I still trust a 3.5" 1TGB drive more so to a 2.5" version. But its easy to see the 2.5 entering into the desktop market as DESKTOPS becomes smaller themselves... making them lighter, cooler and less power.
Agreed with the poster above me. If performance is good and the drives are reliable then i'm with it. The only potential deal breaker would be price. If they cost more than the standard 3.5 drive with the same specs then i'll pass.
The WD Velociraptor(2nd gen) is in 2.5 inch format with a heatsink that makes it 3.5 inch.
So the performance of a 3.5 inch drive in 2.5 inch form factor is there.
I think the real question is how long a high performance 2.5 inch drive will live, if you are going to go for high performance 2.5 inch drives.
2.5's are great! I've been using them exclusively for about 3 years now. I take 4 of them and stuff them into a 5.25" enclosure and RAID them up. Right now I have 4 250GB WD Scorpio Black's in software RAID 0 and they are almost as fast my Corsair Force 120. I use the SSD for my OS and use the RAID for multimedia, Steam and .vdi's. Although I still use 3.5's in an external enclosure for backup purposes.
[citation][nom]spasmolytic46[/nom]2.5's are great! I've been using them exclusively for about 3 years now. I take 4 of them and stuff them into a 5.25" enclosure and RAID them up. Right now I have 4 250GB WD Scorpio Black's in software RAID 0 and they are almost as fast my Corsair Force 120. I use the SSD for my OS and use the RAID for multimedia, Steam and .vdi's. Although I still use 3.5's in an external enclosure for backup purposes.[/citation]
You have 4 2.5 drives in a 5.25 bay? Sir, I want to know your secret, because that is AMAZING!
For quiet computers where performance isn't the main metric like htpc's and the like the 2.5" makes sense but as soon as capacity with descent performance become more critical they can't replace the 3.5" drives (wru 3tb 2.5" for instance?). If its only performance SSD is the way to go and as their capacity/price will become more consumer friendly so will the 2.5" factor adoption go so no matter how you put it... 2.5" will be the next standard after 3.5".
[citation][nom]spasmolytic46[/nom]2.5's are great! I've been using them exclusively for about 3 years now. I take 4 of them and stuff them into a 5.25" enclosure and RAID them up. Right now I have 4 250GB WD Scorpio Black's in software RAID 0[/citation]
Sounds complex, expensive and noisy. In comparison to a quality SSD unit, the raptors are not much faster than a good 3.5" drive. consumer grade RAID0 isn't exactly reliable, a small error will destroy the RAID. Having a single WD-Raptor 600GB would make more sense, cheaper and reliable.
For SSD drives, sure. A 2.5" drive just doesn't have the physical space/technology to cram high capacity on a platter drive though. For large storage needs, 3.5" platter drives will continue to be the main desktop format primarily due to price. For the desktops shipping with between 500-750 gigabytes of storage, I could see the 2.5" drive increasing in popularity with OEM computers. On a side note, if we did ditch the 3.5" form factor altogether, would scale of manufacturing bring the 2.5" drives noticeably down in price?
@ belardo - It's really not so complex. Win 7 ultimate includes "Dynamic Disks" which is a MS software RAID solution. It's way easier than most motherboard BIOS or Linux console setups for RAID. Just point and click and you have a stripe or a mirror. The backups are easy too with Acronis on a schedule.
I know eventually they will fail, but so far so good. Those WD black's have been in use for 2 years without any hiccups. A single 600GB raptor still wouldn't be as fast, wouldn't hold as much (my steam folder is almost 600GB by itself) and wouldn't be any quieter.
That link isn't the the one I actually have, mine is an older model no longer in production by the same company. It only does SATA II, but it does have a jumper for 2 speeds + off for the fan. The fan was quiet at first but got loud after about 6 months. After doing some temperature monitoring I determined I didn't really need it and have it turned off.
I was really looking forward to getting more drives to take advantage of the hot swap, but with prices these days I'll wait. When I bought my blacks they were on sale for $40 each. I don't even want to think about what they cost now.
[citation][nom]brad112[/nom]"2.5-inch HDDs Expected Become More Popular Desktop PCs"What the????!!! Sounds like a bad translation to EnglishIS it that hard to get right?? 2.5-inch HDDs Expected TO Become More Popular IN Desktop PCsSigh[/citation]
Have to agree. Hate to criticize, but that is some bad writing.
There is another factor to consider when it comes to 2.5" vs. 3.5" drives. When a drive fails, the whole thing needs to be replaced. If you are using a RAID 5 array incorporating the failed drive that needs to be rebuilt, then the more capacity the drive has, the longer it will take to rebuild the array. And the more risk there is of data loss (or at least a need to retrieve-from-backup) caused by a second drive failure. Having smaller drives - and more of them - means that the amount of time it takes to recover from a drive failure is less. Yes there will be more frequent failures because of the increased drive count, but each failure won't be so catastrophic in its impact. Imagine a scenario with three 100 TB 3.5" drives in a 3-way RAID 5 array, for a total of 200 TB. If one drive fails, you need to rebuild 200 TB worth of parity data. Now imagine the same data stored on twelve 25 TB 2.5" drives in four 3-way RAID 5 arrays (RAID 50, I think?). If one drive dies, you only have to rebuild 50 TB worth of data instead of 200 TB. The storage ratio of 3.5 to 2.5 is somewhere between 2:1 and 4:1 I think. In terms of physical space, a 3.5" drive consumes roughly 1" x 4" x 7", or 28 cu in. (allowing ~ 1" for connectors) A 2.5" drive is 2.75" x 5" x ~0.5", or ~7 cu in. (again with ~1" for connectors), so it occupies 1/4 the physical space and provides 1/4 the storage or better. You do need more SATA or SAS ports, but in return you get better performance (2-4x the number of drives delivering data), and faster rebuilds / recovery. And yes, recovering 50 TB (deliberate exaggeration to make the point clear; not a typo) will take a long time, but recovering 200 TB will most certainly take a lot longer, slow down access to a lot more data, and jeopardize more data.
I think the only reason that normal desktops haven't moved in this direction is a marketing issue. People have the preconception that 3.5" HDDs are faster, more reliable, and generally speaking, better than 2.5" HDDs. And for single drive comparisons that is generally true. But for specific capacity points, a 3- or 4-drive RAID array performs better and provides drastically more security than a single-drive, and a set of RAID x0 arrays will also perform better and provide more security and availability than a single RAID x array. Server offerings designed for 2.5" drives are already commonplace. It's just the desktop market that lags behind, and that is because we all buy cases with 3.5" drive cages, and buy 3.5" drives with which to fill them. A market leader could start marketing compact desktop cases (such as AIOs require) designed with 2.5" drive cages, and before we knew it the 2.5" form factor would become the market leader.
what a stupid nonsense. People use desktop because they are, DESKTOPS. not notebooks. with a desktop you don't have to worry about power consumption, weight, size, heat etc. So, 3.5" HDD are much cheaper and perform better then 2.5" ones. There's no reason to use 2.5" where you can use a 3.5". It's incredibly stupid to do that.
What a nonsense article.
There's a point of miniaturization at which that no longer holds. Otherwise, why aren't we all using 5 1/4" HDDs? Or 8", for that matter? Both of those sizes were standard drive sizes at one point (admittedly, 8" was for floppies). Once the electronics shrink enough, it's a simple matter of less material = less shipping weight and volume, and less cost.