Rather late to inform you about this...but [thread=28747]Topcat personally attacked me[/thread] and (with no means of retaliation) I went to [url="http://hardwareinsights.com/forum/index.php"]Hardware Insights Forum[/url] as "LongRunner".
(Has kaboom actually read the reviews there? I think not.)Rather late to inform you about this...but [thread=28747]Topcat personally attacked me[/thread] and (with no means of retaliation) I went to [url="http://hardwareinsights.com/forum/index.php"]Hardware Insights Forum[/url] as "LongRunner".
Shocker
Banned
Last Activity: 08-16-2013, 08:59 AM
Joined: 12-24-2011
Location: Albany, Western Australia
-
Well, I thought it was the fact that they (Caviar Green drives) had an audible tone of 90Hz, whereas 7200RPM drives have a tone of 120Hz. -
Discovered something worrying some months ago:
[URL]http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=43466&p=368171&hilit=WD10EACS#p368171[/URL]
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.
[URL="http://forums.storagereview.com/index.php/topic/27776-variable-rpm-hdds/"]Someone... -
Sounds like what Western Digital did with Caviar Green (in reality being 5400RPM though Western Digital held claim to them "spinning up" or "down" to different RPM speeds so as to "save" power). -
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"... -
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. -
I said 101.3GB because I see the drive, formatted in Windows, as having 111GB available. -
Most of that is taken up by DVD rips.
I think you meant 110.3GB.
-
How did you consume 101.3GB so quickly?
-
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.... -
No errors in S.M.A.R.T., though? I'd say it's a good drive if it lasted that long with no errors, though it still depends on how many power cycles it has as well. And well, at least it isn't limited to PIO mode. As for Compaq, I wouldn't rail them on that much... their older power supplies at least were quality and overbuilt units.
-
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 47ms...it'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... -
I don't think they can keep the error rate down with ever increasing TBs, at least not with perpendicular recording... -
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 [B]ever[/B] attain them while keeping the error rate down):
40TB: 3.49%... -
I find that user votes don't really mean anything... anyone can just submit any rating whether in earnest or not. And it says the ST380011A has 2MB of cache, which to me is close enough:
[url]http://www.hdsentinel.com/storageinfo_details.php?lang=en&model=SEAGATE%20ST380011A[/url]
Obviously, there are mistakes, but it could be worse.https://I find that user votes don't...T380011A[/url] -
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. -
The HDD sentinel database says it's only 485 grams, so no surprise. -
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. -
I don't mind noise so much but if I had to choose between "silent" and "loud", I'd go with silent, though sometimes with noisier drives I find it helps that they give me audible portendings of failure.
No activity results to display