Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
...so I dropped them in, they work just fine (they recieved low usage throughout the years).

First I copied a folder 1gb folder to the stock 640 7200rpm hd in my 09 mac pro, timed it, and did the same to one of the velociraptors mentioned above. the time was similar. (I set them up in software raid and the time dropped in half.)

The similar time of a 1gb folder copying to the new 7200rpm 640gb hd and the 4 year old 10000rpm velociraptor... is that expected? in 4 years the speed difference closes between these two drives? Or is there a better way to test the speed of a hd?

thanks,

r.

The Velociraptor was released last year. So it is impossible for you to have a 4 year old Velociraptor.
 
...so I dropped them in, they work just fine (they recieved low usage throughout the years).

First I copied a folder 1gb folder to the stock 640 7200rpm hd in my 09 mac pro, timed it, and did the same to one of the velociraptors mentioned above. the time was similar. (I set them up in software raid and the time dropped in half.)

The similar time of a 1gb folder copying to the new 7200rpm 640gb hd and the 4 year old 10000rpm velociraptor... is that expected? in 4 years the speed difference closes between these two drives? Or is there a better way to test the speed of a hd?

thanks,

r.
Your old 74GB drives are Raptors (~64MB/s sequential reads, so a stripe pair should pull ~128MB/s), not Velociraptors (which can sustain ~100MB/s each). And yes, the avg. drive has exceeded them in terms of throughputs (the 640GB Caviar Blue produces ~95 - 96MB/s for sequential reads). They've even encroached on Velociraptors already.

The Raptors would still be a little faster for random access though (~7.x ms vs. ~12.x ms access times; Raptor vs. Caviar Blue).

To get faster thorughputs, you either need different drives, or additional Raptors and make a larger set (more members help, no matter the single disk performance).
 
...so I dropped them in, they work just fine (they recieved low usage throughout the years).

Yeah SATA should be no problem, you slide them right in.

The similar time of a 1gb folder copying to the new 7200rpm 640gb hd and the 4 year old 10000rpm velociraptor... is that expected? in 4 years the speed difference closes between these two drives? Or is there a better way to test the speed of a hd?

Well there are many different ways to test HD "speed," depending on tasks and use, too numerous to list here.

I know of those 74 Gig WD Raptors -- good drives when they came out. I don't think they are "Veloci"raptors though -- the Velociraptor came out only last year. The latest Vraptor has significant speed gains over the first generation WD Raptors.

But your raptor drives are still good drives though.
 
Turns out the price difference for me between the re4 and the cav black is USD $1.29 per HDD... Should I stick with any particular one over the other now?

(cav black is usd $278 each)
 
Turns out the price difference for me between the re4 and the cav black is USD $1.29 per HDD... Should I stick with any particular one over the other now?

(cav black is usd $278 each)
The enterprise models are more reliable, and better suited for RAID as well. You'd be much better off with the RE4's as your primary drives IMO. Blacks are good for single drive use and even as backup drives (what I use them for).
 
I just picked up a 1TB WD Caviar Black from Best Buy for $99. This drive is very fast. Using the speed test utility that came with my Intensity Pro card, I'm seeing read/write throughput of 105 megabytes per second. The stock 320 gig drive that shipped with my Mac Pro could only manage 64 MB per second.

I am also running a pair of 750 gig WD Caviar Greens in software RAID 0, that array benchmarks a R/W throughput of 167 MB per second.

I will gladly take a 40 megabyte per second gain in throughput on my system drive for a hundred bucks. That's an awesome upgrade for the money.
 
The enterprise models are more reliable, and better suited for RAID as well. You'd be much better off with the RE4's as your primary drives IMO. Blacks are good for single drive use and even as backup drives (what I use them for).

Hi nanofrog! Size aside, will I be getting any particular improvements in performance between the 1TB HDD's that came with my '09 Mac Pro and my newer WD's RE4's (2TB)? (with the same R0 configuration)

I just picked up a 1TB WD Caviar Black from Best Buy for $99. This drive is very fast. Using the speed test utility that came with my Intensity Pro card, I'm seeing read/write throughput of 105 megabytes per second. The stock 320 gig drive that shipped with my Mac Pro could only manage 64 MB per second.

