300gb (15,000 RPM) SAS vs.150gb x 2 Raptors RAID-0 (10,000 RPM) SATA

G

gramarye

Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
800
This is somewhat a continuation from this thread:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1258805

--------

After learning quite a bit from my previous thread, I've concluded that I'd save my 1 TB drive as an External Backup, as well as my 4 x 250gb SATA Drives in a RAID-5 array. Having these questions out of the way, I've decided to move on towards the primary drive of my latest (and hopefully) final build. (I'm also interested in an 8-Core Server/Workstation Motherboard.)

So, I have a few discounts towards Dell Small Business Accessories and am interested in the following 2 choices to serve as my Primary Drive:


3413681ju4.jpg


DELL OEM 300GB (15,000 RPM) SAS (Serial-Attached SCSI) Drive
*I'm aware that a SCSI/SAS Controller Card is necessary to operate this drive


3415789kd1.jpg


2 DELL OEM 160GB Raptors (10,000RPM) SATA Drive ~ WD1600ADFD in RAID-0
*I'm aware that RAID-0 is not-recommended and is the most unreliable RAID-array configuration

There aren't much Technical Specifications on the Dell website (like cache, and transfer speeds, etc). They supply some really general information like: "Device Type: Hard Drive, Interface: SAS or SATA, Type: Internal, Capacity: 300gb or 160gb Spindle Speed: 15000 RPM or 10000RPM"

Purposes:

Looking for Performance and Speed to go along with faster Rendering times (I understand this also strongly reflects on Processor and Graphics Card)

Previous Thread said:
This is kind of a side note, but in case it plays a significant factor, I primarily look forward to using either of these (or both) drives to have a good/fast/secure scratch disk. I'm constantly busied by assigned graphic design work load and use such applications as Adobe Flash, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, I also undertake a lot of Video Production work in my freelance hours as well. I strongly feel both needs a good scratch disk whether or not I choose to have an external or primary in the end.

*Applications I work with: Adobe Flash, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, Final Cut Suite, Safari, Opera, Firefox, IE (cause I have to), Fetch, CuteFTP, Occasionaly ProTools, I don't play Video Games.
Click to expand...


So, I'm interested in your thoughts and opinions about this situation/scenario, and what would be best recommended for the above criteria. Again, this is specifically for a Primary Drive, not a Secondary or any backup at all. Simply, the contents within would be for the Operating System and Applications.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to your replies. :D
 
[LYL]Homer;1031974677 said:
SAS will be faster.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if you can elaborate more on that, if not, I understand. I'll have to admit finding benchmarks on SAS drives are hard to come by. By the way, thanks for your reply, I really appreciate that, and it means a lot. :)
 
I know little about the rendering application that you use, but maybe its publisher has a recommendation w.r.t. I/O subsystem?
 
drizzt81 said:
I know little about the rendering application that you use, but maybe its publisher has a recommendation w.r.t. I/O subsystem?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I've heard of those, but if it's an external solution, I hear they're quite recommended, but it'd be limited to card bus bandwith for whatever output is used. I'd like to know more however, I'm interested.
 
SAS & SCSI drives can be slower for desktop use, remember these drives are designed for server use with small file requests randomly vs large transfers.
 
thebleepa has a point, but I was reasoning that the 15k SAS drive had a 5k rotational advantage plus only one drive that the controller has to deal with. The 2xRaptor setup isn't 20k of rotational speed, real world, and the access times will suffer a bit because of the RAID controller.

Probably could make the argument that a crummy SAS controller could be outdone by a great SATA RAID controller but that gets harder to prove.

What mobo or controller would each scenario be plugged into?
 
[LYL]Homer;1031976507 said:
thebleepa has a point, but I was reasoning that the 15k SAS drive had a 5k rotational advantage plus only one drive that the controller has to deal with. The 2xRaptor setup isn't 20k of rotational speed, real world, and the access times will suffer a bit because of the RAID controller.

Probably could make the argument that a crummy SAS controller could be outdone by a great SATA RAID controller but that gets harder to prove.

What mobo or controller would each scenario be plugged into?
Click to expand...

I'm considering this:
ATTO EXPRESSSAS H308
http://www.attotech.com/expressSASh308.html

Technical Highlights

* x8 PCIe host interface
* 8 internal ports in a low-profile form factor
* Outstanding performance with up to
3-Gb/sec per port
* SAS,SATA,SATA II connectivity
* Exclusive Advanced DATA Streaming
(ADS™) Technology
* Support for up 64 end devices
* User-friendly GUI based
configuration utility
* Driver support for Windows® , Linux and
Mac® OS X
* RoHS Compliant
* 2-year standard warranty

------

As for the motherboard, I'm still deciding on one. I want to be able to eventually run Eight cores, so that'd mean a Dual Socket J/771 for now.
 
