144GB Raptor?

Because people are still paying $2/gb for a 74gb raptor and there's no competition from other manufacturers for 10K SATA?
 
mikeblas said:
Why isn't there a 144GB raptor?

Maybe they can't do it? Maybe they don't want to do it? Maybe they are focusing their research elsewhere? Maybe they realize it would cost too much? There could be a million reasons and all of them would be guesses unless someone has a statement from Western Digital.

In my opinion, Raptors are not as relevant as they used to be since other SATA drives have gotten a lot faster and cheaper. Where the Raptor used to be a god among drives, now common drives are meeting it and beating it in everything except access times I believe. I mean, it's still a fast drive, but you get barely any space and it's expensive. So, that's my opinion on the subject.
 
The format really hasn't been legitimized, as no other manufacturer is building one (10k SATA).
 
Well, all WD would have to do is slap two more platters in the unit. All of the SCSI drives from WD740GD's generation ship with a maximum of four platters.

However, WD is beginning to concede that Raptor is failing as an Enterprise drive. Their marketing literature now addresses it as "the drive of choice for high performance workstations and gaming systems" in addition to marketing it as a SCSI replacement. If WD made a four platter Raptor, it would be priced out of most enthusiast budgets - it would be about $360.

WD740GD looks to remain a niche product. It is certainly a fantastic concept, and delivered absolutely unbeatable desktop performance in a desktop package for about a year. However, 7200RPM is knocking at the door with increasing densities, falling prices, and increased performance. WD360GD has already become a victim of this progression, and WD740GD will not stand forever. Its replacement will also not be easy to pull off - the major SCSI makers had a good deal of difficulty getting the latest generation. WD740GD lagged its equivalent SCSI units by over a year - it will probably be 2006 before a next generation Raptor appears, and that's if WD can do it at all.
 
Deadlierchair said:
Maybe they can't do it? Maybe they don't want to do it? Maybe they are focusing their research elsewhere? Maybe they realize it would cost too much? There could be a million reasons and all of them would be guesses unless someone has a statement from Western Digital.

In my opinion, Raptors are not as relevant as they used to be since other SATA drives have gotten a lot faster and cheaper. Where the Raptor used to be a god among drives, now common drives are meeting it and beating it in everything except access times I believe. I mean, it's still a fast drive, but you get barely any space and it's expensive. So, that's my opinion on the subject.
and they're LOUD
 
cell_491 said:
and they're LOUD

I see this statement all the time about the Raptors.....
I have 2 74 gig Raptors and I cant hear them at all.....

Maybe I got lucky, ...or maybe Im deaf .....:)
 
Vertigo Acid said:
Because people are still paying $2/gb for a 74gb raptor and there's no competition from other manufacturers for 10K SATA?

I don't understand your point, Vertigo. People are going to keep buying whatever's available until something new is available. If people paying for what's available is reason to not introduce something new, then when would any vendor every introduce something new?
 
My 74GB is quiet.

WD has zero competition for this product and it's still selling. So why create something else that would only compete with their own product? I suspect they only released the 74GB version in the first place because it's had pretty much all of the things going against the 36GB version fixed. Thus it's an easier sell, and the 36 is still around to give people something to buy if they don't want to shell out for the good one. They've got a good thing going, a bigger version would likely just step on their own toes.

For some reason there's still a "when is the next version of the Raptor coming out" thread fairly often...
 
the reliability/quality/performance of a raptor has proven to be near identical to its comparable SCSI 10k cousins.

So why hasn't it seen a greater takeup?

$$$

compared to other 10k 72gb scsi drives the raptor only offers minimal savings on a drive to drive cost. $20 or so in most cases
the savings from the drive are seen in low density applications where the storage space of only 1 or 2 drives is needed
a good scsi controller costs $150-200 (non raid)
a good SATA controller costs $1 for an on mobo or $25 for a PCI card (with raid)
so a large savings can be had

when you get into larger storage solutions, were 8-28HD's+ are needed the costs lose out
with scsi, you can have a controller (~$400) with 2 channel's and hardware Raid onboard
this single controller can controll up to 28HD's (14 per channel without using LUN's) using only 2 cables that can be up to meters long.
the sata side though requires 1 port on the controller for each single drive, the largest cards(~$750) only support 12/16 drives so you would need 2 cards to get 28 drives
you also get into a larger mess because the SATA spec only allows for ~40" of cable length between the drive and the controller
all the possible savings for using sata are lost very very quickly when going to large instalations. this forms a large detriment for the raptor to start apearing into the data centre

