backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 31 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on Jul 26 at 1:03 PM


Western Digital Enterprise VelociRaptor Drive  (Source: Western Digital)
Enterprise VelociRaptor is designed for use in low-power blade servers

Western Digital holds the speed crown when it comes to hard drives with its 10,000 RPM VelociRaptor drive. The drive was originally aimed at the performance consumer PC market when it launched and today the company announced a new version of the VelociRaptor that is aimed at enterprise usage.

Western Digital says that the enterprise VelociRaptor uses an enterprise-class 2.5-inch form factor for blade and 1U/2U servers in a rack. The drive has a 300GB storage capacity and consumes 35% less power than previous Raptor hard drives.

The enterprise VelociRaptor is designed to enterprise standards for reliability in demanding computing environments. The SATA VelociRaptor has the highest mean time between failure rating of any SATA drive on the market at 1.4 million hours according to Western Digital.

Despite the smaller 2.5-inch form factor, the enterprise VelociRaptor maintains the 10,000 RPM speed, SATA 3 GB/s interface and 16MB cache found on the consumer version. You may recall when DailyTech first reported on the VelociRaptor for the 3.5-inch enthusiast market the drive itself was actually only a 2.5-inch inside a larger cooling block to make the drive fit in standard 3.5-inch slots in a PC chassis.

Western Digital didn’t mention power savings when the VelociRaptor 3.5-inch was first introduced in April, but all the features of the enterprise class VelociRaptor are the same as the 3.5-inch drive minus the IcePack heatsink.

Western Digital says the enterprise version of the drive is currently undergoing evaluation with OEM customers and will be available via select retailers at the end of the month. Pricing information was not offered, but considering it is the same drive as the 3.5-inch with the heatsink missing it would be reasonable to expect it to come in at the same $299.99 price point or even a bit under that mark.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I disagree
By tastyratz on 7/24/2008 11:59:26 AM , Rating: 1
Even though it comes without the icepack I would be shocked if it wasn't at least $10 more minimum. This is not consumer oriented and enterprise class drives utilize different construction and technologies to withstand harsher environments and usage.

I personally will not run anything BUT enterprise drives in my computer period - I might pay an extra 20-40avg more but hundreds of gigs of my data is worth it. Over the years I have run many hard drives. I have a 6 drive array that's lost 1 enterrise class drive and in that same time- I have lost 3 desktop level drives from before I made the switch.




RE: I disagree
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 12:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree - both the consumer and enterprise editions have the same MTBF ratings and warranty period. Also, the consumer drive carries a considerable price premium ($1/GB compared to mainstream $0.15-0.25/GB) which could include additional costs to increase reliability. All of this leads me to guess they are the same.


RE: I disagree
By johnadams on 7/24/2008 12:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the "enterprise drive", not "consumer drive".


RE: I disagree
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 12:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, I meant the consumer version of this drive costs $1/GB (about $300 retail). I don't think pricing on the enterprise version has been announced.


RE: I disagree
By Mutz1243 on 7/24/2008 3:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
The pricing probably wont be released since the manufacturer take these drives and put them into their own casing that fits into their server or blade.


RE: I disagree
By DragonMaster0 on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: I disagree
By 16nm on 7/24/2008 11:18:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Anyways, no worries about reliability --> 1.4 million hours = 160 years continuously running.


I promise you that that's what they want you to think. :)


RE: I disagree
By retrospooty on 7/25/2008 9:52:25 AM , Rating: 5
What that actually means is they test like 1000's drives and add the total of all hours tested. when one fails it becomes the MTBF. So inreality its not indicating a drive should last 160 years, it means more like if you have 160 drives likely only 1 will die in a year.


RE: I disagree
By emboss on 7/26/2008 6:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
Not quite - it is a MTBF (and measured in the handwavey way that MTBFs are always measured), but it's of drives replaced at the end of their service life - usually, but not always, the same length of time as the warranty. So, if you have 160 drives (MTBF 160 years, service life 5 years) in an array, you'll likely five failures over the five year lifespan of the array. If you want to keep this rate of failures, you would then have to replace all the drives in the array.

