WD6400AAKS faster than Raptor?

[One_Hertz]

i will agree with the fact that it wouldnt beat a SSD - but production cost? puh-leez, they already make the platters left, right'n'centre (Seagates 7200.11 line-up), 32MB cache the already do in all higher end HDDs (again 7200.11), & the spindle motor - they already have them from their SCSI line... sure it'll be an 'enthusiast' part & it'll kick the Raptor thus it'll be more expensive than Raptor - but still cheaper if compared to GB/$ re: SSD - & while this dream HDD of ours cant match a SSD in ms, it'll beat or come oh so close to MB/s (go look @ MB/s that seagate is advertising for its new 15K.6 SCSI HDDs - 160MB/s )... the Raptor150 ATM is getting flogged of @ newegg for ~USD$170. Lets say the dream drive of urs has double the capacity (single ~300GB platter) & aforementioned specs.. what would u pay out of curiousity? me? mmm... USD$250-300...

They charge like what $500+ for a similar scsi part? Why 2x cheaper for sata?

[tiro_uspsss]

They charge like what $500+ for a similar scsi part? Why 2x cheaper for sata?

i'm not guessing how much it would be - i'm saying how much i would be willing to pay ... besides, manufacturers always charge more for enterprise parts, u know the drill

[One_Hertz]

i'm not guessing how much it would be - i'm saying how much i would be willing to pay ... besides, manufacturers always charge more for enterprise parts, u know the drill

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...

[tiro_uspsss]

Its not that they can't make a drive like this, its just that it wont be worth the effort...

maybe, maybe not.. i just like dreaming

ps. we're a lil OT oops!

[MartinuZ]

of course! I've always wondered why Seagate or other doesnt take just *one* dense-as-Paris platter (i think they have 320GB single platters now) & forget 10K rpm, go all the way - go 15K rpm - I mean Seagate has plenty of experience spinning HDDs that fast (SCSI range)...

single super dense platter
SATAII interface
32+ MB cache
15K rpm

= killer drive

Why is a single platter better than using only the fastest 20% of 5 platters (or 25% of 4 platters)? Less movement for the arm, and no slower-further-into-the-disk-problems!

[XS Janus]

^Density of the data per platter?

[NapalmV5]

4x 640GB @ 5% = 128GB



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 ^

[NapalmV5]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=283

[YukonTrooper]

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.

[EvilBellyLint]

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.

As has been stated (yet apparently, some still refuse to accept the math
behind HDD mechanics) short-stroking can DRAMATICALLY reduce seek times.

Excellent work up there, Napalm.


EBL

[NapalmV5]

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.

i dont have that feature @ hpt 3510 bios

are those documented access times @ true hard raid?


thanx EvilBellyLint

[Lewis23]

Omfg I hope that this "babies" will be soon available in EU I know it's not the right place to ask, but how much is the average MB/s for just one WD6400AAKS? Tnx, Greets!

[Kondik]

correct. They do not.


EBL

Allright a small fixup the plates in Raptor aren't 2.5" but are definetley smaller than in 3.5" drive.

So Yes they're not 2.5" but yes, they're still smaller than 3.5's

[One_Hertz]

As has been stated (yet apparently, some still refuse to accept the math
behind HDD mechanics) short-stroking can DRAMATICALLY reduce seek times.

Excellent work up there, Napalm.


EBL

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?

[XS Janus]

Yes, IOPS vs. Raptor.
Single and RAID tests, please

[Gogeta]

Thanks for the testing, Napalm. Eagerly awaiting further results.

[ripken204]

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!

[EvilBellyLint]

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?

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

[NapalmV5]

alright guys ill post 1x 2x 3x 6400

and raptor vs 6400 iops

[XS Janus]

^much obliged, much obliged

[YukonTrooper]

alright guys ill post 1x 2x 3x 6400

and raptor vs 6400 iops

Fantastic. Give us good news for the weekend!

[NapalmV5]

6400 @ highpoint 3510

2x

3x

4x


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

3x

4x

[ripken204]

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

[NapalmV5]

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% ?

[ripken204]

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.