7200rpm sata drives have started appearing into the enterprise environment because they are so cheap that they can provide a large cost savings for applications calling for large size. for the price of getting 4TB of scsi storage using 144gb or 300gb scsi drives, a company could afford mirrored array's with 5-6tb of space using SATA drives
 
Too high for most of the stuff you'd use an ATA drive for, too low for most of the stuff you'd use SCSI for. Enthusiasts don't make up that big a slice of the market.
 
Crosshairs said:
I see this statement all the time about the Raptors.....
I have 2 74 gig Raptors and I cant hear them at all.....

Maybe I got lucky, ...or maybe Im deaf .....:)
well this is coming from a guy who can hear the buzzing noise their tv makes from 3 rooms away with all the doors shut in-between
 
cell_491 said:
well this is coming from a guy who can hear the buzzing noise their tv makes from 3 rooms away with all the doors shut in-between

Can't everyone? Electronics just make this hum when they're on...sometimes so little it's almost just a feel to the air.
 
ashmedai said:
Can't everyone? Electronics just make this hum when they're on...sometimes so little it's almost just a feel to the air.
yeah!! a fellow believer...people think im nuts when i say i can hear the tv running
 
When I was a kid, the TV turning on in the morning was enough to wake me up. At the other end and floor of a two story house, behind however many walls and doors.
 
cell 491 said:
yeah!! a fellow believer...people think im nuts when i say i can hear the tv running

i can hear it too! i can also hear my raptor... or it could be one of my fans... or my disc drive... or the voices in my head, take your pick.

 
8fingers said:
i can hear it too! i can also hear my raptor... or it could be one of my fans... or my disc drive... or the voices in my head, take your pick.

hehe...im a big stickler for a low noise pc
 
tiebird321 said:
the reliability/quality/performance of a raptor has proven to be near identical to its comparable SCSI 10k cousins.
Proven reliability, huh? Let's see the proof for that. Considering that the Raptor line is little over two years old, any "proof" would be pretty flimsy.
 
I think the product line will probably stick around a while. It might take some time between updates, but I expect the constant pressure to improve performance will eventually result in other manufacturers boosting the spindle speeds of thier ATA drives to 10k rpm. When 7.2k ATA drives first came out, they were SCSI models with an ATA interface. Granted that dodn't last long, but it really wouldn't be all that difficult for Seagate, Maxtor, Fujitsu, or Hitachi to slap an ATA interface on a SCSI drive again. With 36GB 10k models starting around $130 and 73GB drives starting around $180, they could easily be competitive with Raptors in terms of price. With all the same parts as the SCSI version other than the PCB, economies of scale could easily put them ahead of the Raptor on price and/or profitability.
Eventually 10k rpm drives will become the norm, and 7.2k rpm drives will be reserved for laptops and $299 budget specials at Wal-Mart.
 
zandor said:
I think the product line will probably stick around a while. It might take some time between updates, but I expect the constant pressure to improve performance will eventually result in other manufacturers boosting the spindle speeds of thier ATA drives to 10k rpm. When 7.2k ATA drives first came out, they were SCSI models with an ATA interface. Granted that dodn't last long, but it really wouldn't be all that difficult for Seagate, Maxtor, Fujitsu, or Hitachi to slap an ATA interface on a SCSI drive again. With 36GB 10k models starting around $130 and 73GB drives starting around $180, they could easily be competitive with Raptors in terms of price. With all the same parts as the SCSI version other than the PCB, economies of scale could easily put them ahead of the Raptor on price and/or profitability.
Eventually 10k rpm drives will become the norm, and 7.2k rpm drives will be reserved for laptops and $299 budget specials at Wal-Mart.
hdd's will be replaced all together before 10k rpm becomes the standard...yeah!! for worm drives, has anyone heard anything else about these recently im curious about how their development is coming along.
 
cell_491 said:
hdd's will be replaced all together before 10k rpm becomes the standard...yeah!! for worm drives, has anyone heard anything else about these recently im curious about how their development is coming along.

