MrCommunistGen
Distinguished
- Jun 7, 2005
- 1,042
- 0
- 19,310
3x WD "AAKS" (or KSRTL) series. The Seagate 7200.11 series has a firmware issue causing poor speeds when simultaneously reading and writing.
-mcg
-mcg
What about drives from the ABYS line? They seem to be the enterprise version of the AAKS line if I'm not mistaken? Also they seem to perform even better than the AAKS in bench marks. Would this be a good drive to get or should I REALLY just go with the AAKS?
KyleSTL
Distinguished
- Aug 17, 2007
- 1,678
- 0
- 19,790
Western Digital 7500AAKS or 6400AAKS, they (along with the single-platter version of the 3200AAKS) are the only WD drives with PMR. Their sequential read and writes are phenomenal, and they run cool and quiet. The 6400 is faster due to its higher density (2 x 320GB platters), but the 7500 is no slacker (it bests the Raptors in sequential).
The Samsung F1s have a huge failure rate (google it, if you're interested), so don't even think about them.
Edit: Additionally, the 6400AAKS is $130 w/ free shipping on Newegg right now. That makes it one of the lowest $/GB drives on the market ($0.203 /GB).
The GP drives are also PMR, but you're not interested in the low-RPM drives.
The Samsung F1s have a huge failure rate (google it, if you're interested), so don't even think about them.
Edit: Additionally, the 6400AAKS is $130 w/ free shipping on Newegg right now. That makes it one of the lowest $/GB drives on the market ($0.203 /GB).
The GP drives are also PMR, but you're not interested in the low-RPM drives.
aevm
Illustrious
- May 18, 2007
- 11,974
- 0
- 41,960
I'm using WD5000AAKS and WD7500AAKS and I'm satisfied. The new WD6400AAKS should be faster than both, yes, I just haven't seen benchmarks yet.
I trust Seagate too, and I like their longer warranties, but I went with WD this time because WD is quieter.
I trust Seagate too, and I like their longer warranties, but I went with WD this time because WD is quieter.
aevm
Illustrious
- May 18, 2007
- 11,974
- 0
- 41,960
Try this:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3236
It's about the 320GB version, but I suspect it's almost identical (it just has a single platter instead of two).
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3236
It's about the 320GB version, but I suspect it's almost identical (it just has a single platter instead of two).
- Oct 30, 2004
- 32,255
- 14
- 99,960
The 6400 AAKS has the same platter size / density as the Samsung F1 and it should perform close to the Samsung but it does have only half the cache so I wouldn't expect it to match the F1. The WD 500 GB / 750 GB are not in the same class. If "speed" is your be all and end all of consideration, I'd grab the Samsung F1. If you want to trade a bigger warranty for a minor speed hit, I'd opt for the 7200.11's.
Based upon storagereview.com's reliability survey listings, I wouldn't but a WD drive today.
http://www.storagereview.com/WD1500ADFD.sr?page=0%2C9
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, the Western Digital Raptor WD1500 is more reliable than 12% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation."
http://www.storagereview.com/WD7500AAKS.sr?page=0%2C6
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, a predecessor of the Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS, the Western Digital RE2 WD5000YS , is more reliable than 4% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation."
http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0%2C7
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, a predecessor of the Western Digital Caviar GP, the Western Digital Caviar WD4000KD , is more reliable than 5% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation. "
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, a predecessor of the Seagate Barracuda ES.2, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 , is more reliable than 43% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation."
Based upon storagereview.com's reliability survey listings, I wouldn't but a WD drive today.
http://www.storagereview.com/WD1500ADFD.sr?page=0%2C9
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, the Western Digital Raptor WD1500 is more reliable than 12% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation."
http://www.storagereview.com/WD7500AAKS.sr?page=0%2C6
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, a predecessor of the Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS, the Western Digital RE2 WD5000YS , is more reliable than 4% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation."
http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0%2C7
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, a predecessor of the Western Digital Caviar GP, the Western Digital Caviar WD4000KD , is more reliable than 5% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation. "
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, a predecessor of the Seagate Barracuda ES.2, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 , is more reliable than 43% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation."
aevm
Illustrious
- May 18, 2007
- 11,974
- 0
- 41,960
A predecessor of the PC, the abacus, was not very reliable either. For example it would rot if left outside in the rain. So let's not buy PCs... 
