Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Seagate 750 GB Barracuda Enters The Big League

Last response: in Memory
Share
June 29, 2006 10:45:51 AM

We pit the Seagate 7200.10, a perpendicular recording marvel, against the latest 500 GB monsters from Maxtor and Western Digital. What benefits does the new technology offer, both now and for the future?
June 29, 2006 11:46:41 AM

Perpendicular recording will definately achieve previously unthinkable storage capacity. (I'm looking forward to two terabyte drives in raid 1 myself.) But face it, flash memory is the way of the future.
June 29, 2006 11:52:46 AM

Quote:
We pit the Seagate 7200.10, a perpendicular recording marvel, against the latest 500 GB monsters from Maxtor and Western Digital. What benefits does the new technology offer, both now and for the future?


Cool! The times, they are a-chaingin. I liked the author's opinion at the close of the review. It might help to point out that 250GB drives can be had for around 32 cents per GB.
Related resources
June 29, 2006 12:33:28 PM

this statement surprised me:

"Even if you do a lot of video work, 3D rendering and CNC/CAD, it's still hard to visualize needing a drive over 250 GB."

I bought a 300gb internal drive a few months ago, and I filled it with downloads in 2 months. I was only using a 6mbit internet connection, nothing special.

now I need an external 300gb+ to back it all up.

these days it's quite easy to find enough stuff you want to fill a drive at these sizes. In my opinion, current hard drive technology is falling behind the capacity needs of the consumer. with HTPCs and PVRs doing so much recording, and now even HDTV coming into the picture, I am certain I will need at least one 500gb + drive within 6 months. When discussing this kind of capacity, and video recording, etc, the available media is grossly insufficient. It would take me FOREVER to burn 300gb of data to DVD's, therefore I already require a second backup hard drive.

By the time Blue Ray media and burners are actually economical, I will be far beyond the ability to use them in any reasonable fashion. I have piles of DVD's all over the house and it drives me nuts. why are we not moving away from the concept of media altogether?
June 29, 2006 1:53:06 PM

Loved that article. Well-written, well-executed, and very informative.

The only thing I would have like to have seen included is how the lower density versions of the 7200.10 perform, with the fewer platters and all, being the drive is perpendicular.



That Flash file from Hitachi was wild. :) 
Anonymous
a b } Memory
June 29, 2006 2:01:46 PM

Nice article. BUT:

"it's still hard to visualize needing a drive over 250 GB"

I wonder behind which rock the author is hiding...
June 29, 2006 2:35:41 PM

I'm stoked that some work is being done on larger drives. I don't understand why the raptor is still so dang small though. Yeah - the 250GB comment is indeed strange - I don't do any video editing and I have 3 250GB drives in my PC.

I wish they would start making some 500GB and 750GB SAS drives as well. All of their server drives are PUNY!!!! Do they not understand that servers need VERY LARGE drives? It used to be that if you were looking at very large drives, they were going for the server market, now everything is backwards but the problem is that the server still need very large drives but little has been developed on that front short of having a 16 drive disk array. When space is limited it would be great to have 8 750 GB SAS drives or more since more would fit in the same space of your standard tower or rack server.
June 29, 2006 3:04:44 PM

It should also be noted that current US street pricing on this drive is $378.00 USD (500GB models are at $245.99 USD). With that kind of price point along with its performance and 5 year warranty the Barracuda 7200.10 750GB should become the power users favorite HD.

The comment for video work was strange, my next build will be around 4TB's. At $756.00 USD per 1.5 TB thats not bad at all.
June 29, 2006 4:31:36 PM

Quote:
this statement surprised me:

"Even if you do a lot of video work, 3D rendering and CNC/CAD, it's still hard to visualize needing a drive over 250 GB."


Ditto

Quote:
I bought a 300gb internal drive a few months ago, and I filled it with downloads in 2 months. I was only using a 6mbit internet connection, nothing special.


I shoot quite a bit of DI and DV and gan gobble the gigs that way real fast. Then there's new music to be stored, etc. I think a 10TB server is what I need just to get through '06.
June 29, 2006 7:42:00 PM

Hard drive technology has advanced very slowly until recently. I'm hoping this is only the beginning of a cycle of rapid innovation.
1. How long 'till we see economical hybrid drives that mix flash memory with conventional platters? The "most used" programs & data would presumably be stored in the flash memory. (Or might they be stored in a completely separate flash drive?)
2. What technology/size/RPM do you guys think will be commonly available in 12 to 18 months? That is most likely when I'll be replacing my current 1 yr old drives (2x320WD).
Thanks for your predictions.
June 29, 2006 8:08:00 PM

Quote:
What technology/size/RPM do you guys think will be commonly available in 12 to 18 months?


