Western Digital developing 20,000RPM Raptor to take on SSDs?

You read that right. Bit-tech has it from "several sources close to the hard drive industry" that Western Digital is working on a 20,000RPM followup to its new 10,000RPM VelociRaptor performance champ. Same 2.5-inch format, same 3.5-inch housing only now designed to better cancel out the drive's noise. The idea is to take on SSDs in terms of performance while offering substantially greater capacity as flash memory prices continue to fall. We'll just have to pretend that power consumption, vibration, and ruggedness aren't a concern.

[ReggieXuk @ Jun 6th 2008 6:50AM]

Raptor Jesus Drive, spinning at 20,000 rpms to forgive your sins!

[bartoron @ Jun 6th 2008 8:32AM]

Best comment ever.

Anyways, I have two 74 GB Western Digital Raptors in my desktop and they don't make my sins go away. :(

[E71 @ Jun 6th 2008 8:45AM]

Great, here comes the even bigger buyer's remorse from my Velociraptor purchase.

[Samboini @ Jun 6th 2008 1:25PM]

The song from www.meatspin.com would be quite apt here.

[SneAKz @ Jun 6th 2008 7:15AM]

Well think about it this way. By the time WD gets to bringing us a 20K (lets say 150GB) HDD that can best the fastest SSD's, it will still probably be cheaper than what a 128GB SSD would cost. So I'm all for it!

[Ryan Trevisol @ Jun 6th 2008 7:02AM]

Right, compete with something that has no moving parts for stability and longevity by making your own moving parts spin twice as fast! Awesome. What would really be great is if when it fails, the platters actually burst from the casing and bounce around your case like so many pinballs.

[gad get @ Jun 6th 2008 7:13AM]

Clearly you've never observed a hard drive doing just that. Well, let me tell you, my friend... uh, it might be fun to watch.

[7egend @ Jun 6th 2008 7:46AM]

much like a gyroscope speed means stability. Servers have been using 15,000 RPM SCSI drives for years and years and they are known and some of the most stable and realiable drives to date.

The only obstacle I see that they have to overcome is designing the parts of the drive that can articulate fast enough and write and read fast enough to keep up with the drive spinning that fast. Which I have no doubts that they can't do it.

I own a 150GB Raptor, and now a 300GB VRaptor and love them both, only real issue has been heat, but having fans blowing over them solves that problem.

Solid State electronics has been around for a long time, And I have replaced a ton of devices that were solid state, rarely do I replace a mechanical contactor or relay unless it is 20+ years old and the insulation finally started to crack due to heat and caused it to burn up.

Mechanical devices are going to be more realiable no matter what you might think. Take a watch for example you could have a 150 year old watch thats been passed through your family that still keeps time, or you can own your knew digital watch that died 1 year after you bought it.

Mechanical Devices = FTW

[Rynth @ Jun 6th 2008 9:16AM]

Dude, the MTBF for a Raptor drive is somewhere in the region of 5 million hours.

Sounds reliable enough to me...

[happy_penguin @ Jun 6th 2008 10:22AM]

The problem with SSD is capacity and price. SSD can NOT compete with spinning discs until it comes within the capacity and price range of spinning discs. I keep saying it and I'll keep on saying it, it's all about spinning discs for the foreseeable future. SSD has a long long way to go before it replaces standard drives.

[iuqiddis @ Jun 6th 2008 2:19PM]

I don't think stability or longevity is a real concern if its going to be used as a desktop drive. People don't move their desktops often so the situation isn't like a laptop where constant movement may damage the mechanical parts of the drive. As for longevity, 7egend makes a valid point about SCSI drives. These drives probably have a very long life (as Rynth mentions). Heck, don't SSD's have a limit for the read/write cycles? I'm not sure but I was under the impression that if SSD's are used a lot they may last a bit less than normal harddisks.

Lastly, even if the platters were to burst out of the case, I'm sure the HDD cage will stop most of the stuff from pinballing around :)

[w00t @ Jun 6th 2008 7:16AM]

If they could just stop my 7200 WD drive from making the entire thick aluminium chassis vibrate and buzz annoyingly I'd be happy.

I have two spinpoint drives and they are whisper quiet, but the WD vibrates more than my phone when it rings!

[tekdroid @ Jun 6th 2008 7:26AM]

probably more to do with how it's mounted (or the case itself) than the drive itself, I'd say.

