New Raptors Inbound...

[GamezUK]

Hi,

I want to get a new Hard Drive just for my OS and applications and as I see it a 74GB raptor fits the bill.

Thing is, these drives have been around for a while (IMO) is there anything new in the near future (say a new raptor version / size) that is worth mentioning?

Also, I've been told that it's a good idea to create a partition of roughly 1GB to use as a swap disk / virtual memory on the raptor to keep things tidy and prevent against fragmentation. Is this a good tactic?


Thanks.

[Order]

This is probably going to get some negative attention, but have you considered getting a 36gb Fujitsu MAU SCSI drive? Yes, it is half the size of the Raptor you mentioned but for a slight price increase (about $218 last time I checked) you can really kill the Raptor. Check reviews if you'd like but all the benchmarks I've seen show that its the fastest drive available. Period.

www.storagereview.com

[DougLite]

Alongside Maxtor Atlas 15K II. Also, have you factored in the investment in a SCSI HBA, which will be another cost? SCSI also adds to system complexity, such as bus termination, expensive cables, etc. Unless you want the _absolute_ best, stick with WD740GD - it has enough of a price premium, let alone $50 more for half the space for a current 15K SCSI drive.

Also, on the swap file fragmentation, get 1GB of RAM and set your page file to a small, fixed size with the same maximum and minimum. Page file frangmentation solved.

[SirKenin]

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! No Fujitsu!!!!! lmao. You're going to live to regret that one. UGH!!

haha

The WD Raptor is amazing. I have one and I love it.

As far as the partition, it is absolutely pointless creating a partition for a swap file. You will still have two applications accessing the same drive at the same time. The only time you see an improvement is if you put the swap file on separate physical drives. For instance, my main drive is a Raptor 74GB. My swap file is striped across two Maxtor D740xs. That type of setup is what boosts the performance in Windows.

[ashmedai]

As far as the partition, it is absolutely pointless creating a partition for a swap file. You will still have two applications accessing the same drive at the same time. The only time you see an improvement is if you put the swap file on separate physical drives. For instance, my main drive is a Raptor 74GB. My swap file is striped across two Maxtor D740xs. That type of setup is what boosts the performance in Windows.

Here's my drive structure:

Raptor 74GB - OS & Programs.
TB RAID 5 NTFS mounted to My Documents
RAID 0 (came out the ass end of an upgrade) mounted to Desktop for temp space.

The RAID 0 has a 1GB partition on the front for my pagefile with the default 4kb cluster size that you need for pagefile if you don't want things to go south fast. The rest of the drive is set to 64 instead.

Still think pagefile partitions are useless? Overused sure, but not useless.

[S1nF1xx]

The RAID 0 has a 1GB partition on the front for my pagefile with the default 4kb cluster size .....

That's actually not a bad idea. Hmm....

[ashmedai]

Pagefile tweaks are maybe a couple percentage points difference every now and then if you have a decent amount of memory, so I wouldn't go buying new hardware just so you can pull off what I did out of having no better use for the extra drives.

[SirKenin]

Here's my drive structure:

Raptor 74GB - OS & Programs.
TB RAID 5 NTFS mounted to My Documents
RAID 0 (came out the ass end of an upgrade) mounted to Desktop for temp space.

The RAID 0 has a 1GB partition on the front for my pagefile with the default 4kb cluster size that you need for pagefile if you don't want things to go south fast. The rest of the drive is set to 64 instead.

Still think pagefile partitions are useless? Overused sure, but not useless.
If I am reading what you are saying correctly, your pagefile is not on the same physical drive as your programs and OS. If that is the case then it goes inline perfectly with what I am saying. You just took it one step further and created an actual partition, whose only real positive effect is to prevent the rest of the drive from becoming fragmented (not a bad idea actually). However, you can also accomplish that same thing by making the swap file static and defragging it using Diskkeeper. Oh well, whatever works for you. ;)

[ashmedai]

If I am reading what you are saying correctly, your pagefile is not on the same physical drive as your programs and OS. If that is the case then it goes inline perfectly with what I am saying. You just took it one step further and created an actual partition, whose only real positive effect is to prevent the rest of the drive from becoming fragmented (not a bad idea actually). However, you can also accomplish that same thing by making the swap file static and defragging it using Diskkeeper. Oh well, whatever works for you. ;)

Actually a permenant pagefile on a fresh/blank drive does exactly the same thing, the key thing is that I can have a different cluster size for the rest of the drive/array.