I'm not sure if and when perpendicular will become mainstream. Assuming the manufacturing costs can be brought down, I don't know what might be most limiting with that tech. WRT RPM, I'd think desktop internals will still be dominated by 7200 RPM in the short term and size should just continue its slow march. Regardless, if 1TB drives are available for $300 in the near future, I'll be pretty happy. A six drive RAID10 of 1TB drives will work just fine for my music archive.
June 29, 2006 8:35:35 PM

I'm personally interested to see hybrid hard drives hit mainstream. Hopefully then I can stop drooling over the 15K SAS drives :)  Not sure why they're making Hybrid Drives: I would think the smart thing would be to embed flash on the CONTROLLER, not the drive.

Unless you're doing Digital Imaging, Ripping DVD's, or downloading game installs/ISOs, I don't see much use for > 250GB. I only use like 300 GB on my NAS, and I have a LOT of MSDN ISO's cached there, with various videos, backups, and MP3's.
June 29, 2006 8:55:00 PM

Quote:
I'm personally interested to see hybrid hard drives hit mainstream. Hopefully then I can stop drooling over the 15K SAS drives :)  Not sure why they're making Hybrid Drives: I would think the smart thing would be to embed flash on the CONTROLLER, not the drive.


(Scratching chin, staring at ceiling) Imagine an evga-like upgrade policy. Buy some flash sticks that plug into the controller socket. Save some more bucks, then trade those in for the next model up.

Quote:
Unless you're doing Digital Imaging, Ripping DVD's, or downloading game installs/ISOs, I don't see much use for > 250GB.


I'm approaching a TB of MP3s alone. All legally acquired, naturally. The problem is that for those not ripped off of my own CDs, I'm not comfortable just having one hard disc copy.
June 29, 2006 10:29:09 PM

Quote:
Nice article. BUT:

"it's still hard to visualize needing a drive over 250 GB"

I wonder behind which rock the author is hiding...


When it comes to hdd space, nope--I can't even fill up my 80GB or 74GB drives. You guys must be downloading lots of illegal stuff to be doing that--my files--including .iso files for both the x86 and x64 versions of Vista, an iso image for a trial of Windows XP x64 version Beta 2, IE 5.5 SP2 full and all later versions, SP1a and SP2 for winxp, SP6 and SRP 1b for NT 4.0, SP4 and SRP 1.0a for Windows 2000, and IE6 cumulative patches, as well as many dozens of nvidia drivers and ati drivers for multiple versions of Windows--all take up just 34GB at the end of the day. Add all those PC games in there I have installed and I use just over 58GB of hard drive space for my grand total.

My other drive has 35 audio CD's (all legal btw), recorded at 192kbps or better. Even with that I use a grand total of 73GB on my PC. Oh--forgot that includes a dual boot of Windows Vista x86 and Windows XP with SP2...

...So what do you guys need 250GB for again??? Uninstall that crap in Add/Remove Programs list and see how much you NEED...move/resize that gigantic page file of yours to a reasonable size, and for God's sake check your darn temp folders under every username, as well as the C:windowstemp folder (or C:winnttemp).

On average, the PC's I work on at work have over 5 gigabytes of temporary files alone--we're talking Joe Dumbey computers as well as those used in small businesses' offices. That's average! Now, the least I've removed is just under 1MB, that was a Computer Science guy's PC, and the most was over 29GB--that guy who had his PC turn off while downloading a DVD to his hard drive. He forgot to delete the corrupt partial copies...

Seriously, don't want to repeat history (nobody needs more than 640KB of RAM), but I can't imagine how you guys would ever fill up a 250GB hard drive with legal files, unless you watch your entire DVD collection on your hard drive, or prefer to listen to all audio in .wav format for 398 full-length audio CDs...
June 29, 2006 10:57:27 PM

Same deal here :lol: 

I use an 80 gig and have around 56 gigs free.

I did want an external drive on firewire as a backup drive for 3 systems, and thought 250 or 300gig external would work. And it wouldn't be running full time.

But man 750 gigs? Would there be a different meaning to, hay, when was it the last time you defragged your drive? :lol: 
June 29, 2006 11:14:22 PM

well 6000 flac files takes up about 130+ gigs and if you ever convert the stuff to other files those same flac files in MP3 take up about 30+ gigs in a good bit rate. so it adds up quick. and the fact that windows doesnt manage files well you cant even defrag a 250 gig hard drive with less that 30 some odd gigs free.

one thing that isnt very clear by his comment on 250 gig drives is did he mean total or just per drive. If he means per drive i can see that being logical because of the cost and also managability. Not to mention data safety, i would much rather have a terabyte of data across 4 drives instead of one.

but if hes talking about for a computer in general to not have more than 250 gigs i think hes smokin something.
June 29, 2006 11:47:02 PM

Quote:

When it comes to hdd space, nope--I can't even fill up my 80GB or 74GB drives. You guys must be downloading lots of illegal stuff to be doing that

My desktop has a 300 GB and a 120 GB drive, and I'm always low on space. Really, it's easy to fill up space even without illegal stuff. Modern games tend to come on 3-5 CDs or one installation DVD. They can take anywhere from 1-5 GB to install. DVD rips take up crazy space too, anywhere from 700 MB to several GB depending on length and quality (I mean rips you make yourself of movies you own). Also, you'll want to have space free for defragmenting. Furthermore, did anybody notice how the read and write speeds of the hard drives decreased as more space was taken up? If I understand correctly, to maximize I/O performance, hard drives write on the outside first, working their way to the inside, because the linear velocity is greater on the outter rim than the inner one. The more free space you have, the less you have to resort to that lower-performance region of the hard drive.