As a result, the MTBF says nothing about the expected lifespan of a drive. The drives could explode at 5 years + 1 day like clockwork, and still have a MTBF of 160 years.


RE: I disagree
By retrospooty on 7/26/2008 1:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
I know... It says nothing at all about true longevity. I was just trying to keep the explanation as simple as possible.


RE: I disagree
By Aikouka on 7/24/2008 12:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
I rarely have a hard drive die on me (unless it's really old and possibly a second-hand drive), but I actually had a 150GB Raptor die on me just the other day. Even with my case having cooling focused right on the HDDs, I'm assuming the hard drive died from heat at this point. Although, I have a 74GB Raptor that is still running strong (and I believe I've had it for twice as long).

So in short, I'm probably going to start steering away from these 10k RPM drives.


RE: I disagree
By chaosrain on 7/24/2008 12:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in the same boat, but I had a 150GB Raptor die last month (only two years old). My 74GB Raptor just died yesterday (over three years old). In the past 10 years, these are the only drives I've had die. Either I'm lucky, or the Raptors aren't the most stable platform for data storage.


RE: I disagree
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 1:35:19 PM , Rating: 5
You can't base reliability impressions off of individual anecdotes. For example, to contradict your anecdote, we've got a couple dozen Raptors that have been in continuous service for years now - a mix of 36, 75, and 150GB models - and we've only had 1 ever fail (so far). Based on that, I would conclude the opposite - that Raptors are very reliable. But neither of us has actual relability statistics.


RE: I disagree
By tastyratz on 7/24/2008 2:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
Raptors are definitely more reliable than most consumer level drives, my comment was more a generalization of expectations from a purchase intended as a consumer or enterprise class drive. I know they plan on adding Rotary Active Feed Forward (RAFF) tech.
While the raptor is a very highly rated reliable drive, I highly doubt the only difference would be raff and no heatsink.

Enterprise 2.5 drives tend to be used in front slot loading sandwich setups. row of 2.5 that almost touch.
If the drive requires the ice pack in a consumer setting, imagine how hot it would get sandwiched next to other ones in a rack? I am willing to bet it runs much cooler out of the box... It HAS to.


RE: I disagree
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 2:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
The new drives consume 6W active, compared to 10W for the previous generation of drives. That's a 40% reduction. So I'll bet two things:

1. That the heatsink portion of the 2.5" to 3.5" design is unnecessary (overkill). (But of course, cooler is always better for reliability.)

2. That the "consumer" design will probably be able to be handled by existing drive cooling systems in server applications. After all, the drive probably consumes less power than all its competitors in that space, and existing server enclosures were clearly not designed specifically with this new drive in mind.


RE: I disagree
By Hare on 7/24/2008 4:05:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1. That the heatsink portion of the 2.5" to 3.5" design is unnecessary (overkill). (But of course, cooler is always better for reliability.)

Not necessarily. Obviously a HD running in an extremely hot environment is likely to fail before a HD running well below the specified max temperature, but cooler is not necessarily better.

Google conducted statistical research with data from their massive storage centers and found that heat doesn't correlate that strongly with failures. This was covered quite extensively in the blogosphere a while ago.

"The figure shows that failures do not increase when the average temperature increases. In fact, there is a clear trend showing that lower temperatures are associated with higher failure rates. Only at very high temperatures is there a slight reversal of this trend."
- Chapter 3.4

Pretty interesting stuff:
http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.p...


RE: I disagree
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 4:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say that study reinforces my assertion that the heatsink is overkill. Wouldn't you agree?

Obviously I'm making an assumption that the drive wouldn't go above 45-50C without the heatsink, but considering it only dissipates 6W active (and less idle), I think that's a fair assumption.


RE: I disagree
By Hare on 7/25/2008 3:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
The main purpose of the heatsink is to eliminate the need for 2.5" to 3.5" adapters. But yes, as a heatsink it's unnecessary and overkill. I know plenty of people who immediately took it out and used rubber bands to decouple the hd. Vibration eliminated -> virtually no noise. No heat issues.