Anyway, what are they recommending? Is there one model they list as "more reliable than 90%"?
Edit: OK, I can't resist. So, would these guys judge George W. Bush based on Bill Clinton's work too???
Anyway, what are they recommending? Is there one model they list as "more reliable than 90%"?
Edit: OK, I can't resist. So, would these guys judge George W. Bush based on Bill Clinton's work too???
- Oct 30, 2004
- 32,255
- 14
- 99,960
Ok, I will assume you don't know this so I'll cover the basics. For example, when you see those humongous MTBF numbers, you do realize that the HD is not actually going to last 80 years. But they do give information to the bean counters so they can set aside certain financial allocations for "warranty repairs". However, you may be surprised to hear that for the most part, they don't do "real tests" as the basis of these calculations. They base the predicted performance of the new drive based upon recorded performance of the old.
To borrow on your analogy approach. If I have a 2008 Model Chrysler Whoopdedoo 400 sports car, I may note that it has the same engine, the same driver train and the same, same list of many other components. The differences between the 2007 and 2008 model might be some body styling changes, different rims, interior styling. So should one not expect the 2008 to have similar wear, failure, oil change intervals whatever as the previous model ? If one car manufacturer puts out model after model after model that has a high incidence of failure, and then the new model is made from the exact same parts, are we really to expect any different performance ?
The 7200.9, the 7200.10 and the 7200.11 from Seagate for example indicate that by their very name, that the .11 is the "next version" of the 10. The only thing that might typically change between a typical "version 10" and a "version 11" would be for example a) cache size, or b) areal density. If a drive with 3 platters and the same bearings and the same spindle and the same, same, same , same other stuff gets a boost from 16 to 32 MB, will the reliability performance change ?
Now sometimes they do change something as they apparently did between the WD360/740 Raptors and the newer WD1500 (see below)
Statistics are useful only in large numbers. One can't assume say on the basis of 30 drives what you might expect out of 100,000. And there are certainly anomalies. In fact they recently upped the numbers req'd to be "reported" and when there is not a big enough statistical sample they use the drive's most immediate predecessor to provide some indicator.
Seagate Cheetah 5k3 was more reliable than 100%.
The 2003 versions of the Raptor scored a 86 % and 94%, it was the 2006 version that tanked at 12%
WD scored well in the following:
Model / Year / Rating
WD1200JB / 2001 / 67
WD1200BB / 2001 / 69
WD1200JB / 2001 / 82
WD205bx / 2000 / 95
But look at what's happened since 2005.....
WD2500ks / 2005 / 64
WD3200JX / 2005 / 58
WD1500 / 2006 / 12
WD4000KD / 2005 / 5
RE2 400 / 2005 / 25
RE2 500 / 2006 / 4
One of the things SR has done in the last few years is change the size of the req'd database size so they can produce a qualified result. As a result you have to dig into the data to get a result many times for newer drives when there is no ranking. SO even if they rely on "past performance" to get an idea of ranking, you can still go in and get the raw data.
The Seagate ES2 has 2/48 failures or 4.2%
Failed before 1 month
Failed before 1 month
The WD7500AAKS has 7/61 or 11.5%
Failed before 1 month
Failed before 1 month
Failed before 1 month
Failed before 3 months
Failed before 3 months
Failed before 3 months
Failed before 3 months
Only if they were completely uneducated and uninformed....(in other words, just like Bush). But they're not. They are not judging a $60 bargain basement 5400 rpm drive based upon the company's $600 15k rpm SCSI drive. They are predicting the performance of version 10 drive based upon the version 9 drive from th exact same company ..... ya know the one with the exact same casing, exact same circuit board, exact same connectors, exact same bearings, exact same spindle, exact same head movement, exact same number of platters .... exactly like the manufacturers themselves are doing when they publish MTBF's for the new drive based upon test results for the previous version..