AMD_RULES said:
SAS > Raptors
Click to expand...

Any more information you can share about this? or any other thoughts?

gramarye said:
I'm considering this:
ATTO EXPRESSSAS H308
http://www.attotech.com/expressSASh308.html

Technical Highlights

* x8 PCIe host interface
* 8 internal ports in a low-profile form factor
* Outstanding performance with up to
3-Gb/sec per port
* SAS,SATA,SATA II connectivity
* Exclusive Advanced DATA Streaming
(ADS™) Technology
* Support for up 64 end devices
* User-friendly GUI based
configuration utility
* Driver support for Windows® , Linux and
Mac® OS X
* RoHS Compliant
* 2-year standard warranty

------

As for the motherboard, I'm still deciding on one. I want to be able to eventually run Eight cores, so that'd mean a Dual Socket J/771 for now.
Click to expand...

For the above card, I believe there are 2-internal mini-SAS ports. And from what I've read it is possible to have 4 SATA Hard drives go into 1 SAS, or mini-SAS? I was planning to have one port go towards the 300gb SAS drive as my primary and the 2nd port to go towards my 4 Sata drives in a RAID-array. I'm wondering if this is possible. Thanks.
 
SAS will eat the raptors. Keep in mind Raid0 can even give you a loss of performance in desktop use and is unreliable.... where a SAS drive isn't. A proper SAS controller will also free up your system resources better whereas running dual raptors on the system board wont be as efficient.
 
gramarye said:
Any more information you can share about this? or any other thoughts?



For the above card, I believe there are 2-internal mini-SAS ports. And from what I've read it is possible to have 4 SATA Hard drives go into 1 SAS, or mini-SAS? I was planning to have one port go towards the 300gb SAS drive as my primary and the 2nd port to go towards my 4 Sata drives in a RAID-array. I'm wondering if this is possible. Thanks.
Click to expand...


You can mix and match SAS and SATA drives on a SAS controller. You can put 4 SATA/SAS drives on a SAS channel
 
gramarye said:
I'm not sure if I've heard of those, but if it's an external solution, I hear they're quite recommended, but it'd be limited to card bus bandwith for whatever output is used. I'd like to know more however, I'm interested.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could try benchmarking it yourself by looking at how STR affects your rendering times: If you can select a slow(er) DMA mode for the drive (say UDMA/ 33) and then run your app. Your access times will stay constant, but your STR will be limited to 33MiB/s.
 
Ockie said:
SAS will eat the raptors. Keep in mind Raid0 can even give you a loss of performance in desktop use and is unreliable.... where a SAS drive isn't. A proper SAS controller will also free up your system resources better whereas running dual raptors on the system board wont be as efficient.
Click to expand...

This is some great info. I think I've made my decision, and decided to go SAS and eliminate having 2-hard drives, and the possibility of having unrecoverable data (though this disk would only be used as my primary, and was planning to swap out) In the end, I will have something more efficient and reliable, and I believe the performance should come in as well.

Any recommended Brands? I found a Fujitsu, Hitachi, Seagate that had 15K Rpm and 300gb SAS. However I saw some that read 15.4K RPM, can someone help explain that? Is it simply just faster that 15.1K?


drizzt81 said:
Maybe you could try benchmarking it yourself by looking at how STR affects your rendering times: If you can select a slow(er) DMA mode for the drive (say UDMA/ 33) and then run your app. Your access times will stay constant, but your STR will be limited to 33MiB/s.
Click to expand...

STR.... :\ (I'm not sure if i know what that means)
All of this is new to me, But I'd like learn more about this...



Ockie said:
You can mix and match SAS and SATA drives on a SAS controller. You can put 4 SATA/SAS drives on a SAS channel
Click to expand...

This is great news. Would having the SAS > 4x SATA hard drive cables automatically put those 4 drive in a RAID-array? Or is that configured in the controller cards software or bios?


gramarye said:
I'm considering this:
ATTO EXPRESSSAS H308
http://www.attotech.com/expressSASh308.html

As for the motherboard, I'm still deciding on one. I want to be able to eventually run Eight cores, so that'd mean a Dual Socket J/771 for now.
Click to expand...

Now that I've confirmed from the above reply that I can mix and match SAS and SATA drives on a controller, I'll need to find out if this controller card is any good. Anyone heard of this one?

