Advice Please: The Importance of Hard Drive RPMs

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
to consider when purchasing a hard drive?

Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
max. full seek time?

I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
these other respects.

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
89 answers Last reply
More about advice please importance hard drive rpms
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Darren Harris" <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote...
    > Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    > to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >
    > Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    > max. full seek time?
    >
    > I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    > these other respects.

    Spindle speed will drive the limits of seek and access times. You'll
    probably find a significant improvement with speed when you compare groups
    of "equivalent" drives with 5400, 7200, 10K, and 15K RPM speeds.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Darren Harris wrote:

    > Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    > to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >
    > Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    > max. full seek time?
    >
    > I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    > these other respects.
    >
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.

    For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:21:58 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

    > Darren Harris wrote:
    >
    >> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    >> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >> max. full seek time?
    >> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    >> these other respects.
    >> Thanks a lot.
    >> Darren Harris
    >> Staten Island, New York.
    >
    > For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    > so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    > will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.


    Unless you've got bucket loads of memory, your OS is gonna be using a swap
    file of some kind with reasonable regularity. Disk speed will make a
    fairly large difference here. In any standard desktop system I'd go for a
    7200 rpm drive, you got a large budget and want a fast system, get a 10k
    raptor.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Stephen Austin wrote:

    > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:21:58 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >
    >> Darren Harris wrote:
    >>
    >>> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    >>> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >>> max. full seek time?
    >>> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    >>> these other respects.
    >>> Thanks a lot.
    >>> Darren Harris
    >>> Staten Island, New York.
    >>
    >>
    >> For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    >> so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    >> will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    >
    >
    >
    > Unless you've got bucket loads of memory, your OS is gonna be using a
    > swap file of some kind with reasonable regularity. Disk speed will make
    > a fairly large difference here. In any standard desktop system I'd go
    > for a 7200 rpm drive, you got a large budget and want a fast system,
    > get a 10k raptor.

    There's no excuse for not having "bucket loads of memory" with memory
    prices as they are today. If your system does much swapping, it's going
    to be hopelessly slow no matter what drive you use.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Please people, show some restraint and learn to ignore this TROLL.
    This is another very obvious troll question.

    "Darren Harris" <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message news:9437a27c.0408181042.140392b8@posting.google.com
    > Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    > to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >
    > Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    > max. full seek time?
    >
    > I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    > these other respects.
    >
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:25:00 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

    > Stephen Austin wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:21:58 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Darren Harris wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    >>>> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>>> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >>>> max. full seek time?
    >>>> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    >>>> these other respects.
    >>>> Thanks a lot.
    >>>> Darren Harris
    >>>> Staten Island, New York.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    >>> so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    >>> will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    >> Unless you've got bucket loads of memory, your OS is gonna be using
    >> a swap file of some kind with reasonable regularity. Disk speed will
    >> make a fairly large difference here. In any standard desktop system
    >> I'd go for a 7200 rpm drive, you got a large budget and want a fast
    >> system, get a 10k raptor.
    >
    > There's no excuse for not having "bucket loads of memory" with memory
    > prices as they are today. If your system does much swapping, it's going
    > to be hopelessly slow no matter what drive you use.


    Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks,
    but in day to day computer usage.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Is this true always?
    "Stephen Austin" <nospam@spam-me.com> wrote in message
    news:opscx5orlkjwoli1@whoosh...
    > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:25:00 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >
    > > Stephen Austin wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:21:58 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Darren Harris wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    > >>>> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    > >>>> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    > >>>> max. full seek time?
    > >>>> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ
    in
    > >>>> these other respects.
    > >>>> Thanks a lot.
    > >>>> Darren Harris
    > >>>> Staten Island, New York.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    > >>> so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    > >>> will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    > >> Unless you've got bucket loads of memory, your OS is gonna be using
    > >> a swap file of some kind with reasonable regularity. Disk speed will
    > >> make a fairly large difference here. In any standard desktop system
    > >> I'd go for a 7200 rpm drive, you got a large budget and want a fast
    > >> system, get a 10k raptor.
    > >
    > > There's no excuse for not having "bucket loads of memory" with memory
    > > prices as they are today. If your system does much swapping, it's going
    > > to be hopelessly slow no matter what drive you use.
    >
    >
    > Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    > noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks,
    > but in day to day computer usage.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Stephen Austin wrote:

    > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:25:00 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >
    >> Stephen Austin wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:21:58 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Darren Harris wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    >>>>> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>>>> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >>>>> max. full seek time?
    >>>>> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    >>>>> these other respects.
    >>>>> Thanks a lot.
    >>>>> Darren Harris
    >>>>> Staten Island, New York.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    >>>> so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    >>>> will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    >>>
    >>> Unless you've got bucket loads of memory, your OS is gonna be
    >>> using a swap file of some kind with reasonable regularity. Disk
    >>> speed will make a fairly large difference here. In any standard
    >>> desktop system I'd go for a 7200 rpm drive, you got a large budget
    >>> and want a fast system, get a 10k raptor.
    >>
    >>
    >> There's no excuse for not having "bucket loads of memory" with memory
    >> prices as they are today. If your system does much swapping, it's going
    >> to be hopelessly slow no matter what drive you use.
    >
    >
    >
    > Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    > noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive
    > benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.

    I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the
    Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video
    editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID.
    There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    It is true in the general case. There may be exceptions, but I can't think
    of any off hand...

    "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote...
    > Is this true always?
    >
    >> Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    >> noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks,
    >> but in day to day computer usage.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John R Weiss wrote:

    > It is true in the general case. There may be exceptions, but I can't think
    > of any off hand...
    >

    Many of the office type tasks here (e.g. word processing, Web browsing,
    even listening to music) get done on devices that don't even HAVE local
    hard drives. And the compute server to which they attach just has small
    drives for booting its OS and for swap. So the disk drives the user
    devices actually access are a couple of ethernet links away. Even the
    file server has what you'd probably consider slow drives (but it has
    lots of RAM for buffering). And it all works plenty fast -- probably a
    lot faster than you're accustomed to.

    Of course, if you just have one (truly "personal") computer, it'll have
    a disk attached.

    But I think for many people, disk drive speed is pretty low on the list
    of things on which they should be spending money.

    And yes, I know (for those of you reading headers) that the machine at
    which I'm sitting is the exception to the setup I've described; that's
    an accident of history.

    > "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote...
    >
    >>Is this true always?
    >>
    >>
    >>>Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    >>>noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks,
    >>>but in day to day computer usage.
    >
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Stephen Austin wrote:
    > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:21:58 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
    >
    >> Darren Harris wrote:
    >>
    >>> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    >>> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >>> max. full seek time?
    >>> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    >>> these other respects.
    >>> Thanks a lot.
    >>> Darren Harris
    >>> Staten Island, New York.
    >>
    >>
    >> For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    >> so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    >> will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    >
    >
    >
    > Unless you've got bucket loads of memory, your OS is gonna be using a
    > swap file of some kind with reasonable regularity. Disk speed will make
    > a fairly large difference here. In any standard desktop system I'd go
    > for a 7200 rpm drive, you got a large budget and want a fast system,
    > get a 10k raptor.

    Actually, I think a 15,000 RPM IBM disk would be good, even if it is not
    as large as you would like. Take a look at the "DISK" light on your
    machine. If it is on, your processor is idle and the disk is the
    bottleneck.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Harddrive spindle speed is the MOST important factor regarding the access
    and transfer speeds of the drive. All of the other specs are at least
    partially dependent on it.