I don't think anyone would put Clinton and Bush were in the same product family .... Let's just say on the trip to the white house Dubya "rode the short bus" ..... but if Cheney were to succeed Bush, I think most would expect more of the same.
To borrow on your analogy approach. If I have a 2008 Model Chrysler Whoopdedoo 400 sports car, I may note that it has the same engine, the same driver train and the same, same list of many other components. The differences between the 2007 and 2008 model might be some body styling changes, different rims, interior styling. So should one not expect the 2008 to have similar wear, failure, oil change intervals whatever as the previous model ? If one car manufacturer puts out model after model after model that has a high incidence of failure, and then the new model is made from the exact same parts, are we really to expect any different performance ?
The 7200.9, the 7200.10 and the 7200.11 from Seagate for example indicate that by their very name, that the .11 is the "next version" of the 10. The only thing that might typically change between a typical "version 10" and a "version 11" would be for example a) cache size, or b) areal density. If a drive with 3 platters and the same bearings and the same spindle and the same, same, same , same other stuff gets a boost from 16 to 32 MB, will the reliability performance change ?
Now sometimes they do change something as they apparently did between the WD360/740 Raptors and the newer WD1500 (see below)
Statistics are useful only in large numbers. One can't assume say on the basis of 30 drives what you might expect out of 100,000. And there are certainly anomalies. In fact they recently upped the numbers req'd to be "reported" and when there is not a big enough statistical sample they use the drive's most immediate predecessor to provide some indicator.
Seagate Cheetah 5k3 was more reliable than 100%.
The 2003 versions of the Raptor scored a 86 % and 94%, it was the 2006 version that tanked at 12%
WD scored well in the following:
Model / Year / Rating
WD1200JB / 2001 / 67
WD1200BB / 2001 / 69
WD1200JB / 2001 / 82
WD205bx / 2000 / 95
But look at what's happened since 2005.....
WD2500ks / 2005 / 64
WD3200JX / 2005 / 58
WD1500 / 2006 / 12
WD4000KD / 2005 / 5
RE2 400 / 2005 / 25
RE2 500 / 2006 / 4
One of the things SR has done in the last few years is change the size of the req'd database size so they can produce a qualified result. As a result you have to dig into the data to get a result many times for newer drives when there is no ranking. SO even if they rely on "past performance" to get an idea of ranking, you can still go in and get the raw data.
The Seagate ES2 has 2/48 failures or 4.2%
Failed before 1 month
Failed before 1 month
The WD7500AAKS has 7/61 or 11.5%
Failed before 1 month
Failed before 1 month
Failed before 1 month
Failed before 3 months
Failed before 3 months
Failed before 3 months
Failed before 3 months
Only if they were completely uneducated and uninformed....(in other words, just like Bush). But they're not. They are not judging a $60 bargain basement 5400 rpm drive based upon the company's $600 15k rpm SCSI drive. They are predicting the performance of version 10 drive based upon the version 9 drive from th exact same company ..... ya know the one with the exact same casing, exact same circuit board, exact same connectors, exact same bearings, exact same spindle, exact same head movement, exact same number of platters .... exactly like the manufacturers themselves are doing when they publish MTBF's for the new drive based upon test results for the previous version..
I don't think anyone would put Clinton and Bush were in the same product family .... Let's just say on the trip to the white house Dubya "rode the short bus" ..... but if Cheney were to succeed Bush, I think most would expect more of the same.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 32,255
- 14
- 99,960
My vote for "Product of the Year Award"
http://www.netgear.com/Products/Storage/ReadyNASDuo.aspx
The
$399 for the NAS with one 500 GB drive
$114 for a matching 500 GB drive
So for about $500 you have a fully functional NAS, w/:
-The spare hard drive will keep an extra copy of all the data and instantly take over if the first hard drive should fail.
