True.Originally posted by lynx@31 July 2004 - 05:25
Sata drives in general are only slightly more expensive than their PATA equivalents, and that is probably simply because they haven't got as big a market share yet. But the Raptor's equivalent is a SCSI drive, and is consequently much more expensive than similar sized IDE drives.
When building the server for my brother both SATA and SCSI were considered.
SATA won out simply because of the cost...with the onboard SATA RAID capability of the NF7-S we didn't need a separate controller card ( not to mention Raptors were on sale at Newegg this month...).
@Angel,
The Raptors don't support SMART monitoring of the temps ( at least the 74GB version doesn't, the 36GB might...we'll see).
Mounted as they were in the server, heat wasn't an issue at all.
@all....
I don't think that artificial benchmarks are a very informative method of comparing the drives.
A quick Google search will reveal all the statistics you could hope for.
What I'm interested in a few simple tests to measure how useful the Raptor might be to the regular home user.
Stuff like "Does it boot noticably faster?" or something.
In other words, is it worth the extra bucks for the Raptor or is this just a case of bragging rights?
I'll be building the second server for my brother in the next few weeks.
As he will be out of the country for a month I'm hoping to play with it a bit before he returns.
Maybe I can set up a RAID 0 array with XP on it and see if striped set is a noticable improvement over a single Raptor.
Bookmarks