    --
    DaveW


    "Darren Harris" <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    news:9437a27c.0408181042.140392b8@posting.google.com...
    > Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    > to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >
    > Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    > max. full seek time?
    >
    > I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    > these other respects.
    >
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Makes little difference unless


    Your a benchmark watcher

    your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a
    regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed

    Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give
    you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE
    controller

    If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots
    of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability,
    warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel
    that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price

    all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where


    "Darren Harris" <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    news:9437a27c.0408181042.140392b8@posting.google.com...
    > Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important
    factor
    > to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >
    > Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    > max. full seek time?
    >
    > I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ
    in
    > these other respects.
    >
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:21:58 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    wrote:

    >Darren Harris wrote:
    >
    >> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    >> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>
    >> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >> max. full seek time?
    >>
    >> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    >> these other respects.
    >>
    >> Thanks a lot.
    >>
    >> Darren Harris
    >> Staten Island, New York.
    >
    >For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    >so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    >will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.

    Nonsense, everything the system is running is loaded from HDD,
    and the speed is directly effected by speed of that hard drive.
    A Celeron 800 with a WD Raptor HDD will feel faster for everday
    use than a P4 3.2GHz with a budget-grade 40GB HDD.

    Nothing wrong with choosing cheapest GB/$ for mass storage, but
    it cripples a system to use such drives as primary app or OS
    drive.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:05:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    wrote:

    >John R Weiss wrote:
    >
    >> It is true in the general case. There may be exceptions, but I can't think
    >> of any off hand...
    >>
    >
    >Many of the office type tasks here (e.g. word processing, Web browsing,
    >even listening to music) get done on devices that don't even HAVE local
    >hard drives. And the compute server to which they attach just has small
    >drives for booting its OS and for swap. So the disk drives the user
    >devices actually access are a couple of ethernet links away. Even the
    >file server has what you'd probably consider slow drives (but it has
    >lots of RAM for buffering). And it all works plenty fast -- probably a
    >lot faster than you're accustomed to.

    You must be on crack. It is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MUCH slower that
    anyone with semi-modern gear is accustomed to. Even GbE on a PC
    is slower than budget local storage HDD. Server-side apps are a
    logistic solution, performance be damned.


    >
    >Of course, if you just have one (truly "personal") computer, it'll have
    >a disk attached.
    >
    >But I think for many people, disk drive speed is pretty low on the list
    >of things on which they should be spending money.


    That's why some people buy newer computer then soon feel it isn't
    much faster, because they didn't significantly improve the
    bottleneck to their use, which is often the HDD.

    HDD speed is one of the most profound impacts on everyday tasks.
    Sure the system must have ample memory, but that's a given for
    any but the most budget-constrained of new PCs or most demanding
    users.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    wrote:


    >> Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    >> noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive
    >> benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >
    >I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the
    >Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video
    >editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID.
    >There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).

    Clueless.

    Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this
    cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from
    defaults.

    The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A)
    Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so
    files are never flushed from this cache.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    >>
    >>For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    >>so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    >>will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    >
    >
    > Nonsense, everything the system is running is loaded from HDD,
    > and the speed is directly effected by speed of that hard drive.
    > A Celeron 800 with a WD Raptor HDD will feel faster for everday
    > use than a P4 3.2GHz with a budget-grade 40GB HDD.
    >
    > Nothing wrong with choosing cheapest GB/$ for mass storage, but
    > it cripples a system to use such drives as primary app or OS
    > drive.

    I second that. Think about how much disk access Windows XP does just
    to log you off the computer and save settings. Some people's profiles
    are many megabytes, and Windows is just slow, so having a fast HDD
    makes things much smoother. I don't think I could live without my 2x
    Raid-0 10K Raptors. I would get a laptop, but I can't stand their
    measly 4200rpm drives (on some). Maybe next I'll get a pair of 15k
    scsi drives...
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:<2oib9kFajce8U1@uni-berlin.de>...
    > Please people, show some restraint and learn to ignore this TROLL.
    > This is another very obvious troll question.

    Hey moron. Your immature post only demonstrated that *you* are the
    troll. Things were fine until you showed up.

    Now go harass someone else. There are adults here, and I am tired of
    you starting trouble whenever I post.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:21:58 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Darren Harris wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    >>>to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>>
    >>>Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >>>max. full seek time?
    >>>
    >>>I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    >>>these other respects.
    >>>
    >>>Thanks a lot.
    >>>
    >>>Darren Harris
    >>>Staten Island, New York.
    >>
    >>For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    >>so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    >>will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    >
    >
    > Nonsense, everything the system is running is loaded from HDD,
    > and the speed is directly effected by speed of that hard drive.
    > A Celeron 800 with a WD Raptor HDD will feel faster for everday
    > use than a P4 3.2GHz with a budget-grade 40GB HDD.
    >
    > Nothing wrong with choosing cheapest GB/$ for mass storage, but
    > it cripples a system to use such drives as primary app or OS
    > drive.

    I disagree. If you spend all day browsing and word processing, you
    load your browser and word processor once in the morning, and once
    they're open then opening them isn't any longer an issue (unless
    your machine crashes a lot -- but that's not usually the disk's fault).

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:05:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>John R Weiss wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>It is true in the general case. There may be exceptions, but I can't think
    >>>of any off hand...
    >>>
    >>
    >>Many of the office type tasks here (e.g. word processing, Web browsing,
    >>even listening to music) get done on devices that don't even HAVE local
    >>hard drives. And the compute server to which they attach just has small
    >>drives for booting its OS and for swap. So the disk drives the user
    >>devices actually access are a couple of ethernet links away. Even the
    >>file server has what you'd probably consider slow drives (but it has
    >>lots of RAM for buffering). And it all works plenty fast -- probably a
    >>lot faster than you're accustomed to.
    >
    >
    > You must be on crack. It is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MUCH slower that
    > anyone with semi-modern gear is accustomed to. Even GbE on a PC
    > is slower than budget local storage HDD. Server-side apps are a
    > logistic solution, performance be damned.
    >

    You're just pulling things out of your *ss. I'm telling you about
    actual experience.
    >
    >
    >>Of course, if you just have one (truly "personal") computer, it'll have
    >>a disk attached.
    >>
    >>But I think for many people, disk drive speed is pretty low on the list
    >>of things on which they should be spending money.
    >
    >
    >
    > That's why some people buy newer computer then soon feel it isn't
    > much faster, because they didn't significantly improve the
    > bottleneck to their use, which is often the HDD.

    Not in my experience for typical office tasks in a properly
    configured system.

    >
    > HDD speed is one of the most profound impacts on everyday tasks.
    > Sure the system must have ample memory, but that's a given for
    > any but the most budget-constrained of new PCs or most demanding
    > users.


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>>Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    >>>noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive
    >>>benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >>
    >>I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the
    >>Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video
    >>editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID.
    >>There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).
    >
    >
    > Clueless.
    >
    > Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this
    > cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from
    > defaults.
    >
    > The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A)
    > Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so
    > files are never flushed from this cache.

