WD VelociRaptor

Actually it is official there is going to be a 150GB model, its on the WD website.

No, the Fujitsu is not "better" for the end user, the higher RPM makes no difference in this case as you are comparing a 3.5" 15k drive to a 2.5" 10k drive. More than just spindle speed come into play such as platter density etc.
 
SATA drives are typically tuned to single user data access patterns where as SAS is multi user.

I haven't seen any recent comparison benches in a long time but if memory serves, SCSI was not definitely better on a single user platform.
 
thebeephaha said:
I love how much wrong information really has been thrown around in this thread... We really should maybe lock this and someone should start a velociraptor truth vs myth thread.
Click to expand...
nah. let's just continue to let the know-nothings spew incorrect information.
 
thebeephaha said:
Actually it is official there is going to be a 150GB model, its on the WD website.

No, the Fujitsu is not "better" for the end user, the higher RPM makes no difference in this case as you are comparing a 3.5" 15k drive to a 2.5" 10k drive. More than just spindle speed come into play such as platter density etc.
Click to expand...

I saw the links posted earlier in this thread showing the 150GB model on the WD website but then I remember someone also saying WD took it off... I checked their "product list "page and then their "select a drive" and was unable to find any mention of the 150 GB model. I was probably looking in the wrong direction, if that is the case, can someone please direct me on where to find it? I know previous links have been posted showing that a 150GB velociraptor model but if its true that WD removed the link (maybe i was looking in the wrong place?) does it still make the model official?


Tsun said:
SATA drives are typically tuned to single user data access patterns where as SAS is multi user.

I haven't seen any recent comparison benches in a long time but if memory serves, SCSI was not definitely better on a single user platform.
Click to expand...

Well that completely answers my question, didn't know that some hard drives are better for multi user then single user (I simply thought multi user drives were just much faster/more efficient single user drives. Anyway thanks for the clarifaction.
 
I saw the links posted earlier in this thread showing the 150GB model on the WD website but then I remember someone also saying WD took it off... I checked their "product list "page and then their "select a drive" and was unable to find any mention of the 150 GB model. I was probably looking in the wrong direction, if that is the case, can someone please direct me on where to find it? I know previous links have been posted showing that a 150GB velociraptor model but if its true that WD removed the link (maybe i was looking in the wrong place?) does it still make the model official?
Click to expand...

They removed the link. I checked a few weeks ago, and they listed a 150GB model, but removed it. So, I have no idea what's going on with the 150GB model, as they said they would produce once. Maybe, they took it down because you can't buy it yet and don't want people confused? Your guess is as good as mine.
 
I was probably looking in the wrong direction, if that is the case, can someone please direct me on where to find it?
Click to expand...

You weren't looking in the wrong direction....it's gone.....but still avaliable as a Google cache item right here. ;)
 
known12345 said:
Well that completely answers my question, didn't know that some hard drives are better for multi user then single user (I simply thought multi user drives were just much faster/more efficient single user drives. Anyway thanks for the clarifaction.
Click to expand...
At one time they were faster, before WD released the Raptor series. In those days the best offerings for desktop users topped at 7200 RMP. I used to purchase only SCSI 10K/15K drives for my OS/apps, but the cost per size/performance ratio was blown out of the water when the original Raptors came on the scene and I haven't bought anything SCSI since. The Raptor line has continued to improve and now we have an undisputed leader with the VR. IMO, it's best to leave enterprise storage parts for the enterprises.
 
Please stop me from doing something really stupid that my common sense tells me that I really shouldn't do. . . yet I still wanna. . .

So, I've always been into gaming rigs. But since I gave up on SCSI about a decade ago, I have felt that I can always wait an additional 5 seconds for a level to load and have been relatively happy with the standard 7200RPM large capacity drives widely available.

That is, until I became addicted to LotRO about a year ago. LotRO has a game engine that seems pretty strange in how it grabs textures and other data off the disk. No matter how fast your system (see sig), there is an unavoidable level of "hitching" as new environments come into view. Some people have it worse than others. I barely have this "hitching". . . but I'm a perfectionist and would like to minimize it even further.

So anyways. . . my point. . .

I'm definitely going to get at least one of these drives. Probably two. But I'm considering three. What I'm unsure of is if a third drive would be utterly wasteful considering I'm not going to be putting these in RAID.