Then you have to consider the actual capacity of the drive being less than you bought due to the file system and the 1 GB = 1 billion bytes issue. A "750 GB" drive is really only 699 GB of space, less after the file system and operating system are installed. Add in various programs, add-ons, and space for temp caches, and you might be down to 675 GB of space. Throw in some more space for the recycling bin's temp space and System Restore points (which on my machine take up 1-10 GB of space, and I regularly remove them to save space) and you might be at 650 GB of space.

Now, take that 650 GB of space and start loading games up on it. This doesn't apply to non-gamers, but if you are a gamer, you've probably been collecting games for a number of years, and with games taking anywhere from a couple hundred MB (back in the early 2000's) to a couple GB (today) to install, a game collection might take up 50 or 100 GB. Save files can also take up space, with some games the save files are 10-20 MB each. Throw in a dozen of those per game and you've tacked on several more GB of content. That's how it always is, several GB here and there, a new program, a new temp cache, and it all adds up. If you're a photo buff and every picture is several MB, then a single vacation might end up being a GB of photos. If you like to record video, it adds up crazy fast. If you're an audio buff and enjoy uncompressed audio from your CDs, or you're a movie person and want the quality of a DVD but the access speed and resolution of a PC, space continues to be sucked away by the gigabyte.

Let's say that a game collection, large photo collection, music collection, and movie collection add up to take several hundred GB, which is not unreasonable (my computer being the prime example). Your drive is over half filled, by which point your performance has started to degrade. Putting in more will aggrevate the problem.

If you're the type who records TV shows or downloads unliscensed, fan-subtitled anime, a single show that airs once a week at pretty good quality can take up 170 MB per episode, or about 4.5 GB per 26-week season. And if you buy into the HD-revolution, it can be double that size. A 1280x720 anime episode (lots of still frames, little motion at once, and using the H.264 codec to save space) can take 300-400 MB of space, for a SINGLE episode.

Thus, a mighty 750 GB drive is slowly filled (or quickly, if you already have the content available) with video, music, photos, games, temp caches, and the like.

Now, this isn't to say everyone NEEDS that space. Sure, you can set the recycling bin to immediately delete anything you put there, you can give your 'net programs a whopping 5 MB of cache space, you can purge your computer of video files and keep your MP3 collection at a modest several GB. You can get along with 80 GB of space (my laptop has 40, or 32 after the damn IBM restore partition) if you're thrifty or not a media enthusiast. But as long as drive prices continue to drop, why wouldn't you want the extra space? It keeps your performance from tapering off and if nothing else, makes you feel good when you see that you have 90% space free.
June 30, 2006 12:33:18 AM

I can understand people will have different needs.

For example, converting old media (VHS/BETA/CAMCORD) video to DVD, does require alot of storage, and time.

Ripping your own DVD's in a sense doesn't make that much sense to me.

At this point, I have not ever had a DVD go bad and have to rely on a backup, nor do I have the need to rip any of my own stuff. Its not like you really need to backup movies that you need to watch every day, come on. :lol: 

I understand games do take up space, but can be installed to where you don't have to have the total installation on HD. Athough I can see the pain of that.

I guess it also would have to do with a users way of managing HD space. I know my Dad is a pack rat, since sometimes he thinks he needs to keep certain files/exe and it become bloated with files he may not need to keep. Thats where I normally help him with.

But it is amazing how far HD have come to storage space and performance.
June 30, 2006 1:22:15 AM

Oh, I don't back up for fear of the media dying. If anything the media is the backup for the copied data dying.

The reason I would make a DVD rip to my computer is the same reason people make CD rips. When I want to see something, I want it right then. I'm a spontaneous sort, I'll be having a conversation over my shoulder, somebody will say a movie quote, and I love to be able to pull it up within 10 seconds or so. I don't want to spend 20 seconds searching for the disc, 10 opening and loading it, 10 waiting for it to spin up and start, and another 30 seconds skipping through through previews, animated menus, and goodies that you can't fast forward through or skip. Also, for anyone who has a portable video player with a hard drive, having DVD rips of your own on your computer means you can just drag and drop to enjoy them on a trip or whatnot. A 1.4 GB DVD rip is generally pretty damn good quality, and the thing that makes it look somewhat crappy on a PC screen is the low DVD resolution rather than mild compression artifacts.

