10,000RPM hard drives

Is there any upside to buying a 10,000 RPM hard drive when it comes to burning DVD programs. I would like to know as I am buying a custom configuration from Planet Computers and they offer a Raid 0 config. with two 500 gig 10,000 RPM hard drives and I would like to know if this would be benefical.

Depends on the drives. Raptors are really the only current 10k drives worth bothering with, but it’s not because of the 10k speed exactly. It’s about access times, which are amazingly quick with Raptors. Unless you intend to do a lot of multiple concurrent burns, you won’t see a lot of benefit from either 10k or RAID.

My 74G Raptor RAID-0 array will burn 2 separate DVD’s at 16x without breaking a sweat, whereas my Seagate 160s can only do 2 at 4x. The reason for that is mainly the access times. Do you know what drives, exactly, are offered in that system and what ratings they have for access times? (not seek time).

I believe they are Seagate, but Raptors are an option also. I will check the access time and get back. Thanks rdgrimes, you are a repected member of this forum and I really appreciate your feedback. Right now I am getting a marked slowdown with 16x media at the 3.5 gig mark, I have a 2.8MHZ Intel processor with 1 gig of ram and a 7200.7 Seagate Hardrive 120 gig. 92 gig free space. I beleive the slow down is being caused by a buffer problem but I am not sure.

Hard drives using the IDE (aka ATA) interface reign supreme on the desktop–not because they’re the fastest, but because for most users they’re easier to install and offer the best bang for the buck.

Pros know, however, that for the fastest performance you go with a hard drive based on one of the SCSI standards (the latest of which is Ultra 160). If extra memory and a faster CPU haven’t provided your IDE-based system the performance dividends you’re seeking, maybe it’s time for you to look at this misunderstood and pricey technology and go for one of the fastest hard drives available.

We reviewed two of the latest–and quickest–drives to hit the market: the $550 18GB Cheetah X15 from Seagate and the $450 18GB Atlas 10K from Quantum. As implied by its name, the Cheetah X15 is the first drive able to spin its platters at an amazing 15,000 rotations per minute. Meanwhile, the Quantum can spin its platters at “only” 10,000 rpm. To provide an interface for the red-hot drives, we used a state-of-the-art Adaptec 29160N controller.

Ultra 160 SCSI offers an astounding maximum burst transfer rate of 160 megabytes per second, 60MB/second faster than the recently announced 100MB/second ATA 100 specification. For both specs, those are the peak speeds at which data may be transferred, which is far faster than what any hard drive can sustain.

To approach the limits of Ultra 160 SCSI, you’d practically need multiple hard drives working to deliver data at the same time (such as in a network or Internet server application). But these extreme hard drives have some other advantages over typical desktop drives, one of which is the spin rate. The quickest IDE drive spins at 7200 rpm, while the Cheetah X15 and Atlas 10K spin at 15,000 rpm and 10,000 rpm, respectively. All other things being equal, the faster a hard drive’s platters spin, the faster you can access and transfer its data. The Cheetah X15 should be able to find data particularly quickly, as it has an amazing 3.9-millisecond random seek rating compared to the average ATA drive’s rating of about 9 milliseconds. The Atlas 10K has a 5-millisecond seek rating.

The Cheetah X15 wrote data to its platters considerably faster than the Atlas did: It took a mere 43 seconds to write a 430MB image file, compared to the Atlas 10K’s 63 seconds (47 percent faster). In writing a 430MB folder containing a thousand or so files, the Cheetah X15’s time of 67 seconds was 9 seconds faster than that of the Atlas 10K (13 percent faster).

The above is what they sent me in response to the hard drive they offer.

the price-to-gigabyte ratio of those SCSIs is simply not worth it…go for 74GB Raptors in RAID-0 instead if you’re dead-set on 10K RPM drives and the fastest HDDs for your needs…if not, you can RAID-0 two large 7200 RPM Hitachis, Maxtors or Seagates and get great speeds as well (just make sure you have a good backup system in place cause with 2 large HDDs in RAID-0, loss of one will result in a ton of lost data not to mention headache/pain/anguish)…

IMHO, you really don’t need a 10-15K RPM SCSI array whatsoever…

I really just want the lastest equipment, and the best confiquration for my DVD burners. I have read all about the different chipsets that work with opticals and don’t work with opticals and not to use Nvidia drivers and etc. I jsut want my new configuration to be up to date and powerful enough to handle burning at 16x without a buffer problem. I can burn at 12x with no problems but 16x seems to drop at the end of the burn at about the 3,5 gig mark every time. I use quality media and have 5 quality drives. I have to find out what is causing this drop in speed at the end of my burns.

Right now I am getting a marked slowdown with 16x media at the 3.5 gig mark

16x reaches 22MB/sec near the end, which is well beyond the ability of many current HD’s to deliver, given fragmentation and slow performance to start with.

Get a copy of the ATTO disc benchmark and check out your current drive. It only checks file sizes up to 1 MB though. The specs quoted in the above are largely smoke and mirrors. Fast seek times are great, but access times rule. And burst rates are meaningless, it’s sustained transers that you are doing.

