Slashdot Mirror
Review of First 10K IDE Drive
Sivar writes "StorageReview has a review of the first 10,000 RPM IDE hard drive. Despite the speed that other technologies are improving, this is the first rotational speed increase in almost six years for standard IDE drives." The review is pretty thorough, but also warns to keep in mind that the reviewed unit is only beta hardware.
Nice to know they are finally starting to speed up the slowest part of the computer again.
7200 RPM should be fast enough for anybody.
They sure can- and they do. I have been playing around with a 10k RPM SATA drive from Western Digital at work this week.
About your other question- there are a lot of factors that contribute to drive performance, but rotational speed is one of the biggest.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
if the manufacturers of these 10K SATA drives would offer two different sets of firmware - one optimized for locality access for desktops and another for the more scatter/gather usage patterns seen on servers. How WD et.al. will position this drive for production remains to be seen.
then look out cause RAID here i come.
You mean exactly like the one they reviewed?
Did you even read the article?
Did we go back in time to 1975?!
But hasn't there been several articles around that show hard drive RPM to be a minimal factor in the performance of HDDs?
5400 -> 7200 wasn't that advantagous, but will 7200 -> 10000 be that much better?
Don't we get better performance improvements from tweaks to the file system and how it writes and spaces out its blocks and cylinders?? Or are we at those limits already?
Well this WD drive does sport a 1.2 million hour MTBF and 5 year warantee. It's pretty much built with reliability in mind since they are targetting entry- and mid-level servers.
-Sokie
------
Where are the slash-groupies? I distinctly remember being promised slash-groupies!
When Western Digital raised the bar nearly 1.5 years ago, we repeatedly pointed out that the Special Edition (JB series) Caviar was what readers really wanted when they speculated over 10,000 RPM ATA drives.
Equipped with an 8-megabyte buffer and accompanying firmware aggressively tuned for single-user scenarios, the WD1000JB easily matched and even exceeded the performance that the best 10k RPM SCSI drives of the era delivered when it came to desktop performance.
While SCSI drives feature superior mechanics, their server orientation forces them to trade away firmware optimized for highly-localized patterns in favor of strategies that maximize returns in random access scenarios. In the Raptor, WD faces much of the same quandary.
--
est modus in rebus
So what? An increase in heat and wear and tear on components, for what theroy says is ~25% speed increase. This drive doesn't even come close to that. I would think that for most apps that need this, a SCSI or RAID (or both) solution would be better.
Why would SCSI be less prone to heat and wear than IDE?
March 5, 2003 Author: Eugene Ra
Western Digital Raptor Available Capacities
Model Number
Capacity
WD360GD
36 GB
Estimated Price: $160 (36 GB)
Manufacturer Specifications
Beta unit provided by Hypermicro.com
Remember, mention StorageReview in your HyperMicro.com order and receive free UPS ground shipping!
Introduction
StorageReview.com readers have been speculating for the better part of three years on when the industry would ratchet up the spindle speed of ATA hard drives. When would it happen? Which company would start the trend? Speculation finally gave way to a real announcement on February 10th when Western Digital officially announced its Raptor Serial ATA drive.
Western Digital is in many ways the perfect company to lead ATA to a next-generation spindle speed. Ever since it introduced the Caviar WD400BB, WD has consistently led the field when it came to ATA performance. That's a 2.5-year run at the top- very impressive in the competitive computer hardware field. More importantly, however, the firm has no SCSI business to protect. The last thing that established SCSI powerhouses such as Seagate, IBM, and Maxtor want to see is the erosion of the relatively cushy margins associated with SCSI drives. Now that WD has opened this veritable Pandora's Box, the competition is sure to follow.
According to WD, the key factor holding back higher spindle speeds was parallel ATA's lack of specification-level hot swap functionality. To be successful (initially, at least), any 10k RPM ATA drive must gun for the enterprise market. And in the enterprise, a sector that views outages as unacceptable, the ability to swap out a failed drive for another unit with minimal downtime is crucial. Serial ATA provides for such hot-swap functionality. Now that SATA is trickling into the channel, WD believes 10k RPM ATA's time has come.
