Fastest option 10K sata1 or 7.2k sata2?

Thomas Andersson wrote:
> As topic suggests, what would be the fastest option for a boot
> system? a 10Krpm sata 1 drive or a 7.2Krpm sata2 drive, would the
> higher rpm make up for the lower bandwidth of sata 1 or would sata2
> rule over the higher rpm? (this for the drive that would hold OS and
> games and to give best overall performance).

SATA 1 = max 150 MB/sec. Fastest harddisk ever cannot fill that bandwidth.
So, 10k rpm will rule over 7200 SATA2.

--
Grtz, Thomas
 >> Stay informed about: Fastest option 10K sata1 or 7.2k sata2? 

Ed Medlin wrote:

>> As topic suggests, what would be the fastest option for a boot
>> system? a 10Krpm sata 1 drive or a 7.2Krpm sata2 drive, would the
>> higher rpm make up for the lower bandwidth of sata 1 or would sata2
>> rule over the higher rpm? (this for the drive that would hold OS and
>> games and to give best overall performance).
>>
> You probably couldn't tell the difference except that the 10k rpm
> drive may be noisy.

So basically the different advantages would even out and what remains is the
high price of 10K drives?

Best Wishes
Thomas
 >> Stay informed about: Fastest option 10K sata1 or 7.2k sata2? 

'Thomas Andersson' wrote:
| So basically the different advantages would even out and what remains is
the
| high price of 10K drives?
_____

No.

The bandwidth for SATA and SATA2 are both greater than the sequential data
transfer speed of any current hard drive, so that will make little to no
difference for you. In addition, 10K rpm hard drives have lower recording
density, so the movement of data too and from a 10K rpm hard drive may
actually be SLOWER than for a 7200 rpm hard drive of higher capacity and
higher recording density. The advantages for the 10K rpm hard drive are
faster random access (seek time is less - more money put into the seek
mechanism) and the latency is less - the rotational speed is higher.
Therefore the 10K rpm hard drive will access the first block in a sequence
more quickly, but the subsequent sequential data transfer will probably be
faster with the higher recording density 7200 rpm drive (if the recording
density is greater by at least a factor of 10000/7200.) The best drive
depends on the application; for file servers and transaction processing
where small amounts of data are transfered to and from different locations
on a drive a 10K drive is definitely the better choice. For transfering
large chunks of sequential data, a high capacity, high recording density
7200 drive could be a better choice.

It may be that for the use you posted about, a ~ $200 US 750 GByte 16 MByte
cache 7200 rpm SATA hard drive is a better choice than a ~ $200 US 150 GByte
16 MByte cache 10K rpm SATA hard drive.

Example specifications:
Western Digital WD1500AHFD 10K rpm 150 GByte 16 MByte cache (~ $200 US)
Form Factor: 3.5 inches
SATA: 1.5 Gbits/sec
Capacity: 150 GBytes
Cache: 16 MBytes
Heads: 4
Latency: 2.99 ms
Track-to-track seek: 0.4 ms
Average seek: 5.2 ms
Buffer/Disk data transfer (maximum sustained): 84 MBytes/sec
Start/Stop cycles: 20,000 minimum
Warranty: 5 years
Power consumption (Read/Write): 10 Watts
Power consumption (Standby): 2.66 Watts
Accoustics:
Idle Mode: 39 dBA
Seek Mode 3: 46 dBA

Western Digital WD7500AAKS 7200 rpm 750 GByte 16 MByte cache (~$200 US)
Form Factor: 3.5 inches
SATA: 3 Gbits/sec
Capacity: 750 GBytes
Cache: 16 MBytes
Heads:
Latency: 4.2 ms
Track-to-track seek: 2 ms
Average seek (write): 10.9 ms
Buffer/Disk data transfer (maximum sustained): 122 MBytes/sec
Start/Stop cycles (minimum): 50,000
Warranty: 3 years
Power consumption (Read/Write): 8.77 Watts
Power consumption (Standby): 0.97 Watts
Accoustics:
Idle Mode: 28 dBA
Seek Mode 0: 33 dBA
Seek Mode 3: 29 dBA



As you can see from the accoustic numbers, the WD1500AHFD is MUCH noiser
than the WD7500AAKS, as 'Ed Medlin' suggested.

But wait, there is another choice!

Segate Savvio ST973451SS 15K rpm 76 GByte 16 MByte cache (~$450 US)
Form Factor: 2.5 inches
SATA: 3 Gbits/sec
Capacity: 76 GBytes
Cache: 16 MBytes
Heads: 4
Latency: 2 ms
Average seek: 3.3 ms
Bufer/Disk data transfer (maximum sustained): 112 MBytes/sec
Start/Stop cycles (minimum):
MTBF: 1,600,000 hours
Warranty:
Power Consumption (Read/Write): 8.2 Watts
Power Consumption (Standby):
Accoustics:
Idle Mode: 31 dB
Seek Mode 0:
Seek Mode 3:

Consider also using RAID.

You can find a good article at
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/04/02/the_best_in_enterprise_hard_dri.../index.
comparing various enterprise hard drives.

Phil Weldon






"Thomas Andersson" <thomas RemoveThis @tifozi.net> wrote in message
news:5dkkaaF345fahU1@mid.individual.net...
| Ed Medlin wrote:
|
| >> As topic suggests, what would be the fastest option for a boot
| >> system? a 10Krpm sata 1 drive or a 7.2Krpm sata2 drive, would the
| >> higher rpm make up for the lower bandwidth of sata 1 or would sata2
| >> rule over the higher rpm? (this for the drive that would hold OS and
| >> games and to give best overall performance).
| >>
| > You probably couldn't tell the difference except that the 10k rpm
| > drive may be noisy.
|
| So basically the different advantages would even out and what remains is
the
| high price of 10K drives?
|
| Best Wishes
| Thomas
|
|
 >> Stay informed about: Fastest option 10K sata1 or 7.2k sata2? 

"Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed.RemoveThis@example.com> wrote in message
news:BGfdi.1426$W_6.1219@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 'Thomas Andersson' wrote:
> | So basically the different advantages would even out and what remains is
> the
> | high price of 10K drives?
> _____
>
> No.
>
> The bandwidth for SATA and SATA2 are both greater than the sequential data
> transfer speed of any current hard drive, so that will make little to no
> difference for you. In addition, 10K rpm hard drives have lower recording
> density, so the movement of data too and from a 10K rpm hard drive may
> actually be SLOWER than for a 7200 rpm hard drive of higher capacity and
> higher recording density. The advantages for the 10K rpm hard drive are
> faster random access (seek time is less - more money put into the seek
> mechanism) and the latency is less - the rotational speed is higher.
> Therefore the 10K rpm hard drive will access the first block in a sequence
> more quickly, but the subsequent sequential data transfer will probably be
> faster with the higher recording density 7200 rpm drive (if the recording
> density is greater by at least a factor of 10000/7200.) The best drive
> depends on the application; for file servers and transaction processing
> where small amounts of data are transfered to and from different locations
> on a drive a 10K drive is definitely the better choice. For transfering
> large chunks of sequential data, a high capacity, high recording density
> 7200 drive could be a better choice.
>
> It may be that for the use you posted about, a ~ $200 US 750 GByte 16
> MByte
> cache 7200 rpm SATA hard drive is a better choice than a ~ $200 US 150
> GByte
> 16 MByte cache 10K rpm SATA hard drive.
>
> Example specifications:
> Western Digital WD1500AHFD 10K rpm 150 GByte 16 MByte cache (~ $200 US)
> Form Factor: 3.5 inches
> SATA: 1.5 Gbits/sec
> Capacity: 150 GBytes
> Cache: 16 MBytes
> Heads: 4
> Latency: 2.99 ms
> Track-to-track seek: 0.4 ms
> Average seek: 5.2 ms
> Buffer/Disk data transfer (maximum sustained): 84 MBytes/sec
> Start/Stop cycles: 20,000 minimum
> Warranty: 5 years
> Power consumption (Read/Write): 10 Watts
> Power consumption (Standby): 2.66 Watts
> Accoustics:
> Idle Mode: 39 dBA
> Seek Mode 3: 46 dBA
>
> Western Digital WD7500AAKS 7200 rpm 750 GByte 16 MByte cache (~$200 US)
> Form Factor: 3.5 inches
> SATA: 3 Gbits/sec
> Capacity: 750 GBytes
> Cache: 16 MBytes
> Heads:
> Latency: 4.2 ms
> Track-to-track seek: 2 ms
> Average seek (write): 10.9 ms
> Buffer/Disk data transfer (maximum sustained): 122 MBytes/sec
> Start/Stop cycles (minimum): 50,000
> Warranty: 3 years
> Power consumption (Read/Write): 8.77 Watts
> Power consumption (Standby): 0.97 Watts
> Accoustics:
> Idle Mode: 28 dBA
> Seek Mode 0: 33 dBA
> Seek Mode 3: 29 dBA
>
>
>
> As you can see from the accoustic numbers, the WD1500AHFD is MUCH noiser
> than the WD7500AAKS, as 'Ed Medlin' suggested.
>
> But wait, there is another choice!
>
> Segate Savvio ST973451SS 15K rpm 76 GByte 16 MByte cache (~$450 US)
> Form Factor: 2.5 inches
> SATA: 3 Gbits/sec
> Capacity: 76 GBytes
> Cache: 16 MBytes
> Heads: 4
> Latency: 2 ms
> Average seek: 3.3 ms
> Bufer/Disk data transfer (maximum sustained): 112 MBytes/sec
> Start/Stop cycles (minimum):
> MTBF: 1,600,000 hours
> Warranty:
> Power Consumption (Read/Write): 8.2 Watts
> Power Consumption (Standby):
> Accoustics:
> Idle Mode: 31 dB
> Seek Mode 0:
> Seek Mode 3:
>
> Consider also using RAID.
>
> You can find a good article at
> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/04/02/the_best_in_enterprise_hard_dri.../index.
> comparing various enterprise hard drives.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
That Savvio would have to be a lot faster to warrant that price per MB/$
of storage..... 10MBytes/sec extra ??? I don't know about that one. I
haven't read the Tom's article yet, but I would expect that it is more of an
industrial application HDD than consumer grade.
As far as the 10k vs 7200 I have found that for my uses the 7200 rpm
drives in Raid-0 are better suited for my A/V work. I do not recommend a
Raid-0 array for storage of any critical data even though I have had very
few failures over the years and do backup regularly. I only store for
convenience and not anything I don't already have on CD/DVD or backed up on
my network, usually both. I have tried the Raptor 10k drives and the sound
they make is really irritating and ended up farming them off to my
brother...... His name is Mikey and he will use anything...
BTW, I haven't said much about the C2D E6600 project in awhile but it
seems that 3.2ghz is about it. I have had it up to the 3.4ghz area but have
problems in some programs even though all testing programs pass fine.
Raising the Vcore doesn't help any at all with this particular processor. I
get the same results on Auto that I get with any Vcore increase. I am still
having problems getting my memory up to any speed above 833mhz or so. I
wonder if you would mind listing the timings/voltage that you are using
just so I can compare them. I am sure that it is something I am probably
doing wrong here.


Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Fastest option 10K sata1 or 7.2k sata2?