    I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's
    on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly
    ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:
    > kony wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    >>>> noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive
    >>>> benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the
    >>> Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video
    >>> editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID.
    >>> There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Clueless.
    >>
    >> Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this
    >> cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from
    >> defaults.
    >>
    >> The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A)
    >> Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so
    >> files are never flushed from this cache.
    >
    >
    > I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's
    > on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly
    > ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit.
    >

    Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard drive
    to RAM without flashing the LED.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Shailesh Humbad wrote:

    >>>
    >>> For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    >>> so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    >>> will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Nonsense, everything the system is running is loaded from HDD,
    >> and the speed is directly effected by speed of that hard drive.
    >> A Celeron 800 with a WD Raptor HDD will feel faster for everday
    >> use than a P4 3.2GHz with a budget-grade 40GB HDD.
    >>
    >> Nothing wrong with choosing cheapest GB/$ for mass storage, but
    >> it cripples a system to use such drives as primary app or OS
    >> drive.
    >
    >
    > I second that. Think about how much disk access Windows XP does just to
    > log you off the computer and save settings. Some people's profiles are
    > many megabytes, and Windows is just slow, so having a fast HDD makes
    > things much smoother. I don't think I could live without my 2x Raid-0
    > 10K Raptors. I would get a laptop, but I can't stand their measly
    > 4200rpm drives (on some). Maybe next I'll get a pair of 15k scsi drives...

    How many times a day do you log on and off, and how many seconds does
    that represent?

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    the difference between a 5400 and a 7200 is noticable even on a desktop

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:4123AC57.7000007@prodigy.net...
    > Darren Harris wrote:
    >
    >> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    >> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>
    >> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >> max. full seek time?
    >>
    >> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    >> these other respects.
    >>
    >> Thanks a lot.
    >>
    >> Darren Harris
    >> Staten Island, New York.
    >
    > For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    > so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    > will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    >
    > --
    > The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    > minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:

    > CJT wrote:
    >
    >> kony wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    >>>>> noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive
    >>>>> benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse
    >>>> the
    >>>> Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of
    >>>> video
    >>>> editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID.
    >>>> There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Clueless.
    >>>
    >>> Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this
    >>> cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from
    >>> defaults.
    >>>
    >>> The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A)
    >>> Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so
    >>> files are never flushed from this cache.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's
    >> on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly
    >> ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit.
    >>
    >
    > Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard
    > drive to RAM without flashing the LED.
    >

    No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of
    the time they spend sitting in front of the computer.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >> CJT wrote:
    >>
    >>> kony wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    >>>>>> noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive
    >>>>>> benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just
    >>>>> browse the
    >>>>> Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of
    >>>>> video
    >>>>> editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID.
    >>>>> There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Clueless.
    >>>>
    >>>> Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this
    >>>> cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from
    >>>> defaults.
    >>>>
    >>>> The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A)
    >>>> Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so
    >>>> files are never flushed from this cache.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's
    >>> on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly
    >>> ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard
    >> drive to RAM without flashing the LED.
    >>
    >
    > No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of
    > the time they spend sitting in front of the computer.
    >

    Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but the
    reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then leave it
    there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently, pound out
    documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of users with
    applications going up and down rather often and even a 'single' gamer
    doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day. And it really
    doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a 'small percentage'
    of the total time because what a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how
    long it takes between 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it.

    And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things simultaneously
    and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc.

    I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15 gig
    5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply faster.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Monster wrote:

    > the difference between a 5400 and a 7200 is noticable even on a desktop

    Yeah -- they tend to generate more heat.

    >
    > "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:4123AC57.7000007@prodigy.net...
    >
    >>Darren Harris wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important factor
    >>>to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>>
    >>>Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >>>max. full seek time?
    >>>
    >>>I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ in
    >>>these other respects.
    >>>
    >>>Thanks a lot.
    >>>
    >>>Darren Harris
    >>>Staten Island, New York.
    >>
    >>For most people, desktop hard drives are hardly ever accessed anyway,
    >>so speed is pretty irrelevant. Unless you're setting up a server that
    >>will be accessed by many, go for the cheapest drive per byte stored.
    >>
    >>--
    >>The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    >>minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
    >
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:48:06 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    wrote:


    >> You must be on crack. It is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MUCH slower that
    >> anyone with semi-modern gear is accustomed to. Even GbE on a PC
    >> is slower than budget local storage HDD. Server-side apps are a
    >> logistic solution, performance be damned.
    >>
    >
    >You're just pulling things out of your *ss. I'm telling you about
    >actual experience.


    Oops, I guess I forgot that I've never used a computer before,
    LOL.


    >>
    >>
    >>>Of course, if you just have one (truly "personal") computer, it'll have
    >>>a disk attached.
    >>>
    >>>But I think for many people, disk drive speed is pretty low on the list
    >>>of things on which they should be spending money.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> That's why some people buy newer computer then soon feel it isn't
    >> much faster, because they didn't significantly improve the
    >> bottleneck to their use, which is often the HDD.
    >
    >Not in my experience for typical office tasks in a properly
    >configured system.

    There is no such thing as "properly configured" that will change
    the fact that data I/O is significantly slower over a LAN,
    compared to any modern HDD. No grand theory changes that, all
    you have is additional overhead in the already-slowest part of a
    system, at least for these light tasks.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:45:55 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    wrote:


    >> Nonsense, everything the system is running is loaded from HDD,
    >> and the speed is directly effected by speed of that hard drive.
    >> A Celeron 800 with a WD Raptor HDD will feel faster for everday
    >> use than a P4 3.2GHz with a budget-grade 40GB HDD.
    >>
    >> Nothing wrong with choosing cheapest GB/$ for mass storage, but
    >> it cripples a system to use such drives as primary app or OS
    >> drive.
    >
    >I disagree. If you spend all day browsing and word processing, you
    >load your browser and word processor once in the morning, and once
    >they're open then opening them isn't any longer an issue (unless
    >your machine crashes a lot -- but that's not usually the disk's fault).

    I suppose you're just a troll, since I already told you that the
    browser caches all those files to the HDD when "browsing".

    No matter how much you disagree, time and time again people
    everywhere notice the difference between an old/slow HDD and
    something modern/fast, not to mention benchmarks. A lot of
    memory will reduce need for HDD access, but the two are
    complimentary storage, not one a replacement for the other.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:48:06 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>>You must be on crack. It is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MUCH slower that
    >>>anyone with semi-modern gear is accustomed to. Even GbE on a PC
    >>>is slower than budget local storage HDD. Server-side apps are a
    >>>logistic solution, performance be damned.
    >>>
    >>
    >>You're just pulling things out of your *ss. I'm telling you about
    >>actual experience.
    >
    >
    >
    > Oops, I guess I forgot that I've never used a computer before,
    > LOL.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>>Of course, if you just have one (truly "personal") computer, it'll have
    >>>>a disk attached.
    >>>>
    >>>>But I think for many people, disk drive speed is pretty low on the list
    >>>>of things on which they should be spending money.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>That's why some people buy newer computer then soon feel it isn't
    >>>much faster, because they didn't significantly improve the
    >>>bottleneck to their use, which is often the HDD.
    >>
    >>Not in my experience for typical office tasks in a properly
    >>configured system.
    >
    >
    > There is no such thing as "properly configured" that will change
    > the fact that data I/O is significantly slower over a LAN,
    > compared to any modern HDD. No grand theory changes that, all
    > you have is additional overhead in the already-slowest part of a
    > system, at least for these light tasks.
    >
    >
    >
    The nice thing about I/O is that not much of it is needed for
    a typical user. It's easy enough to judge for yourself -- just
    watch your disk activity light and see what fraction of the time
    it's on. When that LED is not lit, it doesn't make a bit of
    difference how fast the disk is spinning, or even if it's spinning
    at all.

