Anything is possible but what are you trying to do? 10K is fine as a technical specification but you may have a bottleneck elsewhere.
Use four 600GByte VeliciRaptors in a RAID striped set without parity will give you 2.5GBytes.
I've yet to see any 10k drive with 1TB capacity.
Seagate has a 2.5" 900GB drive. The 3.5" options go up to 600GB. Keep in mind that all 10k drives (except for the Raptors) are SAS drives, hence require a RAID controller.
How large is the avg. library file (not the entire library)?I have a lot of sound libraries I use and I need fast response. 7200 rpm is barreling cutting it. I need 2 or 3 drives of about 2 or 3 TB each.
No such animal yet. 600GB is the largest out right now, and that's for both 10k and 15k. The only SAS models with 1TB + are 7200 rpm units.I've yet to see any 10k drive with 1TB capacity.
Unfortunately, and as mentioned, faster spindle SAS disks aren't cheap. Cheaper than SSD though in terms of cost/GB (bit less than half as the 600GB Intel SSD for a 600GB 15k SAS disk - Seagate Cheetah).unobtainium is the new word for today.
They currently still fill a niche, such as when you need higher IOPS (fast relational databases for example). As per longevity, it will depend on how fast SLC based Flash disks/drives come down to an acceptable cost/GB level they'll replace fast SAS disks in the enterprise market. Doesn't look like this will happen any time soon ATM (prices for SLC are worse than MLC, and aren't falling as fast due to a lower demand for it).I have a distinct impression that HDDs with speeds greater than 10,000 RPM are soon to lose market viability - their prices don't have as far to fall as SSDs, which are evolving quite rapidly.
They may be a good option for the next 5 years, but barring some extremely aggressive price drops or technological improvement, their days are numbered. Much more so than high capacity, lower speed 7200/5400 rpm HDDs.
So in conclusion. Can only go for 7200 RPM SATA? I did not care about SAS I believe there is a hack where you can add your own SAS interface. Any way I was willing to go that route if the drives existed.
-Thanks
P.S. I do not want to go the SSD route because of the price and of cores I need something very reliable.
Generally SSDs are more reliable, as there are no moving parts.
I'd say get 7200 RPM disks (I think the biggest there is 2TB) and put four in RAID5 (requires a RAID card, but a decent one isn't too expensive), and you'll have a pretty fast setup.
Only because there are no moving parts doesn't mean that SSDs are more reliable. In fact the failure rate of consumer SSDs is fairly high (well, apart from Intel). Still, for capacities the OP requires, SSDs aren't really an option unless he wants to spend some serious money for his storage. A single 1TB SSD is about $2000.(and only available from not really reliable vendors like OCZ)
3TB discs have been around for about a year now. Although a small RAID card isn't necessarily expensive, the required adapters to use it with a 2009 Mac Pro have to be considered in the cost analysis as well.
Only because there are no moving parts doesn't mean that SSDs are more reliable. In fact the failure rate of consumer SSDs is fairly high (well, apart from Intel). Still, for capacities the OP requires, SSDs aren't really an option unless he wants to spend some serious money for his storage. A single 1TB SSD is about $2000.(and only available from not really reliable vendors like OCZ)
3TB discs have been around for about a year now. Although a small RAID card isn't necessarily expensive, the required adapters to use it with a 2009 Mac Pro have to be considered in the cost analysis as well.
Given your capacity requirements, you definitely would do better cost wise with mechanical (even adding a RAID card would be better on costs, as Transporteur mentioned, that much capacity in SSD's is neither cheap, and the less expensive brands aren't all that reliable - reliability would be found in Flash drives rather than SSD's that plug into a SATA interface, and unfortunately, none offer support for OS X).So in conclusion. Can only go for 7200 RPM SATA? I did not care about SAS I believe there is a hack where you can add your own SAS interface. Any way I was willing to go that route if the drives existed.
SSD's are fine for reads, as there's no wear on the cells. It's writing that you have to be more concerned about, as there's a limited number of writes possible to a cell (i.e. MLC disks are good up to 10k writes per cell, SLC up to 100k; on avg. for the better NAND flash of their respective types).P.S. I do not want to go the SSD route because of the price and of cores I need something very reliable.
