Discussion in 'Storage & Backup' started by Chris Nolan, Aug 18, 2006.
I'm surprised they didn't pit the SAS drives against a U320 setup as well as the Raptors.
They completely thumped the Raptors.
Curious testing methodology, I'd be interested to see the raptor compared both on the LSI SAS controller (sata over sas) and on a dedicated sata controller to see how much overhead the SoS adds on
No RAID 5 support. Interesting. Wonder if they do RAID 0 + 1?
I'm dissapointed they didn't have a crack at 4 or 8 drive arrays there. It would be nice to see if one or other of the interfaces are better at large arrays. Or was the point of the review the drives and not the interface?
The 74GB Raptor is significantly slower than the 150GB Raptor, which is what should have been used for the test.
when do the 22k spindals hit?, my last 15k was an 18gb cheetah...great stuff, but these days a raptor would kill it :/
i have 2x 72gb 15k drives in Raid0 with 1GB cache on the 6i controller and they absolutely rock!, U320 drives thou and Oracle db, 40gb of it can you imagine the engineering in the 22k rpm drives? can't wait for them !
Fair enough then.
the Seagaten Cheeta 15K.4 (replaced by the 15K.5) is an obsolete model! The Raptors, depending on which generation they are, may very well be of the same generation.