    If you're doing video editing, or some games, you will benefit
    from a fast disk. If you're browsing the Web, listening to music,
    word processing, or using a spreadsheet, you probably aren't
    hitting the disk much, so the number of seconds per day spent
    waiting for the disk is probably quite small.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:
    <snip>
    > >
    > > Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very
    > > noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive
    > > benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >
    > I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the
    > Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much.


    No, but the devil will be exorcised.


    Odie
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:45:55 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>>Nonsense, everything the system is running is loaded from HDD,
    >>>and the speed is directly effected by speed of that hard drive.
    >>>A Celeron 800 with a WD Raptor HDD will feel faster for everday
    >>>use than a P4 3.2GHz with a budget-grade 40GB HDD.
    >>>
    >>>Nothing wrong with choosing cheapest GB/$ for mass storage, but
    >>>it cripples a system to use such drives as primary app or OS
    >>>drive.
    >>
    >>I disagree. If you spend all day browsing and word processing, you
    >>load your browser and word processor once in the morning, and once
    >>they're open then opening them isn't any longer an issue (unless
    >>your machine crashes a lot -- but that's not usually the disk's fault).
    >
    >
    > I suppose you're just a troll, since I already told you that the
    > browser caches all those files to the HDD when "browsing".

    The actual amount of data involved in caching web pages is quite small.
    >
    > No matter how much you disagree, time and time again people
    > everywhere notice the difference between an old/slow HDD and
    > something modern/fast, not to mention benchmarks. A lot of
    > memory will reduce need for HDD access, but the two are
    > complimentary storage, not one a replacement for the other.

    I guess we'll just have to disagree. I've stated my position.
    If it makes you feel good to have a faster disk, and you've
    convinced yourself you can detect the difference, that's ok
    with me. There are people who claim they can detect the
    difference when they change power cords on their stereos, too.

    Watch your disk activity light. If it's on a lot, you might
    benefit from a faster disk. If it hardly ever blinks, there's
    little harm buying a faster disk (except possibly $$), but you're
    deluding yourself if you think it's going to make a big difference
    in your ability to get things done.

    If benchmarks are your "thing" then go for it.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    JAD wrote:

    > Makes little difference unless
    >
    >
    > Your a benchmark watcher
    >
    > your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a
    > regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    > between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed
    >
    > Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    > think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give
    > you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE
    > controller
    >
    > If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots
    > of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability,
    > warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel
    > that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price
    >
    > all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where

    Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish
    their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to
    prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't
    bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small
    performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed.

    If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and
    I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then
    doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference
    in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of
    their time by simply not worrying about such issues. <g>

    Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were
    cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less
    heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable).
    Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used, and will likely
    make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM.

    >
    >
    > "Darren Harris" <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    > news:9437a27c.0408181042.140392b8@posting.google.com...
    >
    >>Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important
    >
    > factor
    >
    >>to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>
    >>Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >>max. full seek time?
    >>
    >>I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ
    >
    > in
    >
    >>these other respects.
    >>
    >>Thanks a lot.
    >>
    >>Darren Harris
    >>Staten Island, New York.
    >
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:

    > JAD wrote:
    >
    >> Makes little difference unless
    >>
    >>
    >> Your a benchmark watcher
    >>
    >> your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a
    >> regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    >> between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed
    >>
    >> Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    >> think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give
    >> you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE
    >> controller
    >>
    >> If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots
    >> of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability,
    >> warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel
    >> that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price
    >>
    >> all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where
    >
    >
    > Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish
    > their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to
    > prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't
    > bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small
    > performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed.
    >
    > If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and
    > I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then
    > doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference
    > in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of
    > their time by simply not worrying about such issues. <g>
    >
    > Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were
    > cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less
    > heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable).
    > Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used,

    Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more
    reliability" argument.

    > and will likely
    > make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM.

    The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as well in
    the real world use of it.

    Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a 7200 vs a
    5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic increase in capacity,
    which usually means a density increase, and, if it's linear density, that
    improves the performance as well, but that part is not due to the 'RPM'.

    >>
    >> "Darren Harris" <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    >> news:9437a27c.0408181042.140392b8@posting.google.com...
    >>
    >>> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important
    >>
    >>
    >> factor
    >>
    >>> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>>
    >>> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >>> max. full seek time?
    >>>
    >>> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ
    >>
    >>
    >> in
    >>
    >>> these other respects.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks a lot.
    >>>
    >>> Darren Harris
    >>> Staten Island, New York.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:
    > CJT wrote:
    >
    >> JAD wrote:
    >>
    >>> Makes little difference unless
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Your a benchmark watcher
    >>>
    >>> your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a
    >>> regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    >>> between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed
    >>>
    >>> Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    >>> think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give
    >>> you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE
    >>> controller
    >>>
    >>> If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots
    >>> of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability,
    >>> warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel
    >>> that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price
    >>>
    >>> all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish
    >> their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to
    >> prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't
    >> bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small
    >> performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed.
    >>
    >> If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and
    >> I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then
    >> doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference
    >> in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of
    >> their time by simply not worrying about such issues. <g>
    >>
    >> Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were
    >> cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less
    >> heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable).
    >> Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used,
    >
    >
    > Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more
    > reliability" argument.

    Huh? Build your RAID of such drives.

    >
    >> and will likely
    >> make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM.
    >
    >
    > The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as well
    > in the real world use of it.

    Gee, maybe you should tell EMC.
    >
    > Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a 7200
    > vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic increase in
    > capacity, which usually means a density increase, and, if it's linear
    > density, that improves the performance as well, but that part is not due
    > to the 'RPM'.
    >

    Probably right.

    >>>
    >>> "Darren Harris" <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:9437a27c.0408181042.140392b8@posting.google.com...
    >>>
    >>>> Can anyone tell me if hard drive spindle speed is an important
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> factor
    >>>
    >>>> to consider when purchasing a hard drive?
    >>>>
    >>>> Or should I just concentrate on average latency, average access, and
    >>>> max. full seek time?
    >>>>
    >>>> I ask because two hard drives with a data rate of 80mps can differ
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> in
    >>>
    >>>> these other respects.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks a lot.
    >>>>
    >>>> Darren Harris
    >>>> Staten Island, New York.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >> CJT wrote:
    >>
    >>> JAD wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Makes little difference unless
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Your a benchmark watcher
    >>>>
    >>>> your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a
    >>>> regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    >>>> between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed
    >>>>
    >>>> Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    >>>> think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give
    >>>> you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE
    >>>> controller
    >>>>
    >>>> If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots
    >>>> of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability,
    >>>> warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel
    >>>> that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price
    >>>>
    >>>> all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish
    >>> their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to
    >>> prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't
    >>> bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small
    >>> performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed.
    >>>
    >>> If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and
    >>> I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then
    >>> doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference
    >>> in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of
    >>> their time by simply not worrying about such issues. <g>
    >>>
    >>> Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were
    >>> cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less
    >>> heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable).
    >>> Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used,
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more
    >> reliability" argument.
    >
    >
    > Huh? Build your RAID of such drives.

    Two "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" drives raided
    together to make up for the performance loss are no longer "less heat,
    quieter, cost less, and more reliable" than the single faster one they're
    replacing.

    If you want performance then your best first bet is to go to the inherently
    faster drive because that will give you the lion's share of the increase
    with a "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" solution.

    >>> and will likely
    >>> make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as
    >> well in the real world use of it.
    >
    >
    > Gee, maybe you should tell EMC.

    Surely they already know you don't get twice the performance with a pair of
    raided drives.