[w00t @ Jun 6th 2008 11:30AM]

Obviously I have thought of this, and noting that the spinpoints are mounted in exactly the same way (Mac Pro drive sleds) and taking into account I have tried swapping bays and even putting the WD into an external box (it just made that vibrate instead of the computer case) I'm fairly certain the drive itself is at fault here!

[decapitor @ Jun 6th 2008 3:15PM]

Suspend HDDs in bungie cords and you'll never hear them again. It's miraculous.

[Fubar @ Jun 6th 2008 7:28AM]

Something tells me this drive could help heat my house in the winter....

[doudOSX @ Jun 6th 2008 7:31AM]

wow gota upgrad mac to that
me want ...

[tekdroid @ Jun 6th 2008 7:33AM]

I love how SSDs are praised like gods in general, just because they have no moving parts and make no noise.

Write cycles are not unlimited. Awaiting real-world horror stories here. Random writes suck, as far as I understand things.

I'm sure there's more to whinge about...
Are sustained data rates really better?
It has some speed advantages and some real disadvantages over current spinning platters. All in all I think spinning platters still rule.

[Nomex @ Jun 6th 2008 7:42AM]

Write cycles are limited, but we're talking years and years to start wearing out nand memory. Random writes are getting way better. The new drives are much faster than the old ones, and sequential reads and writes are awsome.

Spindle HDs are a dying technology. This is gonna be a colossal waste of money for WD. By the time they release it, the next round of larger, faster SSDs will probably be out.

Also, this raptor is useless in a laptop. It must consume an insane amount of power.

[w00t @ Jun 6th 2008 7:58AM]

The write cycle problem is an absolute myth!

A quick example:
Take a standard 128GB SSD with a fast write speed and a modest 100,000 write per cell:

137,438,953,472 Bytes, 100,000 writes written evenly with wear levelling at 125,829,120 bytes per second = 109,226,666 seconds before failure.

That's writing data flat out at 120MB/sec for 3.46 YEARS.

Remember, that's a usage pattern that'd only happen if you were purposely trying to break the drive, even very heavy usage say filling and wiping the drive every single day it'd last you over 270 years.

[schmitty338 @ Jun 6th 2008 8:47AM]

@w00t....

you are correct, however, actual write cycle duty cycles estimates are in the million range, meaning that with extremely heavy usage SSD should last for decades without failures...

[Some Kid @ Jun 6th 2008 7:49AM]

do ssd's really give the same performance of a 20,000 rpm 2.5 in satas
damn!
too bad the biggest ssd i heve ever heard of is only 128 GB and it cost anout 10 million dollars
this will probably be about double the size for the same cost
not to mention you wont even be able to hold the thing it will be so fragile
what happens if the vibrationj from it spinning cracks the disk
not to mention this would have to have at least a 800 watt powerplant at least
this is completely useless
its like trying to mod a model t to compete with a farrari
it wont work

[gad get @ Jun 6th 2008 9:41AM]

I totally agree with this expert!

[Paris @ Jun 6th 2008 9:58AM]

Yes, I also agree with the enlightening facts presented by this expert.

[gad get @ Jun 6th 2008 10:14AM]

*Doubled over, moaning.*
I don't think the tripe I swallowed agreed with me!

[Howard @ Jun 6th 2008 7:50AM]

This is a 3.5" drive that's aimed at bleeding-edge gamers; power consumption and ruggedness (in a desktop...?) aren't really concerns in this market. Vibration is the only factor mentioned here that actually might matter to the people looking to buy one of these.

[Nomex @ Jun 6th 2008 7:51AM]

120gb SuperTalent SSDs are down to ~$640 fyi. That's an immense price drop so far.

[Some Kid @ Jun 6th 2008 8:02AM]

and you get get a 7200 rpm sata for $75
for most people, ssd's are worthless

[Ken Rogers Jr @ Jun 6th 2008 8:00AM]

@tekdroid:

Everyone is so biased against SSD's. Most, if not all, are tested with an intense writing program that is intended to test the life of the drive. Usually, the size is around 50 GB a day to each block. Some are said to last only as long as 60+ years. It's nothing really. You know?

Hard drives today get...what...about five years average life? I'm guessing and basing this off my own experiences.