More and more games are dropping the option to to do partial installs for a number of reasons. The only things they can really load off of CD are music files and video files. Video files are becoming increasingly rare as in-game cutscenes, rendered in real time, look real enough to drop the pre-rendered cutscenes. Music files, when put into MP3 format, really don't take up much space. For me personally, however, I always do full installs and no-CD cracks, for the same reason I do DVD rips. Why should I have to rifle through piles or binders of discs when I can just click on the shortcut?

At least we can both agree that storage and performance have gone up like crazy. Modern hard drives have CACHES of 16 MB, which is over 3 times the total capacity of the original hard drives (50 platters, 24" diameter each, took up its own massive wardrobe-sized cabinet and stored 5 MB).
June 30, 2006 2:22:54 AM

This article was excellent.

I just placed an order for the Seagate ST3500630AS Baracuda 7200.10 500GB (7200rpm, Serial ATAII/300MB/s, 16mb Cache, NCQ). There are ppl like myself that enjoy video editing, and as such large capacity drives are essential.
June 30, 2006 2:24:33 AM

In CD rips... to me is different though. Its just audio, which is far more compressable without losing hardly that much quality.

I did convert most of my music to MP3 for convenience of having my collection on a CD or HD.

Though, through what I've seen with movies is a different story. I still find it just as easy to find movies the old fashion way vs finding a file a on a PC.

It would make sense that it would be easier on the PC, but still takes up alot of space, not to mention the time to label your files to start the movie.

I mean you might as well get something like this:

Sony DVPCX995 V - 400 disc changer

To be able to bring up a movie fairly quick, without having to go through each DVD container.

But on the darkside of things, it also makes sense to me that people would rent movies and rip it to their PC, or rip DVD games to their HD. From that point I won't discuss what they do or can do.
June 30, 2006 2:49:22 AM

Quote:
You guys must be downloading lots of illegal stuff to be doing that


I own about 4000 CDs - legal retail CDs. I own about the same number of LPs. These have been ripped to MP3. Nothing illegal there.

I have about 30,000 high res digital images, all taken from my own camera, all legal. I have about 5,000 35mm slides, many of them scanned to digital at high res - up to 60MB per image. All legal.

I also shoot video, both tape and digital and store that on HDs. All legal, every nanosecond. Just do the math on the MP3s and realize that the video space is huge by comparison.

Then STFU, numbnutless.
June 30, 2006 3:10:21 AM

I'm nowhere near filling my 250GB drive. Hell, I never even managed to fill my old 40GB drive. However, this might change if I can ever get the video off my video camera. And if my iPod will sync with iTunes. And if my digital camera wants to work. Backup? I just cross my fingers and pray to the hard drive gods.
June 30, 2006 3:14:27 AM

Quote:
You guys must be downloading lots of illegal stuff to be doing that


I own about 4000 CDs - legal retail CDs. I own about the same number of LPs. These have been ripped to MP3. Nothing illegal there.

I have about 30,000 high res digital images, all taken from my own camera, all legal. I have about 5,000 35mm slides, many of them scanned to digital at high res - up to 60MB per image. All legal.

I also shoot video, both tape and digital and store that on HDs. All legal, every nanosecond. Just do the math on the MP3s and realize that the video space is huge by comparison.

Then STFU, numbnutless.

Wow, there's been quite a discussion going on here while I was gone :) 

I understand most of the comments here. I also understand that it does come down to individuals' needs and wants as to how much space they use.

Clue69less, why get so angry? Did I hit a nerve? Okay, so you purchased over $60,000 worth of CD's--well, you're not the average Joe. Yes, based on what all you store on your PC, you should definately buy a few of these 750GB drives. Put 'em in Raid 5. Better yet, use RAID 0+1 for a mirrored-stripe set. Make 12 of 'em. It will only cost one twentieth the amount you spent on those CD's, so I'm sure you have the money...

...reminds me of something. I've been saying that HD-DVD will win the new format war simply because of price, and because when they store 35GB vs. Blu-ray's 50GB, it will not be that huge of a difference to most people. Well, after all this discussion, suddenly Blu-Ray discs seem way too tiny... :lol: 
June 30, 2006 3:16:04 AM

To you it's just audio, some people think that CDs are crap to begin with and prefer older analog media. I myself can't tell the difference much above 192 kbps, but that's just me.

See, you find it easy to do the whole DVD thing. For me, I just click the shortcut that says "Movies" and then I type in "Fi" and hit enter. Finding Nemo starts playing, with instant seek ability. I can go to any point in the movie with no delay, can your DVD player do that? Not nearly as preceise or quickly.

