2.5-inch HDDs Expected Become More Popular Desktop PCs

[COLGeek]

If the shoe (HDD) fits (the intended use like, AIOs, HTPCs, mini-ITX desktops, etc), then wear it. Really not a big deal (no pun intended)..

 

[mapesdhs]

[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]... Having a single WD-Raptor 600GB would make more sense, cheaper and reliable. ...[/citation]

Yup, though at that kind of price level, one could also hunt for used 15K SAS instead, and a cheap
RAID card like the LSI SAS3041E. I bagged some 600GB 15K seagate SAS disks for 75 UKP each,
they leave the WD VR in the dust. More than 700MB/sec hardware RAID0 with 3+ drives, and that's
only with 3Gbit/sec connectors, testing on a mere P55 board. I notice some newer Intel chipset mbds
are starting to include onboard SAS (Asrock S2011), which is excellent news. And of course one can
connected normal SATA to the same ports.

The WD VR does at least have a much better access time than general SATA, but then that's no
surprise since internally it's just a newer generation of SCSI/SAS technology (thus the odd
capacities compared to SATA products). A 150GB WD VR is quicker than most previous 15K SCSIs
for sequential I/O and not bad for access time, though newer SATAs such as the Samsung F3 beat
it for sequential I/O (no conventional SATA matches the best 15K SAS yet though, not by a long
way). See my results (2nd table has the access time test data):

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/diskdata.html

For both speed & reliability, SAS or Enterprise SATA is wise; cost is a flexible variable - I've had good
fortune hunting for used items. I've built a couple of systems recently for people doing video, one had
3 x 600GB 15K SAS hw RAID0 (plus a 4th disk for general backup), another had 2 x 73GB 15K SAS hw
RAID0 (the guy didn't want much space to begin with, and it kept costs low). 73GB 15K SAS drives are
as little as $30 each.

None of this of course can beat an SSD, but reliability is an issue. If using an SSD as a C drive,
good idea to have a mechanical disk of similar size and regularly clone to it using whatever app,
eg. a 147GB 15K SAS is ideal if one's system disk is a 120GB or similar SSD. Using SSDs in RAID1
is a bad idea, for obvious reasons.

Ian.

 

[jaber2]

As long as you are speaking SSD yes we will convert over with cheaper and bigger drives replacing our michanical HD's.

 

[back_by_demand]

2.5-inch HDDs Expected Become More Popular Desktop PCs

Holy crap, who wrote this title?
If Doug copied it directly from the source that's one thing not to clean it up into proper English, otherwise Doug needs to lay off the afternoon booze.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Holy crap, who wrote this title?If Doug copied it directly from the source that's one thing not to clean it up into proper English, otherwise Doug needs to lay off the afternoon booze.[/citation]

Likely a straight Google translate from a Chinese site!

 

[alidan]

why dont we have 5.25 disc drives anymore?

i mean as a storage solution, not for anything more.

i mean they would hold at least 50% more data than current drives,

 

[gm0n3y]

This makes sense. The market is going towards smaller and more power efficient systems. With 'cloud' computing / streaming media becoming the norm, most people just don't need massive amounts of storage space any more either. This will be the best option for low-budget PCs. People that are willing to spend a little more money will of course use an SSD instead. Any one that needs more storage will use 3.5" HDDs. And us enthusiasts will continue using 3.5" for storage and SSDs for performance.

 

[10tacle]

I just bought a Seagate Momentus XT 750GB hybrid (latest version w/8GB NAND) for $145 US from NewEgg on sale. That's not much more than the going rate for 750GB 3.5" drives of similar high performance like the WD Black series. It's going into my gaming rig alongside a nearly two year old Crucial 128GB C300 SSD and 3.5" 500GB WD Black. All my games and Steam folder from the other two drives will be put on it. This is going to be an experiment as I've never tried a high performance laptop drive in a desktop (and let alone one being a hybrid).

