Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which HDD brand do you recommend?

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 12, 2007 5:16:47 AM

Hey there!

I'm building a new gaming system :)  Which HDD brand would you recommend me? My brother bought an external HDD from Western Digital, a MyBook, and it died after 3 months :S i'm a little scared about going with WD. Some people have told me to go with Seagate, but i have seen great prices on the WD drives.

Im looking for a drive with these features:
* 16mb cache
* SATAII interface
* 320, 400, or 500 gb capacity

Which brand should i go for? Is there any special feature i must look for in a drive?

Thanks!

More about : hdd brand recommend

August 12, 2007 5:45:28 AM

All brands fail, if all is the same or close pricewise, why not go for the best warranty ?
August 12, 2007 6:02:16 AM

Well...in my case, warranty won't help much. :S I live in Costa Rica, and in here, the warranty depends on which store you bought a product. But most of the stores, will give you a 1 year warranty, after that, you are on your own.

Even though I have a way of sending something to USA, via a special mail service, its kinda expensive and with all the money you invest on sendin' something to the states, and then payin' for getting it back to Costa Rica, well at the end, with all the money invested, you may already have like half the money to buy a new drive.

It's easier to bring stuff from the US to CR, but the other way around is kinda expensive. I'm probably goin' to buy the hdd in the states, and have it brought here. It's cheaper than buying the drive directly here.

But well, that's not the point. So, as you see, warranty isn't gonna help me choose. I need to focus on reliability, and performance to make a decision here.
Related resources
August 12, 2007 6:19:20 AM

Western Digital, Seagate, Samsung, and Hitachi are all top brands. Maxtor was slightly worse in terms of reliability, but I suppose they're the same as Seagate's now since Seagate bought them.
August 12, 2007 6:35:49 AM

Hitachi was good when it was IBM. Now sure now.
Seagate was surely the best not long ago. But it seem Digital got better after the release of the Raptor.
Anyway, you can't go wrong with a new WD or Segate. Or Samsung for non-RAID5 work.
What kind of work is jgchaval doing? Or just general home use?
These are all very generized.
August 12, 2007 7:08:11 AM

jgchaval said:
Hey there!

I'm building a new gaming system :)  Which HDD brand would you recommend me? My brother bought an external HDD from Western Digital, a MyBook, and it died after 3 months :S i'm a little scared about going with WD. Some people have told me to go with Seagate, but i have seen great prices on the WD drives.

Im looking for a drive with these features:
* 16mb cache
* SATAII interface
* 320, 400, or 500 gb capacity

Which brand should i go for? Is there any special feature i must look for in a drive?

Thanks!


Seagates meet your requirements, and generally have a better MTBF than WD... Hence the longer warranty. Hitachi has really improved the IBM 'Deathstar' image, and would also not be a bad choice. Horses for courses, I guess. In your case, given the situation of replacing cheaper than getting an RMA, I'd get the best bang for the buck and some good back-up strategies...

As to the external drive not lasting... one drop kick would've done it. IMO, the MTBF on external drives is guaranteed to be almost 0. They're convenient, but I'd not trust them.
August 12, 2007 7:29:20 AM

Well, just personally speaking. If you want to get a more reliable drive I'd get the WD Raid Edition HDD's as they are rated to 1.2million hours of use and come with a good warrenty (even though you wont use it). Check them out, they are a littel more than a regular but are tested more extensively for reliability, top binned for sure.
August 12, 2007 7:31:21 AM

Western Digital, Western Digital and Western Digital. :D  The Raptor 150GB drive is so fast at loading Windows in under 20 seconds. The hard drive is by far the weakest link in the chain, data flows from the HDD to the ram and then to the CPU.