...Or maybe I can find Dual Socket 771/J motherboard that already has SAS outputs, that would eliminate the cost of the controller card.

Would having an internal controller card be at a disadvantage? For example, the transfer rates would be limited to the bus speed? Or having a SAS output on a motherboard wouldn't really make a difference vs. on a controller card?
 
gramarye said:
STR.... :\ (I'm not sure if i know what that means)
All of this is new to me, But I'd like learn more about this...
Click to expand...
sustained transfer rate: how fast your HDD can read (or write) a continuous chunk of data.

When the application requests data or wants to write data, the HDD has to seek to the location and then write/ read the data. Disregarding cache, the time needed for the request to complete is given by this equation:
Code: 
t_request = t_seek + t_data
t_data = size_of_request / transfer_rate

the RAID-0 array will likely have a higher STR, but greater seek time. The SAS drive has a smaller seek time, but less STR. The problem is that there are a lot of other things that will affect performance, such as head placement strategy, caching algorithms etc.
 
gramarye said:
Any recommended Brands? I found a Fujitsu, Hitachi, Seagate that had 15K Rpm and 300gb SAS. However I saw some that read 15.4K RPM, can someone help explain that? Is it simply just faster that 15.1K?
Click to expand...

I recommend looking at the Savvio/Cheetah drives. Since you are decking out with SAS, you might as well get the fastest out there. Use storagereview.com to get the latest and fastest. Also, another suggestion is make sure you get a 15k drive. Also be sure to get a 2.5" drive if you can (not really a big deal, but they are amazing in terms of efficiency and the space they can consume (4 of them can fit in a hot swap 5.25" bay or 8 in two 5.25" bays).


gramarye said:
This is great news. Would having the SAS > 4x SATA hard drive cables automatically put those 4 drive in a RAID-array? Or is that configured in the controller cards software or bios?
Click to expand...

You would have to assign those drives to the array... otherwise they will just show up JBOD style, or may not even show up at all depending on your controller configuration. Bottom line is that you have to make them part of an array or not.


gramarye said:
Now that I've confirmed from the above reply that I can mix and match SAS and SATA drives on a controller, I'll need to find out if this controller card is any good. Anyone heard of this one?
Click to expand...

You should look at Adaptec's Lineup. I just bought myself the 3405 and it seems like a great little controller (4 drives), they also make much larger ones. This one suits my needs but the reviews are amazing and the price is unbeatable.

Another approach you can take is buy a used Dell SAS card on ebay, would save you some money but you would gain some benefits (cost, features, etc)

gramarye said:
...Or maybe I can find Dual Socket 771/J motherboard that already has SAS outputs, that would eliminate the cost of the controller card.

Would having an internal controller card be at a disadvantage? For example, the transfer rates would be limited to the bus speed? Or having a SAS output on a motherboard wouldn't really make a difference vs. on a controller card?
Click to expand...

I would try and as much as possible (if you can) to get an on-board SAS solution. Reason being that it would be more tightly integrated, save you slot space, and is 100% compatible... and also just looks better. You shouldn't see any loss of performance.... but keep in mind, some stand alone controllers can have features that may interest you that the motherboard can't deliver... including the ability to replace the card, add backup batteries, add another card and "pair" them, etc.
 
On the Dell workstation in my sig I bought about 4 months ago the SAS 15K 73GB and 146GB drives that it came with as Dell OEM drives are Fujitsu MAX series 3.5" drives. I must admit that the drives feel incredibly fast. However I am using a 12GB chuck or RAM as a ramdrive for primary scratch disk use with the SAS drives as secondary scratch. Going to a ramdrive for scratch did make a massive difference in how Photoshop responds.
 
The only obvious solution here is to RAID0 two SAS drives. :p

With the MTBF of most server class drives, RAID0 SAS would kick arse - I'd already be there if they weren't so dang loud. And yes, they'd be much louder than my 3 RAID0 Raptors.
 
Ockie said:
I recommend looking at the Savvio/Cheetah drives. Since you are decking out with SAS, you might as well get the fastest out there. Use storagereview.com to get the latest and fastest. Also, another suggestion is make sure you get a 15k drive. Also be sure to get a 2.5" drive if you can (not really a big deal, but they are amazing in terms of efficiency and the space they can consume (4 of them can fit in a hot swap 5.25" bay or 8 in two 5.25" bays).
Click to expand...

I've been reading that the Savvio 2.5" are the fastest SAS drives around. It's interesting how 2.5" in SAS rises above 3.5" in SAS vs. 2.5" in SATA are still struggling with 5400 RPM (sometimes 7200 RPM), slower than the 3.5."