 

[parasite057]

Hopefully SSD prices drop to competative levels faster than this article suggests.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]parasite057[/nom]Hopefully SSD prices drop to competative levels faster than this article suggests.[/citation]
...for real. Buying a 240GB RevoDrive 3 X2 was somewhat painful.

 

[Middleman]

English speak good, do I.

 

[PreferLinux]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]I fail to see the advantage of a 2.5" drive in a desktop. R/W speed has to be lower using the same RPM and the lower power consumption is of course not as crucial as in a mobile device.What am I missing ?[/citation]
It will have a lower sequential R/W speed, but it will have a higher random speed due to being physically smaller (the heads don't have to move as far).

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]why dont we have 5.25 disc drives anymore?i mean as a storage solution, not for anything more. i mean they would hold at least 50% more data than current drives,[/citation]
Because they are HEAVY, take up a lot more space, require bigger motors to spin, longer arms... The larger area is more prone to damage (this kind of applies to 2.5 vs. 3.5 - but when you add density, 2.5 becomes more of of an issue).

Once optical drives die out, with BluRay being the last optical format... computer drives will all be 2.5 or smaller. (mSATA)

I think kI threw out a 5.25 HD last year... found it intresting, it was a 1/3 height drive (like a thick 3.5) but very wide, etc... in the end, it was sucking up space and wright.

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]Middleman[/nom]English speak good, do I.[/citation]
Shut up YOD!

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]Middleman[/nom]English speak good, do I.[/citation]
Shut up YODA!

Stupid backwards speaking muppet!

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]drwho1[/nom]“The 2.5-inch hard drive market may enjoy about four to five years of uninterrupted growth before low-priced, high-density solid state drives become more competitive,” Zhang said."In other words, we still need to wait for 4-5 long years before we see a REAL price drop on the SSD market.I just saw today a 240GB SSD for $200 on Newegg. Maybe this is a sign of good things coming.[/citation]

In other news, the entire SSD manufacturing has been kneecapped by a single severe weather, just like the HDD industry...

 

[acyuta]

In desktops, only someone without adequate research may go in for a mechanical 2.5 HDD. The desktop 3.5 (even the green ones) easily thrash performance 2.5 HDD such as Scorpio Black and Seagate Momentum in read, write, access, and most of other relevant benchmarks. 2.5 SSDs are a different matter though but they can be used in desktops too.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]This makes sense. The market is going towards smaller and more power efficient systems. With 'cloud' computing / streaming media becoming the norm, most people just don't need massive amounts of storage space any more either. This will be the best option for low-budget PCs. People that are willing to spend a little more money will of course use an SSD instead. Any one that needs more storage will use 3.5" HDDs. And us enthusiasts will continue using 3.5" for storage and SSDs for performance.[/citation]

I've had a different experience than you. 4 x WD Scorpio Blacks in OS controlled software RAID 0:

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]Because they are HEAVY, take up a lot more space, require bigger motors to spin, longer arms... The larger area is more prone to damage (this kind of applies to 2.5 vs. 3.5 - but when you add density, 2.5 becomes more of of an issue).Once optical drives die out, with BluRay being the last optical format... computer drives will all be 2.5 or smaller. (mSATA)I think kI threw out a 5.25 HD last year... found it intresting, it was a 1/3 height drive (like a thick 3.5) but very wide, etc... in the end, it was sucking up space and wright.[/citation]

you realise that in a desktop, those factors are limited... meaning durability and such.
optical wont die, because is by far the cheapest backup solution, at some point bluray will come down to 20-30 cents a disc.

if i had to make a hdd backup for storage i would chose optical (if i had the time) die to 1 disc failing means 4gb (currently) of data loss apposed to 250gb+

 

[dreadlokz]

Sure, if you are imbecil =)

 

[hezipu566]

i mean as a storage solution, not for anything more.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]dreadlokz[/nom]Sure, if you are imbecil =)[/citation]

Its funny how polite people are when sitting behind their monitors.