When I started playing Oblivion a year ago at first I had a plain old sata Maxtor HD that was ok, then I bought a Raptor 150GB HDD and while in-game I noticed that the tree's that used to pop into view late did not happen with the Raptor drive. Many will tell you that others brands are good to, but not faster than a Raptor drive. Whenever your CPU has to wait for data, you'll get a in game pause or shuttering. Thats one of the reasons people use a raid 0 config.
August 12, 2007 8:18:58 AM

The best high capacity drive currently available is the Samsung HD501LJ. You get a fast, silent and cool running 500GB drive for only $110. If you doubt my opinion, do a forum search for HD501LJ on silentpcreview.com. I own four of these great inaudible units.
August 12, 2007 8:51:36 AM

eric54 said:
Well, just personally speaking. If you want to get a more reliable drive I'd get the WD Raid Edition HDD's as they are rated to 1.2million hours of use and come with a good warrenty (even though you wont use it). Check them out, they are a littel more than a regular but are tested more extensively for reliability, top binned for sure.


systemlord said:
Western Digital, Western Digital and Western Digital. :D  The Raptor 150GB drive is so fast at loading Windows in under 20 seconds. The hard drive is by far the weakest link in the chain, data flows from the HDD to the ram and then to the CPU.

When I started playing Oblivion a year ago at first I had a plain old sata Maxtor HD that was ok, then I bought a Raptor 150GB HDD and while in-game I noticed that the tree's that used to pop into view late did not happen with the Raptor drive. Many will tell you that others brands are good to, but not faster than a Raptor drive. Whenever your CPU has to wait for data, you'll get a in game pause or shuttering. Thats one of the reasons people use a raid 0 config.


Whiznot said:
The best high capacity drive currently available is the Samsung HD501LJ. You get a fast, silent and cool running 500GB drive for only $110. If you doubt my opinion, do a forum search for HD501LJ on silentpcreview.com. I own four of these great inaudible units.


Looks good, but awfully new to the market. Still, Samsung have been trying to claw their way in to the top three for a few years now.

I may try one, but I don't live in Costa Rica...
August 12, 2007 9:51:32 AM

Samsung OEM hard drives carry a three year manufacturer's warranty. For the last three years I have been buying Samsung Spinpoints exclusively because they are so quiet. In total I have purchased seven SATA Spinpoints including two 160GB units then one 400GB unit followed by four 500GB units. At silentpcreview.com forum members who have both Samsung and WD or Seagate drives seem to prefer the Spinpoints.
August 12, 2007 10:08:04 AM

Whiznot said:
Samsung OEM hard drives carry a three year manufacturer's warranty. For the last three years I have been buying Samsung Spinpoints exclusively because they are so quiet. In total I have purchased seven SATA Spinpoints including two 160GB units then one 400GB unit followed by four 500GB units. At silentpcreview.com forum members who have both Samsung and WD or Seagate drives seem to prefer the Spinpoints.


I may try one, but I don't live in Costa Rica...

Do any of you ever pay any attention to whatever special needs the OP may have? Or are you all so US-centric that you think that the rest of the world will just do whatever you say...

I live in AUS... The OP lives in Costa Rica. Got it? Have you ever tried to get parts from / to Costa Rica? Aus? Do you even have a passport? Aaargh... Frickin' yankees.
August 12, 2007 8:45:00 PM

croc said:
Looks good, but awfully new to the market. Still, Samsung have been trying to claw their way in to the top three for a few years now.

I may try one, but I don't live in Costa Rica...


Where have you been lately croc? The Raptor HDD have been on the market for over 3 years and the FACT that there some of the fastest HDD out there. You can't knock a Raptor drive no matter what you say. The speed of these HDD can't be beat and the fact that almost all (including Tom's Hardware) reviews lots of other products right here using the Raptor 150GB ADFD. Regardless of how new they are to the market they have proven them selfs time and time again. Samsung can keep clawing because its a long way up. :D 
August 12, 2007 11:27:18 PM

Other drives are begining to catch though.

If you dont want a Raptor, go for something like a western digital WD3200AAKS. They are still very good performance next to most drives. 16mb Cache helps a lot.
August 12, 2007 11:41:28 PM

I vote WD
Not 1 has died on me yet.
I have over 10 WD drives, some date back to 1998.
All of them going strong in the fileserver.
Only other drives I have found just as reliable are Quantum Fireballs *which is weird cause they are the craptastic drives that seem to always show up in cheap manufacturer built computers*
a b G Storage
August 13, 2007 12:37:09 AM

Another vote for WD. Using them since they were 20 MB in size. They never died, I just threw them away when models with 10 or 15 times the size became available. The 3 year warranty is plenty - in 2010 you'll just get a new 5 TB disk for $100.