I don't know any person that actually writes 50 GB's a day to individual blocks. Businesses on the other hand, I'm sure they fall into that category. However, for the average consumer, SSD's virtually eliminate the need for buying replacement hard drives.

@engadget

It gets even better. IBM is even said to have invented what they call "racetrack". They can pretty much cram more data into a smaller place while still attaining high speed access. This is said to be SSD's upgrade/replacement. Look it up, it's impressive. The fact that WD is still trying to keep hard drives alive tells me that they are getting desperate and trying to stay in the game. @Ryan Trevisol: Looks like WD's hard drives will make more of a bang than WD itself when SSD's take over.

Google: IBM racetrack
Google: WD demise

Ken

[Jason @ Jun 6th 2008 8:01AM]

i think a 150gb 20k raptor will have a market for a little bit... but once

[Jason @ Jun 6th 2008 8:04AM]

oops i didnt finish

... but once the ssd's can be sold at the same price its totally over. 20k rpm's is pretty good for loading, but last i checked isnt instant faster?

[thethirdmoose @ Jun 6th 2008 5:45PM]

Flash isn't instant...

[Fed @ Jun 6th 2008 8:38AM]

Will it blend?

[matt|H @ Jun 6th 2008 8:43AM]

Haven't see that one in a while lol.

+1

[gad get @ Jun 6th 2008 9:42AM]

matt|H was obviously being sarcastic.

[xanium4332 @ Jun 6th 2008 11:35AM]

Yes, at 20,000rpm I'd say it can blend stuff.

[Alex @ Jun 6th 2008 8:38AM]

You da Man Toe - Mas

[sbenson09 @ Jun 6th 2008 8:53AM]

So WD plans on going straight from 10,000 RPM to 20,000RPM? Totally skipping 15,000RPM? That's interesting.

Not sure how desirable this is going to be, all things considered. Wouldn't be too suprised if it's going to be a lot louder and warmer than the VRaptor.

[Caine Thanatos @ Jun 7th 2008 7:55AM]

What??

[wickedpheonix @ Jun 6th 2008 8:47AM]

damn I have a 10kRPM 150 GB Raptor and it's fast as hell. Thinking about picking up a velociraptor but nahh... not worth it. But one of these may change my mind... :D

Of course, I don't really know why WD would stick with physical hard drives once SSD's come down in price. The whole point of a Raptor is to make the fastest consumer drive possible (read: no SAS or SCSI) - if SSD's end up providing better performance, why not (once the prices come down)? Especially because using SSD's offer a few enthusiast-oriented features over disk drives - example, you never have to defrag a SSD because it can access all the different parts of the drive equally fast, not like with disk drives where there's a slight delay as the head moves to a different part of the disk with each fragmented file.

[cr0ft @ Jun 6th 2008 8:50AM]

Mechanical moving parts are wrong, period. A hard drive will wear out over time even if you don't do any storing to it - just by existing it is rotating and wearing down. To say nothing of the stone-age vibe to having a metal arm moving back and forth mechanically to read data off a rotating platter.

There is one and only one reason we still need/want hard drives and that is the price per gigabyte ratio. To store really large quantities of data, you still need drives because only there can you buy 1TB drives for peanuts, comparatively speaking. That will last for some years yet, but not nearly as many as one might think.

SSD's aren't yet in every desktop and laptop simply because they are still too expensive per gigabyte, and the sizes are not quite there yet. That is something that will change as production and sales volumes ramp up, and once they reach parity with hard drives for price, the rotating platters are history except for specialty applications.

WD should be pouring their research into making roomier hard drives and even cheaper. That is the harddrive segment that will last the longest. For performance, the upcoming crop of SSD's already crush even the fastest desktop and notebook drives.

[pfromg @ Jun 6th 2008 8:52AM]

I dont know why everybody thinks SSD's are fast or will be fast.The ones i've tested where ALL lame and in no way compete with a modern HD , even at 7200.They are expensive and just as likely to break as a HD (check the warranty times)
so lets get some myths cleared up.
A:: SSD is not currently fast.
B: SSD is not inherently more reliable tha HD , even without any moving parts.
C: not a lot of real world energy usage difference between the 2 formats.

see MacBook Air with SSD for the real state of play. Its really a duff option to take the SSD , even if you disregard the price and thats not gonna change in the near future.

