Velociraptor Question

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by superpalmtree, Mar 20, 2009.

  1. superpalmtree macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #1
  2. phairphan macrumors 6502a

    phairphan

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Location:
    Reject Beach
    #2
  3. milk242 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    #3
    I believe I read in another thread that maxconnect was making new drive sleds for the mac pro early 2009.
     
  4. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #4
    Thanks. Yep, that was probably my other thread. :)

    I just bought the sleds a few weeks ago, and got a new Mac Pro, and the sleds for the 2008 Mac Pro are not compatible with the 2009 Mac Pro -- Go figure.

    Thanks, I just ordered 2 with Next Day Delivery. This model will just slip in with no extra brackets? lol -- Just making sure. I bought 2, decided to use 1 for OSX, and one for Vista X64, and I have 2 Caviar Black 1TB for data. Sound like a plan?
     
  5. sboerup macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #5
    FWIW, the WD 6400aaks is 90% as fast as the Velociraptor in read/write speeds, but for 28% the cost of the Velociraptors.

    Getting 2 in RAID0 will be much faster than the Raptors, and 56% the cost.
     
  6. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #6
    Yup, the WD3000HLFS will mount to the original HDD sled, and fit perfectly. :D
    Cheaper too. ;)

    You're plan will work. :cool:
     
  7. PowerPaw macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    #7
    I'm running two of the backplane ready 300GB puppies in my 2009 Mac Pro :)
     
  8. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #8
    Is the 6400aaks faster than the 640GB Black version?
     
  9. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #9
    Do you have them in a Raid? Cool
     
  10. xoggyux macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #10
    for the price you are prepared to spend (~200+) you should instead consider an SSD drive (for that price you get a 128GB one) its true you get half the storage capacity but you get better performance and get the better more silent and energy efficient drive also with a 10,000rpm drive inside a laptop chances are that you going to make that drive fail before the year ends.
     
  11. nerdish macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #11
    Laptop? He's talking about a Mac Pro, not MacBOOK Pro.
     
  12. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #12
    Thanks. Is SSD really a viable option now? What are people using for the Mac Pro? I don't think I'm ready for that transition until they are reasonable 200+GB. I ordered 2 WD Black 640's to put in Raid 0 - how much performance loss will I see between the 2 Blacks vs. Dual VR? I have 2 VR's right now from my 2008 Mac Pro, but they don't fit in my new Mac Pro and I don't feel like dropping another $100 on brackets.
     
  13. xoggyux macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #13
    Ups my bad wrong thread.

    Anyway wouldn't it be better a nice RAID config?
     
  14. xoggyux macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #14
    sorry I had not realized about the fact you are asking about a mac pro, since I made a mistake and entered the wrong section.
    However I am going to take a shot and give you a recommendation?
    Get a small SSD for system (32~64GB) and then get a couple of 1TB drives (the bigger the better due to better speed due to density however be careful because the 1.5TB seagate have had some troubles with RAID) so investigate that potion :1 SSD for system 2x 1TB raid 0 for rest.
     
  15. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #15
    Thanks! Do you know a good SSD model for the Mac Pro? I heard some SSD's are better than others. Thanks.
     
  16. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #16
    If anyone can answer my post #12 that would be great. -

    RAID 0 - Dual 640GB Caviar Black's

    vs.

    RAID 0 - Dual VR's 300GB

    Is it a big difference between Blacks & VR - I've always used Raptors, but would consider making a change since I now need to.