August 13, 2007 1:53:49 PM

systemlord said:
The Raptor HDD have been on the market for over 3 years and the FACT that there some of the fastest HDD out there. You can't knock a Raptor drive no matter what you say. The speed of these HDD can't be beat and the fact that almost all (including Tom's Hardware) reviews lots of other products right here using the Raptor 150GB ADFD. Regardless of how new they are to the market they have proven them selfs time and time again. Samsung can keep clawing because its a long way up. :D 

You're not being nuanced. First, you are comparing 7200rpm versus 10k rpm drives - a whole different class of disks for different purposes and different market segments.

Second, the Raptor isn't the fastest desktop drive anymore when it comes to STR - even a simple Samsung T166 500GB whipps the Raptor in this regard, let alone the new Samsung F1 drives with up to 1TB capacity using 334GB platters. Not to mention they are more than a couple of notches less noisy, actually Samsung focusses on silent disks which is very nice. Their S250 disk will be even more silent, suited for a completely passive cooling solution.
a b G Storage
August 13, 2007 2:33:51 PM

I searched newegg for "Samsung F1" but didn't find anything. Are these things already available for sale? They sound very promising...

August 13, 2007 3:08:00 PM

They are the most modern drives today, utilizing 334GB per platter. That means 1TB with just 3 platters, while Hitachi needs 5 platters to achieve that capacity. They also rock in terms of performance and capacity-per-watt.

Here are prices (germany):
http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/a260325.html

Here is the announcement from Samsung:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/hdd/newsView.do?... 93

I expect the F1 to be available in a few weeks in Europe, don't know about the US.
August 13, 2007 3:11:06 PM

Quote:
I recommend any of the western digital re series.

Telling why you recommend this disk is more useful to readers, especially in comparison with competing products. Why does WD stand out?

In the HDD industry there is a lot of "two of my seagate drives crashed so i'll never take seagate again" talk, which is crap ofcourse unless you are considering a huge number of disks and draw conclusions out of those statistics.
a b G Storage
August 14, 2007 12:13:12 AM

enlightenment said:

In the HDD industry there is a lot of "two of my seagate drives crashed so i'll never take seagate again" talk, which is crap ofcourse unless you are considering a huge number of disks and draw conclusions out of those statistics.



I had 3 Maxtors that died in a span of 4 years. I will never touch a Maxtor ever again. :D 

The only brand that has never failed on me was my IBM Deskstar 75GXP which I finally retired after 7 years of continual usage.
August 14, 2007 1:16:04 AM

WD, Maxtor, and IBM (if they still make drives), I have all used, and none have gone bad on me. I've used a MyBook Pro for about 5 months now, and I've had no problems with it either.
August 15, 2007 8:36:57 AM

enlightenment said:
You're not being nuanced. First, you are comparing 7200rpm versus 10k rpm drives - a whole different class of disks for different purposes and different market segments.

Second, the Raptor isn't the fastest desktop drive anymore when it comes to STR - even a simple Samsung T166 500GB whipps the Raptor in this regard, let alone the new Samsung F1 drives with up to 1TB capacity using 334GB platters. Not to mention they are more than a couple of notches less noisy, actually Samsung focusses on silent disks which is very nice. Their S250 disk will be even more silent, suited for a completely passive cooling solution.