Have you heard about the Seagate Cheetah 15.6K's?
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/cheetah/cheetah_15k.6/

There should also be a 450gb model out as well.

Based on what they're marketing (which may not always be consistent), 15K.6 should be a lot better in performance and reliability compared to the 15K.5 (which is the one I was planning to purchase).

Seagate Website said:
Cheetah® 15K.6 Hard Drives
The sixth-generation Seagate® Cheetah® 15K.6 enterprise hard drive provides the highest sequential and transactional performance of any 3.5-inch drive in the enterprise market and delivers a 61 percent improvement in watts/GB at idle over the prior generation.

Utilizing second-generation perpendicular recording technology and capacities of 450, 300 and147 GB, the Cheetah 15K.6 drive provides the highest 3.5-inch reliability in the industry at 1.6 million hours MTBF (0.55 percent AFR), a choice of FC or SAS interfaces, and a limited 5-year warranty. The result is a star performer for mission-critical SAN, NAS, transactional processing and Internet applications.

Key Features and Benefits
- Second-generation perpendicular recording delivers up to 450-GB storage
- Unprecedented performance with a sustained data rate up to 164 MB/sec
- The industry’s highest 3.5-inch drive reliability at 1.6 million hours MTBF
- Advanced read/write technology drives an error rate of 1x10E-16
- PowerTrim® technology provides best-in-class IOPS/watt
- Integrated data integrity provisions protect against system miscompare errors
- Supports T10 end-to-end data protection for new system development
*Available with either a FC or a SAS interface
Click to expand...

You guys think I should wait on the 15K.6?

------------

Ockie said:
You should look at Adaptec's Lineup. I just bought myself the 3405 and it seems like a great little controller (4 drives), they also make much larger ones. This one suits my needs but the reviews are amazing and the price is unbeatable.

Another approach you can take is buy a used Dell SAS card on ebay, would save you some money but you would gain some benefits (cost, features, etc)

I would try and as much as possible (if you can) to get an on-board SAS solution. Reason being that it would be more tightly integrated, save you slot space, and is 100% compatible... and also just looks better. You shouldn't see any loss of performance.... but keep in mind, some stand alone controllers can have features that may interest you that the motherboard can't deliver... including the ability to replace the card, add backup batteries, add another card and "pair" them, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for all these great suggestions. One thing I'm considering, If I get a Mac Pro, all these adapters and controllers aren't compatible with Mac OS X. That's why I considered the Atto one above, I guess we'll see...

------------

drizzt81 said:
the RAID-0 array will likely have a higher STR, but greater seek time. The SAS drive has a smaller seek time, but less STR. The problem is that there are a lot of other things that will affect performance, such as head placement strategy, caching algorithms etc.
Click to expand...

So based on these algorithms, which route would you personally choose? At first it seemed like it was no contest between the Raptors RAID-0, meaning SAS hands down, but apparently the performance is still close enough to make this question valid?

----------

I've read somewhere having more cache would be a significant factor. Is that a true statement?

From the same source I've read about that fact, they advertised 2x Raptors in RAID shares a 32mb cache (from the 16m of each drive), I understand these are simple mathematical calculations, but wouldn't a 16mb cache drive, still be 16mb cache?

If all the above is correct, then would 32mb cache SATA > 16mb cache SAS?

Thanks for your time, these are excellent replies.
 
gramarye said:
I've been reading that the Savvio 2.5" are the fastest SAS drives around. It's interesting how 2.5" in SAS rises above 3.5" in SAS vs. 2.5" in SATA are still struggling with 5400 RPM (sometimes 7200 RPM), slower than the 3.5."
Click to expand...

I have not heard that, but I had read that most 15k rpm drives use 2.5" platters regardless of the outside dimension.

gramarye said:
So based on these algorithms, which route would you personally choose? At first it seemed like it was no contest between the Raptors RAID-0, meaning SAS hands down, but apparently the performance is still close enough to make this question valid?
Click to expand...

Have a look at this chart on Storagereview. If you assume that their methodology is correct, you will notice that in the single-user case the (single) Raptor beats the 15k rpm SAS drive. However this picture is reversed for a multi-user scenario.

I assume that the reason for this is that the Raptor's firmware is optimized for a desktop, i.e. single user while most SAS drives are optimized for multi-user setups, aka servers. I do not know what access pattern you software uses.

I cannot speak for other people, so I cannot say what their reasons for suggesting extreme superiority of SAS drives were. I am just trying to suggest a way for you to estimate the performance of the RAID-0 option.

gramarye said:
From the same source I've read about that fact, they advertised 2x Raptors in RAID shares a 32mb cache (from the 16m of each drive), I understand these are simple mathematical calculations, but wouldn't a 16mb cache drive, still be 16mb cache?