Worse yet, it's not advisable to use an MLC based SSD for parity based RAID systems (fine for 0/1/10 comparatively speaking, as there's no parity writes as well as data writes = much higher write frequencies). SLC is designed for enterprise use, but it comes with a notable cost increase as a result.Only because there are no moving parts doesn't mean that SSDs are more reliable. In fact the failure rate of consumer SSDs is fairly high (well, apart from Intel). Still, for capacities the OP requires, SSDs aren't really an option unless he wants to spend some serious money for his storage. A single 1TB SSD is about $2000.(and only available from not really reliable vendors like OCZ)
I get the point, and compared to a PC that you can usually stuff them in without the need for an adapter, $130 USD isn't bad compared to an external 4 bay enclosure (and possibly an external cable; SFF-8087/8 to SFF-8088 ends, depending on the card model = if it's internal ports only or not; most enclosures don't come with any cables, and none come with internal to externals)....the required adapters to use it with a 2009 Mac Pro have to be considered in the cost analysis as well.
3TB enterprise grade disks are just showing up (i.e. Western Digital's not released any yet, but Hitachi has for example; here).3TB server grade drives? I had bought the seagate 1TB drives when they came out and had 2 of them die. The one I bought and the replacement. Eventually bought 2 hitachi 1TB server grade drives.
P.S. I do not want to go the SSD route because of the price and of cores I need something very reliable.
Huh? SSD's are much more reliable.
Which do you trust more? A disk with solid state memory, or a disk where your data is on a platter spinning 10,000 times a minute, with heads hovering over the plates less than a spec of dust's width away from your data?
SSD failure rates are much much much lower than hard disk failure rates.
Yes, eventually blocks of the disk will die, but that takes about twice as long as the average disk life of a hard disk.
Read the above few posts.
Ah, OK, I see the point you were trying to make. From a theoretical POV, I agree (no moving parts, such as heads that can literally smack the platters). And if the SSD was designed and manufactured properly properly (includes good parts on the BOM, and good QC procedures), then it should work in practice as well (and some makes/models are proving this true).I'm not sure the above posts really comment on the reliability of SSD's. They do comment on the price, reliability of cheap SSDs, and the performance in a redundant RAID array (which are all valid points), but not the reliability of the technology itself.
I know a lot of server admins adopting SSD for their advantages, and server admins certainly care about reliability. Meantime 10k+ drives are notoriously unreliable compared to the slower siblings.
Ah, OK, I see the point you were trying to make. From a theoretical POV, I agree (no moving parts, such as heads that can literally smack the platters). And if the SSD was designed and manufactured properly properly (includes good parts on the BOM, and good QC procedures), then it should work in practice as well (and some makes/models are proving this true).
But as mentioned, there are crappy disks out there due to cost cutting that went too far (those made by ODM's, and sold under the client's brand name), which can jade users that have had such an unfortunate experience (if there's enough of such disks, it could even skew the results of an industry wide reliability study).
More importantly however, the longevity of an actual drive will depend on a few factors:
Granted, this is more of an issue with MLC, but given the cost, this is the Flash type most makers have chosen to use.
- Type of NAND Flash used (MLC vs. SLC currently)
- How the disks are configured (single disk or RAID, particularly if the RAID is a parity based level)
- Usage pattern (particularly in terms of duty cycle of reads vs. writes).
Enterprise models use SLC based flash (which can survive the punishment of writes for parity based RAID levels), but the cost is quite high right now, and it's not falling very fast either. So this segment is still a niche market. SATA and SAS have a much bigger presence yet, and will conceivably continue until the cost/GB approach SAS levels I should think.
I hope this will change faster than I'm expecting, but I've not seen indications to give me a better outlook yet.
There's other forms of Flash that should render this moot at some point, such as FeRAM once they get the density high enough for mass production. But the current tech will be "milked" for all it's worth first IMO.
Hello all,
I am looking for a 2 bay enclosure with RAID1. I could not find any information on the performance of the Towerstor TS2CT.
Does anyone know the performance of the Towerstor TS2CT in terms of write and read speeds with Firewire800 connection?
philipma1957, have you tested the enclosure with Firewire800?
Also, can anyone comment on the noise of the device?
Finally, does anyone know where to buy it in the UK?
Many thanks for your help.