Weather I'm comparing a Raptor 10k rpm versus a 7200rpm Seagate, it doesn't change the fact that the Raptor is faster and who cares about what spec's they have that changes nothing. Second I'd like to see some proof that a Samsung T166 500GB is faster than a Raptor, some benchmarks maybe. I took some time and used Tom's Hardware HDD charts and what I saw doesn't support you claims. Also how loud a HDD is has a lot to do with you PC case to. I can't understand why people complain about Raptor's being noisey, because in my experience there pretty quiet at least for my ear's.
August 15, 2007 9:53:57 AM

enlightenment said:
Second, the Raptor isn't the fastest desktop drive anymore when it comes to STR - even a simple Samsung T166 500GB whipps the Raptor in this regard, let alone the new Samsung F1 drives with up to 1TB capacity using 334GB platters.
That's great if you are doing video editing with mainly sequential reads and writes but in every day desktop use the Raptor slaughters.

Figures taken from THG HD Charts

Workstation I/O Benchmark Pattern
Relative difference between Raptor and SpinPoint T166: -41.01 %

Random Access Time
Relative difference between Raptor and SpinPoint T166: 76.25 %

That's abysmal isn't it?

Samsung F1 is still very new and I can't find any benching, THG doesn't have it yet, but I doubt it will fare too much better. It's also optimized for enterprise RAID applications.
August 15, 2007 9:57:13 AM

Hey, if ya feeling really mad, get a coupla SCSI cheatah's. They're pretty fast :D 
August 15, 2007 10:33:18 AM

There's an awful lot of 'facts' being flung around with no backup....

I use a raptor 150 for my OS (and the game of the moment), I should've saved some money. 'seems' faster? Tests out maybe 5% or so...

I'm sure that your red car is 25% faster than my white car... And you have the tickets to prove it.

I have several graphs generated from HD Tach that proves that I wasted money. But hey, it was my money to waste.... You do what you want.
August 15, 2007 10:54:36 AM

We issued a mixture of Maxtor's and Western Digital's here at work and had a whole bunch of failures with the Maxtor's and a couple with the WD's... since we switched to Hitachi's we've had no failures on them (dozens of hard disks over the last 4-5 year)
a b G Storage
August 15, 2007 1:52:25 PM

Yes, Hitachi is better than WD. The problem is price. My local shop sells WD 500 GB for CAD $116 and Hitachi 500 GB for CAD $469. There's no way I can justify paying more than 4 times more for the Hitachi... (BTW, is this the situation everywhere, or is just my local shop nuts???)

I'd rather have 2 TB of space from WD and make sure I keep everything important backed up on some DVD-RW or external disk. I'm guessing that Hitachi disks are a good choice for mission-critical work in a business, but for storing downloaded garbage and games and movies it's a bit overkill IMO.
August 16, 2007 12:54:03 AM

aevm said:
Yes, Hitachi is better than WD. The problem is price. My local shop sells WD 500 GB for CAD $116 and Hitachi 500 GB for CAD $469. There's no way I can justify paying more than 4 times more for the Hitachi... (BTW, is this the situation everywhere, or is just my local shop nuts???)

I'd rather have 2 TB of space from WD and make sure I keep everything important backed up on some DVD-RW or external disk. I'm guessing that Hitachi disks are a good choice for mission-critical work in a business, but for storing downloaded garbage and games and movies it's a bit overkill IMO.


Do you have any benches of the Hitachi being better & faster then the Raptors? $469. is a lot of money for a HDD.
a b G Storage
August 16, 2007 1:10:52 AM

Yeah, it is a lot. I wasn't talking about the Raptors, the comparison was with one of the regular versions, WD5000AAKS or something like that.

I decided not to get a Raptor because they were making 10 dB more noise than other models. They're probably great for gaming machines, but my PC will also be used for music and movies a lot and I wanted it quiet.
August 16, 2007 1:23:12 AM

the primary reason 'no' other consumer hdd is faster than any of the raptors (oldest, newest, smallest, or largest, or any spec inbetween), is simply due to their much faster random access times. which is why you see incredibly 'slow' ssds outperforming even 15k scsis, which are outperforming 10k raptors, which in turn are outperforming all other 7200s. this performance advantage is when it comes to typical consumer applications (and things like some servers that need higher random I/O performance); also web browsing, games, and pretty much anything common along those lines that dont require massive STRs.

