Bittech Velociraptor 600gb results

Looking at that I don't see no reason what so ever to buy that drive over the Samsung F3

WD really need to give up on this series and start moving into SSD market.
 
With a name like raptor it will always sell. Funny how the 6GB/s test is slower than he 3GB/s test. Just not worth it on HDDs at the moment.
 
Looks good but I preferred what I have done, SSD for Windows and Samsung F3 1TB for programs.
 
Just don't understand why they're so expensive :S

I only for my 300 gig raptor because I got it fairly cheap (£80). It's decent value for around that price, but not at all higher than that...
 
Locky said:
Looking at that I don't see no reason what so ever to buy that drive over the Samsung F3

WD really need to give up on this series and start moving into SSD market.
Click to expand...

Because the random access speed is far better than the F3 and it's the access time that makes SSDs so quick loading stuff.

I don't know why people get so bothered by sequential speeds at what point in time under normal circumstances are you copying large amounts of sequential data?

I know I'm not and I work with HD video (44M/bits).

Access time is more important than sequential reads/writes, however I will agree that now SSDs are about buying one is abit pointless.


SirCanealot said:
Just don't understand why they're so expensive :S

I only for my 300 gig raptor because I got it fairly cheap (£80). It's decent value for around that price, but not at all higher than that...
Click to expand...

Increased cost to make and small demand compared to 7200RPM disks make the cost difference.
 
Locky said:
Looking at that I don't see no reason what so ever to buy that drive over the Samsung F3

WD really need to give up on this series and start moving into SSD market.
Click to expand...

WD are already in the SSD market, you can buy one of their 64GB drives for about £400+. That's why drives like this and SAS are still viable, because SSD cant match them on a per GB price.

The thing is the are two types of SSD the are MLC and SLC based ones. SSD's are limited to a maximum number of writes per cell which means after a certain amount of write that cell will become unusable. in the case of MLC based drives this happens much much sooner than SLC based drives which is why MLC is unsuitable for heavy R/W tasks in enterprise systems.

In order to replace a RAID array using 146gb SCSI drives a RAID array using 128gb SLC SSD's will cost you over £1000 per drive! its just not viable at this time and so performance hard drives have a lot of life left in them.

For those who are interested in the numbers if you run heavy R/W intensive applications off SLC/MLC SSD's at 80mb/s throughput then a 64gb SLC drive will last 51 years, a 128GB MLC drive will last 6 months.
 
An Intel X25-V and 3 x F3s (running as RAID0) cost me £20 less than this drive alone - sure, hybrid route is a little messier on partition management but overall beats the pants off VRs for system responsiveness.
 
ubersonic said:
WD are already in the SSD market, you can buy one of their 64GB drives for about £400+. That's why drives like this and SAS are still viable, because SSD cant match them on a per GB price.

The thing is the are two types of SSD the are MLC and SLC based ones. SSD's are limited to a maximum number of writes per cell which means after a certain amount of write that cell will become unusable. in the case of MLC based drives this happens much much sooner than SLC based drives which is why MLC is unsuitable for heavy R/W tasks in enterprise systems.

In order to replace a RAID array using 146gb SCSI drives a RAID array using 128gb SLC SSD's will cost you over £1000 per drive! its just not viable at this time and so performance hard drives have a lot of life left in them.

For those who are interested in the numbers if you run heavy R/W intensive applications off SLC/MLC SSD's at 80mb/s throughput then a 64gb SLC drive will last 51 years, a 128GB MLC drive will last 6 months.
Click to expand...

u might what to check your figures again, an MLC drive will last longer than 6 months.

also, they dont just fail and become unusable, they just beomce unwritable, so you can still access the data on them.

losts of ppl have MLC drives, and have been using them for longer than 6 months
 
Cycrow said:
u might what to check your figures again, an MLC drive will last longer than 6 months.

also, they dont just fail and become unusable, they just beomce unwritable, so you can still access the data on them.

losts of ppl have MLC drives, and have been using them for longer than 6 months
Click to expand...

Theres nothing wrong with the figures the info actually came from a pro-ssd information site, I didn't say they would last 6 months in joe bloggs home PC I said they would last 6 months under full usage i.e in a server environment, hence why they are not used in those environments
 
But in an enterprise they'll be using 15k rpm sas drives which outperform this new raptor. WD should have made it cheaper, at £200 it isn't worth it imo.
 
ubersonic said:
in the case of MLC based drives this happens much much sooner than SLC based drives which is why MLC is unsuitable for heavy R/W tasks in enterprise systems.
Click to expand...
Intel seems to disagree as they are going to switch their enterprise SSDs from SLC to MLC next year. Presumably firmware optimisations (like the compressed-write system on Sandforce drivers) and a large spare area are enough to make MLC viable for very high usage environments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom