They charge like what $500+ for a similar scsi part? Why 2x cheaper for sata?
Printable View
Exactly... releasing something like a cheaper sata part with equal perforamnce will leave them with close to 0 enterprise sales. I don't see them doing that to themselves. Lots of servers are already beign ran on SATA hdds as it is.
Its not that they can't make a drive like this, its just that it wont be worth the effort...
^Density of the data per platter?
4x 640GB @ 5% = 128GB
http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/437...7319839_rs.jpg
just a quickie.. i have yet to set the best performing settings @ bios
later ill post the 4x raptor.. ive posted several of those.. ill look for it here @ xs
i just know it takes 6x raptors to achieve that ^
That access time must be with the quiet feature turned off, correct? All the other documented access times I have seen for this drive are much higher.
Omfg :shocked: :shocked: I hope that this "babies" will be soon available in EU :cool: I know it's not the right place to ask, but how much is the average MB/s for just one WD6400AAKS? :) Tnx, Greets!:up:
Who refuses to accept the math? He used 5% of the drive and got 7.7, which is equal to a full raptor. By your "math" you said it will be 6.2 when using 25% of the drive. So yes your setup would give you 9-10ms and would be slower than the raptor, like I said.
@ Napalm Could you do an IOPS benchmark for both slices on the 6400s?
Yes, IOPS vs. Raptor.
Single and RAID tests, please
:D
Thanks for the testing, Napalm. Eagerly awaiting further results.
any chance that you or anyone else could post results of just 2 6400's in RAID0?
currently i have 2x150GB in raid0 and i am looking for something queit.
so far these 6400's are impressive.
thanks for the benchies!
I think you and I have different definitions of performance. I feel the
close-to-Raptor access times, plus superior throughput, firmware,
caching algorithms, and platter technology, will equate to better than
raptor performance. Are you saying it all rides on who has a millisecond
or so better access times? (not trying to be sarcastic here, serious question.)
EBL
alright guys ill post 1x 2x 3x 6400
and raptor vs 6400 iops
:up: ^much obliged, much obliged:D
6400 @ highpoint 3510
2x
http://aycu23.webshots.com/image/477...6391248_rs.jpg
3x
http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/461...1858560_rs.jpg
4x
http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/462...9574476_rs.jpg
1x - i cant create 1x on the hpt
benched 2x 3x several times and thats the best i can get outta the 2x and 3x
4x most efficient.. i wish i could run the 6400 on the areca 1210 but thats a no go currently
2x
http://aycu38.webshots.com/image/461...5328193_rs.jpg
3x
http://aycu18.webshots.com/image/451...4416466_rs.jpg
4x
http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/449...4757854_rs.jpg
thanks for these!
2 of those have a much higher transfer rate than my 2 raptors in raid0.
for some reason the access times on my raptors is ~9ms..
how exactly do u get benchmarks of only a certain amount of gigabytes on the drive?
my array is partitioned
when u create the array enter/input lower GB
added hd tune 2x 3x 4x ^
would u guys like 80GB raptor vs 6400 iops?
or @ 100% ?
wow those are some crazy results, lol.
it is cool seeing how they scale in performance.
thanks you very much for these results.
now i want to go get some of these and get rid of my noisy raptors, lol.