...and yes, it does take up a lot of space, at least 700 and ideally 1.4 or 2.1 GB of space per movie. That's the point. It takes up space which is readily available because I wouldn't consider buying any drive under 400 GB right now. Labeling the files is a non-issue because frankly, the amount of time it takes to type in "X-men 2" is less than the amount of time I spend putting away my credit card after buying the thing. And I wouldn't get a 400 disc changer, because aside from costing hundreds of dollars, I neither have nor want a TV. I'm a PC guy, play all my movies on a nice 20.1" LCD. Even if I did use a TV and the disc changer were free, there's still the fun fun delay of a regular DVD. A video file is simply faster to find, access, and search through.

On a side note, that 400 disc changer is about twice the size of my computer :p 

As for ripping rented movies, some people do that. Either way it doesn't matter, my point is that you can easily fill up those extra GB in drives that are in excess of 80 GB, 250 GB, 750 GB...
June 30, 2006 3:44:09 AM

Something I just realized... this is a website that reviews 20" widescreen LCDs and larger. Overclocked processors and oil cooled computer. Stuff like that. This isn't a website for people who think a Hard Drive is the big box their monitor and keyboard plug into (which, oddly enough, they also call a CPU).

Therefore, whether or not Joe B. Average will manage to fill up his 250+ GB hard drive with funny pictures his relatives email him and internet temp files doesn't really matter...
June 30, 2006 3:53:15 AM

Quote:
To you it's just audio, some people think that CDs are crap to begin with and prefer older analog media. I myself can't tell the difference much above 192 kbps, but that's just me.

See, you find it easy to do the whole DVD thing. For me, I just click the shortcut that says "Movies" and then I type in "Fi" and hit enter. Finding Nemo starts playing, with instant seek ability. I can go to any point in the movie with no delay, can your DVD player do that? Not nearly as preceise or quickly.

...and yes, it does take up a lot of space, at least 700 and ideally 1.4 or 2.1 GB of space per movie. That's the point. It takes up space which is readily available because I wouldn't consider buying any drive under 400 GB right now. Labeling the files is a non-issue because frankly, the amount of time it takes to type in "X-men 2" is less than the amount of time I spend putting away my credit card after buying the thing. And I wouldn't get a 400 disc changer, because aside from costing hundreds of dollars, I neither have nor want a TV. I'm a PC guy, play all my movies on a nice 20.1" LCD. Even if I did use a TV and the disc changer were free, there's still the fun fun delay of a regular DVD. A video file is simply faster to find, access, and search through.

On a side note, that 400 disc changer is about twice the size of my computer :p 

As for ripping rented movies, some people do that. Either way it doesn't matter, my point is that you can easily fill up those extra GB in drives that are in excess of 80 GB, 250 GB, 750 GB...


The only difference I'm saying is the file size between audio and video. Regardless of how you record your mp3 (kbps wise). A full album converted will take up less space then a dvd movie. Now if the compression rate to make movies smaller or as small as a mp3, that would perhaps lead allot of people to convert their movies.

So, theres no doubt in filling empty HD space with video, and it doesn't have to be a DVD movie.

400 disc changer maybe physically bigger then some PC's, but hey.. its 400 DVD's or CD's that it can hold. Can you put 400 movies on that 750 Gig, and spend the time ripping 400 of them to it?

Everything has it's pros and cons. But then it boils down to user preference.
June 30, 2006 4:04:33 AM

About the drive failure and such... there is more to consider than that. Three drives means three times the noise, heat, power consumption, and space. My mini PC can't take more than 2 drives, ideally one is performances and the other is storage. But aside from that...

If you have 3 hard drives versus having 1, your chances are roughly 3 times higher that you'll have a mechanical failure, assuming all other things are equal. So you have a triple chance of losing data. One should assume that irreplacible data is backed up somehow, in which case, whether you lose 1/3 or all of your data doesn't much matter... you still have it somewhere.

So yeah, you can have 3 times size, noise, heat, power use, and chance of failure if you want... good luck with that.
June 30, 2006 4:30:13 AM

Quote:
You guys must be downloading lots of illegal stuff to be doing that

Quote:
Clue69less, why get so angry? Did I hit a nerve? Okay, so you purchased over $60,000 worth of CD's--well, you're not the average Joe. Yes, based on what all you store on your PC, you should definately buy a few of these 750GB drives. Put 'em in Raid 5. Better yet, use RAID 0+1 for a mirrored-stripe set. Make 12 of 'em. It will only cost one twentieth the amount you spent on those CD's, so I'm sure you have the money...


Why get angry, why get angry... Lemmie see, you spout that I must be downloading lots of illegal stuff without knowing jack about me then ask why I get angry?

First off, I'm not angry. Disgust and anger are different emotions. Second, I paid well under retail for much of my CD collection. It's easy to buy CDs dirt cheap and legal if you know where to look. I have nothing against people that do illegal downloads but I myself have never done it, ever. I always figured I'd get busted, so I just didn't do it. Zero, zilch, nada.

I won't be buying those 750s anytime soon. My mode is to avoid the newest thing at its highest possible price. I did buy some 400s recently on sale with an MIR and the rebate checks just arrived, so I feel I got a decent deal. Third, you attempt to reduce this to money and again that shows that your stereotypical approach has failed. I am not wealthy and never have been, but have found legal ways to get nice things by keeping my eyes open and working more than one job. I've been employed since I was 8 years old, often self-employed and very busy. I'm not ashamed to have some nice toys because I've worked hard to get them.

WRT music, I like having the library in MP3 format. It's like a near-infinite jukebox and I love the variety. If you haven't experienced music this way, then you shouldn't make fun of it. I doubt that you understand that comment since you've proven adept at judging things you know little or nothing about.
June 30, 2006 4:36:42 AM

Quote:
It occurs to me that the savings obtained from
the RAID 0 could be used to purchase a larger case,
obviously because more space is required for 3 standard
HDDs than there is for only 1 standard HDD.


I'd rather set up four 400GB drives in a RAID10 and justify the extra expense for the security gained. Don't forget to consider the load on the PS by your RAID0 and the electricity cost over the lifetime of the array compared to the single 750. Overall, I totally agree with your logic and have proposed similar solutions to skeptics myself.
June 30, 2006 5:41:17 AM

Quote:
If you have 3 hard drives versus having 1, your chances are roughly 3 times higher that you'll have a mechanical failure, assuming all other things are equal. So you have a triple chance of losing data. One should assume that irreplacible data is backed up somehow, in which case, whether you lose 1/3 or all of your data doesn't much matter... you still have it somewhere.


Actually, since we're talking independent statistical events, the odds of having a drive fail, and thereby killing the data on the array, increases exponentially with added drives, rather than linearly. So you're really doing slightly worse than cubing the odds of avoiding a drive failure in a given time period (slightly worse because the added heat and vibration from the extra drives add extra stressors that'll lower the mean time to failure a touch).

Just nitpicking. Your point is valid, it's just that it's actually worse than you make it out to be.
June 30, 2006 6:02:03 AM

Quote:
We pit the Seagate 7200.10, a perpendicular recording marvel, against the latest 500 GB monsters from Maxtor and Western Digital. What benefits does the new technology offer, both now and for the future?


I know I ran into a treatment of data lifetime predictions on perpendicular vs. traditional HDs due to coercitivity issues but now I can't find the link. I can't remember if the perpendicular lifetimes were predicted to be over 10 years or not. Does anyone have a reference? TIA.
June 30, 2006 12:15:43 PM

wow I am surprised how many people frequent this site who are not "power users". I have not met any pc professional in years with <100gb of hard drive space consumed, well at least the ones I have discussed it with.

My personal hard drive space consumed is largely video files. I do have about 15gb of mp3's, but do not consider that to be a large collection. I recently formatted, but prior to that I had 30gb of space consumed by the games I had currently installed (admittedly I could have uninstalled some, but there are some I play infrequently at LAN parties, or with friends, so there is no point).

Once you have a large dvd collection, you start to realize how impractical media of any kind really is. My fiancee and I together have literally hundreds of DVDs, including some in binders, and others on display racks. It is very impractical looking through them all for a movie, or trying to sort them alphabetically. Especially for a visitor to pick a movie who is not familiar with it.

Considering I have ripped 0 of these DVDs (which I would love to do btw), the rest of my video media on my PC is from TV shows and amateur video. PVRs are a big thing these days, and I have a number of new and old television shows I really enjoy. Recording live broadcast is LEGAL. Of course I do not watch them every day, but it would be rediculous to rip 100's of GB of video data to any kind of media. I built my own projector in one room, and its pc uses my wireless LAN to access all of my video which is not stored on DVDs. You know what? that wireless media is FAR FAR easier to access, organize and utilize than the PILE of DVDs I have in my media room.

you think I'm rich? think again. it cost me $300 to build that projector instead of buying a TV, and the pc that outputs the display was a junker from work with my old video card in it. My friends love to come over to see an old/new TV show or cartoon from when we were kids. My highest expense in all this is the DVD media (I'd rather download the movies for cheaper if they would get off their asses and offer HD movies for sale over download for cheaper than DVDs). If I could purchase and download HD movies (for a reasonable price, yeah right) I'd need 1tb tomorrow.
June 30, 2006 1:37:27 PM

Quote:
wow I am surprised how many people frequent this site who are not "power users". I have not met any pc professional in years with <100gb of hard drive space consumed, well at least the ones I have discussed it with.

My personal hard drive space consumed is largely video files. I do have about 15gb of mp3's, but do not consider that to be a large collection. I recently formatted, but prior to that I had 30gb of space consumed by the games I had currently installed (admittedly I could have uninstalled some, but there are some I play infrequently at LAN parties, or with friends, so there is no point).

Once you have a large dvd collection, you start to realize how impractical media of any kind really is. My fiancee and I together have literally hundreds of DVDs, including some in binders, and others on display racks. It is very impractical looking through them all for a movie, or trying to sort them alphabetically. Especially for a visitor to pick a movie who is not familiar with it.