as far as reliability, all of WD enterprise hdds offer 5 year warranties (raptors, RE, etc)... for good reason too, you seldom see or even hear about them failing, from those people that do have them (not to say it doesnt happen, but it is rare from what ive seen, and none of mine have failed in the years ive had them either actually), which makes the price premium they come with worth it, imo. it certainly beats needing to purchase a new or replacement hdd every other year, which fairly quickly ends up exceeding the initial premium the enterprise hdds came with.
August 16, 2007 4:27:13 AM

systemlord said:
Weather I'm comparing a Raptor 10k rpm versus a 7200rpm Seagate, it doesn't change the fact that the Raptor is faster

Only in non-sequential I/O access. For sequential access, raptor is lagging behind. Be nuanced when you talk about performance, by stating correct facts you will provide reliable information and inform readers much better. :) 

Quote:
Second I'd like to see some proof that a Samsung T166 500GB is faster than a Raptor

The web is saturated with STR benches, really any google search should give you proof on the first page.

Zorg said:
That's great if you are doing video editing with mainly sequential reads and writes but in every day desktop use the Raptor slaughters.

Ah, so you're saying that depending on the access pattern, a raptor may of may NOT be faster. That is more nuanced already. And yes you're right, a raptor is quite a bit faster for average desktop tasks which often involve a lot of non-sequential access and blocking I/O. For a NAS or external disk storing mainly large files, a raptor is pretty useless.

Also, you have to account for its price. For one raptor you could have 2 Samsung T166's in a RAID0. Sure it'll be less reliable but it would probably be faster depending on the access pattern (a raptor would still be better at blocking I/O). If you want more reliability, a RAID1 of 2 samsung T166's would give you better data security than a single raptor.

Quote:
It's also optimized for enterprise RAID applications.

TLER really isn't holy -- in fact with a good RAID implementation it is useless since the RAID implementation would kick out a disk which timeouts quickly. Even with a crappy implementation, a stall of I/O access is not fatal in a home user situation -- TLER is mainly focused on production servers where no interruption of I/O access can be permitted - the system HAS to be able to continue in a case of a failure.
August 16, 2007 5:47:49 AM


Let me make this a little simple for you, the Raptor 150 ADFD IS the best HDD for your gamer, websurfer and performs well ahead of most HDD (T166 500GB) all-around. Your only talking about sequential access, thats only one area of performance where the Raptor is beat. When I say a Raptor is better then whatever, I mean as a the hole or overall performace and not just one stinking benchmark.

An every day desktop user will find more performance in a Raptor, but I'm sure you'll find something to pick at like one aspect of performance (sequential access). Oh yeah, since when do people use a Raptor as a back up drive? Raptors are used for their performance not storage/back-up.

You should check out Tom's Hardware's HDD charts.
August 16, 2007 6:55:40 AM

the simple fact is that raptors themselves are still the fastest consumer/enterprise hdds for the typical desktop user under the vast majority of practical situations, but theyre by no means the most balanced purchase, when you also take cost and capacity into consideration compared to other 7200s. most users wont be relying on just the peak STR at the beginning portion of the hdd for most everyday tasks (that in itself would be a poorly balanced purchase if thats all they were using). as has been pointed out, seek times are in fact more important for most practical things than higher STRs are, not greatly important for all things, just for most things that people usually encounter on a daily basis.

if a user is dealing with transferring multi GB sized files all day long for instance, then even a raid 0 array of several hdds would be worthwhile, as its STRs tend to be higher than any one single hdd. but again, for much else, having high STRs in general really isnt that important, or beneficial at all.

