When will 10000 RPM replace 7200 RPM? [Hard drives]

[Slug71]

I think SSDs will become the standard in the near future.

You have the Western Digital Raptor 10k drives though.

[mcduck]

I hope not before the day they figure a way to make a 10000RPM hard drive that uses the same amount of power and only creates the same amount of noise a 7200RPM drive does..

I can only imagine how my laptop's battery meter would descend, accompanied by the high-pitched whining of a 15k RPM hard disk..


oldsoundguy: sure, aircraft jet turbines are checked often. But still they actually last very long, and they don't even run at 10000 rpm but can actually reach speeds above 100000RPM (for the turbine itself on turbojets, not the fan blades on turbofan engines) and also operate at very high temperatures (1500C is quite possible even for commercial jets on takeoffs).. Compared to that spinning a couple of small metal disks at 10000RPM is nothing.

[jerrrys]

10k u320 i got, is it really that great, i say not till it can sustain that 320 rate and not in just burst. dont have the specs in front of me, but i think actual sustained transfer rate is like half of that

[sej7278]

I believe that SSD'd will put the standard HD out to pasture within the year if the manufacturers can get the pricing down.

no chance. maybe 3 years.

not big enough, i still don't believe they're that fast (look at how slow usb thumbdrives and sdcards are, they're ssd) not reliable enough, too expensive, not proven technology.....

[igknighted]

no chance. maybe 3 years.

not big enough, i still don't believe they're that fast (look at how slow usb thumbdrives and sdcards are, they're ssd) not reliable enough, too expensive, not proven technology.....

Don't forget that thumb drives and SD cards use a very slow interface (USB or other) that bottlenecks their speed.

[gletob]

so you use raid0 but then you either end up with losing the whole array if one disk dies.

or raid5 which involves buying three drives and losing the capacity of one to parity, and it being slower than raid0.

what i was thinking of doing is buying 2x500gb and raid0'ing them, and then backing up to a single 1tb esata drive overnight.

although i still end up buying three drives like raid5, but only two have to be online all the time and i can lose either both 500gb's or the 1tb drive and still have no data loss.

although the 1tb would probably still be faster than 2x500gb due to higher platter density.....

i dunno, i just don't think any raid is really worth it, a single large, fast drive is still the way to go i reckon.

Since it sounds like you have some experience in raid could you explain how the whole RAID 5 parody thing works? Because from the animations I've seen I don't see how it offers redundacny. Also I'm betting on SSDs coming down in price and up in speed and life expectancy.

[Compucore]

The only time you would need to use an ultra320 are in raid arrays for servers or workstations that need them. I know my precision 530 can work with IDE, SCSI lvd160's or in sata. SCSI raids are usually faster because they have been around long enough to have high throughput on them compared to sata to sustain the throughput. Because it can be read in sequence from different disk compared to a single disk and wait fro the transfer from the disk to the cpu for processing.

Compucore

price drop?

$700 for a 300GB 15k ultra320 is pretty cheap!

[Faolan84]

"Just use a RAID 0 setup" will get you in a lot of crap if something breaks.
Remember it's called RAID 0 because that's how much data you get back if one of your drives fail.

[jerrrys]

true raid0 offers no redundancy, but two hdd's under raid0 running at 7200rpm = 14400rpm plus double the transfer rate plus double the storage (or in a perfect world it would be, there is some loss involved) and can always be backed up on a nightly bases with software. which i would prefer over raid5 that can take hours to days to rebuild itself. and again, im thinking for home and not commercial use

[sej7278]

true raid0 offers no redundancy, but two hdd's under raid0 running at 7200rpm = 14400rpm plus double the transfer rate plus double the storage (or in a perfect world it would be, there is some loss involved) and can always be backed up on a nightly bases with software. which i would prefer over raid5 that can take hours to days to rebuild itself. and again, im thinking for home and not commercial use

yup, that's exactly what i'm thinking, raid0+backup is much better than raid5.

as raid shouldn't be used for backup, and things like raid5 are for redundancy, certainly not zero downtime as its takes hours to rebuild the array and you'd better pray another drive doesn't fail in the process!

raid explanations from the ever-reliable (ahem) wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redunda...ependent_disks