If all the above is correct, then would 32mb cache SATA > 16mb cache SAS?
Click to expand...
No. The size of cache does have an effect, but the caching algorithm is more important than size.
 
drizzt81 said:
I have not heard that, but I had read that most 15k rpm drives use 2.5" platters regardless of the outside dimension.



Have a look at this chart on Storagereview. If you assume that their methodology is correct, you will notice that in the single-user case the (single) Raptor beats the 15k rpm SAS drive. However this picture is reversed for a multi-user scenario.

I assume that the reason for this is that the Raptor's firmware is optimized for a desktop, i.e. single user while most SAS drives are optimized for multi-user setups, aka servers. I do not know what access pattern you software uses.

I cannot speak for other people, so I cannot say what their reasons for suggesting extreme superiority of SAS drives were. I am just trying to suggest a way for you to estimate the performance of the RAID-0 option.


No. The size of cache does have an effect, but the caching algorithm is more important than size.
Click to expand...

Now I feel like I should be leaning towards the raptors again. I'm starting to feel like, if there were a 300gb raptor, I would probably reconsider this topic.
 
drizzt81 said:
Have a look at this chart on Storagereview. If you assume that their methodology is correct, you will notice that in the single-user case the (single) Raptor beats the 15k rpm SAS drive. However this picture is reversed for a multi-user scenario.

I assume that the reason for this is that the Raptor's firmware is optimized for a desktop, i.e. single user while most SAS drives are optimized for multi-user setups, aka servers. I do not know what access pattern you software uses.

I cannot speak for other people, so I cannot say what their reasons for suggesting extreme superiority of SAS drives were. I am just trying to suggest a way for you to estimate the performance of the RAID-0 option.
Click to expand...
That's why I'm sticking with Raptors. Here is some information from the head guy at SR, Eugene.
http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=21621&view=findpost&p=221874

also, if you compare the numbers for the 2xRAID0 and 4xRAID0 Raptor 740GD setups from that graph to the results for the single Raptor 740GD from the performance database, you can get an idea of how much RAID0 helps.

office drive mark 2006
4xraid 110
2xraid 915
single 862

high-end drivemark 2006
4xraid 740
2xraid 650
single 640

farcry
4xraid 630
2xraid 675
single 833

the sims 2
4xraid 900
2xraid 870
single 833

wow
4xraid 500
2xraid 580
single 671
 
gramarye said:
Now I feel like I should be leaning towards the raptors again. I'm starting to feel like, if there were a 300gb raptor, I would probably reconsider this topic.
Click to expand...

Well, here are some threads over at SR about Photoshop drive setups. From your application list, it apears that PS is one of your target apps:

http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=26256&hl=photoshop
http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=25250&hl=photoshop

I think this post has a really good suggestion for you, since you already have a system and can `benchmark' your programs:
Why not just open perfmon, start a trace, and see exactly what PS is doing with the scratch disk so that you could make an educated purchasing/configuration decision?

Frank
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the extra readings and links guys.

Here are some snippets I found pertaining to this discussion:

From what I read in one of the Adobe PS developer blog they suggest a 64bit OS with 4GB of ram. PS is still 32bit and still can't address more than 2GB but the extra 2GB is used to cache the scratch disk (starting from CS2).

A RAID0 (stripe) for the scratch disk is the way to go (they clearly suggest it), but it's a NONO for data storage, project storage and so on. Unless you do daily backups.

I suggest you a cheap RAID0 of small drives for scratch disk and non-sensible informations.

Example:
keep your existing drive as storage
buy two decent (still pretty fast) 80/120GB (if you don't keep any other data on it you save on fragmentation, otherwise use the first partition for scratch, the second for data)
buy eventually a controller (with 64bit drivers) if it's not onboard in your machine
install xp 64 or vista 64.

This is AFAIK the best (but still cheap) conf for PS. I've just built something similar and it's pretty fast, especially considering I'm working with huge projects in the range of 500MB PSD.
Click to expand...


1: Max the Ram on your motherboard (up to 3-4GB)
2: Do not place the page file on the scratch disk
3: Keep it simple and have as few disks as possible.

A 2 disk config would be "Little Buddy & Big Daddy". This would entail a raptor for OS, Apps, and page file. The 2nd disk is any big old disk that contains the scratch and data files.

