small while)

Although the cost per gig is high, that is understandable, since you're paying for really fast access to your data - If I had a raptor, I would use it for my OS, games and programs, and data etc (Such as MP3s, Films etc) would go on my other hard drives, since they hold loads more, and although quick, are not as speedy as the raptor.

In my opinion, it is a waste buying a raptor for the sole reason of storing MP3s and Divx movies, since my 80gig 5400rpm drive holds all of mine perfectly fine.

Blueacid said:

In my opinion, it is a waste buying a raptor for the sole reason of storing MP3s and Divx movies, since my 80gig 5400rpm drive holds all of mine perfectly fine.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of people are going to agree with this, including me

I'd like one but I don't have S-ATA connectors yet, hopefully I'll get a new mobo or a SATA-PCI bridge will drop in price a lot in the future. Considering you can get a good NIC for about £10 and a decent PCI-PATA bridge for about £15-25 this might happen but could take a while.

Despite the cost per gig I'd also get one if I had the cash but that might have to wait until the January sales

What I would like to see is a 20 gig Raptor. At the minute my installed games and apps on the OS partition take up about 13 gig on my computer. Everything else could go on cheap PATA drives.

Newest Raptor happen:
(second edition)
1.5 times (very much)
faster that described edition.

And 74 Gb one avalable,
but 34 Gb is about optimal capasity?
According to posts and setting 2 times stok for their optimism
on games size - and it will be fit.

Also:
New Seagate 160 Gb appeared,
also very fast (for bootup, like 3.8 to 5.5 for new Ruptor , usuak 2-2.5, o WD as previous leader for name DriveZilla - 3.5) and low noise, reliability, as all usual 7200 HD, who wants wor unknown reasons
some fast big capasity with much prised.

But it is really pleasant to see OS and games fast loaded. much.
("it is worth")

"Quality -Visible" here. (for price)

In my next rig I will use 2 raptors in raid 0 mode and I belive the speed will be worth the cost ( but I have always did love speed )
laters

My raptor was worth the price to me. There is a very noticable speed difference. The prices are dropping. Won't be long before I buy another

Yet one more speedy Seagate drive of 100 GB per plate !
(200Gb total).


With command CASH! - Increasing much speed.
and greated surface speed!

But the more density of surface - not as a must the more additional speed,
but often happens as 15%.
It probably will happen with Seagate.

http://www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsroom/releases/article/0,1121,1822,00.html

For thotes who need unreasonble big speed of capasity,
or 1 HD.

For elses solution of new Raptor + low cost big capasity drive is better.

With me i have just 2 60gig maxtors with 2mb of cache and plan to upgrade to 2 37gig Raptors in a nice Raid 0 config. My drives where in a raid in a point in time but kept getting the nice write cache error on them. So i figure its going to be a nice time for an upgrade.

Personally the 2 37 gigs will hold me over for my main programs and such, and my 160gig maxtor for all my video editing. Guess the major cost of the Raptor is the Speed and the nice 5 year warrenty that comes with it that I'll be happy to pay for.

I own two raptors in raid 0 - a VERY noticable difference in speed (from IDE 7200 RAID). I use them to run my programs, games, etc...

I also have a 120gig 7200 for storage. It holds my mp3s videos and setup files. If you are interested in my opinion - get the RAPTORS... they are worth every penny.

How risky is it to run Raid 0 and how much extra performance does it give over a single drive? Is it worth the money tp buy s second drive?

It is need to compae raid performance to same but single disks :

Linear speed may be twice, but speed od seek is remains the same - so very important characteristic is not increases if
not slightly decreases due to need of syncronization.
Need to check this.

So speed up may be not twice.

also at high speed of HD need to consider that other part
of PC became bottle neck -
at OS load- delay of initializing of PCI components became big.

But at game load no such stop exist.

normal solutions -
SATA CASH command controllers are very good.
For solution of not optimizing seek time - they define
optimal seek path over HD commands, removing bottleneck
like it does SCSI adaptors.

It is real overclocking.

Interesting for RAID people:
Do you fill satisfied with buy of 2 drivers,
of so not a small cost? -

try to be objective - not self deceiving - like it very orten does with owned things.
(universaly known feature for gamers)

does most load operations still slower than human reaction ?
In comparison to 1 raptor ?

No any one answered.

I will answer

I am currently trying to build a RAID-0 array with the possibility of a +1 mirror later on. I will use this to process and store all of my family's files and data, to centralise it all and to improve the speed of transactions. The key word here is Inexpensive, like it is in the definition of RAID. I am building it out of 7200RPM 20GB western digital drives and a 4-channel ATA controller card.

The bandwidth of the PCI bus is about 133MB/s max, which is into the realm of 3-drive 7200RPM RAID0 or two-drive Raptor RAID0. Thus it should not be saturated even if you use 2 Raptors, but it is getting close.

It is true that you do not get twice the speed with two drives in RAID0 for the reasons you said, but the latency on the PCI bus is negligible compared to the access and seek times of the individual hard drives. If you have spindle-synchronised drives the total seek time is no greater than the one on the slowest drive, but the cost of such drives is not "inexpensive".

I think it will offer a performance jump over a single 80GB 2MB 7200RPM drive, and allow my computer to be used as a file server.

Device latency - is big.

sometimes RAID drive loads 15 seconds.

As a whole XP without it.
______________________

Seek time is not syncronized,
so you will have not average seek time as for one drive,
but maximum time, slowest time as you described.
It can be 2 times more that average.

(Full spin of the plate need to rach place with file,
than half.)

Faster data transfer at the expense of latency - I wonder if there are any reviews on this..... but I think the faster transfer is an advantage especially in the case of continuous data (which is easy to get if you defragment the array regularly )

I would like to get a benchmark capable of measuring the latency for random reads and writes

I think also, bench would be not a bad.

Arg still contiplating on between the new 76gig Raptor or 2 36.7gig Raptors. Yea I would also agree that a need of benches would be nice.

Purpose is need to be known to understand question.

Is there a bench ?