The Raptor comes in just a single configuration- a single 36-gigabyte platter. WD specifies the drive's seek time at just 5.2 milliseconds, solidly within SCSI territory. An 8-megabyte buffer accompanies the drive. Some folks may be disappointed with the drive's relatively paltry capacity- after all, today's SCSI drives deliver 147 GB of storage in a low-profile chassis. Much like its namesake made popular by 1993's Jurassic Park, however, WD envisions Raptors in multiple-drive configurations running off of relatively inexpensive SATA RAID controllers. Reflecting its enterprise orientation, the Raptor claims a 1.2 million hour MTBF spec and features a five-year warranty.
It is important to note that the market for the Raptor is primarily the entry- and mid-level server markets and not the enthusiast desktop sector. When Western Digital raised the bar nearly 1.5 years ago, we repeatedly pointed out that the Special Edition (JB series) Caviar was what readers really wanted when they speculated over 10,000 RPM ATA drives. Equipped with an 8-megabyte buffer and accompanying firmware aggressively tuned for single-user scenarios, the WD1000JB easily matched and even exceeded the performance that the best 10k RPM SCSI drives of the era delivered when it came to desktop performance. While SCSI drives feature superior mechanics, their server orientation forces them to trade away firmware optimized for highly-localized patterns in favor of strategies that maximize returns in random access scenarios. In the Raptor, WD faces much of the same quandary. With its enterprise-class warranty and seek time, however, its clear that server performance is WD's first priority for the Raptor.
The drive tested for this review is a beta unit provided by longtime SR sponsor HyperMicro.com rather than Western Digital itself. With a handful of exceptions, SR generally has not published performance figures for products this early in the development cycle. Please remember the final Raptor product may deliver results substantially different from those that follow.
Keeping that in mind, let's see what kind of performance this beta sample delivers!
ow-Level Results
IPEAK SPT's AnalyzeDisk assesses many low-level characteristics of hard drives. Two tests, Read Service Time and Write Service Time, each respectively conduct 25,000 random single-sector reads and writes across the entire breadth of the drive. The result is perfectly equivalent to an access time test. Results come both as an average and as a graphic that plots the percentage of accesses across the amount of time they each take to complete. For more information, please click here.
Note: Scores on top are better.
Service Time Graphs (in milliseconds)
Average Read Service Time
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 7.6 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 8.0 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 8.7 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 12.9 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 13.8 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 14.8 |
|
WD360GD (BETA) Average Read Service Time
The beta Raptor delivers a measured average access time of 8.7 milliseconds. Subtracting 3.0 ms to account for the rotational latency of a 10k RPM spindle speed yields a measured seek time of 5.7 ms. While excellent for an ATA drive, the score is a bit off of the manufacturer's 5.2 ms claim as well as a bit higher than what we've come to expect from 10k SCSI drives.
The use of an external controller (the Promise SATA150 TX4) and its associated driver unfortunately makes it more difficult to consistently disable write caching which unfortunately precludes us from presenting average write access times.
eTesting Lab's WinBench 99 v2.0 features a test that measures a drive's read sequential transfer rates across the entire drive. The benchmark reports results both in quantitative numbers as well as in a graphic that plots the transfer rate across the capacity of the drive.
Note: Scores on top are better.
Transfer Rate Graphs (in megabytes per second)
Transfer Rate - Begin
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 70.9 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 69.0 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 59.2 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 57.6 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 56.5 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 56.2 |
|
Transfer Rate - End
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 44.1 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 40.4 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 37.6 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 33.7 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 32.8 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 30.7 |
|
WD360GD (BETA) Transfer Rate
Despite its higher spindle speed, the Raptor's outer-zone transfer rates aren't much better than today's top 7200 RPM units. Its score of 57.6 MB/sec narrowly beats the Caviar WD2000JB and slightly trails the DiamondMax Plus 9. Thanks to its smaller platter diameter, the Raptor exhibits a bit less decay as it moves towards its inner zones. Its minimum score of 37.6 MB/sec tops other ATA drives yet still fails to reach the levels of a Cheetah or Atlas.
Desktop Performance...
Formulated utilizing IPEAK SPT's WinTrace32 and RankDisk, the StorageReview.com Desktop DriveMarks exactingly reproduce pre-recorded, contemporary access patterns on tested hard drives. For more information, please click here.
Note: Scores on top are better.