-Hot Swap capability....yank and replace a drive while watching a movie and NAS just keeps on playing the movie w/o a burp
-Advanced media streaming support allows the ReadyNAS to directly serve media, with no PC required, to devices such as the NETGEAR EVA8000, Sonos® Digital Music System, Logitech Squeezebox™, Apple iTunes® clients, Sony Playstation® 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360®.
-Directly stream music, photos and video to existing network media players without a computer
-simultaneously accessible via all connected Windows or Macintosh computers.
-the ReadyNAS can be set up to provide secure access to all the stored files remotely via the Internet.
-Officially licensed BitTorrent client allows downloading to occur without the need for an additional computer.
http://www.netgear.com/Products/Storage/ReadyNASDuo.aspx
The
$399 for the NAS with one 500 GB drive
$114 for a matching 500 GB drive
So for about $500 you have a fully functional NAS, w/:
-The spare hard drive will keep an extra copy of all the data and instantly take over if the first hard drive should fail.
-Hot Swap capability....yank and replace a drive while watching a movie and NAS just keeps on playing the movie w/o a burp
-Advanced media streaming support allows the ReadyNAS to directly serve media, with no PC required, to devices such as the NETGEAR EVA8000, Sonos® Digital Music System, Logitech Squeezebox™, Apple iTunes® clients, Sony Playstation® 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360®.
-Directly stream music, photos and video to existing network media players without a computer
-simultaneously accessible via all connected Windows or Macintosh computers.
-the ReadyNAS can be set up to provide secure access to all the stored files remotely via the Internet.
-Officially licensed BitTorrent client allows downloading to occur without the need for an additional computer.
EXT64
Splendid
- Mar 1, 2007
- 8,069
- 10
- 31,165
I've never had any of my HDs fail completely. My WD 250GB did corrupt my OS once, but I think that was more my dying Mobo/PSU and not it. In fact, I recovered all the data and then reformatted it. Runs great again as my game HD (and has been for over 1 year).
- Oct 30, 2004
- 32,255
- 14
- 99,960
I start running Spinrite quarterly when a drive gets close to its about 2/3 of its warranty period. But I am using these about 10 hoirs a day at work running CAD and then at night to play games....at night, they do auto defrags and AV / malware scans, network backups, etc.....so that's harder usage than most.
bobbknight
Distinguished
- Feb 7, 2006
- 1,542
- 0
- 19,780
I have seen 2 seagate 500GB 7200.11 sata ll's in raid 0, clock over 200MB a second on an Intel ICH9R southbridge. using HD Speed.exe.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 32,255
- 14
- 99,960
200 MB is doable at the outer edges of the disk with the 7200.11 .....about half that at the inside tho.
Peak = 2 x 100.3
Average = x 80.9
Minimum = 2 x 51.0
It still escapes me as to why other than boot times, this has so little effect on application and gaming performance:
Test / 1 Drive / 2 Drives in RAID 0
SR Office DriveMark 2002 395 IO/sec 426 IO/sec
SR High-End DriveMark 2002 373 IO/sec 408 IO/sec
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002 288 IO/sec 474 IO/sec
SR Gaming DriveMark 2002 519 IO/sec 529 IO/sec
Peak = 2 x 100.3
Average = x 80.9
Minimum = 2 x 51.0
It still escapes me as to why other than boot times, this has so little effect on application and gaming performance:
Test / 1 Drive / 2 Drives in RAID 0
SR Office DriveMark 2002 395 IO/sec 426 IO/sec
SR High-End DriveMark 2002 373 IO/sec 408 IO/sec
SR Bootup DriveMark 2002 288 IO/sec 474 IO/sec
SR Gaming DriveMark 2002 519 IO/sec 529 IO/sec
Latest posts
-
Question The Genius Wave Reviews: Side Effects and Ingredients How Does It Work?
- Latest: geniuswaveprice
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram