Recommend me 10.000RPM HDD with more than 1TB

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by fabriciom, May 21, 2011.

  1. fabriciom macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Madrid, España
    #1
    Hello, I need a solution for 2 or if possible 3 TB HDD with 10000 rpm. Is this possible? Affordable? Is there a SAS solution? Any insight welcomed.

    -Thanks
     
  2. saulinpa macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    #2
    Anything is possible but what are you trying to do? 10K is fine as a technical specification but you may have a bottleneck elsewhere.

    Use four 600GByte VeliciRaptors in a RAID striped set without parity will give you 2.5GBytes.
     
  3. fabriciom thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Madrid, España
    #3
    I have a lot of sound libraries I use and I need fast response. 7200 rpm is barreling cutting it. I need 2 or 3 drives of about 2 or 3 TB each.

    -Cheers
     
  4. saulinpa macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    #4
  5. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    I've yet to see any 10k drive with 1TB capacity.

    Seagate has a 2.5" 900GB drive. The 3.5" options go up to 600GB. Keep in mind that all 10k drives (except for the Raptors) are SAS drives, hence require a RAID controller.
     
  6. philipma1957, May 21, 2011
    Last edited: May 21, 2011

    philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #6
    unobtainium is the new word for today.

    the best ssd for you is the new intel series 320 600gb in size cost 1000 usd from gray market ebay sellers.


    next up western digital raptor 600gb 250 usd


    or seagate


    http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/enterprise-ssd-hdd/savvio-10k/savvio-10k-5/

    about 550 for 900gb


    now any of the above just don't cut it all too small for your needs also all cost too much. But If you want a solution there is one. sans digital makes a really nice 2hdd raid box

    *******************************************************************************************************

    http://www.sansdigital.com/towerstor/ts2ct.html


    I built two of these for some sound editors. they used re4 western digital hdds in a raid0 setup and they were very fast faster then any single 10000gb hdd.



    http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=30 a 4tb raid0 setup very fast

    I also built this raid0 with two of these


    http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=20

    a raid0 1.2tb setup. a little faster. they would cost around 700 usd to build.
    I am thinking the we4 setup might be good enough for you. I hooked them up with the 1 sata jack and the computer sees them as 1 drive.

    ************************************************************************************

    there is one more solution. the same sans digital with 2 of these in a raid0


    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...2185&cm_re=samsung_1tb-_-22-152-185-_-Product

    you get a 2tb screamer for about 350 usd just about as fast as the other two I mention at double the price. the catch is this setup is less stable and may crash on you, while the western digital are rock steady.




    I have tested all of these out for many hours and they are very fast with good access time and should be fast enough for you.
     
  7. tpavur macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    #7
    That's why I opened this... I thought to myself "they make 10k 1TB drives now?"
     
  8. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #8
    How large is the avg. library file (not the entire library)?

    I ask, as stripe sets could be one possibility (I'm not a fan of stripe sets, but for read-only data, it's fine - but it's good for sequential access, not random access = reason for the question). Just make sure if there's a failure, which is more likely to happen with a stripe set, that you can put in the time to repair the array (swap out the bad drive), and restore the library from the source disks.

    Another option would be to transfer the most commonly used files to an SSD, and keep the less used on mechanical (gives you a nice improvement most of the time; exceptions would be if you get into a project that ends up using the mechanical heavily).

    Then there's other forms of RAID that offer redundancy (10 if you use SATA disks and no RAID card, or RAID 5 with a proper card). Better solution if you can't afford the time necessary to fix a broken stripe set (will happen more often than a redundant level, and stripe sets are actually less reliable than a single disk). But it also costs more money, so there is a trade off involved (actual amounts would depend on the configuration created to fit your needs).

    No such animal yet. 600GB is the largest out right now, and that's for both 10k and 15k. The only SAS models with 1TB + are 7200 rpm units. :rolleyes: :(

    Unfortunately, and as mentioned, faster spindle SAS disks aren't cheap. Cheaper than SSD though in terms of cost/GB (bit less than half as the 600GB Intel SSD for a 600GB 15k SAS disk - Seagate Cheetah).

    As per stripe sets, it will depend on a few factors;
    • What is the size of the avg. library file (determine if sequential or random access performance is required)?
    • Budget?
    • Can the OP afford the time to fix a broken stripe set?
     
  9. TheStrudel macrumors 65816

    TheStrudel

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    #9
    I have a distinct impression that HDDs with speeds greater than 10,000 RPM are soon to lose market viability - their prices don't have as far to fall as SSDs, which are evolving quite rapidly.