Desktop Performance Graphs (in I/Os per second)
SR Office DriveMark 2002
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 503 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 450 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 431 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 418 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 418 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 391 |
|
SR High-End DriveMark 2002
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 444 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 427 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 415 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 388 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 382 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 300 |
|
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 455 |
|
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 422 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 391 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 386 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 348 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 307 |
|
SR Gaming DriveMark 2002
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 649 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 548 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 546 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 531 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 528 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 508 |
|
The beta Raptor turns in a StorageReview.com Office DriveMark 2002 of 418 I/Os per second. While such a score places it among the top ATA drives, the Raptor fails to match WD's own Caviar WD2000JB. A top-level 10k SCSI unit such as Maxtor's Atlas 10k IV substantially outpaces the Raptor.
Differences become more glaring in the High-End DriveMark. At just 300 I/Os per second, the Raptor places in the middle of a pack of 7200 RPM drives equipped with 2-megabyte buffers. Here the WD2000JB outscores the WD360GD by a substantial 43% margin.
The Windows XP bootup process recorded in the SR Bootup DriveMark 2002 features an unusually high average queue depth for a desktop scenario. In this test, the Raptor stretches its legs, easily besting all comparable ATA and SCSI disks.
Finally, in the SR Gaming DriveMark 2002, the Raptor delivers 531 I/Os per second, a figure comparable to a top-end ATA drive yet trailing the Atlas 10k IV by a significant margin.
To be fair, we should point out that the 36-gigabyte Raptor faces flagship drives of much greater capacity in our tests. The margins between the Raptor and smaller ATA or SCSI drives would likely not be as pronounced since the competition would then be forced to work across a greater percentage of its platter zones.
Server Performance...
Server Performance
The StorageReview.com Server DriveMarks consist of IOMeter trials using predefined patterns supplied by Intel across varying load depths. The reported scores represent a normalized average of results from 1 to 64 outstanding IO/s. For more information click here.
Note: Scores on top are better.
Server Performance Graphs (in I/Os per second)
SR File Server DriveMark 2002
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 271 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 258 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 177 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 131 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 129 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 116 |
|
SR Web Server DriveMark 2002
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 261 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 255 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 181 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 134 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 119 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 115 |
|
In the SCSI-stronghold of random, server-oriented performance, the Raptor, while delivering scores significantly better than traditional ATA drives, nonetheless falls behind contemporary SCSI drives by a significant margin. Even older drives such as the Seagate Cheetah 36ES (not represented; see the performance database to create custom comparisons) unquestionably trounce the WD360GD. The beta Raptor delivers the server performance that one would expect from a good 7200 RPM SCSI drive- definitely a cut above standard ATA, but not up to 10k RPM levels.
Legacy Performance
eTesting Lab's WinBench 99 Disk WinMark tests are benchmarks that attempt to measure desktop performance through a rather dated recording of high-level applications. Despite their age, the Disk WinMarks are somewhat of an industry standard. The following results serve only as a reference; SR does not factor them into final judgments.
Note: Scores on top are better.
Legacy Performance Graphs (in megabytes per second)
ZD Business Disk WinMark 99
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 16.4 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 16.1 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 15.9 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 15.7 |
|
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 12.1 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 11.7 |
|
ZD High-End Disk WinMark 99
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 44.9 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 39.2 |
|
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 38.0 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 36.9 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 33.3 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 25.0 |
|
Heat and Noise...
A Fluke thermometer and an Extech Type II SPL meter respectively deliver objective operating temperature and sound pressure measurements. Note that objective noise measurements are gathered only after subjective impressions have been penned. For more information, please click here.
Note: Scores on top are better.
Heat and Noise
Idle Noise (in dB/A @ 18mm)
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 40.1 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 40.4 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 41.0 |
|
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 45.5 |
|
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 47.7 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 48.5 |
|
Net Drive Temperature (in degrees celsius)
Western Digital Caviar WD2000JB (200 GB ATA-100) - 19.7 |
|
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 [8MB, 80GB/plat] (160 GB ATA-133) - 19.7 |
|
Western Digital Raptor WD360GD BETA (36 GB SATA) - 20.6 |
|
IBM Deskstar 180GXP 8 MB (180 GB ATA-100) - 22.1 |
|
Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (146 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 24.4 |
|
Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (147 GB Ultra320 SCSI) - 30.0 |
|
Objectively speaking, the beta Raptor turns in impressively low noise floors, likely due to its single-platter design. A score of 40.4 approaches the noise floor delivered by the latest Barracuda ATA drives. Subjectively speaking, however, our sample emits an irritating high-pitched squeal reminiscent of early 10k RPM SCSI disks. The whine was audible even over the testbed's relatively loud drive cooler fans.