Two Drive Setup:
Drive 1: OS
Drive 2: LotRO and Swap File

Three Drive Setup:
Drive 1: OS
Drive 2: Swap File
Drive 3: LotRO

Of course, my other data (documents, videos, movies) would have to be peppered around those two or three drives. And it would be messy. Heck I know I'm being dumb here. . . and I know that there's probably going to be no noticable performance difference when playing the game between having the swap file on its own drive, and having the swap file sharing a raptor with the game itself. I figure that anything the game needs, it will first load to RAM rather than write to the swap file, so there will be no need to have the swap file on a different drive than the game itself.

Then again, maybe it would make more sense to put the game on the OS drive and leave the swap file on its own drive. After all, it's unlikely that the OS will be grabbing parts of itself while I'm gaming. . . which would leave the game files free to be brought up alongside the OS, and the swap file free.

So, there's a possible third alternative with only two drives. . .

Alternate Two Drive Setup:
Disk 1: OS and LotRO
Disk 2: Swap File (and various documents, music, etc.)

Again, I know I'm being obsessive and crazy. But I'm curious if two drives can be just as effective here as three.
 
Hurin,

Three drives is totally unnecessary for your intended application. I would even hazard to say that two VR is overkill considering the performance level of the VR. If you insist on more than one VR, get two and set them up with the alternate configuration you proposed above. I would want the pagefile and level loading folder(s) on separate drives.
 
If you insist on three drives, put two of them in RAID 0 and have the LOTRO on that drive and everything else including the OS and apps on the other drive. That might be the fastest configuration for you specific needs. Others will probably have varying opinions about this and it is a controversial configuration, but if you really are intending on 3 VR drives this may be the best performance option for your game. Moreover, if your RAID fails, you will only lose the game installation not the OS or other app installations. ;)

EDIT: I just realized that with the cost of 3 VRs, you are encroaching into SSD territory here. Would you not be better served by simply purchasing a SSD and installing the game on that? Samsung is going to release a new SSD in the future that's purportedly faster and cheaper for its capacity than anything out there now. If you're thinking of spending nearly $1000 on drives, might as well wait and see what SSDs will be available.
 
APOLLO said:
If you insist on three drives, put two of them in RAID 0 and have the LOTRO on that drive and everything else including the OS and apps on the other drive. That might be the fastest configuration for you specific needs. Others will probably have varying opinions about this and it is a controversial configuration, but if you really are intending on 3 VR drives this may be the best performance option for your game. Moreover, if your RAID fails, you will only lose the game installation not the OS or other app installations. ;)
Click to expand...
I'll probably go with two drives.

But just to indulge this admittedly controversial configuration. . . we're talking:

Drive1: OS, Swap File, Documents and Music, Other Apps/Games.
Drive2 and Drive3 (RAID 0): LotRO only.

I had considered a sort of hybrid arrangement like this. But I'm not a fan of nvidia RAID (though I don't have a lot of experience with it). And I'm surprised that we've moved the swap file back to the OS drive in the suggestion above. If we're working with three drives (and have therefore given up on saving money and only going with two), I'd think that the best situation in a single-user environment would be to have each of the three major players on its own drive (OS, Swap, and LotRO) now that we have a drive available for each.

Edit: Good point about SSDs. But I'm the impatient sort. So let's work with the technology available today. :)

Edit 2: See how this sucks you in? First you're considering just a faster drive. Then you decide to separate the swap file. Then suddenly you're talking about three drives and/or SSDs! Gah! :D
 
Hurin said:
I had considered a sort of hybrid arrangement like this. But I'm not a fan of nvidia RAID (though I don't have a lot of experience with it). And I'm surprised that we've moved the swap file back to the OS drive in the suggestion above. If we're working with three drives (and have therefore given up on saving money and only going with two), I'd think that the best situation in a single-user environment would be to have each of the three major players on its own drive (OS, Swap, and LotRO) now that we have a drive available for each.
Click to expand...
You could be right and the swapfile might be better off on a separate drive on its own, but that's one of the reasons why it's controversial, too many variables to sort out without actually having the equipment on hand to test the various combinations. It might even make a difference based on the OS type as well. I would simply things and go with the initial suggestion in my first post, which is also a far cheaper solution.

Edit: Good point about SSDs. But I'm the impatient sort. So let's work with the technology available today. :)
Click to expand...

Edit 2: See how this sucks you in? First you're considering just a faster drive. Then you decide to separate the swap file. Then suddenly you're talking about three drives and/or SSDs! Gah! :D
Click to expand...
Agreed on both accounts. :)
 
What's LOTRO's memory usage like?