[SirKenin]

Actually a permenant pagefile on a fresh/blank drive does exactly the same thing, the key thing is that I can have a different cluster size for the rest of the drive/array.
Ah yes. I hear what you are saying and I can understand perfectly why you would want a smaller cluster size for a swap file. Good idea. :p You're a smart guy.

[ashmedai]

Well I'd like to use a bigger one, but Windows is going to do it 4k at a time regardless, so anything smaller forces multiple clusters per page, and anything bigger tacks a bunch of blank space on the end of every page.

[GamezUK]

As always these forums have been a great help, thanks.

I appreciate the SCSI recommendations but a) I don't have a SCSI compliant mobo b) I've heard that it's a little noisy c) sorry but it's just not big enough and d) I hate big cables.

Thanks though, useful suggestion and that site you linked to has proven useful.

I guess I'll be ordering my Raptor now then ;)

[FunkStar]

This is probably going to get some negative attention, but have you considered getting a 36gb Fujitsu MAU SCSI drive? Yes, it is half the size of the Raptor you mentioned but for a slight price increase (about $218 last time I checked) you can really kill the Raptor. Check reviews if you'd like but all the benchmarks I've seen show that its the fastest drive available. Period.

Too bad you have to pay for a SCSI controller too, so your looking at 2 x the raptor. Also, Fujitsu make the shittest hdds in the world so buying a mega fast rpm one off them probably wouldnt be a good idea heh.

[unhappy_mage]

Also, Fujitsu make the shittest hdds in the world so buying a mega fast rpm one off them probably wouldnt be a good idea heh.
Except it's SCSI. Benchmarks here. (http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200304/20030429MAS3735_1.html)

Sorry, wrong. They're fairly kickass drives, and your beloved raptor isn't the fastest thing out there. The SCSI solution is more expensive, but it *does* perform better. There's a reason they're not obsolete yet. Raptors are more performance for the money than most hard drives right now, but that's changing too. Look at the Maxline III (http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200410/200410087B300S0-2_1.html) benches, and tell me it was worth $2/gb for the raptors. I can't understand people who are buying raptors now. I'm sure they're fast, but they aren't keeping up with the trends.
http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm/u_47426 (http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?u=47426)

[SirKenin]

Oh man. Funkstar is right. I can tell you from a retailer/tech point of view that Fujitsus are the worst drives on the planet. I have never seen a HDD lose a FAT table or MFT record like a Fujitsu can. They are horrifically unreliable.

[DougLite]

Except it's SCSI. Benchmarks here. (http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200304/20030429MAS3735_1.html)

Sorry, wrong. They're fairly kickass drives, and your beloved raptor isn't the fastest thing out there. The SCSI solution is more expensive, but it *does* perform better. There's a reason they're not obsolete yet. Raptors are more performance for the money than most hard drives right now, but that's changing too. Look at the Maxline III (http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200410/200410087B300S0-2_1.html) benches, and tell me it was worth $2/gb for the raptors. I can't understand people who are buying raptors now. I'm sure they're fast, but they aren't keeping up with the trends.
http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm/u_47426 (http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?u=47426)

The Raptor has never been about performance for the money. It's always been about being 'the fastest thing going on SATA.' As we are seeing here, not everyone wants to shell out >$5GB and add another mass storage controller to their system just for margainly better storage performance. Also, in my buyer's guide, I warn user's to stay away from the WD360GD - merely equal to 7200RPM drives, at a much higher cost per GB than the WD740GD. The fairly small capacity of WD740GD is largely irrelevant, at least in my customer systems, as I install a Hitachi 7K250 for data storage in the box as well. The 16MB Maxtor drives are an excellent choice here as well, and are recommended to anyone who wants 250-300GB in a drive. (Most of my customers stick to ~160GB)

[FunkStar]

Sorry, wrong. They're fairly kickass drives, and your beloved raptor isn't the fastest thing out there.

I never said anything about performance. SCSI shits on SATA any day of the week, i know that. I'm talking about Fujitsu's absolutely shit quality. Their drive might be fast, but i'd rather a raptor over a Fujitsu SCSI any day of the week.

