Compared to what?!? Other HDDs of the time? No they fricken were not slow. Raptors were even competitive with SCSI-320 drives. Only SCSI-320 15,000RPM drives were faster. Compared to modern HDD's, yeah ok, they're slower NOW, but certainly NOT then... And to compare to SSD's is just silly.
Perhaps if you look like that, they were okay, but that's not what I think about them nowadays or when I tested them. And to be fair, those were 72GB Raptors, not Velociraptors. If you really wanted the absolute fastest shit out there, then they weren't it. You wanted RAID 0 of server 20k rpm drives. One of the reasons why I think that those old Raptors were quite pathetic isn't just that SSDs are faster, but even modern basic 1TB drive is faster in sequential read and write. I'm not exactly sure why that is like that, but that's what I found out. Modern drive still couldn't touch Raptor RAID 0 at burst read and write, but I'm not convinced that modern HDDs in RAID 0 wouldn't beat Raptor RAID 0. Another thing, they didn't really do much for improving system responsiveness as you would have expected. Such setup was a way cooler conversation piece than actually doing anything really noticeably good for computer. I had 2 drives in RAID 0, but some people have tested 4. Turns out that performance scaling is poor beyond 2 drives. And if you wanted a legitimate upgrade for your system, it actually made more sense to just ignore RAID 0 altogether, since you can do two big writing or reading operations in parallel, instead of trying to conjoin two drives into one. System would be more responsive. Say what you want, but RAID 0 of 10k rpm drives is a bit like SLI, awesome concept that end up being somewhat disappointing in practice.
Of course not, it's been about 15 years. Hard Drive tech has advanced greatly in that time. Modern performance drives SHOULD beat out a Raptor of any version, such as a modern WD Black 4TB. But that's a far cry from saying that Raptors in their heyday were not the fastest consumer drives available.
Of course not, it's been about 15 years. Hard Drive tech has advanced greatly in that time. Modern performance drives SHOULD beat out a Raptor of any version, such as a modern WD Black 4TB. But that's a far cry from saying that Raptors in their heyday were not the fastest consumer drives available.
I really have no idea what advanced there. It's still the same spinning rust to me. BTW I compared to 1TB Seagate Barracuda, definitely not high end stuff like WD Black or Barracuda Pro. But to be fair, iwould have zero idea why one or another hard drive at same rpms would be faster. Only cache size variates and cache is only very occasionally useful, since it's so tiny.
How come lower-rated CF Compact Flash cards work out dearer to buy?
2Gb £9 and yet 32Gb only costs £16? The same make from the same seller.
And why are the MB ones dearer than the Gb?
High Speed CF Memory Card Compact Flash CF Card for Digital Camera Computer
My first 4 SSD's I didn't pay for. They were review samples when I was at ClassicPlatforms. All from Patriot.
Still use them to this day. Not the fastest, but still kills a spinner. No question they're durable. Been almost 10 years.
Ah but there is the issue, you were comparing them recently to modern drives. Context is always important. You have to compare them to other drives of the same time period to get a proper perspective of just how impressive they were. They really kicked ass!
I really have no idea what advanced there. It's still the same spinning rust to me. BTW I compared to 1TB Seagate Barracuda, definitely not high end stuff like WD Black or Barracuda Pro. But to be fair, iwould have zero idea why one or another hard drive at same rpms would be faster. Only cache size variates and cache is only very occasionally useful, since it's so tiny.
I don't wish to insult you, so please take no offense: Hard drive tech has come a long way in the last 10 to 15 years. Head armatures are faster and more precise, data densities are more compact and as result, more data can be read per rotational pass than it older drives, then as you mentioned, drive caches have increased, but also caching has been optimized. I could keep going and get into the real nitty-gritty of things, but I think you get the point.
Yes, HDDs are still just spinning disks, but they are greatly more advanced than drives of 10 to 15 years ago.
Not quite. RAID5 involves data striping but not the same way as RAID0. WIth RAID5 you get a solid speed advantage when you use more than 4 drives in an array. However, even when only using 3(minimum for RAID5) or 4 drives, the speed advantage is still present over the speed of a single drive and matches a 2 drive RAID0 array.
Ah but there is the issue, you were comparing them recently to modern drives. Context is always important. You have to compare them to other drives of the same time period to get a proper perspective of just how impressive they were. They really kicked ass!
From my own subjective observations simple 7200k IDE drive was slow and those 10k rpm SATA drives were still slow. Less slow, but still slow. It really wasn't a proper solution to hard drive slowness. Frankly, probably basic 7.2k drives in RAID 0 would have been similarly fast. Despite sequential performance being good, it really doesn't matter as much as access time and burst operations. SSD will always have superior access time, since it uses electricity to access all those cells, hard drive will always have to pin platters and move head. You can make hard drive 2 times as fast if you want, but in that one metric, SSD beats them by thousands if not million times. Even SD card does. In burst operations access time and IOPS matter, again SSDs even slow ones are thousands of times faster. Only in sequential operations some low end SSDs can be crap, but really not that much behind or behind old hard drives at all.
Not sure about you, but it triggers me when people say that X SSD is slower than hard drive and they judge only by sequential operation speed and difference is small. They ignore access time, IOPS, which are inherently superior traits of SSDs and that's why SSD would still be a lot faster than any hard drive even in severe choking conditions like in adapting SATA SSD to IDE.
