Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Western Digital VelociRaptor WD1500HLHX

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Western Digital VelociRaptor WD1500HLHX

    Phoronix: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD1500HLHX

    Our Linux hardware review today is of the Western Digital VelociRaptor, an enterprise-grade HDD that Western Digital claims is the "Fastest SATA Hard Drive On The Planet." The Serial ATA 3.0 disk drive spins at 10,000 RPM, but how's its Linux performance?

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19549

  • #2
    SSD killed VelociRaptor.
    There is no need for a VelociRaptor, just get an SSD instead.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have the 1TB version of this drive and I love it, the fact that I can get it at the 1TB size is why I prefer it over an ssd. I have ssds in my laptops and they do feel faster but I run out of space so quickly. The raptor is a nice compromise for me and I think I will pick up another one and use raid 0. If I do that I will benchmark it before and after.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by philip550c View Post
        I have the 1TB version of this drive and I love it, the fact that I can get it at the 1TB size is why I prefer it over an ssd. I have ssds in my laptops and they do feel faster but I run out of space so quickly. The raptor is a nice compromise for me and I think I will pick up another one and use raid 0. If I do that I will benchmark it before and after.
        I would rather just get an 256 GB SSD then 3-4 TB HDD.
        Put the system on the SSD, then put media on the HDD.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          I would rather just get an 256 GB SSD then 3-4 TB HDD.
          Put the system on the SSD, then put media on the HDD.
          I could but what I might also do is use the raptor and an ssd for caching, like a hybrid or fusion drive. Also the raptor is an enterprise drive so in theory it should last longer than an ssd and the regular hhd. Also no ssd can hold my steam library on its own.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by philip550c View Post
            Also the raptor is an enterprise drive so in theory it should last longer than an ssd
            no, not even close. in theory and practice the ssds will last by far longer than any hdd.

            a bit offtopic but it made me very said that only seagate and WD remained on the hdd market. i had 5 WD drives up till now and not a single one survived significant more than 2 years, while 3 went bad after about a year (for two of them i got a new one due to warranty and they also failed after about 2 1/2 years). in my small experience WD are the loudest and with the shortest lifetime i ever used. oh and they were all claimed long lasting modells, 4 of them with 3 years warranty.

            i only had a single seagate more than 10 years ago but i read they consume more power and are louder than the wd,

            believe it or not but all my samsung drivers are still working fine (the yungest is 3 years old) and they were all less noisy than all my WD i had.
            i now have for the very first time an issue with oune of them. it seesm the spin motor fails sometimes to start the disks spinning. and i have no clue what to take for subsitution. i'm looking for a wd red but i fear it will be louder and break after 2 years, as all my WD did more or less.
            Last edited by a user; 01-07-2014, 07:12 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by a user View Post
              i only had a single seagate more than 10 years ago but i read they consume more power and are louder than the wd,
              A laptop I maintain had a WD Scorpio Blue (it's the one that kills itself after a while due to its power saving "features"). Recently I replaced it with an equivalent Seagate drive, and it's by far not louder, quite the opposite. And I don't think it consumes more power than the WD drives (after their self-destroying features are turned off).

              Comment


              • #8
                All of you left clinging to spinning mechanical drives are still in the stone age... guess some people just wont learn or somehow use the excuse of a steam library and need a TB to store it even though you maybe play 100GB worth of it.
                I "use the right tool for the right job" and store my primary OS etc on a 256GB SSD and I use ~120GB of it. And I store random archival stuff on an external where the data is meant to be.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  I would rather just get an 256 GB SSD then 3-4 TB HDD.
                  Put the system on the SSD, then put media on the HDD.
                  That's my set up, actually:
                  • One SSD for the system (including /home), just one simple partition
                  • One large, green (silent, low heat) HDD for media
                  • One large HDD for backups of everything (media and /home)

                  This works great on a desktop. On a low cost laptop, a single hdd still makes sense. Case in point, my son's chromebook, where he uses steam in a crouton chroot.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                    A laptop I maintain had a WD Scorpio Blue (it's the one that kills itself after a while due to its power saving "features"). Recently I replaced it with an equivalent Seagate drive, and it's by far not louder, quite the opposite. And I don't think it consumes more power than the WD drives (after their self-destroying features are turned off).
                    hmm, is there one you would recommend for home nas usecase, at least 2 TB better 3 TB capacity?


                    @ HeavensRevenge:
                    of whom are you talking about? ssd's are yet no full substitution for hdds due to there capacity. sure there are awsome in laptops, are decent for a windows system partition (it becomes as fast as linux on a hdd) etc. but when ever you need a lot of space you need a hdd.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                      That's my set up, actually:
                      • One SSD for the system (including /home), just one simple partition
                      • One large, green (silent, low heat) HDD for media
                      • One large HDD for backups of everything (media and /home)

                      This works great on a desktop.
                      Sounds about right. I had a 640 GB WD Black drive for my main PC storage (with separate / and /home partitions), then I got a 1 TB WD Green drive (with the head parking feature turned off so it wouldn't self-destruct, of course) for storing media and archives I make whenever I reinstall the OS, then I switched to Btrfs and thus had only one partition on the Black drive, then I put the Green drive into a NAS, and now I'm getting an SSD (which Btrfs can seamlessly integrate with the existing HDD).

                      Originally posted by a user View Post
                      hmm, is there one you would recommend for home nas usecase, at least 2 TB better 3 TB capacity?
                      I never found much use for anything larger than 1 TB, and that's considering I need to record a lot of 1080p raw gameplay footage... As for recommending things, as I noted either keep away from WD Scorpio Blue and WD Caviar Green or make sure to use a tool to disable head parking if you get one of those; otherwise, just check reviews and price of the drives you can choose. Also, don't choose SATA 6 Gb/s drives just because it's SATA 6 Gb/s, because HDDs never use that bandwidth, anyway. In the article it's shown that they can only reach 2.2 Gb/s and that's only in ideal, synthetic situations.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This drive doesn't make any sense. 6 years ago it was awesome, but now for the price you can get a cheap 120GB SSD which is still many times faster than this, while losing only 30GB.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's not really fair to compare performance of a 1TB drive to a 150GB drive. The storage density is *much* higher on the 1TB so much more data passes under the read heads each rotation, and the head doesn't need to move so far to seek the next track.

                          I actually have 5 2008 vintage WD3000BLFS drives in my server running btrfs RAID5. I'm quite happy with the performance. The firmware needed reflashing due to a bug which caused the drive to die once the SMART online time overflowed! (The fixed firmware was leaked as Western Digital do not officially recognise the problem!) Certainly felt no need to upgrade it to SSD! ;-)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by a user View Post
                            no, not even close. in theory and practice the ssds will last by far longer than any hdd.
                            Ugh no. Ssds in our servers do not even come close to hdds, they stop working after a certain amount of writes unless we buy the expensive enterprise drives and even worse is that in raid they fail about the same time so even mirroring doesn't help.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              What is the point of making the Raptor in 2.5" form? Sure, it has less power consumption/heat, but it also limits storage. Anyone with half a brain would mount a 3.5" Raptor right by an intake fan. I'm guessing too many little epeen kiddies overheated their Raptors and RMA'd them which is why WD feels the need to put a huge heatsink on it.

                              believe it or not but all my samsung drivers are still working fine (the yungest is 3 years old) and they were all less noisy than all my WD i had.
                              I so miss Samsung. They were choice disks for quiet computing. I still have a 7,200RPM 500GiB SpinPoint as my system and media drive, a 7,200RPM 320GiB SpinPoint in another system, and a 5,400RPM 500GiB SpinPoint collecting dust.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X