7,200RPM SATA300 or 10,000RPM SATA150?

Which would you pick?

I can't seem to find 10K RPM SATA300, only SATA150.

It will serve as C: drive (i.e. mostly OS and Applications) and not
media storage.

My opinion is that the latency would be lower on the 10K RPM and would
make a more significant difference with applications (apart from CPU),
correct?

TIA

Yes, the 10K rpm SATA150 drive would yield better performance than the
SATA300 drive in today's systems.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Which would you pick?

I can't seem to find 10K RPM SATA300, only SATA150.

It will serve as C: drive (i.e. mostly OS and Applications) and not
media storage.

My opinion is that the latency would be lower on the 10K RPM and would
make a more significant difference with applications (apart from CPU),
correct?

TIA

wrote...
Which would you pick?

I can't seem to find 10K RPM SATA300, only SATA150.

It will serve as C: drive (i.e. mostly OS and Applications) and not
media storage.

My opinion is that the latency would be lower on the 10K RPM and would
make a more significant difference with applications (apart from CPU),
correct?

I'd go for the 10K Raptor. The physical HD will be the limitation in a
single-disk system, not the interface.

Don't waste your money on the raptors they are just not worth it. I have two
of the 36 gig raptors running in Raid 0 because everyone told me they were
the thing to have. Well I have not seen it. I could have bought two SATA 3G
250 drives for less than I paid for my two raptors and saved about $75. If I
had it to do over I would have not bought the raptors as to me it was a
waste of money In fact would gladly trade my two raptors for two SATA 3G
250 drives and I would raid 1 them instead of Raid 0 as I would rather have
the redundancy of raid 1 than the performance of Raid 0 that I have not
seen.

Joe

wrote in message
oups.com...
Which would you pick?

I can't seem to find 10K RPM SATA300, only SATA150.

It will serve as C: drive (i.e. mostly OS and Applications) and not
media storage.

My opinion is that the latency would be lower on the 10K RPM and would
make a more significant difference with applications (apart from CPU),
correct?

TIA

"Joe" wrote...
Don't waste your money on the raptors they are just not worth it. I have
two of the 36 gig raptors running in Raid 0 because everyone told me they
were the thing to have. Well I have not seen it. I could have bought two
SATA 3G 250 drives for less than I paid for my two raptors and saved about
$75. If I had it to do over I would have not bought the raptors as to me
it was a waste of money In fact would gladly trade my two raptors for two
SATA 3G 250 drives and I would raid 1 them instead of Raid 0 as I would
rather have the redundancy of raid 1 than the performance of Raid 0 that I
have not seen.

The Raptor 36s are the first generation Raptors; the 74s followed with
significant improvement, and now the 150s. Your experience with the 36s
does not reflect the consensus of those who have the 74s, and likely does
not apply either to the 3rd generation 150s.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:14:23 -0500, "Joe"
wrote:

Don't waste your money on the raptors they are just not worth it. I have two
of the 36 gig raptors running in Raid 0 because everyone told me they were
the thing to have. Well I have not seen it. I could have bought two SATA 3G
250 drives for less than I paid for my two raptors and saved about $75. If I
had it to do over I would have not bought the raptors as to me it was a
waste of money In fact would gladly trade my two raptors for two SATA 3G
250 drives and I would raid 1 them instead of Raid 0 as I would rather have
the redundancy of raid 1 than the performance of Raid 0 that I have not
seen.

Joe


How was the RAID0 implemented?

If on a PCI IDE controller card, that in itself is a
bottleneck. To a certain extent I do agree with your idea
about the waste though, I'd sooner have one Raptor for the
OS and a larger secondary drive... of course not in a RAID
array, if RAID1 is desired then at least 3 drives, with two
larger ones being the RAID1 and backup of the primary.

On a windows box, (which you didn't mention but since
they're the most common...) the OS itself is significant
enough vulnerability that merely covering drive failure
isn't enough, the OS paritition needs backed up anyway and
if that backup is being done, it can mitigate the need for
realtime mirror of the OS drive too if the important data is
saved to the RAID1 array instead of the OS drive... and/or
of course offline storage, whichever flavor you prefer.

Correct.

--
DaveW

----------------
wrote in message
oups.com...
Which would you pick?

I can't seem to find 10K RPM SATA300, only SATA150.

It will serve as C: drive (i.e. mostly OS and Applications) and not
media storage.

My opinion is that the latency would be lower on the 10K RPM and would
make a more significant difference with applications (apart from CPU),
correct?

TIA

When the Raptors first came out a couple of years ago, I had a pair of the
36gig in a RAID 0 array to hold the OS.

Over a period of time, I started having problems with the RAID, sometimes
the system wouldn't boot, most of the time it did.

I discovered that you can't (or I couldn't at the time) query the SMART
status of the individual drives while they were in a RAID array.

I finally decided to buy another drive for the OS, and as the 74's had come
out, I bought a single Raptor 74, figuring the new 74's were a bit faster
than the 36's, a single 74 would be equal in size to a pair of 36's in a
RAID 0, and I'd be able to monitor a single drive (SMART-wise).

On a day-to-day basis, I couldn't tell the difference in performance between
the 36gig RAID 0, and the single 74.

The 74gig Raptor has been running nonstop for the last 1 1/2 years or so,
24/7

BTW, once I broke the 36gig RAID 0 array back into individual drives, I was
able to test them both and sure enough, one of them was developing bad
tracks.
WD replaced it no questions asked, and to this day both the 36gig Raptors
are still running each in it's own system as the OS drive with no more
problems.

For me, a single 74gig Raptor is the perfect size for the OS and programs. I
have other drives in each system to hold the data.

I thought about moving to the new Raptor 150, but I just can't justify it to
myself yet if it'd only be used for the OS and programs.

Perhaps someday.....

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:14:23 -0500, "Joe"
wrote:

Don't waste your money on the raptors they are just not worth it. I have
two
of the 36 gig raptors running in Raid 0 because everyone told me they were
the thing to have. Well I have not seen it. I could have bought two SATA
3G
250 drives for less than I paid for my two raptors and saved about $75. If
I
had it to do over I would have not bought the raptors as to me it was a
waste of money In fact would gladly trade my two raptors for two SATA 3G
250 drives and I would raid 1 them instead of Raid 0 as I would rather
have
the redundancy of raid 1 than the performance of Raid 0 that I have not
seen.

Joe


How was the RAID0 implemented?

If on a PCI IDE controller card, that in itself is a
bottleneck. To a certain extent I do agree with your idea
about the waste though, I'd sooner have one Raptor for the
OS and a larger secondary drive... of course not in a RAID
array, if RAID1 is desired then at least 3 drives, with two
larger ones being the RAID1 and backup of the primary.

On a windows box, (which you didn't mention but since
they're the most common...) the OS itself is significant
enough vulnerability that merely covering drive failure
isn't enough, the OS paritition needs backed up anyway and
if that backup is being done, it can mitigate the need for
realtime mirror of the OS drive too if the important data is
saved to the RAID1 array instead of the OS drive... and/or
of course offline storage, whichever flavor you prefer.