74gb VelociRaptor

domyboy · 10 Sep 2008 at 18:46

Hi lads,

struggling to decide between 2x30gb OCZ SSD's, and 2x74gb Velociraptor's both in RAID0, any thoughts?
Also anyone know when the 74gb will be available as its been on pre order for a while.

Cheers Dom

domyboy · 12 Sep 2008 at 08:27

I Webnoted OCUK and they said they have no ETA on the velociraptor so its anyones guess when they will be in stock. :rolleyes:

bledd · 12 Sep 2008 at 09:05

it's not ocuk's fault, lol

they speak directly to WD

Slackworth · 12 Sep 2008 at 09:32

There's going to be huge delays as WD are not producing them at the moment.

phinix · 12 Sep 2008 at 09:39

74GB? I thought its only 300GB version...

Slackworth · 12 Sep 2008 at 10:05

They product 300GB, 150GB and 74GB - eventually!

domyboy · 12 Sep 2008 at 13:11

I might just ditch the raptor idea and go with the ssd's. Im unsure about these ssd's though hmm decisions decisions :confused:

Edit:
okay, it comes down to either

2x OCZ Core V2 30GB 2.5" SATA-II Solid State Hard Drive in RAID0 £304
60gb total

or

2x Western Digital VelociRaptor 150GB 10000RPM SATA-II 16MB in RAID0 £260
300gb total

I really cant decide :S

domyboy · 12 Sep 2008 at 13:25

dam WD why cant they have made the 74gb version before the others :mad:

bledd · 12 Sep 2008 at 16:06

money money money

domyboy · 12 Sep 2008 at 18:45

bledd. said:
money money money

lol i immediately thought of ABBA haha

Edit: I now realise thats worrying :s

=VTA=MANFACE · 12 Sep 2008 at 18:52

Ditch the raptors and go SSD.

domyboy · 12 Sep 2008 at 19:44

Do you think there will be much difference between the 32gb OCZ and the 30gb V2 OCZ? the 50 quid seems a bit harsh.

phinix · 12 Sep 2008 at 21:02

in raid I would go for ver1. no point to pay more...

Slackworth · 13 Sep 2008 at 12:57

domyboy said:
dam WD why cant they have made the 74gb version before the others

They make about 1000000x* more profit on the 300GB compared to the 74GB as it is essentially the same drive.

*This may not be factually true!

domyboy · 13 Sep 2008 at 13:43

phinix said:
in raid I would go for ver1. no point to pay more...

Yeah i was thinking that. 50 quid more for hardly any improvement. Nice project btw

V|per · 13 Sep 2008 at 16:57

pfft, sammy f1's with the 320gb platters, raid them instead and save youself a small fortune....

RaveyDaveyUK · 26 Sep 2008 at 18:02

One of my 36gb raptors (raid 0) is dying and the SS option does seem too tempting.

Any actually done this yet for a C:?

Strife212 · 27 Sep 2008 at 17:00

The SSD's are pretty nasty atm, they produce lovely synthetic benchmarks but writing and multitasking with them isn't great.

doc · 27 Sep 2008 at 21:36

Strife212 said:
The SSD's are pretty nasty atm, they produce lovely synthetic benchmarks but writing and multitasking with them isn't great.

Unless you RAID them and then they work just fine

To be honest I have been testing SSD's for some time now and if you try to do 5-6 intensive tasks at once on a single drive, they will hang. If you only do 1-3 disk intensive tasks at once on a single drive they work just fine.... Two drives in RAID0 means the XP loading screen progress bar barely crosses the screen once. Windows explorer and small apps open instantly and big apps see much improved load speeds.

Add in a further 1-7 drives with RAID0 or RAID6 and you can get some utterly insane speed. Of course if you go beyond 2 drives you have to get a decent commercial hardware RAID card as the domestic versions will cap out pretty rapidly, but then you wouldnt be buying SSDs right now for the storage capacity so why skimp on the controller!

Google for the "Battleship mtron" for a very extreme case study.