DailyTech - WD Launches 2.5-inch 10,000 RPM Enterprise HDD

Submit News

Hardware WD Launches 2.5-inch 10,000 RPM Enterprise HDD
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - July 24, 2008 11:51 AM

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

Username
Password
remember me

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.

Parent

RE: I disagree

By johnadams on 7/24/2008 12:22:06 PM , Rating: 2

You mean the "enterprise drive", not "consumer drive".

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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. :)

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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...

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

RE: I disagree

By JonnyDough on 7/24/2008 11:30:33 PM , Rating: 2

Already knew everything you wrote, as I read the internets. I would have responded the exact same way, but you did it for me. I thank thee.

But, I was thinking as I was reading through the comments and read TomZ's post that perhaps the oils used to lubricate the drive are somehow less viscous at warm temperatures. Furthermore, it might be that the heat can cause the magnetic discs to expand a little, making the magnets themselves more easily repositioned/aligned as the write head moves over it, reducing frictional wear at a very micro level.

Parent

RE: I disagree

By drunkenmastermind on 7/24/2008 7:31:57 PM , Rating: 2

I have never had a hard drive die on me. I've been spinning them for 10 years. I use to prefer SG but now I prefer WD.
Running 9 HDs 4.5Tb, no RAID as of yet. Is software RAID a waste of time?

Parent

Laptops

By Pessimism on 7/24/2008 12:33:15 PM , Rating: 2

I can picture the modding articles already... wonder how many notebooks this thing can be jammed into?

RE: Laptops

By Outshined on 7/24/2008 12:39:23 PM , Rating: 2

At the 2.5" form factor, I was wondering the same thing myself. It's got a good capacity, and performance is right up with the best mechanical drives. As an enterprise-oriented drive, it should be durable enough for laptop conditions, as well.

If this were compatable for laptops, it would be pretty awesome for performance oriented users.

Parent

RE: Laptops

By Calin on 7/24/2008 1:46:30 PM , Rating: 3

It is 2.5", but it is thicker than the laptop hard drives. So, it isn't fit to replace a standard laptop drive, and you should find a laptop with an extra 5mm of space in order to fit it in.

Parent

RE: Laptops

By djc208 on 7/24/2008 1:31:01 PM , Rating: 2

Maybe for the big desk top replacement notebooks that are rarely ever unplugged but I'd think the power useage would be worse than a standard laptop 2.5" drive, even if it's better than a 3.5" Raptor.

I have a feeling the SATA/power connection on the back probably don't match most notebooks.

Parent

RE: Laptops

By jackedupandgoodtogo on 7/24/2008 3:32:52 PM , Rating: 2

Besides the height not being the same as a notebook drive, the heat generated by 10k RPM would probably kill it and your notebook.

Parent

RE: Laptops

By killerroach on 7/24/2008 3:42:18 PM , Rating: 2

Laptop nothing... if it would work, I'd throw that sucker into my PS3. Gotta be some way of reducing install times, right? :)

Parent

Is this correct?

By masher2

(blog) on 7/24/2008 12:30:52 PM , Rating: 2

> "considering it is the same drive as the 3.5-inch with the heatsink missing"

How can this be, if the drive consumes 35% less power than the previous version?

RE: Is this correct?

By cyberguyz on 7/24/2008 12:47:51 PM , Rating: 3

I believe that is referring to the fact that the 2.5" SATA II VelociRaptor family uses 35% less power than the 3.5" SATA I Raptor family. ;)

Parent

RE: Is this correct?

By deeznuts on 7/24/2008 1:48:27 PM , Rating: 2

Funny that raptor is just a shortened name of velociraptor. I'm no expert, I had to look this up when they were first announced.

Anyway, of course I wouldn't do this, but I've entertained (for 0.03451 seconds) the thought of dropping one of these badboys in my PS3. Might help load times, so I wait 28 seconds sometimes, instead of 30. Naw, not worth it.

Parent

RE: Is this correct?

