600GB Velociraptor MIA??

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by hugodrax, Jun 17, 2010.

  1. hugodrax macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #1
    They are out of stock everywhere I look. Newegg,macmall etc..

    Is there a new model coming out and this is why they are out of stock.

    the 600GB seems like a nice fast drive and plenty of storage for my needs, but MIA it seems.
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    WD might have issues with its production. Anyway, why VelociRaptor? It's hotter, noisier and more expensive.
     
  3. hugodrax thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #3
    faster, look at the iobench scores. Pretty significant difference especially with random I/O, even over the 2TB WD drive.
     
  4. Major Reeves macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Location:
    EUSSR
    #4
    It's faster, not hotter actually it generates less heat than a normal 7,2k rpm hd, more reliable and they can actually "be" used in raid configs.

    Anyways, iMac board that way ->
     
  5. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #5
    The only selling point is has over an SSD is $/GB.
     
  6. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #6
    The Velociraptors are Enterprise grade disks, and are suited to high write environments, unlike MLC based SSD's.
     
  7. 300D macrumors 65816

    300D

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Location:
    Tulsa
  8. JesterJJZ macrumors 68020

    JesterJJZ

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    #8
    A SATA3 Velociraptor would be very welcomed. Maybe they can even bump it to 15k. Don't care much for capacity as these would be used for boot. 300GB is more than perfect.
     
  9. hakuryuu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    Lomita, CA
    #9
    Longevity in a high write environment is a huge advantage over SSD.
     
  10. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #10
    The use of "only" in your statement does change things, as it's an innacurate statement with the inclusion of that specific word.

    MLC isn't meant for high write environments. MLC on it's own, is only good for 1E4 writes from the manufacturers, such as Samsung, Intel,... It's just the nature of the technology. SLC is a bit better, at 1E5 writes (intended for enterprise SSD's). These are minimum write cycles BTW.

    Wear leveling improves matters by remapping other cells when one dies, but there's limitations (available unused capacity, and it can't actually improve the write cycles of the cells themselves, as that's fixed by the technology used to create them). It's a rotation scheme. Capacity decreases when cells are remapped. Minor per instance (assuming there's not a massive cell count lost in a short period of time, which can happen, such as an entire chip), but it will add over time. If an entire chip does go, then the usable capacity will shrink by the capacity of the Flash chip that's died.

    Now what you need to understand is, that with the specs listed by SSD drive makers, is that:
    1. The statistics only use the best 90% of all cells, not all of them (100%).
    2. Statistics are performed on empty drives, which isn't real world conditions in almost all cases (there's usually data that remains on the drives, such as the OS and applications).

    SSD's are still rather new, and need the bugs worked out of the technology (i.e. better Flash chips to become available, such as FeRAM), and OS's need to be optimized for SSD's as well (i.e. Windows is, OS X isn't as of yet, given the information published on 10.6.4). OS X will eventually support SSD's, but we don't know when.

    SSD's are great for OS/application disks as it exists currently, but there are limitations as to what it's usable for.

    Ultimately, this has been covered before in other threads, and IIRC, you participated in a couple of them, so this shouldn't be new information to you.
     

Share This Page