Well, I have a *small* problem with the following:
Western Digital's latest Raptor 150 GB drives lead the Serial ATA race, but the much slower Seagate Barracuda 750 GB leads in capacity.
And this is why:
Note that Refference disk #1 is a 4x RAID 0 array, using 4x 36GB Raptors. The screenshot of the benchmark of my array, is an XP pro software 4x RAID0 array, made up of mix/matched HDDS. They consist of:
2x 40GB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda (ATA 100)
1x 80GB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda (ATA 100)
1x 250GB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda (SATA 150)
Each drive was paritioned approx 37.2GB in size, since thats the most the 40GB drives would yield, and the SATA drive has two partitions, one for the OS, one for the striped array. Note that the random access times of my array is nearly 35% faster, and that the Raptors only performed 12MB/s faster. This is by far NOT a complete speed test, but let me tell you . . . IT_IS_FAST, at least , for what it is.
The point you ask ? That you dont have to shell out more money Per GB to get nearly the same performance, and 1/5 the storage space. Warranty wise, they are equal. MTBF is the same, but I'd expect that the Raptors would live a tad longer, just because they are supposed to be enterprise drives, but this doesnt nessisarily mean this assumption is true.
If I had done this in hardware, the results probably would have atleast been slightly better, depending on which RAID controller I used. However, I probably couldnt have used mis-matched interface types.
Anyhow . . .
</rant>
B.T.W. , no, I dont work for Seagate . . .