PDA

View Full Version : Which 1TB HD in new Mac Pros?




amoergosum
Apr 18, 2009, 02:16 PM
Is this the 1TB hard drive which can be found in the new Mac Pros? >>>
Western Digital WD1001FALS Caviar Black 1000GB (3,5'' / SATA II / 7200rpm / 32MB / bulk)



cmaier
Apr 18, 2009, 02:19 PM
Is this the 1TB hard drive which can be found in the new Mac Pros? >>>
Western Digital WD1001FALS Caviar Black 1000GB (3,5'' / SATA II / 7200rpm / 32MB / bulk)

think so.

DeepCobalt
Apr 18, 2009, 06:58 PM
Actually, you could get a Caviar Blue or a Caviar Black from what I've been seeing... I wonder if there's a way to ask for a Caviar Black...

VirtualRain
Apr 18, 2009, 10:56 PM
Actually, you could get a Caviar Blue or a Caviar Black from what I've been seeing... I wonder if there's a way to ask for a Caviar Black...

Caviar Blue does not come in 1TB size... it's a toss up on the smaller drives only.

zer0tails
Apr 18, 2009, 11:41 PM
depends what your intended purposes are really. If you want energy savings get the WD caviar green drives.

grue
Apr 18, 2009, 11:51 PM
Apple OEMs from several manufacturers… what one person gets is not necessarily what another gets in terms of drives.

grue
Apr 18, 2009, 11:51 PM
depends what your intended purposes are really. If you want energy savings get the WD caviar green drives.


Yeah, those 4 whole watts of savings…

UltraNEO*
Apr 18, 2009, 11:56 PM
Yeah, those 4 whole watts of savings…

Ooooh!! Imagine what you can do with that!
Over the course of a year, of course.

grue
Apr 19, 2009, 12:06 AM
Ooooh!! Imagine what you can do with that!
Over the course of a year, of course.

Even if you ran it 24/7/365, that's only ~35 kilowatt-hours per drive. At my electricity rates, that's… $5.95/AU per year.

zer0tails
Apr 19, 2009, 01:05 AM
Even if you ran it 24/7/365, that's only ~35 kilowatt-hours per drive. At my electricity rates, that's… $5.95/AU per year.

well you're in Australia. It makes a difference to us other folks on the other side of the world. Besides, $$ savings is one thing but the other is using less energy and being more environmentally friendly. Its a chain my friend..

grue
Apr 19, 2009, 01:21 AM
well you're in Australia. It makes a difference to us other folks on the other side of the world. Besides, $$ savings is one thing but the other is using less energy and being more environmentally friendly. Its a chain my friend..

Meh. To each their own… I just don't give a damn. I'm not going to pour dioxin in a river, but I'm not going to use slow hard drives in the name of environmental friendliness either.

Genghis Khan
Apr 19, 2009, 01:44 AM
Meh. To each their own… I just don't give a damn. I'm not going to pour dioxin in a river, but I'm not going to use slow hard drives in the name of environmental friendliness either.

+1


I used a WD 640GB from MSY for my Pro...although, i haven't put it under any stress...yet...

Mac Husky
Apr 19, 2009, 02:38 AM
depends what your intended purposes are really. If you want energy savings get the WD caviar green drives.
Right - for a NAS I would go for the Caviar Green, but using it for daily used data take the Caviar Black (or WD RE3 in RAID) due to access´ speed, cause the Caviar Green is one of the slower/slowest 1TB drives at all.

J&JPolangin
Apr 19, 2009, 03:03 AM
...between the green, blue and black series, do they have different rotational speeds?

Tesselator
Apr 19, 2009, 03:17 AM
Yes, they do.

And not as a suggestion but did you know that the Green 1TB drive is faster than the 500GB drives from just a few years ago? And faster then any common grade HDD in the 300GB range. So if you think of it like that, it's an upgrade with less power consumption at the same time. The 2TB green drive is faster than most of the 1TB drives too! Including the 1TB Black! Something to think about I guess. :)


EDIT: As a note on topic Apple says they don't guarantee any specific drive model or maker so it's 100% pot luck and you'll get whatever Apple is getting cheapest at the time.


.

amoergosum
Apr 19, 2009, 03:59 AM
Thank you for your replies guys!
One more question >>>
Is it ok to use only a second hd as a scratch disc (in regards to FCP) or would you say it's much better to use a second AND a third hd which are set to RAID0?