I'm curious, with 4GB of RAM, is the swap file speed even a consideration?
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
I would say bang for the buck I would go with those 640s. Larger, cheaper, and nearly as fast. I would still assume the raptors as louder since they are a faster spindle speed. Not that I would care myself.

If performance was my only concern, I would get some 15,000 rpm SAS drives.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, they're actually quieter than the 640mb drives. I don't recall how they compared to the green series of drives. I believe they use less power too. There's much to applaud, but performance just doesn't seem like it's one of them. In the end, it seems like you've got to be a hard core silent computing person or an enthusiast that needs to have the fastest drive around, even if it doesn't significantly improve performance.....I'm not even sure it's noticeable, unless you pull out a stop watch every time the HD starts grinding ;)
 
jebo_4jc said:
What's LOTRO's memory usage like?

I'm curious, with 4GB of RAM, is the swap file speed even a consideration?
Click to expand...

IME (which is very limited), LOTRO has very short load times between zones, so I'm not sure how swap files would matter. IME, it's memory that matters most with the MMOs.
 
nilepez said:
IME (which is very limited), LOTRO has very short load times between zones, so I'm not sure how swap files would matter. IME, it's memory that matters most with the MMOs.
Click to expand...
Yeah, level/zone load times aren't really the issue with LotRO though. Rather, it's random hiccups (usually referred to as 'hitching') as the game loads textures from the hard drive into memory. You'll be cruising along and all of a sudden. . . *jerk*. . . then twenty seconds or so later. . . *jerk*.

Some people claim they get near-constant hitching. Mine isn't bad at all and I don't feel it really ruins my immersion as it's not nearly as prevalent as some have described. But I'm curious if it can be made even better.
 
nilepez said:
IME (which is very limited), LOTRO has very short load times between zones, so I'm not sure how swap files would matter. IME, it's memory that matters most with the MMOs.
Click to expand...
It's not so much an issue with the swap file as it is with the game data loading, an entirely different matter altogether. A faster storage system can only help in that regard. The questions that remain is by how much and what's the best setup.
 
Regarding swap file usage. . . I don't know of a better way to gauge it other than the Windows Task Manger (XP).

Before launching LotRO, PR USage is 438MB. After launching LotRO, it jumps to a full GB and hovers around there, sometimes jumping to 1.2GB.

Though, oddly, the amount of RAM available (again, according to Task Manager) remains above 2.75GB.

I'll mess around with some game settings and edit this post if anything changes.

Sorry that we're getting a bit far afield. We can probably get back to the Velociraptors exclusively now since this is becoming more and more LotRO-centric.
 
My drive arrives today, only one. Not too exciting since its only replacing two WD 320GB SATA 2 stand alone drives. But I still expect some better performance. I've had lots of 36/74/150 raptors in the past though. Most were too loud for me, hence I am excited about the even quieter new drive in addition to the performance.
 
Well I'll buy a pair of these, but I'll probably do so after I find out if the Geforce GTX 280 is worth a damn or not. If it is I'll buy a pair of those first.
 
Hurin said:
Yeah, level/zone load times aren't really the issue with LotRO though. Rather, it's random hiccups (usually referred to as 'hitching') as the game loads textures from the hard drive into memory. You'll be cruising along and all of a sudden. . . *jerk*. . . then twenty seconds or so later. . . *jerk*.

Some people claim they get near-constant hitching. Mine isn't bad at all and I don't feel it really ruins my immersion as it's not nearly as prevalent as some have described. But I'm curious if it can be made even better.
Click to expand...

Ah....now I understand. I would think that extra memory would help. I'm currently using 2GB of ram on vista 32, but one of these days, I'll stick my 8GB in and run x64....or maybe I'll just load it on a second machine just to see the difference.

I'm only at level 4, and pretty much staying in one zone and some newbie caves.
 
Hurin said:
Regarding swap file usage. . . I don't know of a better way to gauge it other than the Windows Task Manger (XP).

Before launching LotRO, PR USage is 438MB. After launching LotRO, it jumps to a full GB and hovers around there, sometimes jumping to 1.2GB.

Though, oddly, the amount of RAM available (again, according to Task Manager) remains above 2.75GB.

I'll mess around with some game settings and edit this post if anything changes.

Sorry that we're getting a bit far afield. We can probably get back to the Velociraptors exclusively now since this is becoming more and more LotRO-centric.
Click to expand...

I've always found that XP made terrible use of ram. All too often I'd find things paging to the swap file, even though I had plenty of ram available. I found that excessively annoying.