Considering I have ripped 0 of these DVDs (which I would love to do btw), the rest of my video media on my PC is from TV shows and amateur video. PVRs are a big thing these days, and I have a number of new and old television shows I really enjoy. Recording live broadcast is LEGAL. Of course I do not watch them every day, but it would be rediculous to rip 100's of GB of video data to any kind of media. I built my own projector in one room, and its pc uses my wireless LAN to access all of my video which is not stored on DVDs. You know what? that wireless media is FAR FAR easier to access, organize and utilize than the PILE of DVDs I have in my media room.

you think I'm rich? think again. it cost me $300 to build that projector instead of buying a TV, and the pc that outputs the display was a junker from work with my old video card in it. My friends love to come over to see an old/new TV show or cartoon from when we were kids. My highest expense in all this is the DVD media (I'd rather download the movies for cheaper if they would get off their asses and offer HD movies for sale over download for cheaper than DVDs). If I could purchase and download HD movies (for a reasonable price, yeah right) I'd need 1tb tomorrow.


This was my point. I'm a "power user", a "computer tech", and I use just under 74GB of total hard drive space. Then again--I still have two of my older PCs and they have--rough guess here--something around 20GB worth of data.

Should all people only require 120GB? No, not at all. Do all PCs with 250GB or more of data have pirated material? No. My point was that _I_ cannot conceive of what it was you were putting on the hard drive to fill it up. I also cannot conceive of having one billion dollars. Does that mean it is impossible for someone to have it? No.

I was not accusing anyone of having illegal software, my point came accross the wrong way. My point was that the only thing *I* could conceive of to fill up 250GB is having a dvd collection on the drive or having illegal material. I'm sorry if that offended you.
June 30, 2006 1:56:08 PM

I think my message also came accross more defensively than I intended. I was just trying to show my particular situation as an illustration of hard drive capacity needs which is a significant concern for a number of users here.

I am glad we have some examples of users who do NOT have such high requirements, to present alternative points of view and really discuss this concept. Otherwise, I would not be monitoring this thread, as it would not be nearly so interesting. :wink:

I will not lie to you, not 100% of my data is legal. I do not really feel bad about it though, because I already spend all I can afford supporting the film industry with DVD purchases and a few theatre visits. If I did not have the illegal data I do, I would not be planning to purchase it because some is only a mild interest, or (more commonly) FAR overpriced in my opinion. I would never pay the price for some sci-fi tv show seasons for example. Thank god Battlestar Gallactica is not as expensive, although the seasons 2.1 and 2.2 division made me quite angry.
June 30, 2006 2:30:50 PM

I do a lot of video work. Currently running 1.5TB in my workstation. I'm constantly having to delete stuff because I don't have enought space available. Three of those 750GB disks would suit me needs fine. :)  250GB?!!??!? That's a useless size of disk for any video pro.
June 30, 2006 2:33:31 PM

you do realize that when you lose a drive in a raid 0 that you lose ALL of your data right?
personally i would never run 0 unless i didnt care what happend to the data. your scenario is more valid if you just have 3 drives with 3 drive letters. then your numbers make more sense.

the only reason i see to run raid 0 is with two raptors with windows and your aplications only running on it. DATA would be on a raid 5 or raid 1.

Quote:
I have an experimental proposition for all of you:

Let's just say that I purchase 3 x WD2500YD
SATA-II HDDs with 300 MB/second interface
and 16 MB cache.

Then, I configured these 3 HDDs on Intel's PCI-Express
ICH7R as a RAID 0 with one Windows drive letter.


My prediction: the RAID 0 is going to run circles
around the Seagate, in every respect. And,
this difference will continue into the indefinite
future, because parallelism will out-perform
single-threading every time. The two will only
approach equality if and when vertical recording
reaches sufficient density to "break even" with
horizontal recording in a RAID 0 setup.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/
June 30, 2006 2:34:46 PM

Quote:
It occurs to me that the savings obtained from
the RAID 0 could be used to purchase a larger case,
obviously because more space is required for 3 standard
HDDs than there is for only 1 standard HDD.


I'd rather set up four 400GB drives in a RAID10 and justify the extra expense for the security gained. Don't forget to consider the load on the PS by your RAID0 and the electricity cost over the lifetime of the array compared to the single 750. Overall, I totally agree with your logic and have proposed similar solutions to skeptics myself.

Why would you go RAID 10 over RAID 5? Or are you talking about using the array as a primary drive? Electricity is cheap, though. Hard drives are like 8W. That's something like US$0.20/year.

I alsways go RAID 0 for my primary partition with a seperate RAID 5 array for storage. That way, I get the best of both worlds. I've never trusted RAID 10 to be faster than RAID 0 unless there's a beefy hardware XOR engine and cache.


Quote:
Then, I configured these 3 HDDs on Intel's PCI-Express
ICH7R as a RAID 0 with one Windows drive letter.