    >> Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a 7200
    >> vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic increase in
    >> capacity, which usually means a density increase, and, if it's linear
    >> density, that improves the performance as well, but that part is not
    >> due to the 'RPM'.
    >>
    >
    > Probably right.
    >
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:

    > CJT wrote:
    >
    >> David Maynard wrote:
    >>
    >>> CJT wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> kony wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a
    >>>>>>> very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in
    >>>>>>> drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just
    >>>>>> browse the
    >>>>>> Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of
    >>>>>> video
    >>>>>> editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID.
    >>>>>> There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Clueless.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this
    >>>>> cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from
    >>>>> defaults.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A)
    >>>>> Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so
    >>>>> files are never flushed from this cache.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's
    >>>> on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly
    >>>> ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard
    >>> drive to RAM without flashing the LED.
    >>>
    >>
    >> No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of
    >> the time they spend sitting in front of the computer.
    >>
    >
    > Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but
    > the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then
    > leave it there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently,
    > pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of
    > users with applications going up and down rather often and even a
    > 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day.
    > And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a
    > 'small percentage' of the total time because what a user 'feels' and
    > gauges things by is how long it takes between 'click-click' and whatever
    > they expect to happen from it.
    >
    > And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things simultaneously
    > and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc.

    Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video
    _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than
    real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data
    intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights.

    If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you
    might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do.

    >
    > I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15
    > gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply
    > faster.
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >> CJT wrote:
    >>
    >>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> kony wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a
    >>>>>>>> very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in
    >>>>>>>> drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just
    >>>>>>> browse the
    >>>>>>> Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot
    >>>>>>> of video
    >>>>>>> editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely
    >>>>>>> RAID.
    >>>>>>> There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Clueless.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this
    >>>>>> cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from
    >>>>>> defaults.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A)
    >>>>>> Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so
    >>>>>> files are never flushed from this cache.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's
    >>>>> on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly
    >>>>> ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard
    >>>> drive to RAM without flashing the LED.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of
    >>> the time they spend sitting in front of the computer.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but
    >> the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then
    >> leave it there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently,
    >> pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of
    >> users with applications going up and down rather often and even a
    >> 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day.
    >> And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a
    >> 'small percentage' of the total time because what a user 'feels' and
    >> gauges things by is how long it takes between 'click-click' and
    >> whatever they expect to happen from it.
    >>
    >> And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things
    >> simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc.
    >
    >
    > Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video
    > _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than
    > real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data
    > intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights.
    >
    > If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you
    > might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do.

    I didn't say any one thing would 'tax' the slower drive. I simply said
    there would be a noticeable improvement with the faster one.

    >>
    >> I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15
    >> gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply
    >> faster.
    >>
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:

    > CJT wrote:
    >
    >> David Maynard wrote:
    >>
    >>> CJT wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> JAD wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Makes little difference unless
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Your a benchmark watcher
    >>>>>
    >>>>> your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives on a
    >>>>> regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    >>>>> between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    >>>>> think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give
    >>>>> you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE
    >>>>> controller
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots
    >>>>> of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for reliability,
    >>>>> warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel
    >>>>> that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price
    >>>>>
    >>>>> all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish
    >>>> their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to
    >>>> prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't
    >>>> bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small
    >>>> performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed.
    >>>>
    >>>> If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and
    >>>> I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then
    >>>> doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference
    >>>> in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of
    >>>> their time by simply not worrying about such issues. <g>
    >>>>
    >>>> Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were
    >>>> cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less
    >>>> heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable).
    >>>> Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used,
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more
    >>> reliability" argument.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Huh? Build your RAID of such drives.
    >
    >
    > Two "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" drives raided
    > together to make up for the performance loss are no longer "less heat,
    > quieter, cost less, and more reliable" than the single faster one
    > they're replacing.

    A RAID installation can be much faster than any drive you can buy, so
    the comparison is an empty one.

    >
    > If you want performance then your best first bet is to go to the
    > inherently faster drive because that will give you the lion's share of
    > the increase with a "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable"
    > solution.

    If you can do it with a fast drive, but not a less fast one, then ok.
    But that's a fairly narrow band of applicability.

    >
    >>>> and will likely
    >>>> make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as
    >>> well in the real world use of it.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Gee, maybe you should tell EMC.
    >
    >
    > Surely they already know you don't get twice the performance with a pair
    > of raided drives.

    They also know 10000 RPMs aren't double 5400.
    >
    >
    >>> Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a
    >>> 7200 vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic increase
    >>> in capacity, which usually means a density increase, and, if it's
    >>> linear density, that improves the performance as well, but that part
    >>> is not due to the 'RPM'.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Probably right.
    >>
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >> CJT wrote:
    >>
    >>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> JAD wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Makes little difference unless
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Your a benchmark watcher
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives
    >>>>>> on a
    >>>>>> regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    >>>>>> between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    >>>>>> think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give
    >>>>>> you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE
    >>>>>> controller
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots
    >>>>>> of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for
    >>>>>> reliability,
    >>>>>> warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel
    >>>>>> that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish
    >>>>> their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to
    >>>>> prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't
    >>>>> bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small
    >>>>> performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and
    >>>>> I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then
    >>>>> doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference
    >>>>> in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of
    >>>>> their time by simply not worrying about such issues. <g>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were
    >>>>> cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less
    >>>>> heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable).
    >>>>> Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used,
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more
    >>>> reliability" argument.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Huh? Build your RAID of such drives.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Two "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" drives raided
    >> together to make up for the performance loss are no longer "less heat,
    >> quieter, cost less, and more reliable" than the single faster one
    >> they're replacing.
    >
    >
    > A RAID installation can be much faster than any drive you can buy, so
    > the comparison is an empty one.

    I think you over estimate the utility of a dual disk RAID for normal use.

    >> If you want performance then your best first bet is to go to the
    >> inherently faster drive because that will give you the lion's share of
    >> the increase with a "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable"
    >> solution.
    >
    > If you can do it with a fast drive, but not a less fast one, then ok.

    I have no idea what you're trying to say there.

    You were suggesting the slower drives and then saying of you wanted
    performance, the proposed reason for the faster drives you dislike, simply
    RAID them (to make up for it). That means RAID two slower drives to make up
    for the performance of the one but two 'sped up' slow ones are more heat,
    more noise, more cost, and less reliable than one faster drive.

    > But that's a fairly narrow band of applicability.
    >
    >>
    >>>>> and will likely
    >>>>> make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as
    >>>> well in the real world use of it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Gee, maybe you should tell EMC.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Surely they already know you don't get twice the performance with a
    >> pair of raided drives.
    >
    > They also know 10000 RPMs aren't double 5400.

    The guys are down right geniuses.

    >>>> Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a
    >>>> 7200 vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic increase
    >>>> in capacity, which usually means a density increase, and, if it's
    >>>> linear density, that improves the performance as well, but that part
    >>>> is not due to the 'RPM'.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Probably right.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:38:26 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    wrote:


    >>
    >> I suppose you're just a troll, since I already told you that the
    >> browser caches all those files to the HDD when "browsing".
    >
    >The actual amount of data involved in caching web pages is quite small.

    Untrue, or at least only relatively small. I rebooted the system
    I'm on right now, a few hours ago... since then the empty cache
    has gained over 2000 files. a little over 20MB. It would've been
    even larger but I have about 70% of the ad host servers and
    shockwave flash blocked.

    Point being, this is still a theory (that HDD speed isn't
    signficant) that is far enough off that even a user with naked
    eye can see the performance difference.