[DougLite]

I never said anything about performance. SCSI shits on SATA any day of the week, i know that. I'm talking about Fujitsu's absolutely shit quality. Their drive might be fast, but i'd rather a raptor over a Fujitsu SCSI any day of the week.

I have a Fujitsu MAP3367 as the boot drive in my server - it has been most impressive, reliability included.

[unhappy_mage]

I never said anything about performance. SCSI shits on SATA any day of the week, i know that. I'm talking about Fujitsu's absolutely shit quality. Their drive might be fast, but i'd rather a raptor over a Fujitsu SCSI any day of the week.
The raptor is only at 61% in the StorageReview reliability survey. They don't have enough results for the Fujitsu drive I linked to make a conclusion, but compare that to the Seagate Barracida IV/Vs. They're up at 87 and 93 percent. A comparably priced drive to the Fujitsu scsi disk, the ST336607LW (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-111-124&depa=1) is at 97 percent reliability. I know it's not the best indicator of reliability, but you can't just say "Oh, Fujistu=crap". Perhaps true in the IDE world (I'd be inclined to agree, there), but SCSI is a whole different ballgame. Maxtor isn't exactly known for their reliability, either, but their scsi disks aren't bad in that respect.

Apologies for the threadcrap to the original poster. I hope your question has been answered by now. Basically, there's nothing major pending, just the usual scsi/raptor/maxline debate. Depending on how important performance->capacity, that's the gradient. But get the 74gb raptor, the 36 is seriously lacking in performance and capacity per $.
http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm/u_47426 (http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?u=47426)

[SirKenin]

The raptor is only at 61% in the StorageReview reliability survey. They don't have enough results for the Fujitsu drive I linked to make a conclusion, but compare that to the Seagate Barracida IV/Vs. They're up at 87 and 93 percent. A comparably priced drive to the Fujitsu scsi disk, the ST336607LW (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-111-124&depa=1) is at 97 percent reliability. I know it's not the best indicator of reliability, but you can't just say "Oh, Fujistu=crap". Perhaps true in the IDE world (I'd be inclined to agree, there), but SCSI is a whole different ballgame. Maxtor isn't exactly known for their reliability, either, but their scsi disks aren't bad in that respect.

hahahaha. I just about burst a seal. How on EARTH can anyone have the gall to try and compare a Fujitsu ANYTHING to a Seagate SCSI, the world leader in SCSI HDDs? haha. That's funny.

[unhappy_mage]

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200411/20041123MAU3147NP_3.html

Yep, that's pretty funny indeed. Just in case you're not even reading the links I've been posting:
At 714 I/Os per second, the Fujitsu MAU3147 finally delivers the first truly significant advance in StorageReview's single-user cornerstone measure, the SR Office DriveMark. The MAU blows past the previously set record, held for nearly two years by Maxtor's Atlas 15K, by a margin of 15%.
See? It just beat the previous leader by 15%, and the previous leader wasn't a Seagate either.
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200411/20041123MAU3147NP_4.html
Here's the Seagate reviewed against an older generation of Fujitsu drives, and it STILL loses.

I'm by no means a seagate hater; more than half the disks I own are seagates. I'm saying they're not top of the line for SCSI, and haven't been since Q3 2002.

Where are any links to the contrary? By my count, I have linked to five things in this thread proving my point, while you're up to zero.
http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm/u_47426 (http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?u=47426)

[SirKenin]

I'm not interested in reporting links. I know from eighteen years of computer experience and eight years in sales that Fujitsu is crap. Plain and simple. Benchmarks don't measure reliability, but my extensive list of RMAed Fujitsu garbage does.

Nobody cares how fast it goes when it isn't reliable. ITs don't depend on storagereview.com. They depend on proven reliability and that's one thing Fujitsu just doesn't have. Seagate leaves them in the dust. Quite simply put Seagate manufactures the best, most reliable SCSI drives on the planet.

[FunkStar]

I'm not interested in reporting links. I know from eighteen years of computer experience and eight years in sales that Fujitsu is crap. Plain and simple. Benchmarks don't measure reliability, but my extensive list of RMAed Fujitsu garbage does.