PMR is allowing newer hdds to at least get closer to a raptors higher rpms in daily performance... increasing platter densities at a given platter size (rpms notwithstanding) = increased bits covered per second (faster on the outside) = faster data reading of files in a given area (also faster on the outside) = increased application performance in a given area (again, faster on the outside) (STRs) != faster locating, accessing, and transferring of files somewhere else on the hdd (which could be anywhere else really, so it takes almost exactly as long to locate something on a newer 7200 as it does a much older 7200, same with raptors) (random A/Ts) (defragging regularly is the only real way to make up for that difference though it seems, as higher rpms are less affected performancewise by fragmentation). hopefully that was clear anyhow, but, thats the way i interpret newer 7200s at least being able to catch up to raptors somewhat, but still not surpass, even given all the progress thats been made. as far as raid 0, it doesnt seem to work that way, the data is split up, instead of 'compressed to a smaller area' so to speak, so practical seek times and application performance arent improved at all really, if anything, theyre worse, due to everything needing to be lined up before anything can happen, resulting in a slightly longer waiting period and worse access and seek times, defragging becomes more essential then.

now all they need is a 1.0" or 1.8" 15k rpm raptor that also has PMR... hopefully thats possible anyhow, instead of the 2.5" 10k rpm raptors without PMR that they have now (at the very least they should give current raptors a PMR density upgrade), the other option is to just offer an affordable high performing SSD.
August 16, 2007 6:31:52 PM

systemlord said:
Let me make this a little simple for you, the Raptor 150 ADFD IS the best HDD for your gamer, websurfer and performs well ahead of most HDD (T166 500GB) all-around. Your only talking about sequential access, thats only one area of performance where the Raptor is beat. When I say a Raptor is better then whatever, I mean as a the hole or overall performace and not just one stinking benchmark.

An every day desktop user will find more performance in a Raptor, but I'm sure you'll find something to pick at like one aspect of performance (sequential access). Oh yeah, since when do people use a Raptor as a back up drive? Raptors are used for their performance not storage/back-up.

You should check out Tom's Hardware's HDD charts.

I think you should re-read my posts, i think you missed a couple of points. No where i say sequential performance is more important, only that depending on the I/O access pattern a raptor may or may not be faster. A raptor does not hold the performance crown in all disciplines. A simple Samsung T166 will be faster to act as a drive in a NAS used to store big files. That is not a 'stinking benchmark', that is actual usage. I already said a raptor would be faster for general desktop usage.

@choirbass: i generally agree with your post, yet there are cases where sequential performance is all that counts. For example on my NAS systems, a nightly backup is made on a 2Gbps multiplexed gigabit link. Even the main NAS boxes are used to store mainly large files. Throughput is all that counts here, the seeks that occur are mostly track-to-track. Software RAID5 is used for this purpose, and replacing older MaxLine III disks to newer Samsung T166 has resulted in saturating my 2GBps link.

Also, a raptor is kind of lagging behind in terms of the technology used. They should update their current version to use perpendicular recording (PMR), use SATA/300, update NCQ logic and firmware strategy. Then i think they could make the performance gap much bigger. Newer disks like Samsung F1 are at the door; a Raptor will loose it's edge and then the much higher price will make potential customers rethink their options.

Potential performance gains for RAID0 are not limited to STR. Splitting requests means you loose random read/write potential, and many crappy implementations do a shitty job trying to convert performance potential in actual performance. For example, some shitty implementations would read a whole stripe even if only 2KB is used. Misalignment is also causing random I/O performance to be reduced.
August 16, 2007 6:59:11 PM

Seagate.
Either one of the 7200.10 or the soon to be sold 7200.11.

A 7200.10 can -substain- READ as much as 1MBps faster than a Raptor and has a 5 year warrenty.
A 500GB Segate 7200.10 now sales in retail shops here in California for $99 USD.
August 16, 2007 6:59:29 PM

i agree with the first paragraph, the problem is most accessing for a typical end user isnt highly sequential, except when its contained in a certain area (usually after a thurough defragmenting); track to track seeking as you said. if the data is slightly non-contiguous, and even severly non-contiguous, those STRs arent going to matter as much, and will even be severly hindered, the higher the rpms are, the less this is going to matter anyhow, and ssds will do away with it entirely.

i agree with the second paragraph about raptors simply being outdated, theyve had most of the same specs for several years. as far as samsungs F1 (334GB?), the problem again still, is if you are at all dealing with anything thats non-contiguous, and data does tend to get that way, especially when left unchecked, then that 334GB performance advantage is more moot, but, for anything relatively contiguous (or fully), i imagine the increase would be quite nice, no doubt.