Anyway, yeah I realize that dual super fast hard drives were really cool and almost science fiction back in 2004, but it's also something that only then people could enjoy to the fullest too. Today it just looks like overcomplicated, flawed technique to get not so great performance gains with antiquated technology. Now you would want SSDs in RAID 0 and that's what I wanted to so in that old machine too, but it didn't happen, because it couldn't detect SSDs at all. I even bought SATA card and still nope. SSDs were perfectly functional in other systems.
You know what, those more modern Velociraptops are nearly two times as fast in sequential operations than Raptor. Those would be interesting to RAID. But I still wouldn't expect magic is lack of IOPS would still hurt such setup the most. Considering that, RAID 0 of SSHDs would be even more exciting to explore and might mask lack of IOPS, but that's not retro hardware at all.
I don't wish to insult you, so please take no offense: Hard drive tech has come a long way in the last 10 to 15 years. Head armatures are faster and more precise, data densities are more compact and as result, more data can be read per rotational pass than it older drives, then as you mentioned, drive caches have increased, but also caching has been optimized. I could keep going and get into the real nitty-gritty of things, but I think you get the point.
I have been trying to learn about HDD advances and which specs matter beyond rpms, cache and platters. I haven't been able to find anything so I would love to learn about that. I also have no idea how exactly different types of hard drives differ on hardware/firmware level like basic, surveillance, enterprise, fast and NAS drives. I have read a lot and there's just too much contradictory information to reach conclusions. It's not only about hard drives either, I fail to find much info about SSD internals too, yet I would like to learn more. If you have time, you can PM me or just drop a link to some good resources.
Not quite. RAID5 involves data striping but not the same way as RAID0. WIth RAID5 you get a solid speed advantage when you use more than 4 drives in an array. However, even when only using 3(minimum for RAID5) or 4 drives, the speed advantage is still present over the speed of a single drive and matches a 2 drive RAID0 array.
Ah, so that's what you mean. So if you have 3 drives, then RAID 0 is still faster than RAID 5, right? For that matter, how does RAID 10 compare to them both (with 4 HDDs)?
I will check it out. But when is he going to do one on Windows ME?
You should do one on there Lex. I can,t beleave you or anyone else on here ,hasn,t got a dhannal on you tube.
I will check it out. But when is he going to do one on Windows ME?
You should do one on there Lex. I can,t beleave you or anyone else on here ,hasn,t got a dhannal on you tube.
My 3d Prophet Radeon 9700 just got a new HSF, close to what the original was... almost.
I say almost, because Hercules' HSF was originally copprr, while this is aluminium. Not very close but I applied some MX4 and will maybe test it out tomorrow on a nF2 system to see how its temps are with Deepcool's V50 heatsink+fan.
Just for lulz I would have installed this on the BE6-II machine since it seems to allow it run. Thing is, the 7500 it had in there already suffers from the limited interface, and on top of that, I'm already trying to move it to Geforce.
My 3d Prophet Radeon 9700 just got a new HSF, close to what the original was... almost. View attachment 249147
I say almost, because Hercules' HSF was originally copprr, while this is aluminium. Not very close but I applied some MX4 and will maybe test it out tomorrow on a nF2 system to see how its temps are with Deepcool's V50 heatsink+fan.
Just for lulz I would have installed this on the BE6-II machine since it seems to allow it run. Thing is, the 7500 it had in there already suffers from the limited interface, and on top of that, I'm already trying to move it to Geforce.
The most legendary Radeon ever. Though I'd put a far beefier cooler for it, but I guess that's fine. I remember running mine at 9800 XT clocks (412/730DDR) and it beat my friend's 9800 Pro (even tho R350 has some improvements over R300).
Lex keeps on saying it is better than 98se and never uses it
anymore.And why in the world is Phil using an 1TB SSD on 98SE?Or even an SSD for that matter.Why did he not go for compact Flash?Let alone using a 1TB one
Lex keeps on saying it is better than 98se and never uses it
anymore.And why in the world is Phil using an 1TB SSD on 98SE?Or even an SSD for that matter.Why did he not go for compact Flash?
The most legendary Radeon ever. Though I'd put a far beefier cooler for it, but I guess that's fine. I remember running mine at 9800 XT clocks (412/730DDR) and it beat my friend's 9800 Pro (even tho R350 has some improvements over R300).
I would, if those flower styled chinese coolers wouldn't be almost long since extinct in my country. Ever since Deepcool became a thing, I don't think I've seen any of those Zalman clones sold anymore.
Onwards with my ABIT - somehow I "cracked the DaVinci code" as to why Geforce cards didn't work - a combo of running In Order Queue Depth on 1 (which made the system run like pure turd, and that was absolutely visible in Ford Racing 2 for example.), plus chipset voltage set to 3.3 which it didn't like as it was a bit (no pun intended) too low for its own taste. Upped the IOQD to 8 and NB voltage to 3.4V (a "safety measure" as I am not very keen on running it at 3.5 - 3.4 would be what I consider a 10% voltage margin.) and it seems to run absolutely gorgeous thanks to the golden PCB'd MX440SE 64MB I have in there.
