- Nov 30, 2011
- 145
- 2
- 81
Ok, this is 2 WD Caviar Blue 640gb in raid 0(64 stripe size): hdtune read benchmark
min=3.5 mb/s
max=213.8 mb/s
avg=153.9 mb/s
access time=12.5 ms
min=3.5 mb/s
max=213.8 mb/s
avg=153.9 mb/s
access time=12.5 ms
I sent you a pmPrivate deal? Otherways share the details please!
FWIW I've never had a Raptor or Cheetah die on me. The last dino drives to be evicted from my house were a set of Raptors over 7 years old, and are probably the worst abused (WoW, running 24 7, etc) and still running like new. In fact it still has the original XP install from when I built it, and still boots to desktop in about 8 seconds flat with the drives going dead silent idle the moment the taskbar pops up.
I always wanted a 15K cheetah
But its such a beautiful sound. Especially listening to them spin down for the 10 mins following a shutdown. And the loud running on cereal sound the servos make when completing a defrag in less than 60 seconds Sometimes I swear my computer was swaying from the momentum of those armatures flying around so hard.
haha, no sound doesn't bother me. i can get 4 of them for $60.
I had a set of 15k SAS drives in Raid0 and when I switched to SSDs I was disappointed. I lost a lot of space on the SSDs and didn't gain much speed, though they were a little faster. I think I got caught up in the hype of SSDs though. Unfortunately as soon as I got the SSDs in I sold the SAS setup. I wish I would have kept it so I could switch back.
A set of good quality SAS drives in Raid0 will give very good performance and storage space vs. SSDs IMHO of course. I think they are a good balance between the high cost and the lower capacity of SSDs. The problem lies in the SAS controllers since they can be costly which may negate the savings over SSDs. If you can get your hands on a good controller for a reasonable cost, it may be something to try.
dead serious here.. don't waste your time on a setup like that.
at first I thought exdeath may be full of poo(no offense intended here bud.. just adding the usual salt to forum posting is all + the comment about "near SSD performance threw me off a bit too at first).. but then after he spelled out the limitations in a bit more detail.. he appears to be experienced enough to give competent advice.
That being said.. I have 4 x 15k cheetah drives in R0 and aside from massive burst speeds?(until cache runs out anyways).. it's really all about reduced latency and I/O performance for those types of drives.
Fact is.. SSD's will smoke those older drives in every way besides capacity these days. In fact.. I've tested faster single SSD compared to as many as 8 of these types of drives(my buds have 12 drive arrays as well) and aside from sequential R/W?(which is like near silliness to consider as an important metric for an OS volume).. not even in the same ballpark.
Plus there's the fact that latency gets amplified as the array gets wider with more drives added. Just the price we pay for magnetic record player tech we call HDD and the overhead they add on the hardware they're attached to.
Again.. no offense intended to exdeath.. and just calling it like I see it from much raid experience.. onboard and off.
What generation SSD? The first SSDs to hit the market were pretty horrible. A current third generation SATA 6G SSD should blow away your SAS drives no contest.
IMO SSDs were not really viable until this last generation or two where all the trim, wear leveling, stuttering, locking up, etc bugs have finally been resolved.
Then again I've said it before: though SSD are technically faster, if you are already coming from fast HDD array of 10-15k drives, your perception of improvement won't be as nearly as great as someone coming from a Compaq Presario with a Quantum Bigfoot.
Just like people with high end CRTs aren't all that impressed with LCD, only the people coming from 14" 60 hz blurry monitors with convergeance off by half an inch were really floored. The rest of us with FD Trinitrons were like "welcome to the club 10 years too late".
Of course we know SSD is superior on paper.
For the average user that measures perceived performance based on boot time and how long eBay takes to come up on IE first launch, coming from a Cheetah/Raptor RAID that already boots in 8 seconds to SSD is going to be disappointing compared to someone coming from an eMachine with a $30 HDD that has never experienced less than 2 minute boots before.
"SSD like performance" from Cheetah/Raptor RAID is relative... how fast a Lamborghini feels to you depends if you previously drove a Corvette or a Corolla.
exdeath said:Just like people with high end CRTs aren't all that impressed with LCD, only the people coming from 14" 60 hz blurry monitors with convergeance off by half an inch were really floored. The rest of us with FD Trinitrons were like "welcome to the club 10 years too late".
No matter how fast the spinners are, or how many you have in an array, the access times and random read/writes are going to suck balls compared to even the lowliest SSD.
Then there's the horrible noise.
I personally enjoyed the sound of a 15k drive myself.
I agree completely. I don't boot up my older workstation as much any more.. but 4 of those 15k drives in R0 sounds like a mini-turbo when they rev up all the way.
Is definately a perspective thing.
The deafening silence of SSD's is more annoying to me.