    They may be a good option for the next 5 years, but barring some extremely aggressive price drops or technological improvement, their days are numbered. Much more so than high capacity, lower speed 7200/5400 rpm HDDs.
     
  10. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #10
    They currently still fill a niche, such as when you need higher IOPS (fast relational databases for example). As per longevity, it will depend on how fast SLC based Flash disks/drives come down to an acceptable cost/GB level they'll replace fast SAS disks in the enterprise market. Doesn't look like this will happen any time soon ATM (prices for SLC are worse than MLC, and aren't falling as fast due to a lower demand for it).
     
  11. fabriciom thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Madrid, España
    #11
    So in conclusion. Can only go for 7200 RPM SATA? I did not care about SAS I believe there is a hack where you can add your own SAS interface. Any way I was willing to go that route if the drives existed.

    -Thanks

    P.S. I do not want to go the SSD route because of the price and of cores I need something very reliable.
     
  12. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #12
    Generally SSDs are more reliable, as there are no moving parts. I'd say get 7200 RPM disks (I think the biggest there is 2TB) and put four in RAID5 (requires a RAID card, but a decent one isn't too expensive), and you'll have a pretty fast setup.
     
  13. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Only because there are no moving parts doesn't mean that SSDs are more reliable. In fact the failure rate of consumer SSDs is fairly high (well, apart from Intel). Still, for capacities the OP requires, SSDs aren't really an option unless he wants to spend some serious money for his storage. A single 1TB SSD is about $2000. :eek: (and only available from not really reliable vendors like OCZ)

    3TB discs have been around for about a year now. Although a small RAID card isn't necessarily expensive, the required adapters to use it with a 2009 Mac Pro have to be considered in the cost analysis as well.
     
  14. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #14
    I realize SSD really isn't an option in this case, I was just making a point. I didn't realize that there were 3TB 7200 RPM disks out yet though. Should have checked that.
     
  15. fabriciom thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Madrid, España
    #15
    3TB server grade drives? I had bought the seagate 1TB drives when they came out and had 2 of them die. The one I bought and the replacement. Eventually bought 2 hitachi 1TB server grade drives.
     
  16. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #16
    Given your capacity requirements, you definitely would do better cost wise with mechanical (even adding a RAID card would be better on costs, as Transporteur mentioned, that much capacity in SSD's is neither cheap, and the less expensive brands aren't all that reliable - reliability would be found in Flash drives rather than SSD's that plug into a SATA interface, and unfortunately, none offer support for OS X).

    Of the differing spindle speeds for SATA and SAS disks combined with costs and capacity requirements, you'd be best to stick to 7200 rpm versions (will be able to do what you need in the right configuration).

    BTW, did you give the possibility of using an SSD for the most used audio library files, and keep the balance (or even a full copy) on a large capacity mechanical disk?

    I'm still hoping you'll answer the questions I've previously posed, as a means of dialing in a solution that best fits your needs.

    SSD's are fine for reads, as there's no wear on the cells. It's writing that you have to be more concerned about, as there's a limited number of writes possible to a cell (i.e. MLC disks are good up to 10k writes per cell, SLC up to 100k; on avg. for the better NAND flash of their respective types).

    Worse yet, it's not advisable to use an MLC based SSD for parity based RAID systems (fine for 0/1/10 comparatively speaking, as there's no parity writes as well as data writes = much higher write frequencies). SLC is designed for enterprise use, but it comes with a notable cost increase as a result.

    So for many, mechanical disks still make better sense for redundant RAID levels IMO (costs in terms of using SSD's in 10, and capacity issues for RAID 1 other than OS use).

    I get the point, and compared to a PC that you can usually stuff them in without the need for an adapter, $130 USD isn't bad compared to an external 4 bay enclosure (and possibly an external cable; SFF-8087/8 to SFF-8088 ends, depending on the card model = if it's internal ports only or not; most enclosures don't come with any cables, and none come with internal to externals).

    So for a specialty Mac product, the internal adapter is surprisingly a decent deal compared to an external solution IMO (math works out anyway, and the solution itself certainly works).

    3TB enterprise grade disks are just showing up (i.e. Western Digital's not released any yet, but Hitachi has for example; here).

    Funny thing is, WD was in negotiations to buy Hitachi GST, and WD's site now shows SAS disks (didn't have any before, but Hitachi has had a presence in the SAS market for years, so the listed SAS disks may actually be re-labeled Hitachi's).
     
  17. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #17
    Huh? SSD's are much more reliable.