I still have 2 external scsi based worm drives :D
(12" 2.6gb units)
if memory prices continue falling the way they are and if the density's keep increasing i think it very likly for solid state memory to replace HD's for most applications. it may take 2-3 years but it would be long before 10k would ever become the standard

xonik said:
Proven reliability, huh? Let's see the proof for that. Considering that the Raptor line is little over two years old, any "proof" would be pretty flimsy.
i have a customer who bought into the technology on day one, they have a set of 12 (36gb) drives running in a database server for thier ordering system. the system is a quad xeon mp 1.2ghz and runs at about 75% of capacity processing transactions 24x7
they have not had a single drive fail....
the raptor uses existing PROVEN technology, the HD design other than the PCB is a reference 10k scsi design. the PCB only varies in that its got some chips for sata and not scsi
 
xonik said:
Proven reliability, huh? Let's see the proof for that. Considering that the Raptor line is little over two years old, any "proof" would be pretty flimsy.
You're taking a chance buying any new hard drive. Just because past models were 'relaible' does not mean that their desecendants will be equally reliable. One cost cutting measure on a new design can lead to disaster. We all hope that Maxtor, Hitachi, Seagate, and Fujitsu will not resort to such cost cutting measures or make an oversight, but it can happen. After all, IBM was recognized as the best ATA drive maker until 75GXP...

However, I am inclined to agree with Xonik that the major SCSI makers are more likely to produce drives suited for enterprise reliability requirements than WD is. WD's decision to utilise the bridge chip in their 'Enterprise' drives is evidence of compromises made on quality, as is their antiquated command queuing method.

Also, as has been pointed out, the Raptor is only 10% cheaper than a comparable SCSI disk. Given its limitations, a 10% savings on each drive is difficult to justify, especially given that SCSI is virtualyl autoamtic in server systems anyway, just like SATA is in consumer systems at present.
 
DougLite said:
After all, IBM was recognized as the best ATA drive maker until 75GXP...

I might still have a working death star around here somewhere.
 
tiebird321 said:
compared to other 10k 72gb scsi drives the raptor only offers minimal savings on a drive to drive cost. $20 or so in most cases
the savings from the drive are seen in low density applications where the storage space of only 1 or 2 drives is needed
a good scsi controller costs $150-200 (non raid)
a good SATA controller costs $1 for an on mobo or $25 for a PCI card (with raid)
so a large savings can be had
What?
confused.gif

$25 will get you the cheapest SATA card out there, some 2 port Silicon Image one or maybe a promise 2-port sata. $200 will get you a mid-range SCSI RAID controller with on-board cache. Nice faulty comparison. You can get a single channel U160 card which will be sufficient for most one and even two drive setups (unless you've got a pair of 15K IIs or something like that ;) ) that will run you $40-50. $60-70 will get you a 2-channel card. A good 4-port SATA card can be had for the same price.
tiebird321 said:
when you get into larger storage solutions, were 8-28HD's+ are needed the costs lose out
with scsi, you can have a controller (~$400) with 2 channel's and hardware Raid onboard
this single controller can controll up to 28HD's (14 per channel without using LUN's) using only 2 cables that can be up to meters long.
the sata side though requires 1 port on the controller for each single drive, the largest cards(~$750) only support 12/16 drives so you would need 2 cards to get 28 drives
you also get into a larger mess because the SATA spec only allows for ~40" of cable length between the drive and the controller
all the possible savings for using sata are lost very very quickly when going to large instalations. this forms a large detriment for the raptor to start apearing into the data centre
In a large array, who the hell actually puts 14 drives on a single channel? Say it's a U320 channel, and you're running drives that peak at 60mb/s, and sustain all the way to the end to 40mb/s. 8 drives on the low side and you're out of bandwidth. Again, faulty comparison. If you want to compare top of the line from SATA and SCSI, then do it. A four channel LSI MegaRAID 320-4 will run you aprox. $1000. 4 channels comfortably, within bandwidth restrictions, will get you 24 drives. $700 for 3ware's top end 12-port SATA raid card. So the SATA controllers are more expensive by $400 in our example, sure. But if the raptors are only $25 cheaper/drive you save $600 in just drives for a 24 drive array. And SATA cables are also much less expensive than good SCSI cables.
 