Seek noises land somewhere between today's louder ATA disks and a typical reviewed SCSI unit. While the Raptor features random seeks similar to that of 10k RPM SCSI, it features just a single platter contrasted with the four typically found in today's flagship units. The resultant actuator noise is quite unobtrusive.
The Raptor's single-platter configuration also yields a relatively low operating drive temperature. Our measurements reached 20.6 degrees Celsius above ambient room temperature- on the high side for an ATA drive but well below the typical SCSI disk.
Conclusion...
It's very difficult to draw firm conclusions on a drive that is obviously far from its final state. Firms manufacture pre-release units not for performance demonstrations but rather for system-integration purposes- resellers need to qualify the unit in their systems for extended periods of time before the drive hits general availability.
Many readers may be disappointed with the Raptor's relatively lackluster desktop performance. For various reasons, enthusiasts view an increased spindle speed as the largest factor in single-user performance. The reality, however, is that desktop usage predominately consists of highly-localized patterns and is affected more by caching strategies than marginal mechanical improvements. Western Digital's JB series may very well continue to stand as the premiere choice for those seeking the ultimate in single-user speed.
We're more concerned with the Raptor's server performance. While it is definitely a step above standard 7200 RPM ATA drives, the beta Raptor trails today's 10k RPM SCSI drives by substantial margins. If WD and SATA are to have a chance at cracking the enterprise market, the Raptor's multi-user performance must approach the levels delivered by Cheetahs and Atlases.
Again, all figures, analyses, and conclusions have been drawn from an early pre-production sample. It is likely that the performance delivered by the final product will differ significantly from what we've seen today. We wish WD the best, and eagerly await the opportunity to officially put the Raptor through its paces.
If they can make these beauties with a serial-ATA interface, I AM SOLD!
[snip]
Speculation finally gave way to a real announcement on February 10th when Western Digital officially announced its Raptor Serial ATA drive.
[/snip]
Did I miss something, the article says its SATA.
I think the point was just that SCSI provides better performance, even with 7200RPM. Much of that comes from the fact that SCSI drives are "smart" and require almost no CPU time, whereas IDE drives are "dumb", and require the CPU to handle much of the work.
The price differential, OTOH, is substantial.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
even 10,000 rotations per minute isn't enough to keep up with the /. effect.
Those said, I have a few other things I'd like to say. First of all, it's nice to see that the drive is quiet. Even many 5400 and 7200 RPM drives are quite loud today. It's nice to know that going to 10k isn't going to turn my PC into a jet engine. Also, they mention that the reason that we haven't seen 10k IDE drives before was that servers didn't want them since they couldn't be hotswapped like SCSI. SATA supports hotswap in theory, but can you hotswap today? I don't think Windows lets you, IIRC (or if it does the system is a bit unstable afterwards). Does Linux let you hotswap SATA drives? If all the drives are one one controller (say RAID 5, or something else redundant) and you swap a drive, does the OS even know it happened? I don't have any expirence with hotswapping hard drives.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Great! Now I can get a second-rate, first generation 10KRPM hard drive with bad server performance and almost no capacity, from a company that disavowed the high end years ago by bailing on the SCSI market, all for the same price as established SCSI drives of the same size or established ATA drives four times the size.
Hrmm.
IDE drives are "dumb", and require the CPU to handle much of the work.
No longer really true. Ever since UltraDMA/33 mode, the CPU has not had much work to do with an IDE drive. SCSI drives still have a few tricks such as tagged queuing, but those features have been filtering down to IDE drives as well.
SCSI drives intended for servers cost more, and generally are better made, than IDE drives. They also come with much longer warranties (makes sense since they are made better).
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
There's no margin on a $60.00 drive. It seems to be that way, since once drives hit about the $75 mark they tend to be phased out.
I find it extremely impressive that they can get that cheap at all.
MaxtorSCSI, a SCSI engineer at Maxtor (funny, that), and a forum user on StorageReview.com, stated once that hard drives are the highest precision mechanical devices, by far, in the average person's home.