The juries out on Vista, though so far, I my opinion is it's generally better, but it's that's just a subjective observation. I think the main way to tell is wait a year and compare it to an old XP build and figure out which is faster.
 
mastercheeze said:
I too was upset about just getting a bare drive. But, I just checked WD's website and did a warranty check - my SN shows a full 5 year warranty. What are the other advantages of a retail drive?
Click to expand...
FYI
This is newegg's response when I asked them about the OEM only drive:
Dear Customer,



Thank you for contacting Newegg.



We apologize for the inconvenience. After further review I noticed that the item # N82E16822136260 does not have the retail box. Please kindly note that all the information you see on Newegg.com comes directly from the manufacturer. We ONLy guarantee the information provided on our website. We truly apologize. Please contact us back if you want to return the item; we will be able to further assist you with the RMA.



If you still need assistance, please feel free to email me directly and I will be happy to assist you.



Thank you,



Ethan Meng
Click to expand...
 
Copy paste from the official website:

Package Contents
* 3 Gb/s SATA hard drive
* WD SATA interface cable
* Quick Install Guide
* Mounting screws

Mine came like the others, sealed antistatic bag wrapped in crumpled cardboard and enveloped in packing peanuts, so it should be okay. (haven't tested mine yet) The most I can say, since I have more than enough screws and sata cables, is that I miss out on the joy of opening a slick new retail package. (you know the feeling)
 
silentbrain said:
Copy paste from the official website:

Package Contents
* 3 Gb/s SATA hard drive
* WD SATA interface cable
* Quick Install Guide
* Mounting screws

Mine came like the others, sealed antistatic bag wrapped in crumpled cardboard and enveloped in packing peanuts, so it should be okay. (haven't tested mine yet) The most I can say, since I have more than enough screws and sata cables, is that I miss out on the joy of opening a slick new retail package. (you know the feeling)
Click to expand...
for real! I love the smell of freshly opened retail packaging. I was hoping newegg would come through with a coupon or something for me missing out on that experience.

However, they know I won't RMA it just to get that experience. They know me well :(
 
Formatting now. I'll have a before and after HD tach from the drive I took out soon.

newraptor.jpg
 
I took out Western Digital 320GB SATA2 16MB cache:

wd320gb.jpg


Compare to new Raptor:

raptortach.jpg
 
I think ya gotta compare it with actual apps. Storage Review had a glowing review of this drive (actually got me interested, despite being way to expensive), but I think it was anandtech (after they got the 2nd non-defective drive), and the load times of levels in games and file copying wasn't that big an improvement.

In most cases, the difference was a few seconds. Nothing to scoff at, but it wasn't nearly as impressive as the synthetic benches implied.

But again, these drives are supposed to be quieter, use less power and provide improved performance.
It's the addition of the first 2 features that make it truly impressive. Old raptors were noisier than most 7200 drives. If you've got the cash, and don't mind parting with it, you can have your cake and eat it too.
 
its definietly quieter. ive had 74s and 150s and sold them cuz they were too loud. i can't even hear this 300..
 
This is crappy, i ordered the drive retail just like the previous poster did and got oem style packaging, i dont even know what kind of warranty it has etc. what kind of crap is this newegg said it was retail, sigh
 
I just raided my Velociraptors Whats a good Block size for Raid-0 16, 32, ? :confused: Anyone give me a quick answer? (will go with 16 for now)
 
Jasonx82 said:
I just raided my Velociraptors Whats a good Block size for Raid-0 16, 32, ? :confused: Anyone give me a quick answer? (will go with 16 for now)
Click to expand...
An entire multi-page thread can be discussed about this topic but I wouldn't go under 16, probably 32 for my specific needs. If you work with large files, a larger block size is better as a general rule.
 
HOLY CRAP THESE THINGS ARE FAST. EXTREMELY Quiet too!!! I had to listen hard to make sure they are on! What a difference over the previous Raptors. Heres my HD Tune scores

Abit ix38 Quad GT (intel x38 ICH9R)
Old benches (2x Raid 0 Raptor 150)
Minimum: 84.9MBs
Max:140.8MBs
Avg: 118.2MBs
Access Time: 8.3ms
Burst Rate: 103.9Mbx
CPU: 8.2%

Same Set up (2x Raid 0 300GB Velociraptor)
Minimum: 145.0MBs
Max: 197.0MBs
Avg: 170.7MBs
Access Time: 7.1ms
Burst: 167.8MBs
CPU: 9.7%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top