Go Back   Badcaps Forums > Members List
Register FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Wester547 Wester547 is offline


Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 47
  1. Shocker
    05-10-2013 10:48 PM
    Discovered something worrying some months ago:

    It seems there really are 7200RPM Western Digital "Green" drives.

    Despite making a big deal about "green" drives being unnecessary, Seagate apparently launched a new 5900RPM drive late last year (though they never hyped it as being green). There are two models, ST4000DM000 and ST3000DM003, with 4 x 1TB and 4 x 750GB platters respectively.

    Someone actually attempted to figure out what it would take to make a variable-RPM drive.
  2. Shocker
    05-10-2013 10:03 PM
    Seagate tried their darndest to hide the fact that U7 and U9 were 7200RPM, as they never mention the actual spindle speed anywhere in the official documentation, only mentioning "5400RPM class performance" (and 7200RPM + 1MiB U7/U9 may well have performed similarly to 5400RPM + 2MiB drives like Maxtor DiamondMax 16). (Well, I suppose the latency specification gives it away...)

    Confusingly, the Desk Reference says the CE version of U9 has 2MiB of cache, which would make it more of a "Barracuda 7200.7 CE". (There was no U7 CE.)

    The only "5400RPM" Seagate model released after the U7 was the "Barracuda 5400.1", which was, in reality, the successor to the U Series X, and was actually 5800RPM.
  3. Shocker
    05-10-2013 07:21 PM
    234,441,648 sectors * 512 bytes per sector = 120,034,123,776 total bytes

    120,034,123,776 / 1,073,741,824 = 111.79048919677734375 GiB

    So had I meant that I was down to 9.7GiB, I would have used 102.1GiB.
  4. Shocker
    05-09-2013 06:01 PM
    Most of that is taken up by DVD rips.

    I think you meant 110.3GB.
  5. Shocker
    05-09-2013 05:37 AM
    While there isn't a direct WD400JB competitor that I'm aware of, I would rather have only 2MiB of cache than an awful noise.

    Incidentally, insofar as the effect of cache size on performance goes, I would be curious to see how the U7 or U9 compares to more mainstream drives. Those were actually 7200RPM drives that had no relation to the previous U Series (U4, U8, U10, U5, U6) - in fact they were identical to the Barracuda ATA V and 7200.7, respectively, except with only 1MiB cache.

    I'm not implying that Compaq doesn't care about reliability. I'm talking about performance. The big-name PC manufacturers focus on what sells the most rather than what provides the most benefit. HDD manufacturers keep hyping faster interface speeds way ahead of media transfer rates catching up. Quantum Fireball LCT20 had UDMA 5, but that was pretty pointless considering that it was a 4400RPM drive.

    PS. I'm already down to 9.7GB remaining on my ST3120026A.
  6. Shocker
    05-02-2013 11:24 PM
    Another lame Western Digital from 2003, complete with ball bearings...

    This time, it's the WD400JB-00ENA0. Transfer rate of only 26.5..47.3MB/s in HD Tune Pro 4.01, compared to competing drives which manage at least 28.0 (I.D., 7K250) to 55.9 (O.D., 7200.7) (according to HD Tune Pro 4.01). Also, the 1MiB random read time is's starting to look like Western Digital drives get worse-than-average results for 1MiB random reads. Would explain why the WD360GD-00FLA1 can't quite keep up with competing 7200RPM drives in that test...

    Somehow, the WD400JB-00ENA0 still runs normally after 35,368 hours. Can't say I can tolerate the noise, though, and I wouldn't trust it for much longer.

    The WD400EB-11CPF0 is evidently from a Compaq. Who else would be willing to put such a slow drive in their computers???
  7. Shocker
    05-01-2013 11:48 PM
    Even the ST310014ACE (firmware 3.09) has a better 1MiB random read time (59ms) than the WD400EB-11CPF0.

    With 1 unrecoverable error per 10^15 bits (specified for most "nearline" drives such as Seagate Constellation ES):

    4TB: 3.1%
    3TB: 2.4%
    2TB: 1.6%
    1TB: 0.8%

    With 1 unrecoverable error per 10^16 bits (specified for high-end enterprise drives like the Seagate Savvio line) (using example capacities which will take many years to attain, if they ever attain them while keeping the error rate down):

    40TB: 3.49%
    30TB: 2.63%
    20TB: 1.76%
    10TB: 0.88%

    Note, however, that the Constellation CS only has the 1 unrecoverable error per 10^14 bits specified for most consumer drives.
  8. Shocker
    05-01-2013 08:22 PM
    Funny how WD400EB is rated 10/10 in the database (though admittedly that's out of only 2 votes), which is far higher than most other drives there (including ST3120026A).

    The database's listing of the ST380011AS as having 8MiB cache, when it really only has 2MiB, pretty much proves that it cannot be trusted.
  9. Shocker
    05-01-2013 03:37 AM
    I found a real loser of a hard drive...the WD400EB-11CPF0. The 1MiB random read time measured for it was 71ms (compare to 37ms for the ST3120026A). One word: ouch. The single-sector read time wasn't good either, but isn't nearly as bad in comparison...

    Also, the WD400EB-11CPF0 is ball-bearing and very light. It seems okay for now, but only has 11,220 hours runtime.
  10. Shocker
    04-30-2013 01:27 AM
    To me, quietness matters more than performance, but yes, nothing is more important than reliability.

About Me

  • About Wester547
    City & State/Province
    Computer science, research, gaming, music, philosophy, etc.
    Line Voltage
    120-125VAC 60Hz.
    Tell us why are you here.
    Knowledge Seeker


Total Posts
Visitor Messages
General Information
  • Last Activity: Today 09:19 AM
  • Join Date: 11-13-2011
  • Referrals: 1


Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1 Technical Forums 2003 - 2016
Powered by vBulletin ®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22 PM.

Did you find this forum helpful?