The platter has to be so flat that, spinning at thousands of RPM, the heads must float above the platter at less than 1/50 the width of a human hair, or slightly more distance than the width of an average smoke particle. And they have to survive being bumped, because if those heads touch the platters, all hell (and the heads) breaks loose.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
SCSI isn't that expensive, especially if you're willing to analyze what you're actually going to use, and not just RAID 0-ing two 80GB drives like a lot of people I know.
I picked up two Western Digital 9.1GB 10,000RPM SCSI drives for $35 each, shipped. If you don't have a controller, U-160 Cards can be had for about $70. I stick my OS on one drive, swap and applications on the second, and have a 45GB IDM Deskstar (75GXP and still running after 2 years, I like living on the edge) handling mass-storage tasks.
According to WD's site, these drives have transfer rates comparable to the 8MB Cache IDE drives, but seek times in the 5 ms range (vs. around 8.5). Oh, and they're not particularly loud either, at least not anything I've noticed.
At $160, this drive doesn't seem like a good idea. I've seen numerous 10K ~36GB SCSI drives for about $30 more. I guess you can factor in the card cost if you honestly want to, but if you're talking about RAIDing these things, you're probably talking about buying a good SATA or IDE RAID card anyway.
If you have plans to archive every friggin' CD you own in FLAC format, then SCSI isn't a cost-effective method to go. I don't. YMMV, but I've found that I can beat the hell out of the computer and I don't see the nasty drive access issues that I used to. For a site where a lot of people piss and moan about not needing this many mhz or that DX9-capable card, I'd say the logic of smaller faster drives when you probably aren't gonna fill the giant ones is pretty evident.
My main concern is its actual capabilities when being used to store/delete/etc large, numerous files and how long until the hard drive finally crashes and dies out.
The Raptor has a 5-yr warranty (5 times as long as most desktop hard drives) and is targetted for the server market. Unless WD seriously screwed up, I am willing to be that it is about as reliable as other enterprise 10K drives (all of which are SCSI)--that is to say, incredibly reliable.
A 10k IDE drive is bound to have a ton of hard drive space
Actually, the faster the platter spins, the lower density each platter must be in order for the heads to keep up. For example, the Western Digital Raptor is a 36GB drive with a single 36GB platter (that's 18GB/side). This is the same size of platter as on the largest of 10KRPM SCSI drives.
To contrast, the largest platter size on a 7200RPM drive is 80GB/platter (or 40GB/side), and Weste3rn Digital is about to release a 250GB drive which will have three 83.3GB platters.
Higher platter density improves speed as well, but generally speaking (VERY generally speaking), increasing rotational speed improves drive performance more than having a somewhat higher density platter. Those of course varies based on what you are doing with the drive, whether it involves lots of random accesses (mail/webserver) or lots of linear accesses (video editing) or something in between.
In general, expect higher RPM drives to trail behind lower RPM drives in platter density, and therefore in maximum available disk space.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Have anybody ever actually thought about it? For the amount of extra money to blow, why not spend more for memory and have EVERYTHING run from there? what, 4G is not enough for your desktop system? x86 only addresses that much right now, ya know...
:)
Compare the price of 4GB of RAM with a 10GB hard drive. Also note that all memory used for a RAMdisk (as disk which will vanish once power is turned off) will be unavailable to applications.
Notice that computers run on multiple tiers of increasingly large and decreasingly expensive storage. This has been found to have the best performance/cost ratio. First we have registers, then L1 cache (except for Pentium IV's), then L2 cache, then on some systems L3 cache, THEN RAM, then the hard drive.
RAM is simply not cost effective for mass storage, and the performance benefits of using a RAMdrive really aren't very noticeable for many tasks. They help immensely for extremely random I/O, like running a mailserver, but Office and Diablo2 aren't going to run so much faster that it justifies the huge jump in cost and huge increase in risk (RAM drive dying when power goes out).
Besides, if we used a slow hard drive to load 4GB of data into RAM, can you imagine how long booting the system would take?
That said, there are companies offering battery-backed RAMdrives which fit in a PCI slot, and there are those (Armadillo comes to mind) which offers huge, fast FLASH-RAM drives in both IDE and SCSI flavors, but they are very expensive. There's more to making one than simply collecting a bunch of DIMMS together, ya know.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra