13-05-2008, 16:47 | #11 |
Provider of sensible advice about homosexuals
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 2,615
|
If you've already ordered then it is a bit late but the Samsung F1 320gb (uses a single platter) is very quick if you can find one.
The WD 640gb drives (two platters) are also extremely quick. If you absolutely have to have speed regardless of cost then a couple of 10k Raptors in Raid0 will probably be about as fast as you'll get at consumer level before you start looking at 15k SAS drives and expensive controller cards.
__________________
"Your friend is the man that knows all about you, and still likes you." - Elbert Hubbard |
13-05-2008, 17:49 | #12 |
ex SAS
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: JO01ou
Posts: 10,062
|
500Gb was the minimum requirement and I had to order today so I grabbed the Seagate based on previous experience.
__________________
|
21-05-2008, 22:58 | #13 | |
Absinthe
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,023
|
Quote:
The 320, 640 and 1000MB drives all use the new 334GB platters whereas the 500 and 750 both use the older, smaller platters and thus can't sustain quite the same speeds.
__________________
|
|
22-05-2008, 01:46 | #14 |
Bananaman
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Liverpool/Edinburgh
Posts: 4,817
|
TBH though, without looking at RAID, whats actually in it? Better looking at cheapest/quietest in most cases i suspect. If you actually are seriously looking at speed you be silly not to look at RAID and/or 10k drives...
|
22-05-2008, 02:18 | #15 |
Moonshine
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southampton
Posts: 3,201
|
I was under the impression the new Samsung drives were quicker than the 10k drives along with being nowhere near as noisy
__________________
|
22-05-2008, 02:41 | #16 |
Bananaman
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Liverpool/Edinburgh
Posts: 4,817
|
Well thats the thing the 10k drives weren't ever that much quicker than the "standard" drives anyways! They were running about 50% faster, but not showing the same perfomance gains! Drive technology has lagged a lot like Daz said, if you want speed RAID is the only sensible option everything else is pretty much the same (from what ive read, but i won't lie i generally ignore drive specs now days).
|
22-05-2008, 22:25 | #17 |
Absinthe
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,023
|
10k drives like the Raptor and SCSI units are all about access speed, which is what matters in general usage. Raw transfer speed only really helps when shifting large, contiguous quantities of data and doesn't help that much with lots of relatively small file access, which is what general usage is all about.
This is why RAID0 only really helps with large file transfers and why a single 10k drive will murder a 7.2k RAID0 array for general Windows use.
__________________
|
23-05-2008, 09:51 | #18 |
The Stig
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Swad!
Posts: 10,713
|
If we're talking pure seek time, to be fair that depends on the RAID controller. A soft RAID one might not be up to scratch, but a proper controller? I'd disagree with that.
__________________
apt-get moo |
26-05-2008, 17:47 | #19 |
Absinthe
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,247
|
|
26-05-2008, 18:05 | #20 |
Joey Tempest
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gravesend.
Posts: 2,751
|
I had to look that term up
__________________
No Sig. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|