Nobody cares how fast it goes when it isn't reliable. ITs don't depend on storagereview.com. They depend on proven reliability and that's one thing Fujitsu just doesn't have. Seagate leaves them in the dust. Quite simply put Seagate manufactures the best, most reliable SCSI drives on the planet.

^^^^ what he said x 2

[Order]

I have always been under the impression that desktop Fujitsu hardware is garbage but enterprise Fujitsu is just is good as the competition with regards to reliability.

Also, with regards to the fat cable problem, SAS will clear that up mighty fast whenever the fuck it gets released...:)

[cell_491]

god kills a cat every time someone buys a raptor....for alot less you can get a 250-300gb maxtor sata with a 16mb cache that is almost as fast but has 3-4x the space for less $$ also raptors are insanely LOUD

[ashmedai]

god kills a cat every time someone buys a raptor....for alot less you can get a 250-300gb maxtor sata with a 16mb cache that is almost as fast but has 3-4x the space for less $$ also raptors are insanely LOUD

There weren't any 16MB cache drives when I got mine. :p

And while the 36GB model is definately on the loud side, my case with a 74GB one in it was very quiet until I put a new graphics card in it. Gonna have to do something about that...

[SirKenin]

god kills a cat every time someone buys a raptor....for alot less you can get a 250-300gb maxtor sata with a 16mb cache that is almost as fast but has 3-4x the space for less $$ also raptors are insanely LOUD
/me runs out to buy as many Raptors as he can.

*I hate cats*

[cell_491]

lol...i do to

[SJConsultant]

I'm not interested in reporting links. I know from eighteen years of computer experience and eight years in sales that Fujitsu is crap. Plain and simple. Benchmarks don't measure reliability, but my extensive list of RMAed Fujitsu garbage does.

Nobody cares how fast it goes when it isn't reliable. ITs don't depend on storagereview.com. They depend on proven reliability and that's one thing Fujitsu just doesn't have. Seagate leaves them in the dust. Quite simply put Seagate manufactures the best, most reliable SCSI drives on the planet.


I've got 3 Dell Poweredge servers all outfitted with Fujitsu SCSI drives that have had no problems.

[SirKenin]

I've got 3 Dell Poweredge servers all outfitted with Fujitsu SCSI drives that have had no problems.
Welcome to the minority. Would you like a cigar? :rolleyes:

[USMC2Hard4U]

Grrrr, I dont like the title of your thread as it sounds like you found some information on "new" raptors that are going to be released. I want to see Bigger, Faster, <3 Raptor, we just need SATA II, 16MB Cache, NCQ, 10000rpm.. drools...

[SirKenin]

I want to see Bigger, Faster, <3 Raptor, we just need SATA II, 16MB Cache, NCQ, 10000rpm.. drools...
*drool*

[ashmedai]

Make it in 15k with 16MB cache and I'll be impressed.

[cell_491]

try 15k with 32mb cache and a 300gb capacity :D :D

[USMC2Hard4U]

try 15k with 32mb cache and a 300gb capacity :D :D
Well realisticly we all know that wont happen.

But I really do think they could release 120GB models, 10K rpm, 16MB, NCQ, SATA II this year... Yeah they might be 350$, But I dont care, you get what you pay for. The best of the best.

[EnderW]

Grrrr, I dont like the title of your thread as it sounds like you found some information on "new" raptors that are going to be released. I want to see Bigger, Faster, <3 Raptor, we just need SATA II, 16MB Cache, NCQ, 10000rpm.. drools...
same here
I read it and started thinking "finally"

damn :(

[SJConsultant]

Welcome to the minority. Would you like a cigar? :rolleyes:

Thanks, but no thanks. :p

[DougLite]

Well realisticly we all know that wont happen.

But I really do think they could release 120GB models, 10K rpm, 16MB, NCQ, SATA II this year... Yeah they might be 350$, But I dont care, you get what you pay for. The best of the best.

I just don't see that happening. They already make money hand over fist and have no comptition with WD740GD, why should they go to the expense of developing new native SATA-II controller logic, a beefier actuator for 4 platters or double the platter density? It just does not make sense for their business. Also remember that our enthusiast community is small potatoes, and even if every [H]er did buy from WD, we could not keep them in business by ourselves.

[SirKenin]

Thanks, but no thanks. :p
Why not? They give you a mean head rush. lol :D