an effective dedicated raid 0 implementation simply isnt affordable though, often costing more/much more than the hdds by themselves even, if theyre going with sata anyhow (and the vast majority of users simply dont have one as a result, because they simply dont know, or whatever, less users than even have raptors, and theyre a small small minority as well). going with raid 0 this way, is more obscure, tbh, as onboard is what many people only have, and only have ever used, from those that actually do use raid 0.
August 16, 2007 7:19:44 PM

I think we're in agreeance. About RAID0: whats wrong with gstripe? and vinum. Both are correct and clean implementations of RAID0 and show good scaling in both sequential and random performance.

For example, review these benchmark results of highly random I/O, 50% read, 50% write with request sizes ranging from 4KB to 128KB. Pretty strong random I/O i would say:

Single drive (ad8)
concurrency Performance in I/O's per sec. average
1 106 106 107 106
4 106 106 106 106
16 116 116 116 116
32 127 125 126 126
128 151 151 150 150
256 156 156 157 156

RAID0 with 4 disks: gstripe 4xad - 128KB stripe - FM off
concurrency Performance in I/O's per sec. average
1 173 173 173 173
4 270 270 270 270
16 338 338 338 338
32 370 370 370 370
128 444 434 434 437
256 465 465 465 465

Sorry for the broken tabs. The first number is the concurrency (resulting in queue depth) and the last number is the average score. As you can see, there is a nice performance benefit, especially in queue sizes higher than 1. The average performance gain here is 63% minimum to 300% maximum.

This is, ofcourse only achieveable with a good alignment of the filesystem and stripe blocks, this is imperative. Else much of the performance potential is lost.
August 16, 2007 7:20:50 PM

Way too much to read. Probably covering what other people have said.

I've tried Seagate, Maxtor, and WD so far in my lifetime..The maxtors were complete garbage. I've had 4 and all 4 have died within 1-3 years. I've had a couple WD here and there but they were in my really old rigs. Gave them to my friends but they still worked. They were 30 gig drives...REALLY OLD!..lol But don't know if they are still working since I don't have them anymore.

I currently have 4 seagate drives. These are my first seagate drives I've purchased. 2 of them are 6 years old that I bought along with two maxtor 200 giggers (both maxtors died). I have both these seagate 160's in raid 0...6 years still running great. That's why I decided to go with two new seagates about a 6 months ago. Nabbed two 500 gig seagates that are in my rig now.

I'm pretty much set to buy seagate drives for life. But I'm nabbing 2 raptors for my next build. I might nab two of the new caviar drives that have the fastest write performance...But so far seagate has been the most reliable. WD in 2nd for me (never had a dead drive from both)....Maxtor is just plain garbage...I bet Seagate just bought the maxtor brand to replace the maxtor branded drives with seagate manufactured drives...(probably just bought maxtor for the name and more marketshare...but not sure yet..stay away from maxtor for now..lot of bad drives in circulation).
August 16, 2007 7:37:24 PM

had to google on gstripe and vinum, it looks like theyre only linux based software (unless theyre hardware brands?), i cant say thats even a negative trait. if that is the case (a bit unsure actually), then it looks like all it will take is a switch to a free os :) 

i would still be using ubuntu, except one of my monitors was damaged during a blackout, with autodetect and other than 800x600 not working properly afterwards, even with forced resolution settings in xorg. legacy drivers in windows allowed both monitors to still work though (even if it isnt autodetected or showing the correct range of resolutions anymore), so im stuck yet again in the windows world, as going without dual display really does suck.

for anyone else though, it seems a good idea to try
August 19, 2007 2:07:13 AM

enlightenment said:
I think you should re-read my posts, i think you missed a couple of points. No where i say sequential performance is more important, only that depending on the I/O access pattern a raptor may or may not be faster. A raptor does not hold the performance crown in all disciplines. A simple Samsung T166 will be faster to act as a drive in a NAS used to store big files. That is not a 'stinking benchmark', that is actual usage. I already said a raptor would be faster for general desktop usage.
I don't know why you have a hard on against the Raptor, I also don't care. You have effectively hijacked this thread. Let me repost the OPs post for you so that you understand the question that was posed.
Quote:
Hey there!

