Velociraptor Vs Cheetah

jrwagh333 · 25 Aug 2008 at 20:06

i hear all the rave and talk about velociraptor's and SSD's but no talk about the Cheetah?

Greenlizard0 · 25 Aug 2008 at 20:10

Most people don't have home setups with SCSI cards/drives.

PhillyDee · 25 Aug 2008 at 20:17

Heh, we arent most People of course . . . .

I think theres a couple on here, buy SCSI is expensive and the bus speeds arent the best unless using top quality cards.

jrwagh333 · 25 Aug 2008 at 20:23

VR For the Win?

milkinc13 · 25 Aug 2008 at 20:31

VR = cheaper than SCSI and good performance,
Cheetah = good performance but expensive SCSI controlers

jrwagh333 · 25 Aug 2008 at 20:36

I know the 300GB VR is the nerwer version.
but will i see a performance decrease in the 74GB VR?

Slackworth · 26 Aug 2008 at 00:06

SCSI/SAS controllers will be the problem area for most unless you can blag one for nothing.

jhmaeng · 26 Aug 2008 at 01:01

I'm sure I've seen it time and time again on StorageReview that SCSI drives are not optimised for desktop applications (they are designed with server usage scenarios in mind) so Raptors generally outperform even the fastest SCSI drives in real-world desktop usage scenario figures.

AbsenceJam · 26 Aug 2008 at 02:59

jrwagh333 said:
i hear all the rave and talk about velociraptor's and SSD's but no talk about the Cheetah?

The original Raptors were barely suitable for desktop use as they ran hot and were very loud, 15k RPM enterprise drives are worse still. Whereas the Velociraptor is 2.5" and is quieter than any 3.5" drive, it also uses SATA rather than SAS or FC so anyone can sue it without having to buy a controller.

AbsenceJam · 26 Aug 2008 at 03:11

jhmaeng said:
I'm sure I've seen it time and time again on StorageReview that SCSI drives are not optimised for desktop applications (they are designed with server usage scenarios in mind) so Raptors generally outperform even the fastest SCSI drives in real-world desktop usage scenario figures.

This is true, with two drives that are the same except one being ATA and one SCSI performance would vary. SCSI commands and controllers are more optimised for high amounts of random accesses, whereas the ATA command set and controllers are focussed on sequential access. This is why if you enable TCQ/NCQ on SATA controllers you get worse desktop performance but improvements in server roles.

Imy · 26 Aug 2008 at 10:16

jhmaeng said:
I'm sure I've seen it time and time again on StorageReview that SCSI drives are not optimised for desktop applications (they are designed with server usage scenarios in mind) so Raptors generally outperform even the fastest SCSI drives in real-world desktop usage scenario figures.

I can vouch for that. Raptor tends to be faster in single-user usage (when the drive isn't being hammered). File transfers and access time is great on the Cheetah's though.