A three disk config would be 1 raptor for OS/Apps/page, 1 Raptor for scratch and source images, and a big old disk for destination files (possibly use for a page file if you are low on ram)

Ultimately, don't bother with the disks untill you have completed step 1. If you run out of ram, it really doesn't matter what your disk subsystem is like, your overall experience will suck. Fancy disk setups may mitigate the "suck", but it is best to try and avoid it in the 1st place.

You're bound to see a couple counter arguments to the RAM thing in this thread. Stuff like "the single largest windows process being limited to 2G ", "you can only use 3.5G on a 4G system", and stuff. While technically valid, they don't apply to your situation. In Photoshop, many "filters" spawn a new process. Any left over RAM serves as disk cache for the OS. The RAM is indirectly improving your performance.

Other recommendations....

1: Turn off real time virus scanning on the scratch disk!!!!
2: Turn off real time virus scanning on the scratch disk!!!!
3: Turn off real time virus scanning on the scratch disk!!!!
Click to expand...



3 gigs ram
I have Raptor for boot
Second Raptor for active files.
Third for scratch and storage
Big Daddy's for finished work and backups.
Click to expand...

This quite similar to my current setup, right now, except I share my Boot, Active files, and Scratch on the same disk (primary), and have an external backup for finished works, along with the 4gb and 8gb memory setups I have. So after I make the decision, all the multiple instances should be relieved by assigning each disk specifically what I decide on.

Reading reactions to the reivew around the net has been quite interesting.

It seems there remain, however, many anachronistic assertions that simply don't wash. Let's informally address a couple of them here:

the Raptor can't hold a candle to my 15K SCSI drive!!
Click to expand...

You're right, it can't... as long as you're usiing your 15K SCSI drive run, say, Oracle databases. But as a drive in a single user system? To boast of a 15K SCSI drive there is to brag about a tractor-trailer that's can haul 20 tons when others are discussing the speed and ride characteristics of sports cars. SCSI drives are designed for access patterns vastly different than even the heaviest of single-user loads.
Click to expand...


So like, an above poster mentioned before in this thread, SAS or SCSI drives aren't really meant for Single-user loads with multiple instances of programs? How about rendering? The biggest consideration of having a SAS as a primary drive came from an article I read about the new Mac Pro's shipping with a 300gb SAS option, which should have the best performance and configuration benefit for work related to my field.

If a SAS drive is not meant for being a Primary disk, they can certainly handle and withstand 24/7 operation...

Out of the recommended methods above, I was hoping to find more about SAS instead of just raptors, I learned quite a bit from my previous thread about raptors specifically. Which of the above suggestions would you guys choose?


How about instances for Video Production workstation more than Photoshop?
 
I have the benchmark of my single seagate 15K.5 SAS Drive 300GB Model. It will eat the raptor for lunch regarless of Raptor Raid levels.

If you are doing heavy IO and disk intensive tasks, or using high end application like CAD/CAM/Vid editing SAS is the only way to go. With a RAptor, your system will come to a crawl when the IO system is accessed heavily. Raptor drives are meant for gamer enthusiasts. You will not see Raptor in any serious workstations, they are all equiped with SCSI(older models) and SAS drives. Also, forget the raptor fanbois here flaming SAS drives because they can't bear to see their Raptors lose out. A SAS drive also have much more advanced caching algorithm and smarter firmware that will adjust its performance on the fly depending on workload.

Disregard the benchmark showing raptors beating SAS drives, they do not translate into real world performance. I bet no Raptor owners here can defrag your drive, do video encoding in the background and play games or use the system smoothly.

8MB Zone:
bench1jm7.jpg


32MB Zone:
bench2pg0.jpg
 
Thanks so much for this! This is absolutely great news since I just purchased my 300gb SAS 15K RPM drive today...Now I need to save up for a SAS Controller. I appreciate this marks and your feedback, everyones' actually, thank you.
 
I ran the same HD Tach bench on my 146GB 15K Fujitsu MAX SAS drive a few minutes ago. It's running on a Dell SAS 5i 256MB Raid Controller - I have one drive configured as standalone right now though so it's a good time for me to bench single drive performance.

HDT1.jpg

HDT2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Do you have the onboard cache enabled? Your burst speed should be much higher than that.

I can't wait to see your scores when your Raid 0 all the 4 drives haha ...
 
wasserkool said:
I have the benchmark of my single seagate 15K.5 SAS Drive 300GB Model. It will eat the raptor for lunch regarless of Raptor Raid levels.

