Performance Drives ... <Limp_Brisket>

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by dissonance, Nov 11, 2008.

  1. dissonance

    dissonance reset OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    KS
    I figured we out to just start a new thread instead of continuing to steal that one...

    To be honest, for high performance drives I would either go with a Seagate Cheetah 15k.6 SAS or the Intel X25-M or X25-E SSD. They both have their advantages and disadvantages.

    Here is a link to where you can get Seagate 15.6 SAS drives:
    http://www.provantage.com/seagate-st3300656ss~7SEGS1P3.htm
    Some reading material for the Intel SSD:
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403

    You will probably get better write times from the disk drive. Your sequential read times will probably be similar. Access times and random reads will obviously be better with the SSD. The SSD will obviously be quiter and cooler. You have higher performance and reliability potential from the disk drive simply because it uses a SAS interface instead of a SATA interface. The latest generation of Seagates have FDE (Full Data Encryption) built into the drives.

    What I want to see is a SAS SSD. Even enterprise SSDs are primarily SATA. The SATA interface simply blows when compared to SAS in both performance and reliability. In the enterprise world SATA drives are primarily used for low end arrays or for remote backup storage arrays where performance isn't a top priority (we don't even bother carrying any SATA drives faster than 7,200rpm). FC drives are still good but are going away. No manufacturers that I know of are working on making any new ones. What is out now is all there's going to be until they end-of-life, then they are no more.

    Enterprise SSDs are still increadably expensive and unless you want to sell your car, I doubt your considering them (assuming you have a nice car). They are only being ordered by some of the most demanding HPC centers (High Performance Computer), ie: military and research facilities.
     
  2. Limp_Brisket

    Limp_Brisket New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    48,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    sweet, a thread in my honor. hehe, thanks for the info though.

    i was looking at the intel SSD's but it's 80GB for $600 dollars, i don't know if i could justify that. and seeing as my motherboard will have a built-in SAS controller that reduces the cost of getting the cheetah, which it looks like is the choice for me. thanks for the links.

    i read that article on anandtech about the intel ssd's too, pretty impressive stuff.
     
  3. Limp_Brisket

    Limp_Brisket New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    48,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
  4. dissonance

    dissonance reset OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    KS
    I personally wouldn't spend an extra $160 for it on just a home workstation. Fujitsu is still a reputable brand. I'm not at work so I can't just ask a drive guy what he thinks.

    You just looking to get 1? Another think to think about with 15k drives is the vibration they will create. If your drive mounts/case isn't solid enough and you have another drive in there the 15k may make the other one have errors.

    We spend a lot of time and money certifying drives. Part of that is firmware compatibilty with our controllers and another part of it is vibration/heat/etc testing.
     
  5. Limp_Brisket

    Limp_Brisket New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    48,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    well i was thinking of getting either one of these:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822116059
    300 GB for $340 bucks

    or getting two of these
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822116058
    2x147GB for $400 bucks and setting it up as a RAID 0

    :dunno:

    p.s. the motherboard only has 2 SAS slots for either RAID 0 or 1, and since this is mostly a gaming machine redundancy isn't that important.
     
  6. dissonance

    dissonance reset OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    KS
    I've never been a fan of RAID-0. I suppose if you think its worth $60 bucks, might as well, just keep an image of the logical drive.
     
  7. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fujitsu is a name-brand for SCSI drives and laptop drives. All of the SCSI drives in all of the workstations at my office are Fujitsu, and most of the laptop drives are too. Never had a problem.
     
  8. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe redundancy isn't important, but not having to reinstall all your shite every few months is important, at least if you want the computer to be less trouble than it's worth. Do a RAID5, or if you can't afford three disks, do a RAID-1 with two larger drives.
     
  9. Limp_Brisket

    Limp_Brisket New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    48,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    :hsugh: im not running an enterprise server here. personally i've never done a RAID setup on my home machine (only work), but since i'm going for performance here RAID 1 and 5 are worthless.
     
  10. dissonance

    dissonance reset OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    KS
    RAID-5 will actually out perform a RAID-0 when the disks have a good part of their capacity filled. This is of course with a good controller.
     
  11. Limp_Brisket

    Limp_Brisket New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    48,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    even when writing since it has to generate all that parity information?
     
  12. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    The parity is generated by the hardware controller, which you should have regardless of which RAID level you choose. The controller's processor is more than fast enough to keep up with streaming writes.
     
  13. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    RAID-1 isn't worthless for performance. It still doubles the read speed compared to a single disk, which if you're gaming that's what your disks are going to be doing most of the time anyway.

    Son.
     
  14. Limp_Brisket

    Limp_Brisket New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    48,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    that's probably true

    maybe i shit all over raid 1 a little prematurely :hsd:
     
  15. dissonance

    dissonance reset OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    KS
    The only issue would be capacity. If you did a RAID-1, would you then get 2 300GB drives.
     
  16. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    2x 300GB isn't even that expensive anymore, and the price would be more than offset by the lower cost of a RAID controller that can only handle RAID-1.

    If I had my computer to build over again, I'd probably have just gone with a RAID-1, unless I were going to have multiple partitions, in which case I'd still go with a partitioned RAID-5.
     
  17. dissonance

    dissonance reset OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    KS
    $340 isn't that expensive :eek4:

    I must just be poor :wtc:
     
  18. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    $340 for a "performance" disk array is pretty damn cheap. The three Raptors and RAID controller I got has half the capacity and cost upwards of $600, though I don't remember if that was before or after mail-in rebates.
     
  19. dissonance

    dissonance reset OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    KS
    True, but when he can just run a RAID-0 with the 146GB drives and keep an image of the disk, I see an addition $340 for convenience as being expensive.
     
  20. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amortized over the life of the machine, it's really not that much. Assuming it lasts 3 years, you're talking ten bucks a month.
     
  21. Limp_Brisket

    Limp_Brisket New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    48,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    with that kind of logic im surprised you don't work at a payday loans office. you don't, do you?
     
  22. dissonance

    dissonance reset OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    KS
    Using that logic he might as well get 3 Intel SSDs and run a RAID-5. It'd only be ~$60 a month including a $400 allowance for a decent controller.
     
  23. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a fine line between a reasonable expense and an unreasonable expense. I happen to think that $340 for a pair of good drives in a computer that will probably not have its storage upgraded for several years is a pretty good deal, considering the biggest gains in computing can be had by improving the performance of the slowest subsystem, i.e. the hard drive.
     

Share This Page