Tiger on a Raptor?

[kirkbross]

I'm going to be installing a copy of Tiger on a drive in my new MP (for Pro Tools) and I'm wondering if there will be a performance gain over installing it on a good SATA 3.0Gb?

(pursuant to this, how is a 10k SATA150 faster than a 72k SATA300?)

 

[djejrejk]

Im my experience, there is a small difference. The best way to speed up you MP is to run Raid 0 (which is very risky unless you have a good backup system).

Even windows is fast across 4 striped raptors =P

 

[CWallace]

Depends on what you're doing. If you have something that reads or writes a lot of data in a continuous stream, the 10K drive will be faster. It should also be a bit better for seeks since the platters spin faster.

SATA150 and SATA300 seem to be a moot point at this time since the systemboard can't reach/sustain the transfer rates of the former, much less the latter. FWIW, I have actually read reports where SATA300 was actually slower due to the extra overhead.

 

[yeroen]

Depends on what you're doing. If you have something that reads or writes a lot of data in a continuous stream, the 10K drive will be faster. It should also be a bit better for seeks since the platters spin faster.
.

That's only half true. Due to their higher density, the larger 750GB and 1TB drives have faster sustained read/write transfer rates (both on average, and at the theoretical maximum).

The 10K drives will have faster random access times (i.e seek time).

Ignoring momentarily RAID 0 setups, the common wisdom is to put your OS and apps on the 10K drive and your media files on the large 7200 drives, (though to be honest putting your OS on a raptor may not make much noticeable difference, typically on the order of a fraction of a second).

 

[kirkbross]

Awesome.

So say I need drive speed for "accessing" TONS of audio files simulatneously in Pro Tools (as opposed to copying huge files ) -- is platter speed the factor here? ie, Raptor=better.