    >>
    >> No matter how much you disagree, time and time again people
    >> everywhere notice the difference between an old/slow HDD and
    >> something modern/fast, not to mention benchmarks. A lot of
    >> memory will reduce need for HDD access, but the two are
    >> complimentary storage, not one a replacement for the other.
    >
    >I guess we'll just have to disagree. I've stated my position.
    >If it makes you feel good to have a faster disk, and you've
    >convinced yourself you can detect the difference, that's ok
    >with me. There are people who claim they can detect the
    >difference when they change power cords on their stereos, too.

    Ok, i can accept that we'll just disagree, and be glad that my
    systems are all faster because of it.


    >
    >Watch your disk activity light. If it's on a lot, you might
    >benefit from a faster disk. If it hardly ever blinks, there's
    >little harm buying a faster disk (except possibly $$), but you're
    >deluding yourself if you think it's going to make a big difference
    >in your ability to get things done.
    >
    >If benchmarks are your "thing" then go for it.

    No need to benchmark, it is plain as the nose on your face that
    HDD speed is a primary bottleneck for many basic PC uses. It
    matters more than CPU speed, FSB speed, memory bus speed, for a
    lot of tasks. If you want to argue that slower HDD only causes a
    few seconds additional wait, well sure that's true, a few seconds
    over and over again, which is clearly not desired else we'd have
    stuck with 80486 boxes instead of upgrading every so often.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:

    > CJT wrote:
    >
    >> David Maynard wrote:
    >>
    >>> CJT wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> kony wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a
    >>>>>>>>> very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in
    >>>>>>>>> drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just
    >>>>>>>> browse the
    >>>>>>>> Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot
    >>>>>>>> of video
    >>>>>>>> editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely
    >>>>>>>> RAID.
    >>>>>>>> There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Clueless.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this
    >>>>>>> cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from
    >>>>>>> defaults.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A)
    >>>>>>> Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so
    >>>>>>> files are never flushed from this cache.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's
    >>>>>> on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly
    >>>>>> ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the
    >>>>> hard drive to RAM without flashing the LED.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of
    >>>> the time they spend sitting in front of the computer.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context
    >>> but the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and
    >>> then leave it there all day while they, however frequently or
    >>> infrequently, pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a
    >>> competing set of users with applications going up and down rather
    >>> often and even a 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one
    >>> game for the day. And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically'
    >>> the disk usage is a 'small percentage' of the total time because what
    >>> a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how long it takes between
    >>> 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it.
    >>>
    >>> And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things
    >>> simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video
    >> _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than
    >> real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data
    >> intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights.
    >>
    >> If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you
    >> might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do.
    >
    >
    > I didn't say any one thing would 'tax' the slower drive. I simply said
    > there would be a noticeable improvement with the faster one.
    >
    I don't know how you'd notice an improvement if it's already playing the
    DVD image at normal speed. You wouldn't want the video to go any
    faster.

    And you could probably play an MP3 at the same time, but it might be
    a bit odd with the DVD sound mixed in.

    There's probably some pathological mix you can come up with that would
    max things out, but I doubt it would qualify as a typical use. When
    this thread started out, I said I was mostly speaking of typical office
    applications -- things like video editing and some games _will_ benefit
    from faster gear.

    >>>
    >>> I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a
    >>> 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is
    >>> simply faster.
    >>>
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >> CJT wrote:
    >>
    >>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> kony wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a
    >>>>>>>>>> very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in
    >>>>>>>>>> drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just
    >>>>>>>>> browse the
    >>>>>>>>> Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot
    >>>>>>>>> of video
    >>>>>>>>> editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely
    >>>>>>>>> RAID.
    >>>>>>>>> There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond).
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Clueless.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this
    >>>>>>>> cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from
    >>>>>>>> defaults.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A)
    >>>>>>>> Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so
    >>>>>>>> files are never flushed from this cache.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's
    >>>>>>> on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly
    >>>>>>> ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the
    >>>>>> hard drive to RAM without flashing the LED.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule
    >>>>> fraction of
    >>>>> the time they spend sitting in front of the computer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context
    >>>> but the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and
    >>>> then leave it there all day while they, however frequently or
    >>>> infrequently, pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a
    >>>> competing set of users with applications going up and down rather
    >>>> often and even a 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one
    >>>> game for the day. And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically'
    >>>> the disk usage is a 'small percentage' of the total time because
    >>>> what a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how long it takes
    >>>> between 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it.
    >>>>
    >>>> And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things
    >>>> simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc.
    >>>
    >>> Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video
    >>> _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than
    >>> real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data
    >>> intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights.
    >>>
    >>> If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you
    >>> might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do.
    >>
    >> I didn't say any one thing would 'tax' the slower drive. I simply said
    >> there would be a noticeable improvement with the faster one.
    >>
    > I don't know how you'd notice an improvement if it's already playing the
    > DVD image at normal speed. You wouldn't want the video to go any
    > faster.
    >
    > And you could probably play an MP3 at the same time, but it might be
    > a bit odd with the DVD sound mixed in.
    >
    > There's probably some pathological mix you can come up with that would
    > max things out, but I doubt it would qualify as a typical use.

    It would seem you're fixated on some notion that it's only 'noticeable' if
    the hard drive is perpetually pedal to the metal with the LED bright, solar
    flare, red but that simply isn't the case.

    You can propose scenarios all day long and point out what you perceive as
    'flaws' with what is simply an attempt to explain in some small way WHY
    people notice it but the plain fact is that they DO; and easily.


    > When
    > this thread started out, I said I was mostly speaking of typical office

    As I said, I don't think the office use you described is 'typical' of most
    users.

    > applications -- things like video editing and some games _will_ benefit
    > from faster gear.
    >
    >>>>
    >>>> I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a
    >>>> 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is
    >>>> simply faster.
    >>>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:38:26 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>>I suppose you're just a troll, since I already told you that the
    >>>browser caches all those files to the HDD when "browsing".
    >>
    >>The actual amount of data involved in caching web pages is quite small.
    >
    >
    > Untrue, or at least only relatively small. I rebooted the system
    > I'm on right now, a few hours ago... since then the empty cache
    > has gained over 2000 files. a little over 20MB. It would've been
    > even larger but I have about 70% of the ad host servers and
    > shockwave flash blocked.
    >

    20 MB in a few hours is a pittance. And most of that is essentially
    "write only" in the case of Web caching.

    > Point being, this is still a theory (that HDD speed isn't
    > signficant) that is far enough off that even a user with naked
    > eye can see the performance difference.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>No matter how much you disagree, time and time again people
    >>>everywhere notice the difference between an old/slow HDD and
    >>>something modern/fast, not to mention benchmarks. A lot of
    >>>memory will reduce need for HDD access, but the two are
    >>>complimentary storage, not one a replacement for the other.
    >>
    >>I guess we'll just have to disagree. I've stated my position.
    >>If it makes you feel good to have a faster disk, and you've
    >>convinced yourself you can detect the difference, that's ok
    >>with me. There are people who claim they can detect the
    >>difference when they change power cords on their stereos, too.
    >
    >
    > Ok, i can accept that we'll just disagree, and be glad that my
    > systems are all faster because of it.
    >

    Whatever.