If you are doing heavy IO and disk intensive tasks, or using high end application like CAD/CAM/Vid editing SAS is the only way to go. With a RAptor, your system will come to a crawl when the IO system is accessed heavily. Raptor drives are meant for gamer enthusiasts. You will not see Raptor in any serious workstations, they are all equiped with SCSI(older models) and SAS drives. Also, forget the raptor fanbois here flaming SAS drives because they can't bear to see their Raptors lose out. A SAS drive also have much more advanced caching algorithm and smarter firmware that will adjust its performance on the fly depending on workload.

Disregard the benchmark showing raptors beating SAS drives, they do not translate into real world performance. I bet no Raptor owners here can defrag your drive, do video encoding in the background and play games or use the system smoothly.

8MB Zone:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/50/bench1jm7.jpg[IMG]

32MB Zone:
[IMG]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3066/bench2pg0.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: I don't think you got 1 thing correct in all that
[url]http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=21621&view=findpost&p=221874[/url]
Click to expand...
 
So I think I might've made the wrong purchase:

SEAGATE CHEETAH T10
300GB 3.5" SAS Hard Drive
Serial Attached SCSI (SAS)
Capacity: 300GB
Performance: 10K
RPM: 15K
Interface: SAS 3Gb/s
Cache: 16 MBytes
Model Number: ST3300555SS

What is the difference between SPINDLE and RPM? I bought this with intentions to have a 15K RPM drive (15K.5 Cheetah), is that correct, or am I just freaking out? (< I really hope so...)

There is no product info on the ST3300555SS, via Seagate website, however, I believe it's one of those Dell Exclusive products. This is the next closest thing, and is what Ideally I was leaning towards:

Seagate Cheetah® 15K.5 SAS 3Gb/s 300-GB Hard Drive - ST3300655SS
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...987c0110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD&locale=en-US

The Cheetah® 15K.5 hard drive enables manageable tiered storage solutions without compromising performance or reliability. Cheetah 15K.5 drives deliver cost-effective solutions, allowing systems to keep up with increasing performance needs over a longer period of time.


The numbers are off by 1:

ST3300555SS
ST3300655SS


Should I be totally concerned? I'm starting to regret this purchase... :\


Pictures in comparison are somewhat along the lines of these:

ST3300555SS
6b2f1og7.jpg
a0c912so1.jpg
ST3300655SS
b5281bel5.jpg
 
That is odd "Performance 10K" - "RPM 15K"??? Is the label saying it's a 15K drive that has the performance of a 10K drive? :confused:
 
MixManSC said:
That is odd "Performance 10K" - "RPM 15K"??? Is the label saying it's a 15K drive that has the performance of a 10K drive? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well there is a SPINDLE speed and a RPM (Rotational), as well as a PERFORMANCE~ What's the difference? I hope someone here can break it down. Maybe there's more info on that part/model number. I don't think it's one of those variable RPM drives like the WD Greenpower...I'd like to know really bad, it's only 1 number off of the identified model in Seagate site (see above).
 
Do you guys happen to know what is the code number/pin number Seagate Cheetah SAS drives are specifically? (For example: SFF 8484?)

Mini SAS Cables Resource Sites:
1) http://www.cs-electronics.com/iSAS-cables-NEW.htm
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Attached_SCSI#Connectors

I plan to use this host storage adapter:
ATTO EXPRESSSAS H308: http://www.attotech.com/expressSASh308.html
A PDF: http://www.attotech.com/software/files/techpdfs/TechSheet_ESASH308.pdf

It has 2-internal Mini-SAS ports. I just want to confirm if I can (asking in more specific terms) perform something like this:

PORT-1 = 1x Mini-SAS [SFF 8087] to 1x SAS (Seagate Cheetah 15K.5) < Primary
PORT-2 = 1x Mini-SAS [SFF 8087] to 4x SATA (250gb Maxtor Diamondmax Plus) < Secondary


Basically something like this:

STORAGE ADPATER (Host):
atto04ayi4.jpg


PORT 1 (Target):
36cktclearlfy5.jpg
>
rdmultilaneclearravj5.jpg
>
c9501kz2.jpg



PORT 2 (Target):
jpc36cktbluelub4.jpg
>
isas7prightzm6.jpg
> 1)
maxtorss5nt0.jpg
2)
maxtorss5nt0.jpg
3)
maxtorss5nt0.jpg
4)
maxtorss5nt0.jpg



Do you guys think my storage adapter (above) would come with any cables?
If not, you guys know any good places to recommend me to find these cables?


EDIT: This diagram I attempted ended up looking extremely horrible, hopefully it's enough to explain what I'm trying to ask for. It's also early in the morning, and I have yet to sleep. Thanks for the help guys, I really do appreciate all this.