By Oxonium on 7/24/2008 9:07:06 PM , Rating: 5

Actually, raptor means "bird of prey". (From Dictionary.com: Latin, one who seizes, from rapere, to seize). Usually used to refer to hawks, eagles, falcons, etc. And it was in use far before the discovery of velociraptor fossils. The term velociraptor means "swift bird of prey". The suffix "-raptor" was coined to describe the bird-like dinosaurs. So "velociraptor" is an extension of the word "raptor", not the other way around.

Sorry, couldn't resist the history lesson.

Parent

Great comments, everyone!

By supremelaw on 7/25/08, Rating: 0

By supremelaw on 7/25/2008 12:02:13 PM , Rating: 0

Without meaning to duplicate any of the excellent
comments already posted above, here are some personal
observations, based on 4+ years of using 74GB and 150GB
Raptors in our 5 workstations:

* where we didn't have a drive cage with integrated fan,
we always added an Antec hard drive cooler when installing
a 3.5" HDD in a 5.25" drive bay;

* Antec's 2 LEDs provide some feedback on drive temp
as well as interior case temp e.g. Northbridge heatsink;

* when looking at the 3.5" VelociRaptor's IcePak,
we would naturally discount the cost of an Antec
hard drive cooler from that Raptor's retail price,
to approximate the true price of the 2.5" VelociRaptor;

* the enterprise version of the VelociRaptor can
be easily mounted in 3.5" bays, using a 2.5-to-3.5"
bracket e.g. drive cages with 3 x HDDs; these brackets
are very cheap, and they result in excellent air flow
assuming a proper fan is well positioned too;

* because we've spent some time looking at case cooling
from a overall point of view, we now lean towards cases
with 1 or 2 exhaust fans in the top panel, and at least
1 intake fan in the bottom panel e.g. CM 690 is perfect
in this regard, given its competitive market price;

* the top panel fans help exhaust warmer air emitted
by Antec hard drive coolers mounted in the upper 5.25"
drive bays; this arrangement prevents that exhaust
air from entering the case interior and warming other
components inside the case;

* last, but probably MOST important, we always power
each workstation with an oversized UPS e.g. XS series
made by American Power Conversion ("APC");

* and, we've learned from experience that installing
a quality PSU initially pays long-term dividends --
thus, we're leaning towards Corsair now:
think of this extra cost as smart "insurance";

* all of the above suggest that quality input power
AND proper cooling are easily two important factors
for prolonging the life of our HDD farm (about 35 HDDs
total now);

* another factor which needs more experimental work
is to partition a large HDD into 2 or 3 smaller
drive letters: this has the effect of creating
"short strokes" for the read/write armatures --
particularly during routine XCOPY updates of our
database, now with 90,000 discrete files;

* for example, on our Raptors that host the C:
system partition, each is 20-30GB with the remainder
used for data like GHOST drive image files;
the GHOST restore task can always find a good
drive image file on that same HDD;

* similarly, we have 2 x 74GB Raptors wired to
an on-board RAID controller on an older ASUS
PGA-478 motherboard (model P4C800-E Deluxe),
and we routinely create a 20-30GB partition
on the outer cylinders, for faster testing
and to "mirror" the C: system partition's size;

* we would certainly like to see some prompt
performance measurements of 4 x VelociRaptors
withOUT the IcePak, e.g. comparing Intel's ICHx
I/O controller hubs with modern PCI-E RAID controllers;

* if 4 of these enterprise VelociRaptors won't fit
in a single QuadraPack Q14 from Enhance Tech,
the easiest solution is a tower case with plenty
of 5.25" drive bays: then, 4 x 2.5-to-3.5" brackets
can be purchased for drive cages that host integrated
fans;

* thus, the key decision that must be made is
the choice of RAID controller: if Intel's ICHx
or NVIDIA chipets provide enough performance,
then an add-in RAID controller can be avoided;

* happily, the marketplace now provides a multitude
of options to choose from, and the 2.5" VelociRaptor
is sure to attract a lot of attention from enthusiasts
like myself, not to mention the large server farms.

Thanks everyone for all your excellent contributions.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Inventor and
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/