Tesselator
Apr 19, 2009, 05:17 AM
FCP likes RAID 0.

amoergosum
Apr 19, 2009, 05:45 AM
FCP likes RAID 0.

What does that mean in real time...how much faster ist it?

Concorde Rules
Apr 19, 2009, 06:21 AM
1TB WD Black here!

Tesselator
Apr 19, 2009, 09:03 AM
What does that mean in real time...how much faster ist it?

At some things (with my 3-drive RAID 0) it's three times as fast, at other things it's only slightly faster, and some operations aren't affected at all.

amoergosum
Apr 19, 2009, 10:34 AM
At some things (with my 3-drive RAID 0) it's three times as fast, at other things it's only slightly faster, and some operations aren't affected at all.

So you have your boot drive and three additional hard drives set to RAID0?
Is that correct (sorry....I'm new to the whole RAID thing)?

SSH64
Apr 19, 2009, 01:41 PM
Yes, they do.

EDIT: As a note on topic Apple says they don't guarantee any specific drive model or maker so it's 100% pot luck and you'll get whatever Apple is getting cheapest at the time.


.

I am surprised but it is true I have WD6400AAKS - WD Caviar SE16

Tesselator
Apr 19, 2009, 02:10 PM
So you have your boot drive and three additional hard drives set to RAID0?
Is that correct (sorry....I'm new to the whole RAID thing)?

Actually right now I personally have the boot, applications, fast project i/o, and scratch all set to use the same 3-drive RAID 0 and I'm using the other 1TB drive for slow storage of like iTunes and E-Books and stuff. I set it up this way a few months ago as an experiment to see if there were actually any performance hits like everyone says. So far there aren't any differences at all other than that the boot is faster and app loading and searching is quicker. So I'm kinda thinking at least for my usage style, that such are wives tales. :)

But what I was saying above is like you said. This is how I had it for over a year (prior to my little experiment) and meets with most people's approval as discussed in these kinds of forums.

Plutonius
Apr 19, 2009, 09:35 PM
Is this the 1TB hard drive which can be found in the new Mac Pros? >>>
Western Digital WD1001FALS Caviar Black 1000GB (3,5'' / SATA II / 7200rpm / 32MB / bulk)

I just bought one for $130.00 . Like RAM, it's much cheaper to buy it and install it yourself.

matt18012
Apr 19, 2009, 11:09 PM
I also just got a cavier black 1tb. Great drive, much faster than my 320gb seagate from a few years ago.

VirtualRain
Apr 21, 2009, 01:11 AM
Actually right now I personally have the boot, applications, fast project i/o, and scratch all set to use the same 3-drive RAID 0 and I'm using the other 1TB drive for slow storage of like iTunes and E-Books and stuff. I set it up this way a few months ago as an experiment to see if there were actually any performance hits like everyone says. So far there aren't any differences at all other than that the boot is faster and app loading and searching is quicker. So I'm kinda thinking at least for my usage style, that such are wives tales. :)

But what I was saying above is like you said. This is how I had it for over a year (prior to my little experiment) and meets with most people's approval as discussed in these kinds of forums.

I'm with you... the idea of splitting storage functions across multiple physical drives is old-school. The reason that practice started in the first place was to try and minimize latency hits from drive heads sweeping across the platters doing a variety of things at once. Now with cache sizes and NCQ and particularly SSD's with near-zero latency this is all moot.

larapumkin
Apr 22, 2009, 06:48 PM
i use samsung and wd.
when i bought it, samsung was littlebit more expensive.
they work almost same but samsung is just bit more quite.

grue
Apr 22, 2009, 06:53 PM
I'm with you... the idea of splitting storage functions across multiple physical drives is old-school. The reason that practice started in the first place was to try and minimize latency hits from drive heads sweeping across the platters doing a variety of things at once. Now with cache sizes and NCQ and particularly SSD's with near-zero latency this is all moot.


Depends what you're doing. I keep my downloads folder on a separate physical drive from my general storage. Why? Because expanding large archives to a different drive is far far faster than doing it to the same drive. Same goes for installing software from disk images, etc.

VirtualRain
Apr 23, 2009, 01:43 AM
Depends what you're doing. I keep my downloads folder on a separate physical drive from my general storage. Why? Because expanding large archives to a different drive is far far faster than doing it to the same drive. Same goes for installing software from disk images, etc.

Yeah, I could see that on a mechanical drive... on an SSD it shouldn't make any difference.