[Curtis Joslin @ Jun 6th 2008 12:21PM]

Even tho i disagree with you on some points..
the fact remains is that SSD hard drives have to potential to well overcome regular spinning hard drives. and that is because there are no moving parts.. so even tho current gen tech is not up to par yet.. it will surpass spinning HD. and kick the shit out of the in terms of performance in the next 5 years EASILY

[sg4 @ Jun 6th 2008 12:23PM]

@ pfromg: You've obviously never tested an Mtron or Memoright SSD. They easily beat ANY hard drive out there, SATA, SCSI, etc in terms of read/write speeds, access times, power consumption, heat, noise, vibration, ruggedness, and reliability (we're talking about SLC SSDs). If they weren't reliable the military would not have been using them for the past 2+ decades.

And in terms of capacity, they have SSDs that have more capacity than any SATA hard drive out there (BitMicro's 1.6TB SSD). Of course the only drawback is prices for top performing SSDs costing around $15/GB. MLC SSDs, while slightly slower and not as reliable (but more reliable than most hard drives), like the SuperTalent line, cost around $5/GB. Current VelociRaptor costs $1/GB vs. the 1TB hard drives at $0.30/GB. This is why most of the hard drives you see have little capacity, it's not that they don't have it, it's the fact that hardly any consumers can afford it. But the benefits are too great to ignore for governments and big companies who are willing to invest into this since they have mission critical work.

[www.ssdforums.com @ Jun 6th 2008 1:09PM]

I think the SSD's you have tested are lame. Get an Mtron, Intel or STEC SSD and rerun your tests.

[pfromg @ Jun 6th 2008 1:27PM]

ok, fellas, lets put things differently.

A:: SSD is not currently fast.
put another way:They are slow in anything I can afford & need.As a normal person.

B: SSD is not inherently more reliable tha HD , even without any moving parts.
put another way: Do you see any any SSD producers putting their money where their mouth is and offering anything that is in any way more or better in terms of your product guarantee/warantee ?
no , i dont think so. so that tells me that these things dont last for ever , as the marketing would have us believe.They are just as likely to go tits up as any HD , and probably more so until I have read evidence to the contrary.


C: not a lot of real world energy usage difference between the 2 formats.

like i said , not a lot.How much will you save in a year over a HD ? maybe 3 dollars ? Come on , this is not even an issue.Eneergy savings are not to be had with these devices and the mac book air has proved it.

[mvpx02 @ Jun 6th 2008 9:22AM]

Some Kid @ Jun 6th 2008 7:49AM
not to mention you wont even be able to hold the thing it will be so fragile - Why would this drive be any different than current drives? Tho I wouldnt recommend moving it while its running...

what happens if the vibration from it spinning cracks the disk - I think they'll use a material they've tested at these speeds ;)

not to mention this would have to have at least a 800 watt powerplant at least - current drives use less than 10W once spinning, and no more than about 25-30W spinning up, this won't be that much more


Everybody is forgetting that (especially for the right price) tried & true technologies have a way of sticking around:
-Who'd have thought we'd still have AGP & even PCI video cards at this point?
-My work computer (Core2Duo) came with a CD-Rom as its only optical drive

While Mechanical drives may be the "old" technology, we can expect to continue find them commonly in use for at least the next 10 years, so why shouldn't these companies try to squeeze every ounce of performance & profit out of them that they can?

Not to mention that inevitably, any advancements that WD makes to make this thing work will eventually trickle their way down to WD's other drives as well, making their entire line more efficient or more reliable or better performing.

[xerxesdaphat @ Jun 6th 2008 10:23AM]

20,000rpm and you're worrying about the platter cracking? Pffft. I've ridden a couple of twenty year old motorcycles which redlined at 20,000rpm. If they can do it with shitty 20 year old aluminium pistons weighing how much then they can do it with a thin, light, perfectly balanced disc.

[RangerVette @ Jun 6th 2008 10:07AM]

It ticks me off that they waited till now to speed up their drives. Why couldn't they have done this 3-5 years ago?? Jerks-

[jason51873 @ Jun 6th 2008 10:15AM]

I agree with many of these posters here. This tech is totally worthless. 20,000 RPM?? To what end? I mean so It might be a little faster, but its gonna cost a lot more, be more prone to vibration damage, and use massive power! If you REALLY need that much more hard drive speed just use the hardware raid built into most higher end motherboards! Shoot I think you can get a mobo with SATA raid for like $100 or less these days!