Just to be clear, the hard drive data never touches the PCIe bus, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it here... Intel moved the hard controller off of the GPIO bus around ICH5 or so, back when CSA made its debut.

Quote:
I have an experimental proposition for all of you:

My prediction: the RAID 0 is going to run circles around the Seagate, in every respect


There are a ton of articles on this already. It's a heavily debated subject. There are articles that go both ways, both for AND against RAID 0.


As for 250GB, for the average Joe, even a lot of power-users, it's not easy to take up 250 GB of space... There are exceptions to the rule, but there are few people out there with 4,000 CD's, 4000 LP's, and 5,000 35mm slides.
June 30, 2006 2:38:22 PM

(Before someone corrects me, I know there's no parity checking on RAID 10... I've just become accustom to referring to the RAID processor as the XOR engine)
June 30, 2006 6:08:47 PM

Quote:
Why would you go RAID 10 over RAID 5?

You can find comparisons elsewhere, but recently, CPU magazine ran some benchmarks. I like the balance of performance and security offered by RAID 10. For example, RAID0 has the highest score for SSSandra 2007 Pro FSB (drive index test) at 121 MBps, followed by RAID10 at 88, a single drive at 66, RAID1 at 60 and RAID5 at 44MBps. The article gives a bunch of PCMark05 scores and what caught my eye is that RAID10 scored second on the overall score. RAID0 scored 9728, followed by RAID10 at 9064, RAID1 at 8030, single drive at 7028 and RAID5 at 3372.

Four specs were given for HD Tach v3.0 1.0 Long: burst speed, average read, random access and CPU utilization. The random access times were all within about a half millisecond of each other. RAID0 had the top burst speed of 244.1 MBps, followed by RAID10 at 243, RAID5 at 158.6, single drive at 134.3 and RAID1 at 99.3. RAID10 had the top average read at 156.3 MBps, followed by RAID0 at 150.9, RAID5 at 115.2, single drive at 78and RAID1 at 77.2. RAID5 had the highest CPU utilization at 8%, followed by RAID10 at 6%, RAID0 at 5% and the other two at 2%.

There are prices to be paid for RAID10 compared to 5. Three 150GB HDs in RAID5 yield 280GB of usable volume and for 10, you have to add a fourth drive to get the same size. But I still plan to go with a RAID10 setup on the next box I build. I have some shopping left to do because I'd like to find a six or eight drive RAID10 controller and haven't looked around enough to know what all is out there. Eight 400GB HDs would yield 1.6TB of fast, highly redundant space. That would hold my music, photos and part of my video in a system that has fast access and great security. You probably know all this junk, but you asked and I did my best to answer with my logical process for comparing different arrays in relation to my priorities.
June 30, 2006 10:14:27 PM

A little bit off the topic here, but I would like to see some similar storage and performance advancements go into the 2.5 inch hard drives for notebooks.

I have a 100GB 7200rpm notebook drive that is screaming for more space, yet short of adding an external raid box there is little that I can do.

Yes there are laptops that have dual hard drives, but I am not about to trash my current notebook for that.

If perpendicular can yield 10x capacity, then it's about high time that manufacturers started making some 200GB+ 7200rpm notebook drives to satisfy the power users. I am not interested in 4200rpm or 5400rpm. Give me speed AND capacity!!!
July 1, 2006 4:25:46 PM

Quote:
A little bit off the topic here, but I would like to see some similar storage and performance advancements go into the 2.5 inch hard drives for notebooks.

I have a 100GB 7200rpm notebook drive that is screaming for more space, yet short of adding an external raid box there is little that I can do.

Yes there are laptops that have dual hard drives, but I am not about to trash my current notebook for that.

If perpendicular can yield 10x capacity, then it's about high time that manufacturers started making some 200GB+ 7200rpm notebook drives to satisfy the power users. I am not interested in 4200rpm or 5400rpm. Give me speed AND capacity!!!


Well then, you're in luck! Tom's reported on some company working on 200 GB perpendicular drives for, I think, Q1 of next year.
July 21, 2006 9:14:28 PM

A little off to the side here but I thought this would be as good a place as any to post...

<<<Here's what I sent to the writers of this story>>>

"This being said, all of the drive are within the 0-60° C operating specifications even with 24/7 operation."

You guys should stop and take the time to fully understand the product specifications you so easily refer to; there's no excuse for mediocrity in this regard.

(Temperature) Operating spec refers to the ambient environment the drive can operate in in order to ensure meeting all realibility expectations or in other words, surviving the warranty period. In the product manual you will find a location that pin points where HDA case temperatures should be measured in the mechanical specifications section and back in the environmental specifications section you will notice a reference to the max allowable case temperature.

Seagate drives are actually specified to operature below 69'C when measured at the specified location - not 60'C.

Take time to be clear on this stuff and your readers will be the beneficiaries...



amatot
Seagate In My Blood
!