    Which do you trust more? A disk with solid state memory, or a disk where your data is on a platter spinning 10,000 times a minute, with heads hovering over the plates less than a spec of dust's width away from your data?

    SSD failure rates are much much much lower than hard disk failure rates.

    Yes, eventually blocks of the disk will die, but that takes about twice as long as the average disk life of a hard disk.
     
  18. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #18
    Read the above few posts.
     
  19. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #19
    I'm not sure the above posts really comment on the reliability of SSD's. They do comment on the price, reliability of cheap SSDs, and the performance in a redundant RAID array (which are all valid points), but not the reliability of the technology itself.

    I know a lot of server admins adopting SSD for their advantages, and server admins certainly care about reliability. Meantime 10k+ drives are notoriously unreliable compared to the slower siblings.
     
  20. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #20
    Ah, OK, I see the point you were trying to make. From a theoretical POV, I agree (no moving parts, such as heads that can literally smack the platters). And if the SSD was designed and manufactured properly properly (includes good parts on the BOM, and good QC procedures), then it should work in practice as well (and some makes/models are proving this true).

    But as mentioned, there are crappy disks out there due to cost cutting that went too far (those made by ODM's, and sold under the client's brand name), which can jade users that have had such an unfortunate experience (if there's enough of such disks, it could even skew the results of an industry wide reliability study).

    More importantly however, the longevity of an actual drive will depend on a few factors:
    • Type of NAND Flash used (MLC vs. SLC currently)
    • How the disks are configured (single disk or RAID, particularly if the RAID is a parity based level)
    • Usage pattern (particularly in terms of duty cycle of reads vs. writes).
    Granted, this is more of an issue with MLC, but given the cost, this is the Flash type most makers have chosen to use.

    Enterprise models use SLC based flash (which can survive the punishment of writes for parity based RAID levels), but the cost is quite high right now, and it's not falling very fast either. So this segment is still a niche market. SATA and SAS have a much bigger presence yet, and will conceivably continue until the cost/GB approach SAS levels I should think.

    I hope this will change faster than I'm expecting, but I've not seen indications to give me a better outlook yet. :(

    There's other forms of Flash that should render this moot at some point, such as FeRAM once they get the density high enough for mass production. But the current tech will be "milked" for all it's worth first IMO.
     
  21. fabriciom thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Madrid, España
    #21
    I guess the best solution would be to keep the most used libs in an SSD and a copy in the large drive. Just not too comfortable.

    -Thanks
     
  22. Mistral73 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    #22
    Towerstor TS2CT speed

    Hello all,

    I am looking for a 2 bay enclosure with RAID1. I could not find any information on the performance of the Towerstor TS2CT.

    Does anyone know the performance of the Towerstor TS2CT in terms of write and read speeds with Firewire800 connection?

    philipma1957, have you tested the enclosure with Firewire800?

    Also, can anyone comment on the noise of the device?

    Finally, does anyone know where to buy it in the UK?

    Many thanks for your help.
     
  23. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #23
    Don't forget about the numerous SSD controller and firmware issues (especially with Sandforce based drives)
     
  24. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #24
    I have tested it with
    a pair of wd 600gb raptors
    a pair of patriot infernos 200gb ssds
    a pair of wd re4 2tb hdds
    a pair of samsung 1tb f3 7200 rpm ssds
    a pair of intel 160gb ssd x-25 m's

    raid0 is a lot faster then raid1


    it has 3 fan settings off low fast
    you can set it on off with ssd's
    low setting is pretty quiet
    the 600gb raptors need hi speed setting





    a set of sans digital ts2ct with a pair of samsung 1tbs in raid0 and a firewire 800

    http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=435043


    the samsung f3 1tb hdds do very well in this case . I don't use raid1 but they would be less then these.. for some reason the samsung 1tb hdds really gain with random scores in raid0 so for boot drives these will beat most anything but an ssd.

    the 71.55MB/sec 4k random write is really outstanding along with the 9.35MB/sec random read 4k score


    I can't help with a uk seller.
     
  25. Mistral73 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    #25
    Thank you very much for your response philipma1957.

    I do not know much about enclosure test methodology. The speed quoted in the link: are they burst speed, average speed or neither?

    Also, your mentioned ealier in the thread that you have tested several several HD and that the Towerstor TS2CT was your favourite one.
    - Would you mind giving the list of HD tested ?
    - Was the TS2CT faster than the others?

    As I am also considering the Onnto DataTale RS-M2QO and the Icy Dock MB662USEB-2S, I was wondering if you had tested these enclosures? If so, are they faster than the Towerstor TS2CT?

    Many thanks
     

Share This Page