: New WD VelociRaptor


jtmac
Apr 21st, 2008, 01:58 PM
New WD VelociRaptor

WD VelociRaptor 300 GB SATA Hard Drives ( WD3000GLFS ) (http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=459)

new ultimate boot drive?

Andrew Pratt
Apr 21st, 2008, 02:01 PM
I saw that this morning...interesting that they went to the 2.5" case...hmm I wonder how hot it'll run in a MBP without the fins attached :)

jtmac
Apr 21st, 2008, 02:10 PM
Smokin' idea AP beejacon
And I thought my MBP gets pretty toasty already

CanadaRAM
Apr 21st, 2008, 02:51 PM
I saw that this morning...interesting that they went to the 2.5" case.

Smaller-than-3.5" platters is standard in high-RPM drives, teh Raptor also used a small platter. The extra weight of 3.5" platters gets tough at 10,000 or 15,000 RPM.

MacDoc
Apr 21st, 2008, 03:39 PM
Um a little reality check.

16 meg cache sucks.

32% faster than previous Raptor puts it on a par with a WD Tornado and below a couple of other 32 meg cache drives on the market.

Pointless nonsense.

This is NOT for a portable use.

jtmac
Apr 21st, 2008, 04:53 PM
Don't count your chickens yet.
Have a look at the PCworld article:
PC World - First Look: New WD VelociRaptor Hard Drive Cruises Through Speed Tests (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,144875/article.html?tk=xlr8yourmac)
They think it screams.
26% faster than the WDSE16-750

ScanMan
Apr 21st, 2008, 05:24 PM
I got 4 Seagate 750s in my Pro which suits my purposes nicely. But this new Raptor really makes me wanna yank the bad boy in Drive Bay #1.

Conclusion - Tom's Hardware : WD's New Raptor Drive Is a Bird of Prey! (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/HDD-SATA-VelociRaptor,1914-14.html)

jtmac
Apr 21st, 2008, 05:30 PM
Thanks for that link ScanMan.
I learned it likely won't work in the MacPro because the connectors aren't standard position for the drive sleds.

Andrew Pratt
Apr 21st, 2008, 05:35 PM
Its also much taller then standard 2.5" drives.

MacDoc
Apr 21st, 2008, 05:58 PM
Something does not make sense here

If the tests are showing 125 sustained without cache then the drive is faster by about 10-15% than others but if it's 30% faster than the discontinued Raptors then it is not.
With the small platter we will see how much drop off there is - some indications down to 77 megs per second which is very steep -

I'll order one and find out.
Stay tuned.



I learned it likely won't work in the MacPro because the connectors aren't standard position for the drive sleds.

We have fixes for that. :D

MacDoc
Jun 5th, 2008, 08:45 PM
Well it's slightly faster but not as much as I'd like. 116 both directions versus 108.

8 megs per better than the fastest Seagate and half the cache. :( and almost 3x the price!!!
I'm going to try it as boot but I suspect both will go back. :(

125 I might have lived with. Small cache, awkward install and way expensive for small space.
This one won't be around long.

rampancy_fatalin.
Jun 5th, 2008, 10:29 PM
How on earth did you get it to work in your Mac Pro?

MacDoc
Jun 5th, 2008, 11:17 PM
Actually

a) it's not in the MP just now - just cabled to the motherboard. ( extra buses )

b) it's not hard - put it in the second optical bay and use the same bus - there are two extras.

Personally it's not worth it tho it does feel quick - working on it now.

Straight forward for a G5 owner tho.

A pair in the G5 would be mighty snappy.

It actually looks like it has a bit more than 10% speed bump over the Seagate as I did the Seagate on the 2.8 and this is a 2.66.

I'll do a bit more but too much $$ and cache too small.

Pete
Jun 5th, 2008, 11:33 PM
hey MacDoc what drive models are the WD tornados? i'm going to upgrade my 8core 2.8 and want a good start up drive, and 2 raided drives for storage.. i was thinking about the velociraptor. but seems it's not recommended

MacDoc
Jun 6th, 2008, 09:47 AM
Looks like the VR is 15% faster than the fastest 32 meg cache Seagate in sustained large file but at 3x the price and 60% of the drive space that's still marginal.

It does do quite a bit better in the random read/write testing than the Seagate but not much more than the server Tornado.

We've noticed the Tornado while not top in any specific category seems to have a well balanced performance over all.

I'd definitely redo these on 2.8 as there is a drive throughput speed bump to be had on the model.

Pete
Jun 6th, 2008, 07:07 PM
what about the desktop versions of the tornado drives? how do they measure up?

MacDoc
Jun 8th, 2008, 06:44 PM
Well did the VR correctly inside the MacPro - not a big deal 'cept that stupid SATA cable run is fiddly - sigh - why put it in and then make it super awkward :mad:.

In an 8 core it's still is only 15% faster than comparable top end drives BUT - and this is where the 125 mBs comes in - it will do 125 on small blocks.

So for sustained work it's only marginally faster but for boot where small files and random come into play there is significant advantage.

Worth the price??? ....maybe. If you've got all else topped out - an extra $180 or so might not be bad. Bigger cache would be nice.

I have not completely finished testing but close.
It's very quiet and built like a tank.

MacDoc
Jun 28th, 2008, 01:58 PM
After living with the beast for a couple weeks I can recommend it for those that want a really quick overall boot drive.

The defrag took at least 30% less time than on the same size Century drive and that's what other sites are reporting - over all performance is superb as opposed to any single category.

Not cheap....but a treat. G5's or MacPro owners will benefit but then a couple of 500s in an array......hard to choose.

For those with an empty optical bay on a MacPro and want their drive bays own - it's a treat.