600GB Velociraptor

[LunarMist]

600GB WD 10K.

Meh.

 

[ddrueding]

About what I'd expect. Still not listed on Newegg...

 

[Stereodude]

I like how the 600GB version is only $30 more than the 450GB one. ($329 vs $299) 10% more for 33% more capacity. Who's going to buy the 450GB version?

 

[LunarMist]

I like how the 600GB version is only $30 more than the 450GB one. ($329 vs $299) 10% more for 33% more capacity. Who's going to buy the 450GB version?

I know someone that might.

 

[Mercutio]

I'd rather store my data on $25 Chinese knock-off pen drives.

 

[ddrueding]

I'd rather store my data on $25 Chinese knock-off pen drives.

lol

 

[Stereodude]

I'd rather store my data on $25 Chinese knock-off pen drives.

I think it remains to be seen if you'll even have the ability to store any data on that $25 knock-off pen drive. :rotfl:

 

[Mercutio]

... as opposed to the unflinching certainty of a WD drive dying...

 

[udaman]

I'd rather store my data on $25 Chinese knock-off pen drives.

...

or one of these when they ship Merc

 

[LunarMist]

... as opposed to the unflinching certainty of a WD drive dying...

Well, maybe it will die eventually. My 300GB Velociraptor from the first month of production is still in use, though not by me.

 

[sechs]

Seriously, this seems like a product without a market.

Need space? Buy a 1TB cheapie -- maybe even just 5400RPM, to save more.

Need speed? Buy an SSD.

 

[LunarMist]

I thought they were for low-end servers that utilize 2.5" drives in RAID 5 or 6.

 

[ddrueding]

There is a space between, though increasing performance of 7.2k drives and decreasing cost of SSDs is putting the squeeze on more each day. I was considering using them for the low-requirement VMs and the more demanding file servers.

 

[Pradeep]

I thought they were for low-end servers that utilize 2.5" drives in RAID 5 or 6.

Yup, a cheaper alternative to 10K SAS drives.

 

[sechs]

Yup, a cheaper alternative to 10K SAS drives.

As long as you don't use TCO, yes.

 

[ddrueding]

There is a very narrow band where TCO can justify SAS architecture these days. Otherwise, SATA (either 7.2k or SSD or...raptor) rules the day.

Unless you believe that SAS drives are inherently more reliable? Not in my experience.

 

[sechs]

I think that's because, at a point, your SATA infrastructure is SAS infrastructure.

On the othe rhand, there's no such thing as a reliable Western Digital drive. For data storage, at least.