Seek time is the time it takes for the drive head to reach the radius on the platter where the data is at. Access time is the seek time plus the time it takes for the platter to spin around to where the data actually starts. That’s where higher PRM may provide an advantage, but not always.

Any current IDE drive with 8MB cache will meet your needs for a 16x burn as long as it’s not fragmented.

10-15k scsi raid is overkill for simply burning DVDs @ 16x …not sure what’s causing your speed drops, but i have no trouble burning @ 16x (the rare times i do) from any single one of my drives (PATA, SATA, 7.2k, 10k)…have you updated your motherboard’s BIOS and/or the chipset drivers (i.e. Via 4-in-1, etc.)?

if it’s a software issue, no amount of money or fancy hardware is gonna resolve your problems…

edit: in additon to ATTO, there’s HDTach as well - http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php?request=HdTach

The only drive that I know of that has 8mb cache is the Plextor 716A, are there others?

rdgrimes is referring to IDE HDDs with 8mb of cache…not ODDs…

http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=47424&stc=1 This is my mobo, where can I find an update for it.

http://esupport.sony.com/perl/select-system.pl?PRODTYPE=1&NAVDISP=pc#

http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df-external/Support_Intel.aspx#

http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?p=614680#post614680

In short no, 7200 RPMs drives can deliver a sustained data rate for 16x without any issues. You should also really consider if you want RAID 0…
//Danne

Did mean you reconsider or are recommending a Raid 0 configuration?

Personally, I’m with rdgrimes on this one, I highly recommend the raptors. Two raptors in a RAID0 is amazingly fast. I have two 74GB raptors in a RAID0 and I love it. Maybe diizy is saying to consider if you want RAID0 because of reliability. You really should have another HDD to keep a backup of anything important, you just can’t trust a RAID0 as much as a single drive of course. But to me, I don’t think it’s that much more risky, a single HDD could fail at any time also, backups are a good idea in either case.

But I’ll tell you wow it’s alot faster than a single HDD. I swear my boot time was almost cut in half. I also have a second RAID0 running two standard 160GB SATA’s. What I really love about that is when I’m doing something like VOBBlanker. Copying (especially large files) from one RAID0 to another RAID0 kicks ass, gets it done alot faster for sure. Some people don’t think it’s worth to bother with a RAID0, but now that I’ve tasted the speed, I’ll never go back. You can spend the money on the even faster scsi drives for a RAID0, but personally I don’t think it’s worth soooo much more money. Raptors kick some serious ass, way good enough for me anyway. :slight_smile:

Ok Roscoe: Just give me a good configuration with enough power and access so I do not have this damn slow down in speed when I reach the 3.5 gig mark at 16x. I have great drives (BenQ1640. Nec 3540, LG 4163.) Use great media )(Taiyo Yuden) I have explored every reason. I have a 2.8MHz Intel Processor, 1Gig of Ram, 120 gig Hard drive 7200.7 Seagate(92gig free) I wish I could explain the speed drops. It doesn’t happen at 12x which makes me think its a buffer problem but I have a number of software programs and it is the same with all of them. I am lost.

For all “Raptor in RAID 0 is so great”-fans…
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=1

If you haven’t gotten the hint by now, we’ll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
//Danne

Well I’m not sure what’s causing your speed drops either. All I can say is if it’s related to your HDD performance, getting a raptor RAID0 (or any RAID0) would deffinitely fix that right quick! lol

Maybe try like these guys said, benchmark your HDD to find out if it’s the problem, possibly update your mobo, maybe intall xp sp2 if you don’t have it. Who knows, maybe your HDD is starting to slowly crap out on you. Granted most of these ideas are longshots, but I’m just saying everything that comes to mind. Is this a problem that just started, or has it always been like this with your current config? You could also try a format/reinstall if you have the time to do it, may not change anything though. I know you really want to figure out the problem, but another thing you may consider if you can’t figure it out, just don’t burn at 16x. Personally I think it’s a waste, it doesn’t make it all that much quicker, and usually it will never turn out as good of burns as 8 or 12x, but that’s just my opinion. I know some people want to burn at 16x I just don’t understand why. I just go 8x cause they turn out the best at that. Good luck dude :slight_smile:

@diizy, lol that’s funny. I think my opinion of anandtech just dropped a notch. I see huge performance increases from my raid0, boot time is way faster and my system seems all around faster as well. Anandtech may not be considering those of us who manipulate large files by doing DVD burning, cause it deffinitely makes a difference on a RAID0. Maybe for a really basic user who doesn’t copy huge files all the time that makes a little sense, a little. Mean time between failure means nothing to me, as long as you backup your stuff, like I said any drive can go at any time anyway. Anandtech is full of s@$t on this one IMO.

Thanks Roscoe: I wish I knew how to do a reformat/reinstall and keep all my data. I personally think that would fix it but I will stick to 12x for now, with my BenQ1640 I am getting 6:03 for 4.3 gig at 12x and I break 6 min with my LG 4163. I just like everything to work right, you know how it is. Thanks for your time and everyone else too.