    Thanks
     
  17. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #17
  18. xoggyux macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #18
    I have seen some comparisons between the seagate drive (though the 1TB version which should be a bit faster) against the velociraptor, and the velociraptor is a bit faster in sequential read (about 10%) and of course it has a lower latency which is great however the test is not very conclusive as of the "absolute" best, in the other hand the performance gap between the VR and seagate will stack up as you add more drives to the RAID. However I would preffer to go for 1TB RAID rather than VRs due to the extra noise and the not so great performance gap.
    As for your SSD question that depends on ow much you willing to spend and what is the minimum storage capacity you will need. I recommend you to take a look at the laptops forum since SSD is a very common topic in there.
    Overall if money is not an issue then intel/samsungs are your best choices (intel's 80GB ~= $400 if i am not mistaken)
    in the otherside you can get 128GB of a G.Skill drive for ~= $200 (its the one I got) which though it will not stand a chance against the itels and samsung's its just good enough to buy you some time until you can get the really good ones for cheap.
    Here is a review of my drive:
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=661948&highlight=128GB+ssd+g.skill
    and here is a link to the 64GB version which should be enough to run the system + your most common programs.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231220
    do not be fooled by the "not so great" sequential read from xbench, remember these drives have a .1ms latency only! also while you are not doing nothing the system will be quiet (unless fans)
    anyway good luck.
     
  19. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #19
    Thanks. Great Response! I appreciate it.

    I do think I'll hold off on the SSD's for now with the Mac Pro. The new Seagate 1TB 7200.12 drives are around $119 each.

    Does anyone know if the new Seagate 7200.12's would be better in a Raid than either the 640 or 1TB Caviar Black Drives?
     
  20. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #20
    Personally, I'm waiting for SSD to mature before I leap. ;) And of course the prices. :p

    Though a RAID 0 of 2x VR's will be faster than 2x Caviar Blacks, it won't be by much. Certainly not enough to justify the cost IMO.

    RAID is intended to allow you to use less expensive drives, and achieve better performance. There's limits, and enterprise drives are better for RAID. In the case of these drives (either), they at least have the same UBE (Unrecoverable Bit Error) rate of enterprise drives (1E15). So that's a big "+". :D Most consumer models only have 1E14. An order of magnitude really does make a difference. :eek: ;)
     
  21. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #21
    Awesome! Thanks. That makes perfect sense.
     
  22. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #22
    Do you know if the Caviar Black 1TB drive is as good (1E15) and as fast as the Caviar Black 640GB? I have 2 of the 1TB drives lying around, could just as well raid them. I know the Caviar Black 500GB was not rated as good, so wondering if the TB Black is more on line with the 640. If this makes sense. It sure is nice to have knowledgeable people to ask questions to.
     
  23. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #23
    WD's specs list the entire line at a UBE of 1E15. Ratings aren't really influenced by this spec, as it has nothing to do with performance. UBE is important as the drive ages, as it has a lower perpensity (more time passes) for a bit error. i.e. DEATH for DATA.

    The speed of the larger drives will be essentially the same. Both use multiple platters, and have the same cache size. Smaller drives can actually perform faster. You may have noticed this.

    The reason is cache size/capacity. Though a 320GB version might have the same cache size as a 500GB, it works out to more cache/GB. So when you compare the smaller drives to the largest models in a family, it's even more in favor of the smaller drives.

    I noticed with the RE3 family (WD). The lower capacity drives had higher throughputs than it's larger siblings. Not only listed by WD, but proven by testing.

    Just do the research, and apply that to your wallet. ;) Budgets can make the biggest difference, despite minor niggles noted in reviews of products in the same family (not product = total garbage level). :)
     
  24. PowerPaw macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    #24
    There are a bunch of reviews of Raptors vs. other drives as RAID0 and non RAID. To be honest, the RE3 drives on their own are fantastic performers and have also heard good things about the Samsung 1TB drives as well.

    I was just going to get one Velociraptor drive for my system as SSDs are still very expensive and relatively immature, in the end I got two as someone was selling a pair brand new for considerably less than retail. Once I bought them I had to figure out what to do with them so RAID0'd them and used the stock drive for Time Machine.

    This probably isn't a perfect setup. Within a year or so I may get an SSD for my system drive, convert the two raptors to scratch and put everything else on NAS.
     
  25. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #25
    Read/ write throughput are only half of the story of the 10,000RPM drives, access time is the other half, and IMO it is what you will notice the most in day to day useage.

    A 7200RPM drive will never have the faster access and seek times of a 10,000RPM drive, RAID or no RAID.
     

Share This Page