    >
    >
    >>Watch your disk activity light. If it's on a lot, you might
    >>benefit from a faster disk. If it hardly ever blinks, there's
    >>little harm buying a faster disk (except possibly $$), but you're
    >>deluding yourself if you think it's going to make a big difference
    >>in your ability to get things done.
    >>
    >>If benchmarks are your "thing" then go for it.
    >
    >
    > No need to benchmark, it is plain as the nose on your face that
    > HDD speed is a primary bottleneck for many basic PC uses. It
    > matters more than CPU speed, FSB speed, memory bus speed, for a
    > lot of tasks. If you want to argue that slower HDD only causes a
    > few seconds additional wait, well sure that's true, a few seconds
    > over and over again, which is clearly not desired else we'd have
    > stuck with 80486 boxes instead of upgrading every so often.
    >
    I disagree. I've stated my position. And it's a few seconds a day,
    not "over and over again" "for many basic PC uses."

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:

    > CJT wrote:
    >
    >> David Maynard wrote:
    >>
    >>> CJT wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> JAD wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Makes little difference unless
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Your a benchmark watcher
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe drives
    >>>>>>> on a
    >>>>>>> regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    >>>>>>> between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    >>>>>>> think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give
    >>>>>>> you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE
    >>>>>>> controller
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If your running a file server....even this is not necessary.....lots
    >>>>>>> of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for
    >>>>>>> reliability,
    >>>>>>> warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't see/feel
    >>>>>>> that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish
    >>>>>> their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to
    >>>>>> prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't
    >>>>>> bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small
    >>>>>> performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and
    >>>>>> I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then
    >>>>>> doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference
    >>>>>> in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of
    >>>>>> their time by simply not worrying about such issues. <g>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were
    >>>>>> cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less
    >>>>>> heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable).
    >>>>>> Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and
    >>>>> more reliability" argument.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Huh? Build your RAID of such drives.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Two "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" drives raided
    >>> together to make up for the performance loss are no longer "less
    >>> heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" than the single faster
    >>> one they're replacing.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> A RAID installation can be much faster than any drive you can buy, so
    >> the comparison is an empty one.
    >
    >
    > I think you over estimate the utility of a dual disk RAID for normal use.
    >
    I wasn't limiting consideration to dual disks.

    >>> If you want performance then your best first bet is to go to the
    >>> inherently faster drive because that will give you the lion's share
    >>> of the increase with a "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more
    >>> reliable" solution.
    >>
    >>
    >> If you can do it with a fast drive, but not a less fast one, then ok.
    >
    >
    > I have no idea what you're trying to say there.

    If one fast drive will satisfy your requirements, but one "slow"
    drive won't, then I have no quibble with deploying the fast one
    rather than the "slow" one.

    >
    > You were suggesting the slower drives and then saying of you wanted
    > performance, the proposed reason for the faster drives you dislike,
    > simply RAID them (to make up for it). That means RAID two slower drives
    > to make up for the performance of the one but two 'sped up' slow ones
    > are more heat, more noise, more cost, and less reliable than one faster
    > drive.
    >

    I didn't say two.

    >> But that's a fairly narrow band of applicability.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>>> and will likely
    >>>>>> make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as
    >>>>> well in the real world use of it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Gee, maybe you should tell EMC.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Surely they already know you don't get twice the performance with a
    >>> pair of raided drives.
    >>
    >>
    >> They also know 10000 RPMs aren't double 5400.
    >
    >
    > The guys are down right geniuses.
    >
    >>>>> Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a
    >>>>> 7200 vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic
    >>>>> increase in capacity, which usually means a density increase, and,
    >>>>> if it's linear density, that improves the performance as well, but
    >>>>> that part is not due to the 'RPM'.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Probably right.
    >
    >
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT wrote:

    > David Maynard wrote:
    >
    >> CJT wrote:
    >>
    >>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> JAD wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Makes little difference unless
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Your a benchmark watcher
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe
    >>>>>>>> drives on a
    >>>>>>>> regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    >>>>>>>> between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    >>>>>>>> think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't give
    >>>>>>>> you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a separate IDE
    >>>>>>>> controller
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> If your running a file server....even this is not
    >>>>>>>> necessary.....lots
    >>>>>>>> of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for
    >>>>>>>> reliability,
    >>>>>>>> warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't
    >>>>>>>> see/feel
    >>>>>>>> that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish
    >>>>>>> their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to
    >>>>>>> prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't
    >>>>>>> bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small
    >>>>>>> performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and
    >>>>>>> I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then
    >>>>>>> doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference
    >>>>>>> in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of
    >>>>>>> their time by simply not worrying about such issues. <g>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were
    >>>>>>> cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less
    >>>>>>> heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable).
    >>>>>>> Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and
    >>>>>> more reliability" argument.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Huh? Build your RAID of such drives.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Two "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" drives raided
    >>>> together to make up for the performance loss are no longer "less
    >>>> heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" than the single faster
    >>>> one they're replacing.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> A RAID installation can be much faster than any drive you can buy, so
    >>> the comparison is an empty one.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I think you over estimate the utility of a dual disk RAID for normal use.
    >>
    > I wasn't limiting consideration to dual disks.

    Well, I was limiting it to things a 'typical' user might do.


    >>>> If you want performance then your best first bet is to go to the
    >>>> inherently faster drive because that will give you the lion's share
    >>>> of the increase with a "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more
    >>>> reliable" solution.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> If you can do it with a fast drive, but not a less fast one, then ok.
    >>
    >>
    >> I have no idea what you're trying to say there.
    >
    > If one fast drive will satisfy your requirements, but one "slow"
    > drive won't, then I have no quibble with deploying the fast one
    > rather than the "slow" one.

    Oh, I see. That's certainly fair.

    In this case the 'requirement' being discussed is a 'faster system' and
    most people will draw that conclusion when they observe their apps load
    faster from a faster hard drive; whether it's then idle for 95% of the
    remaining time being irrelevant to that perception.

    How *much* 'fast' they get will be primarily a compromise with cost.

    From your comments I gather that the app load time isn't of much concern,
    or at least not enough to counter the others you expressed, but most users
    I run across can get down right obsessed with it and that often the very
    reason they're asking 'how can I speed this thing up?' and the example they
    use. Look <click-click Word> at how long it takes!

    >> You were suggesting the slower drives and then saying of you wanted
    >> performance, the proposed reason for the faster drives you dislike,
    >> simply RAID them (to make up for it). That means RAID two slower
    >> drives to make up for the performance of the one but two 'sped up'
    >> slow ones are more heat, more noise, more cost, and less reliable than
    >> one faster drive.
    >>
    >
    > I didn't say two.

    Well, 'one' isn't a RAID and more than two is even worse in the "more heat,
    more noise, more cost, and less reliable" department.