zandor said:
I think the product line will probably stick around a while. It might take some time between updates, but I expect the constant pressure to improve performance will eventually result in other manufacturers boosting the spindle speeds of thier ATA drives to 10k rpm. When 7.2k ATA drives first came out, they were SCSI models with an ATA interface. Granted that dodn't last long, but it really wouldn't be all that difficult for Seagate, Maxtor, Fujitsu, or Hitachi to slap an ATA interface on a SCSI drive again. With 36GB 10k models starting around $130 and 73GB drives starting around $180, they could easily be competitive with Raptors in terms of price. With all the same parts as the SCSI version other than the PCB, economies of scale could easily put them ahead of the Raptor on price and/or profitability.
Eventually 10k rpm drives will become the norm, and 7.2k rpm drives will be reserved for laptops and $299 budget specials at Wal-Mart.

None of the affore mentioned companies really want to cannibalize there SCSI sales with a 10k SATA model. SCSI drives have a much better profit margin and less subject to the brutal price wars of desktop drives. Since WD doesn't have SCSI, it was a no brainer for them. But for the others it would take a gutsy CEO to make the call, especially since Western Digital has never given out the slightest information on how many Raptors sell each quarter - pretty clever.
 
tiebird321 said:
I still have 2 external scsi based worm drives :D
(12" 2.6gb units)
im talking about something different...i remember reading about some sort of optical worm drive that can hold like 1.6terabytes and its like half the size as most hdd's its been awhile since ive read anything about it
 
cell_491 said:
im talking about something different...i remember reading about some sort of optical worm drive that can hold like 1.6terabytes and its like half the size as most hdd's its been awhile since ive read anything about it

Worm just means write once read many, its a simple way of haveing a storage solution that can be treated like a virtual HD but have audit trail
 
Vertigo Acid said:
What?
confused.gif

$25 will get you the cheapest SATA card out there, some 2 port Silicon Image one or maybe a promise 2-port sata. $200 will get you a mid-range SCSI RAID controller with on-board cache. Nice faulty comparison. You can get a single channel U160 card which will be sufficient for most one and even two drive setups (unless you've got a pair of 15K IIs or something like that ;) ) that will run you $40-50. $60-70 will get you a 2-channel card. A good 4-port SATA card can be had for the same price.
yes you can certinly get a u160 scsi card for $40-50 off of ebay
I quoted $150-200 and it was a little high
right price is about $120 for a NEW single channel card from a reputable vendor (not talking about brand, just where you bought it from)
If we are talking about a new machine its going to have sata ports on the mobo, so the sata card cost is moot.
 
I don't know where you are looking, but I just found an LSIU160 for $70 and an Adaptec 29160 for $69
I can't argue that SCSI is better for a single or 2 drive setup than a raptor. I just take issue with the ridiculous price comparisons you are spouting to make your point
 
If WD converted the Raptor's to SATAII that would seriously dent thier SCSI sales, so they havent.

Too bad for us.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
If WD converted the Raptor's to SATAII that would seriously dent thier SCSI sales, so they havent.

Too bad for us.

Seeing that WD hasn't had a SCSI drive in production for about 5 years leads me to believe that it wouldn't hurt their SCSI sales that hard...... :rolleyes:
 
Vertigo Acid said:
I don't know where you are looking, but I just found an LSIU160 for $70 and an Adaptec 29160 for $69
I can't argue that SCSI is better for a single or 2 drive setup than a raptor. I just take issue with the ridiculous price comparisons you are spouting to make your point

My organization's prefered vendors list that i'm required to go to unless they dont actualy carry something. (basicly is newegg, techdata, CDW, insight, dell, gateway, and MPC [micron PC] )

Which is commen when your working for the man in a 5,000+ person company, sadly enough. i dont dissagree that they can be had for far cheaper than the prices i'm quoting for an end user. last month i picked up a 3 channel IBM branded u160 raid card with 256mb of cache for $44. when your buying something from a vendor all bets are off

go check on dell/gateway/microns website
they charge $140-170 for a single channel scsi card for a workstation system, and they rape you hard core on the drive's to go with it. where they do offer the raptor drives they sell them at prices comparable to most online places and if the mobo supports it they will preconfigure it into a raid setup.
 
Back
Top