WD Raptor or WD Caviar in RAID setup?

[John Doe]

"Rarius" <rarius rarius.co.uk> wrote:

Rarius, you still need to introduce the prior author(s).

Do you work for NewEgg?

You keep quoting this website... but strangely very few others.

But in fact, currently Newegg is considered the most popular online
hardware merchant and is quoted regularly.

I don't want to know what experience you have...

Or the experience of a hundred users.

In fact I don't want to hear anything from you as I know from past
experience it will be ill thought out, abusive and vitriolic.

Rarius, you mean "I don't want to hear your corrections of my
silly opinions".

I think I'll just add you to my ignore list,

People who need to proclaim when putting someone in there kill file
are usually referring to an imaginary kill file friend and not a
real kill file. Your imaginary kill file friend isn't technically
inclined enough to kill the whole thread branch, Rarius, so you end
up stumbling over all of the replies to your alleged victim. Your
imaginary kill file friend is very difficult to keep track of too,
he tends to magically disappear from time to time.

 

[John Doe]

By the fact that I am responding toy your post,

Imaginary kill file friends come and go.

I find I am strangely enjoying mud-wrestling with a pig!

Stop that! Your mother is too old to be mudwrestling!

 

[John Doe]

Raptor is old hat.

Your opinion might be removed from reality.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2751920854/

That's an HD Tach short test. Average read speed of my 150 GB Raptor
is 75.5 Mb per second. That beats everything in their comparison list
except RAID 0, and it beats the first five RAID 0s.

If you supply another benchmark, I'll be glad to show how fast my 150
GB Raptor is on that too. Every benchmark I've run my Raptors through
here has them much faster than everything except RAID 0.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> John Doe

Your opinion might be removed from reality.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/2751920854/

That's an HD Tach short test. Average read speed of my 150 GB Raptor
is 75.5 Mb per second. That beats everything in their comparison list
except RAID 0, and it beats the first five RAID 0s.

*cough*Seagate 7200.11 1TB*cough*

http://www.i4u.com/full-review-318.html
"average read speed was 86.3MB/s"

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2206423,00.asp

245MB/s burst read speeds, 85MB/s write speeds.

 

[John Doe]

*cough*Seagate 7200.11 1TB*cough*

If it's so good, why don't you have one?

http://www.i4u.com/full-review-318.html
"average read speed was 86.3MB/s"

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2206423,00.asp

245MB/s burst read speeds, 85MB/s write speeds.

Looks good. It has a significantly slower random-access time (8.5 ms
for the Raptor compared to 12.7 ms for the Seagate). And apparently
real users are not impressed with the Seagate as they are with the
Raptor.

Seagate 7200.11 1TB
Excellent 117 reviews 58%
Good 30 reviews 15%
Average 11 reviews 6%
Poor 15 reviews 8%
Very poor 25 reviews 13%

Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB
Excellent 711 reviews 74%
Good 158 reviews 16%
Average 40 reviews 4%
Poor 27 reviews 3%
Very poor 32 reviews 3%

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> John Doe

If it's so good, why don't you have one?

I have four of those right now, and more then half a dozen other 7200.11
drives of different sizes.

I've also owned a couple different Raptors over the years, they simply
don't compete.

Now the Velociraptor does show promise, by reducing the number of
platters and platter size, they've brought the density back up, reduced
the overall distance the heads need to seek (which dramatically reduces
seek times), while maintaining 10,000rpm, plus rumour has it that WD
actually has NCQ working, something they haven't managed on the previous
Raptor drives.

I haven't gotten my paws on one just yet, but it's on the todo list once
I have time to tear my system apart and shuffle a bit to accommodate the
cooling requirements.

Looks good. It has a significantly slower random-access time (8.5 ms
for the Raptor compared to 12.7 ms for the Seagate).

Random access time is across the entire drive though, try again by
benchmarking a 150GB partition and you'll find the Seagate holds it's
own against the Raptor as well.

 

[John Doe]

I have four of those right now,

Then why not provide your own benchmark results?

I've also owned a couple different Raptors over the years, they
simply don't compete.

So all of my benchmark results showing that Raptors are faster than
almost everything else are illusion?

And the 700 user reviews of the Raptor on Newegg are all wrong?

Seagate 7200.11 1TB
Excellent 117 reviews 58%
Good 30 reviews 15%
Average 11 reviews 6%
Poor 15 reviews 8%
Very poor 25 reviews 13%

Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB
Excellent 711 reviews 74%
Good 158 reviews 16%
Average 40 reviews 4%
Poor 27 reviews 3%
Very poor 32 reviews 3%

Random access time is across the entire drive though,

I'm posting the same HD Tach benchmark result.

try again by benchmarking a 150GB partition and you'll find the
Seagate holds it's own against the Raptor as well.

Why don't you run the benchmark on your Seagate and provide a link to
your results?

Eventually newer technology obsoletes everything, but that doesn't
happen overnight. You get what you pay for.