[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2012/08/b0gGP7.jpg[/newsimage]WD has announced HDDs that promise the performance of SSDs, is that really possible? Click to read more! Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/wd-announces-2tb-hdds-with-ssd-like-performance-hmmm-63508/](http://www.myce.com/news/wd-announces-2tb-hdds-with-ssd-like-performance-hmmm-63508/) Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
external HDD - cooling fan = trouble!
Something tells me this product belongs to the Too Late To Market Department. $1,000 for a dual-drive RAID0? Well, it’s based on Thunderbolt tech. But I can’t imagine someone opting for that if they’ve got two 3.5" internal bays available and could RAID0 a couple of 1Tb WDs instead for twice the capacity and somewhat better speeds.
Of course, if you had two 3.5 bays, that means with $10 sleds, you can convert those into four SSDs - with the 256Gb SSDs in the sub-$200 ($150?) range, the capacity would hit that 1Tb range but considerably faster, and still be less expensive.
I guess anyone who has over-spent for a Thunderbolt port in the first place would need to justify that expense so they’ll spend a lot more. That’s the Gracie Allen School Of Economics.
[I]“But, George, I saved $500!”
“Gracie, you just spend $8,000!”
“Yes, but if I spend $12,000 more, I’ll save another thousand! That pays for the new washer!”[/I]
Even the 1943 crowd understood this joke.
Raid 0 on an external? what is the point?
performance on a data drive? what is the point?
I dunno $900 is a big chunk of change… can’t 512meg ssd’s bought and put in raid be gotten for about the same price… I’m sure the SSD companies will figure out a way to make lower price points happen for raid configurations…
Also, read/write performance in raid is 550+MB/sec (SSD)… not 400MB (HDD)…
I can’t believe anyone uses a two-disk RAID0 on anything. I always find myself muttering, “If you can afford two, then you can afford 3 - or don’t bother wasting it on two.” A 3-disk RAID5 gives almost speed as RAID0, and better security than RAID1 (mirror).
$999 for a chance to lose all data, though? Good luck with THAT.
“But you can lose it SOOO fast!” Ah yes. Of course…
RAID5 only performs well for writing if you have high performance controller with a decent cache and a battery backup for security.
A RAID-0 for speed is intended for when it doesn’t matter if the data is lost because its temporary and performance is paramount. So the budget of an equally performing RAID5 is not justified. For example media encoding … once you’ve rendered that enormous file you want to transfer it as quickly as possible to take it with you. Although this thing doesnt look very portable ! Its a niche / luxury product right now.
I’ll wager this is intended partly for pro applications. Professional audio and video folks carry gobs of data around with them and need the fastest possible transfer speeds.
I wonder if some of them would be dropping 2 WD Caviar Black 2TB drives into this. Speeds would be similar. A compromise between volume and speed always has some value, and this is fast enough to allow some rendering to or from it in a studio setting. Plus it’s small enough to toss in a suitcase and go on the road.
I wish tech sites didn’t keep lying to themselves and us about hard drive power consumption being this huge rampant problem.
[QUOTE=jdub;2652984]I wish tech sites didn’t keep lying to themselves and us about hard drive power consumption being this huge rampant problem.[/QUOTE]
But HDDs equate to a massive 6w of power each !!!
Think of the children!!!
But seriously, I factored power use into my video card purchase. My new hd7850 uses about 30w idle, and 130w working 100%, huge improvement over my old 2900 which didn’t have idle, apparently, and chewed up about 100w additional.
Performance per watt /dollar on the nvidias compared poorly. Admittedly, product lines change practically weekly.
I purchased one of the 1TB Velociraptor drives used in this case for a client in Australia for $300. It runs in a Windows 2008 server and performs very well. If you can buy 2 individual drives for $600 total, then it seems WD is charging a $300 premium to put them in a case with RAID functions. Seeing as WD doesn’t appear to have any SSD related products in the pipeline, they have to invent new ideas with their HDD products.
[QUOTE=ChristineBCW;2652796]I can’t believe anyone uses a two-disk RAID0 on anything. I always find myself muttering, “If you can afford two, then you can afford 3 - or don’t bother wasting it on two.” A 3-disk RAID5 gives almost speed as RAID0, and better security than RAID1 (mirror).
$999 for a chance to lose all data, though? Good luck with THAT.
“But you can lose it SOOO fast!” Ah yes. Of course…[/QUOTE]
I used to have a RAID0 setup in a home desktop. It’s fine if you have a daily backup plan in place. I had it backing up to an external drive. The RAID broke once because a power outage caused the pc to shutdown ungracefully (this is why a UPS is essential). The data is not lost but rebuilding the RAID is time consuming.
Yes, I know. They have their place, their reason. I’d still twist your arm and say, “Buy a third identical disk and put it into a RAID5 config…”
Actually, I’d tell you to buy 2 more identical ones, and use a 3-disk setup for RAID5 and your 4th one can be a ‘cold’ replacement. Or use it as a daily standalone knowing that it might be called upon as a replacement drive.
See? They just keep multiplying! Like brooms for a sorcerer’s apprentice!! ha ha
(In practice, we see drives ‘fail’ in RAID5 but the drive functions just fine. Somehow, the controller (or software) gets some timing issues crammed down its throat and will no longer validate that drive and thus marks it ‘bad’, like a dog walking along fenceposts. It’s a scented stain that the controller never refuses to remove. But, that ‘bad’ drive can be reused in other machines just fine, and for years. So, it’s a reminder to me that RAIDs are still a cooperative issue between different hardware and very exacting software. Since we live in SUCH a perfect world - what could possibly go wrong?!!)
The capacity of SSD is beginning to cross the trend line on price in the raid market… that’s why this is an exciting time… Will the HDD industry get their cost under control again and innovation moving? That remains to be proven (espeically in the raid market w/ ultra-fast hard drives).
The SSD market has everything to gain and the HDD market everythign to lose if this trend is allowed to continue for the next 3+ years… HDD companies may stop being HDD companies and we might see SSD the only game in town… I say this because consolidation hasn’t strengthened innovation in the HD market and the SSD field is expanding with new mfg & companies coming online in both SD cards and SSD drives. When you look at it from that perspective, that seems to be the future, while HD innovation is more bleak.
The jury is still out on whether I’d be interested in SSD or HD in 2014/2015 as a primary disk… I’ll know when I get there…
TMC, are you thinking “primary drive” as Boot AND Data? I don’t know if I’ll consider SSDs as a data-drive because of their volatility but maybe.
I’ve never been pleased with Linux’ Partitioning Requirements but those have their good reasons. And the SSD=Boot Drive and HDD=Data is nothing more than “partitioning logic”.
I’m just not certain NAND lifespans are better or worse than mag-surface of HDDs. Currently, they seem more volatile - therefore ‘worse’ - but I can’t quite figure out why. Is there truly a vast difference between HDD-surface signal retention vs. silicon-based signal retention?
Is using one area over and over always going to be more detrimental for one ‘surface’ than the other? And is this because of the comparative infancy of one of these products?