EDIT 2: Looks like those Maxtor DiamondPlus drives are ATA/IDE, but you guys understand the jist of it, I'm off to bed. :\
 
I don't know if this has changed recently, but I don't think there are > 73G 15k drives in 2.5. If someone knows of one availble let me know, but this might not work for the OP.
 
Robstar said:
I don't know if this has changed recently, but I don't think there are > 73G 15k drives in 2.5. If someone knows of one availble let me know, but this might not work for the OP.
Click to expand...

This is a 300gb Seagate Cheetah 15K.5, a 3.5" SAS Hard Drive, not a Savvio that is 2.5", I hope I'm correct...But I do understand that 2.5" are taking over the market in these specifics, apparently (?)
 
So I've spent some time updating the hideous diagram I approached a few nights ago, I hope this one is better:

configid4.jpg


Anyone had experience with this method? Would the Primary SAS Drive be bootable if I configured it?
 
gramarye said:
configid4.jpg


Anyone had experience with this method? Would the Primary SAS Drive be bootable if I configured it?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the connector on the SAS drive is not an SFF-8484, so that cable won't work for you. What you need in that case is an SFF-8482 connector, but it's different than the SATA one since it needs a notch for the second SAS port on the hard drive. ( see here: http://www.cs-electronics.com/images/img061906/large/Quad-Blk-Drive-R.jpg ). Alternatively, you can use the same cable you selected for the SATA drives and use a T-Card like on this page: http://www.cs-electronics.com/sas-adapters.htm

I'm not familiar with that controller, but if it advertises a boot BIOS, then you shouldn't have a problem booting from the SAS drive (except there may be some weird motherboards out there that don't operate correctly with this, so check into it for your specific one).
 
UICompE02 said:
Unfortunately the connector on the SAS drive is not an SFF-8484, so that cable won't work for you. What you need in that case is an SFF-8482 connector, but it's different than the SATA one since it needs a notch for the second SAS port on the hard drive. ( see here: http://www.cs-electronics.com/images/img061906/large/Quad-Blk-Drive-R.jpg ). Alternatively, you can use the same cable you selected for the SATA drives and use a T-Card like on this page: http://www.cs-electronics.com/sas-adapters.htm

I'm not familiar with that controller, but if it advertises a boot BIOS, then you shouldn't have a problem booting from the SAS drive (except there may be some weird motherboards out there that don't operate correctly with this, so check into it for your specific one).
Click to expand...

Thank you UICompE02, you've answered all my questions and solved quite a bit of my worries, and I'm glad you corrected me on the SFF 8482, since I was not too sure myself, plus you saved me from buying the wrong cable. Now i'm deciding between two cards:

atto04ayi4.jpg


ATTO ExpressSAS H308: http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr3520.htm
$300

rr3520cardfg4.jpg


Highpoint RocketRAID 3520: http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr3520.htm
$420

They're generally the same, well close in specifications I believe (? I may be wrong), both run at x8 PCIe bus and have 1-internal miniSAS ports.

One key factor is that the more expensive one, the Highpoint RocketRAID 3520, comes with cables, while the other one does not. These miniSAS cables come with a price however, and aren't too cheap to obtain, and I'm not a big fan of purchasing 3rd-party brand compliant to the hardware. I'd rather having matching cables to hardware just for compatibility issues.


Do you happen to know if both these cables are the same?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ShowI...ntel+2nd+Generation+PCI-Express+I/O+Processor

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You guys want to help me out on deciding on one, or which may be a better performer? There are practically no reviews on these cards. I think, regardless of the PCI Bus since they're both at x8, I believe these drives are bottlenecked at 3/gbs from the Hard Drives.(?)



*EDIT:* I found this aweomse RAID Calculator, it's fun at lesat: http://www.ibeast.com/content/tools/RaidCalc/RaidCalc.asp
 
I suggest you go buy a LSI SAS 8344ELP controller. LSI is a very reputable name in the SAS / SCSI industry. That controller has 128MB of onboard cache and the retail kit comes with cable ( 4 connectors ) that is compatible with both SAS and SATA drives.

There is a few for sale here:
http://search.ebay.com/search/searc...ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=1&fsoo=1

Make sure you ask them if it comes with cables, as some sellers are selling the bare OEM card.
 
Be careful, the Highpoint RocketRAID 3520 is only a SATA controller. You will not be able to run a SAS drive with that controller.

I'd also recommend an LSI controller. If you need eight internal ports, the 8308ELP would be a better choice than the 8344 as wasserkool suggests.

(in the interest of full disclosure -- I'm biased towards LSI controllers as I'm a member of LSI's SAS controller hardware validation team...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top