Raptors... worth it?

[biostud]

Originally posted by: JBT
Alot of the people who are anti Raptor have not used them or are SCSI freaks

or lack funding

 

[JBT]

Haha yeah, I was going to put that in there too but I decided not to for some reason.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001
A Raptor is not good at server tasks. SCSI is good at server tasks. Raptors are good at desktop tasks. They are the fastest desktop drive around, and yes, they are going to be much faster than a RAID 0 of 2 7200 IDE drives. RAID 0 doesn't help seek time any; the Raptors are naturally much better at that.

I swear, most non games would notice more of an improvement if they upgraded their HD to a Raptor than if they added 500 Mhz to their processor. I don't see why so many people don't realize how big of an influence HD speed can be.

Because it doesn't increase FPS in any games. It starts the game faster and loads/saves games faster but when first you're up running it doesn't matter. That is if you have enough memory.....preferebly >=1Gb

The very reason that I said "non gamers". My mom doesn't care if her computer will do 5 fps playing Quake, or 500. She does care if Juno takes 5 seconds less time to open though, or if the computer boots 5 seconds faster. She cares if Word opens instantaneously, or how long it takes to start up Internet Explorer.

In cases of non-gamers, I get a budget video card and spend the money instead on a faster hard drive. Upgrade the part that will let you notice the biggest difference in what you do.

I seriously doubt if my Mother would even notice if it took 20 or 35 secs to start windows or if it takes 0.8 secs or 1.5 secs to start word. But I understand the choosing of Raptors for the ultimate feel

 

[DurocShark]

For me it was cost. I'm going Raid 0 because of the huge video files I've started working with. I looked at the cost of the Raprtors... And after the paramedics picked me up off the floor, started looking for some more pedestrian drives.

I found someone on the FS board selling a pair of fluid bearing 80gig 7200rpm 8mb cache Maxtors, so I grabbed those instead.

(BTW: I'm paying $100 shipped for the pair... Compare that to the price of just one 74gig Raptor.)

 

[Phish57]

Originally posted by: Diabolus

Originally posted by: PorBleemo

Originally posted by: Diabolus
It was my assumption that if I got two drives and put them into RAID 0, that I'd only get the size of one drive. So if I RAIDed two 120GB drives, I'd only have 120GB in total storage, right? Additionally... I don't even need a very large drive. I have a server that houses all my files (200GB drive on that) like MP3s, car videos (got lots hehe), misc software installs, and other things so the only thing that really goes on my hard drive are things I download off USENET, my games, and the misc Windows files.

That's with RAID-1, which is drive redundancy. The same data is copied to both drives so if one fails you have a backup. Thus since both drives are need for mirroring data you only have half of the capacity of both the drives total capacity.

However RAID-0 stripes data onto both drives for faster performance reading (and sometimes writing) data. This uses up the total capacity of both drives, so with both of your 120GB drives in RAID-0 you would get a total of 240GB of space with faster performance.

-Por

That is kickass!

Okay so here's a question... which is faster... two SATA 7200RPM drives in RAID 0, or one Raptor? I only require about 80GB of space so if I see that the Raptor comes out to the same price as the two 7200 drives then I'd like to know what's going to be faster for the money.

Here's my question. Which is faster.. two 36GB Raptors in a RAID 0 or one 72GB Raptor? Since they'll both have similar costs and storage capacity, I'd think the RAID 0 configuration would be the better choice.

 

[XBoxLPU]

I think some PEOPLE need TO SEARCH ....................

There are no confirmed online stores with newer 36gb raptors ( same as 74gb model, half the size )

 

[Diabolus]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
I think some PEOPLE need TO SEARCH ....................

There are no confirmed online stores with newer 36gb raptors ( same as 74gb model, half the size )

ZipZoomFly has em in stock...

 

[XBoxLPU]

I see nothing

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=101221

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=101221-316603

both are older model raptors

Unless the specs is wrong. The seek time should be 4.5 MS not 5.2

 

[Phish57]

Well, I just purchased one of these 36gig Raptors from ZipZoomFly, and it is, without a doubt, just as quiet as either of the two Seagate Barricuda drives I have in a RAID 1 array. The drive makes a higher pitch "tick" when seeking, but it can in no way be considered loud. When idling, it's completely silent.. I've even put my ear up to the drive casing to listen.. just a gentle whir.. The drive even runs 2C COOLER than the Barricuda drives at idle.

 

[Adul]

yes yes and yes

 

[tallman45]

-Por[/quote]

That is kickass!

Okay so here's a question... which is faster... two SATA 7200RPM drives in RAID 0, or one Raptor? I only require about 80GB of space so if I see that the Raptor comes out to the same price as the two 7200 drives then I'd like to know what's going to be faster for the money.[/quote]



Here's my question. Which is faster.. two 36GB Raptors in a RAID 0 or one 72GB Raptor? Since they'll both have similar costs and storage capacity, I'd think the RAID 0 configuration would be the better choice.[/quote]


That depends on a alot of factors. If you are talking about booting upthe OS, then a single 74gb Raptor will be faster. A Raid 0 is worse when loading an OS, Raid 0 arrays are poor when read/writes of small files are involved

Next Scenario, you are loading large digital video or photos, then a Raid 0 would load faster than a single drive.

So 2 scenario's, one a Raid 0 is better, one a single drive is better.