I'm building a new gaming system :)  Which HDD brand would you recommend me? My brother bought an external HDD from Western Digital, a MyBook, and it died after 3 months :S i'm a little scared about going with WD. Some people have told me to go with Seagate, but i have seen great prices on the WD drives.

Im looking for a drive with these features:
* 16mb cache
* SATAII interface
* 320, 400, or 500 gb capacity

Which brand should i go for? Is there any special feature i must look for in a drive?

Thanks!
Clearly, the OP was looking for a general usage/gaming drive. You chose to piss on the Raptor and explain that STR was better with the Samsung drives. Are you on the dole from Samsung? You sound like a shill. Even after it is pointed out to you multiple times that the type of drive that the OP is looking for, money no object, is the Raptor. And it is unsurpassed at this point for the specific tasks that the OP wishes to accomplish, you still continue to defend the Samsungs by saying that they work well in your NAS and in RAID in general. Well, I don't see anywhere in the OP that a RAID or NAS was even considered by the OP. So you are non responsive to the OPs question and were actually instrumental in the thread hijack. By the way it is ridiculous to compare a single Raptor to drives in a RAID configuration. If you want, even though it would still be non responsive, you could compare Raptors in RAID against other drives in raid. You might take you own advice to your response to this post. Here is the post you responded to try reading it again
Quote:
systemlord wrote :

Let me make this a little simple for you, the Raptor 150 ADFD IS the best HDD for your gamer, websurfer and performs well ahead of most HDD (T166 500GB) all-around. Your only talking about sequential access, thats only one area of performance where the Raptor is beat. When I say a Raptor is better then whatever, I mean as a the hole or overall performace and not just one stinking benchmark.

An every day desktop user will find more performance in a Raptor, but I'm sure you'll find something to pick at like one aspect of performance (sequential access). Oh yeah, since when do people use a Raptor as a back up drive? Raptors are used for their performance not storage/back-up.

You should check out Tom's Hardware's HDD charts.
I agree, believe it or not, that the Raptor could use a face lift, PMR mainly. I don't agree that SATA300 has any impact because SATA150 hasn't even been saturated yet. Everyone sees SATA300 and says WOW, but it is total BS.

One last thing, I know that your first language is not English, and by and large you do a fantastic job of expressing yourself, right or wrong. I need to tell you that your use of the word nuanced simply doesn't fit as far as I can see.
Quote:
You're not being nuanced. First, you are comparing 7200rpm versus 10k rpm drives - a whole different class of disks for different purposes and different market segments.
Quote:
Only in non-sequential I/O access. For sequential access, raptor is lagging behind. Be nuanced when you talk about performance, by stating correct facts you will provide reliable information and inform readers much better.
Quote:
Ah, so you're saying that depending on the access pattern, a raptor may of may NOT be faster. That is more nuanced already.
Quote:
Dictionary.com
1. a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.
The Key word is subtle. I think you would have been better served using variants of these words - analytic, cogent, conclusive, detailed, precise.

I hope that I have been able to be sufficiently precise in my explanation of some of the nuances of this thread, that might have escaped your understanding.


August 19, 2007 2:48:50 AM

Western Digital never had a dead drive and never had any problems with them
August 19, 2007 4:07:53 AM

WD is supposedly good if you care about avoiding vibrating and noise. But, as was said previously, the best overall is probably the Samsung 500GB drive. Check the benchmarks on the chart here or any reviews, really. I think the Hitachi is 2nd and both those drives are very good with low heat/power consumption. The WD is good for price and seems to be a reliable drive (the AAKS version) but is not as high up on the benchmarks as the other two.
August 19, 2007 4:55:21 AM

Be careful with the AAKS, WD got a little deceptive with that series. The only AAKS that sports PMR is the 750GB. But you have to read the fine print note on the WD website to realize it.
!