    >>> But that's a fairly narrow band of applicability.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> and will likely
    >>>>>>> make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM.
    >>>>>>

    >>>>>> The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as
    >>>>>> well in the real world use of it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Gee, maybe you should tell EMC.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Surely they already know you don't get twice the performance with a
    >>>> pair of raided drives.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> They also know 10000 RPMs aren't double 5400.
    >>
    >>
    >> The guys are down right geniuses.
    >>
    >>>>>> Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a
    >>>>>> 7200 vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic
    >>>>>> increase in capacity, which usually means a density increase, and,
    >>>>>> if it's linear density, that improves the performance as well, but
    >>>>>> that part is not due to the 'RPM'.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Probably right.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:

    > CJT wrote:
    >
    >> David Maynard wrote:
    >>
    >>> CJT wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> David Maynard wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> CJT wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> JAD wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Makes little difference unless
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Your a benchmark watcher
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> your transferring huge files between partitions..and maybe
    >>>>>>>>> drives on a
    >>>>>>>>> regular basis, but there are other factors that effect data speed
    >>>>>>>>> between 2 physical drives other than HD RPM speed
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Your using something other than OB IDE...SCSI drives (and sata, I
    >>>>>>>>> think- just started looking at moving to this format and can't
    >>>>>>>>> give you an opinion yet) would benefit or if your running a
    >>>>>>>>> separate IDE controller
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> If your running a file server....even this is not
    >>>>>>>>> necessary.....lots
    >>>>>>>>> of memory can make up easily for HD rpm. I would look for
    >>>>>>>>> reliability,
    >>>>>>>>> warranty length, and if you want, the buffer size ( I don't
    >>>>>>>>> see/feel
    >>>>>>>>> that its any faster 4 or 8)along with a good sale price
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> all my opinion, works for me sale gimmicks are every where
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Indeed. Disk manufacturers do what they can to distinguish
    >>>>>>>> their drives from those of their competitors. It's hard to
    >>>>>>>> prove reliability, so they focus on speed. And speed isn't
    >>>>>>>> bad -- it's just not necessarily worth a premium for small
    >>>>>>>> performance increases once a "fast enough" threshold is passed.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> If 5% of your time is spent waiting for your disk drive (and
    >>>>>>>> I doubt it's even that high for many computer users), then
    >>>>>>>> doubling its performance will only make about a 2.5% difference
    >>>>>>>> in your overall throughput. Some people could save 2.5% of
    >>>>>>>> their time by simply not worrying about such issues. <g>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Personally, I'd rather have slightly slower drives that were
    >>>>>>>> cheaper, quieter and used less power (i.e. that generated less
    >>>>>>>> heat and cost less to run, as well as perhaps being more reliable).
    >>>>>>>> Where performance is an issue, RAID can be used,
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Which just shot to hell the "less heat, quieter, cost less, and
    >>>>>>> more reliability" argument.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Huh? Build your RAID of such drives.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Two "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" drives raided
    >>>>> together to make up for the performance loss are no longer "less
    >>>>> heat, quieter, cost less, and more reliable" than the single faster
    >>>>> one they're replacing.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> A RAID installation can be much faster than any drive you can buy, so
    >>>> the comparison is an empty one.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I think you over estimate the utility of a dual disk RAID for normal
    >>> use.
    >>>
    >> I wasn't limiting consideration to dual disks.
    >
    > Well, I was limiting it to things a 'typical' user might do.
    >
    >
    >>>>> If you want performance then your best first bet is to go to the
    >>>>> inherently faster drive because that will give you the lion's share
    >>>>> of the increase with a "less heat, quieter, cost less, and more
    >>>>> reliable" solution.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> If you can do it with a fast drive, but not a less fast one, then ok.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I have no idea what you're trying to say there.
    >>
    >> If one fast drive will satisfy your requirements, but one "slow"
    >> drive won't, then I have no quibble with deploying the fast one
    >> rather than the "slow" one.
    >
    > Oh, I see. That's certainly fair.
    >
    > In this case the 'requirement' being discussed is a 'faster system' and
    > most people will draw that conclusion when they observe their apps load
    > faster from a faster hard drive; whether it's then idle for 95% of the
    > remaining time being irrelevant to that perception.
    >
    > How *much* 'fast' they get will be primarily a compromise with cost.
    >
    > From your comments I gather that the app load time isn't of much concern,
    > or at least not enough to counter the others you expressed, but most users
    > I run across can get down right obsessed with it and that often the very
    > reason they're asking 'how can I speed this thing up?' and the example
    > they use. Look <click-click Word> at how long it takes!
    >
    >>> You were suggesting the slower drives and then saying of you wanted
    >>> performance, the proposed reason for the faster drives you dislike,
    >>> simply RAID them (to make up for it). That means RAID two slower
    >>> drives to make up for the performance of the one but two 'sped up'
    >>> slow ones are more heat, more noise, more cost, and less reliable than
    >>> one faster drive.
    >>>
    >>
    >> I didn't say two.
    >
    > Well, 'one' isn't a RAID and more than two is even worse in the "more
    > heat, more noise, more cost, and less reliable" department.

    3 in a RAID-5 configuration is worse in the "more heat, more noise, more
    cost" department, but not in the "less reliable" department. But then your
    write performance goes down the tubes unless you're using a relatively
    expensive RAID controller.

    >>>> But that's a fairly narrow band of applicability.
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> and will likely
    >>>>>>>> make a much bigger difference than increasing spindle RPM.
    >>>>>>>
    >
    >>>>>>> The theory would suggest so but it just doesn't manifest itself as
    >>>>>>> well in the real world use of it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Gee, maybe you should tell EMC.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Surely they already know you don't get twice the performance with a
    >>>>> pair of raided drives.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> They also know 10000 RPMs aren't double 5400.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The guys are down right geniuses.
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Now, to be fair about it, when people see the 'difference' with a
    >>>>>>> 7200 vs a 5400 it's usually combined with a rather dramatic
    >>>>>>> increase in capacity, which usually means a density increase, and,
    >>>>>>> if it's linear density, that improves the performance as well, but
    >>>>>>> that part is not due to the 'RPM'.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Probably right.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:40:02 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

    >Nothing wrong with choosing cheapest GB/$ for mass storage, but
    >it cripples a system to use such drives as primary app or OS
    >drive.

    And GB per platter is important also, because the shorter distance the
    heads have to move to access the data the faster they are. While 7200
    rpm sub 9ms drives have been around for a while now, drives are
    getting faster and faster as manufacturers cram more and more data per
    sq. cm.

    My hard drive upgrades have proven to be my most significant system
    performance increases as far as boot time and application loads are
    concerned.

    MT
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:34:10 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
    wrote:


    >>> Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video
    >>> _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than
    >>> real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data
    >>> intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights.
    >>>
    >>> If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you
    >>> might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do.
    >>
    >>
    >> I didn't say any one thing would 'tax' the slower drive. I simply said
    >> there would be a noticeable improvement with the faster one.
    >>
    >I don't know how you'd notice an improvement if it's already playing the
    >DVD image at normal speed. You wouldn't want the video to go any
    >faster.

    Some software DVD players (application) and likely many more in
    the future, will have post-processing quality settings to improve
    playback. The longer it takes data to get to CPU, the less
    post-processing can be done.


    >And you could probably play an MP3 at the same time, but it might be
    >a bit odd with the DVD sound mixed in.

    What about multiple system on a LAN? MP3 is low enough bitrate
    that LAN is a good option.
    I may have a few dozen mp3 cued up, playing on one system and end
    up doing something else on another system storing those MP3.
    Usually the data is on different HDDs, but not always.


    >
    >There's probably some pathological mix you can come up with that would
    >max things out, but I doubt it would qualify as a typical use. When
    >this thread started out, I said I was mostly speaking of typical office
    >applications -- things like video editing and some games _will_ benefit
    >from faster gear.


    It's not always about "max". The entire system is waiting for
    data when it makes a read request. In other words, your P4 (or
    whatever) CPU will get less work done with a slower hard drive.
    Your browser's pages will finish displaying slower. Game levels
    take longer to load. Backups take longer. Etc, etc, etc, and
    most of this time you're sitting there waiting for the hard
    drive, not any other part of the system.

    >
    >>>>
    >>>> I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a
    >>>> 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is
    >>>> simply faster.
    >>>>
    >>
    >>
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Hard Drives Homebuilt Storage