I am also running a pair of 750 gig WD Caviar Greens in software RAID 0, that array benchmarks a R/W throughput of 167 MB per second.

I will gladly take a 40 megabyte per second gain in throughput on my system drive for a hundred bucks. That's an awesome upgrade for the money.

Very nice Fast Shadow! I should be picking up my RE4's tomorrow!
 
Hi nanofrog! Size aside, will I be getting any particular improvements in performance between the 1TB HDD's that came with my '09 Mac Pro and my newer WD's RE4's (2TB)? (with the same R0 configuration)
Yes. It has to do with the platter density in this case, as the 1TB Caviar Blacks have 334GB/platter density, while the new 2TB (Black and RE4) have 500GB/platter density. That means for a track to track comparison (same location on a platter), the higher density will yield more data per rotation.

Platter count matters as well, and the 1TB drive has 3, while the RE4 2TB has 4 (think additional parallelism, just as you do with multiple drives in some array levels).

Combine the two, and you get an increase in throughputs, particularly sequential access. :) If you're curious, search for reviews of the drives in question, and you'll see. ;)
 
Yes. It has to do with the platter density in this case, as the 1TB Caviar Blacks have 334GB/platter density, while the new 2TB (Black and RE4) have 500GB/platter density. That means for a track to track comparison (same location on a platter), the higher density will yield more data per rotation.

Platter count matters as well, and the 1TB drive has 3, while the RE4 2TB has 4 (think additional parallelism, just as you do with multiple drives in some array levels).

Combine the two, and you get an increase in throughputs, particularly sequential access. :) If you're curious, search for reviews of the drives in question, and you'll see. ;)

Hi, yes, will do. I did a search for review just on the RE4's only, but it got a bit technical for me. Barring some unforeseen problem, I should be picking them up tomorrow (well, today now!) so I can only hope that apple tech support will help me raid 0 the new drives and transfer the back up from my time machine on my drobo. Will update hopefully in a couple of days :)
 
Hi, yes, will do. I did a search for review just on the RE4's only, but it got a bit technical for me. Barring some unforeseen problem, I should be picking them up tomorrow (well, today now!) so I can only hope that apple tech support will help me raid 0 the new drives and transfer the back up from my time machine on my drobo. Will update hopefully in a couple of days :)
:cool: I don't think it'll be too difficult for you, and you may not have to call Apple at all. I'm looking forward to benchmarks of the throughputs, and expect you to be like this .... :D :D .... when you're done. :p
 
Me too!
And please tell us something about the noise of the 1TB Black vs. 2TB RE4!
Hi, I don't think the 1TB that came with my 4.1 MP is the WD Black. I think it's a Hitachi, but I could be wrong :eek: I'll report on the noise level, but currently I'm hooked up to a UPS which is far noisier than the computer at the moment. Will disconnect UPS before the new configuration and try and remember the difference :)
 
Hi, I don't think the 1TB that came with my 4.1 MP is the WD Black. I think it's a Hitachi, but I could be wrong :eek: I'll report on the noise level, but currently I'm hooked up to a UPS which is far noisier than the computer at the moment. Will disconnect UPS before the new configuration and try and remember the difference :)
Sorry to hear that... :eek: Hitachi's left high and dry with their SATA drives not too long ago (needed firmware = run around and and excuses of go back to the card, enclosure,... vendor). :rolleyes:

With others being WD recently (i.e. Caviar Blue used in base MP's), I'd have thought they went with a single supplier.
 
Sorry to hear that... :eek: Hitachi's left high and dry with their SATA drives not too long ago (needed firmware = run around and and excuses of go back to the card, enclosure,... vendor). :rolleyes:

With others being WD recently (i.e. Caviar Blue used in base MP's), I'd have thought they went with a single supplier.
They have seemed to have done a good job so far, the system profiler says:

Bay 1:

Product ID: Hitachi HDE721010SLA330
Serial Number: STN603MH1Y6MZK
Firmware Revision: ST0BA36A
Type: SATA
SMART Status: Verified
Capacity: 1 TB (1,000,204,885,504 bytes)
RAID Sets: RS1

It's just they're not big enough for my needs. The 4x2TB's will last me the life of this computer for sure :)
 
Isn't 2TB kind of much when the original poster is asking for 2GB?

If he need's at least 2GB, maybe he should get an 80GB SSD.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.