I'm becoming more and more interested in buying an internal 1 Tb hard drive. It'll will mainly be used for storage to replace my two external drives, a 500 Gb Western Digital MyBook and a 300 Gb Maxtor OneTouch II. I bought these several years ago during my laptop days. I'm worried about one of these things failing and me losing five years of stuff. No, I'm not stupid. I have all the irreplaceable data backed up on DVDs, although I maintain it all on these drives to make life easier. The rest of the stuff can be gotten again. I'm looking at the following drives:

1. HITACHI Deskstar 7K1000 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s
2. Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s

Which would you recommend? Or would you recommend something else? The charts at Tom's are confusing me.

Also, I've been fooling around with batch files and BASIC in order to make a complete file index of everything on these external drives, but I haven't really been successful to the point where I'm happy with the output of these files. Is there some trick or programme I can fire up to make a list that's neat and tidy?

Thank you for your help and suggestions.

The Seagate drive is very slightly faster. Everything else is the same. Not sure about what to do with external drives.

I just ordered the WD Caviar RE2 GP WD1000FYPS 1TB for about $260 over at ZipZoomFly. It's an enterprise class hard drive specifically for RAID arrays. Of course you don't have to used them in a RAID configuration.

How well does it perform in real life? I don't know, I didn't receive it yet. Once I'm happy with it I'll buy another to build a RAID 1 array.

That is not a good choice, especially for business use. It has 16mb cache, compared to 32mb for the other brands, and have an average latency of 5.6 ms, compared to Seagate's 4.16ms and Hitachi's 4.17ms. Saying it's "enterprise class" and "specifically for RAID" is a smoke screen to hide inferior hardware performance. You can add any of those drive in RAID, and the slowest single drive will also make the slowest RAID.

It is a good choice for business use. It is statistically a more reliable drive, with 1.2M hours MTBF as opposed to 750K hours for the Seagate 7200.11. It also is meant for 24/7 operation, has server-tuned firmware, and uses 40% less power. The lower cache size amounts to very little in terms of performance.

The terms "enterprise class" and "specifically for RAID" both actually do mean something in terms of the features that the drive has, the reliability level, and the intended operation. These aren't BS marketing terms.

The performance of the WD drive is not as good as the Seagate because of the lower rotational speed used to save power. But to imply that it's an inferior drive is a superficial and uninformed judgment, and doesn't take into account what the WD drive is and what it's intended use is.

I have the WD GP's. While inferior, or stuck at 5400 rpm may be the key words used - they still perform. Sustained 55-65 MB/sec is more than enough for a secondary drive. I use a 7200 rpm drive as a primary for the slightly better response times, but the 5400 rpm drive also means it runs 10C cooler in a stack of drives.

To make a simple list of all files on the drive do a :
dir /s >file.txt
use /? to see the /A attributes you can use to sort out the other details you want to see. If you just had movies or music you wouldnt want to see the time stamp or file type, etc.

Bigger cache size do translate to better performance. The benchmarks here at tomshardware show it. Random access under realistic conditions matter. I'm not sure where you get that 1.2M hours from, as the new model drive haven't existed for that long. Judging by other drives models that use older recording technology provides no real reference for 1Tb drives. I don't know why some people see WD as the holy grail. You certainly can't tell from the specs. "Enterprise class" and "specifically for RAID" are just BS when they don't have the specs to back it up. Specs > brands.

The article here at Tom's (Understanding Hard Drive Performance) specifically concluded that cache size makes virtually no difference in any benchmark.

The 1.2M hours MTBF for the WD 1TB RE2-GP is printed directly in the Drive Specification Sheet on Western Digital's web site.

I never said that WD was the holy grail. I have no idea where you conjured that. I also made no claim that this particular WD drive is a good performer. Indeed it's performance is not as good as the Seagate 7200.11. But that doesn't mean its a "bad drive."

Enterprise Class - A designation given to hard drives that are meant for use in the enterprise. These drives contain enterprise-level features like: Higher MTBF and lower AFR (both are measures of reliability). Server-tuned firmware, which optimizes cache assignment, head movement, and command ordering to increase performance when several outstanding I/O requests exist. These drives are also rated for 24/7 operation.

Specifically for RAID - Western digital uses this term to describe the combination of features unique to this drive that make it designed for RAID environments: StableTrac, which is a bearing mechanism on the drive shaft that reduces vibration. Rotary Acceleration Feed Forward (RAFF), which is a set of accelerometers, firmware, hardware, and servo control which can dampen vibration and reduce the effect on head tracking when the drive is subject to vibration from outside sources, like adjacent drives in a RAID array enclosure. And Time Limited Error Recovery (TLER), which is designed to delegate error recovery and control to a RAID controller by limiting the amount of time that the drive attempts to recover from errors to 7 seconds.

For someone who focuses on specs, it seems like you don't have a lot of understanding of what they mean. I suggest you click on some links, do some reading, and attempt to fill the gaps in your knowledge.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguement? The performance of that
WD is inferior than other 1TB drives out there, and that is a fact, as
shown by many benchmarks and first hand experience by users. They can
claim whatever "technologies" they want, but it's meaningless unless it
translates to benchmark performance. So 16mb cache with "server-tuned
firmware, which optimizes cache assignment" provides better performance
than 32mb cache? And 5400rpm with "optimized head movement" is faster
than 7200rpm? The other competing brands put a bunch of meaningless
gibberish in their product features too. Why don't you cite those?
Those never make a detectable difference in performance. I do have gaps
in my knowledge. I don't know what "Enterprise Class" and "Specifically
for RAID" is supposed to mean, and I don't want to. You, on the other
hand, seem to lack either fundamental understanding of hardware or
sound judgement.

As for reliability, I highly doubt that 1.2M hour claim, as it haven't
been around for that long. They can claim whatever they want, doesn't
make it true.

And you should listen to rockbyter. The gap in performance is big
enough to actually be felt, which, looking at the specs, make sense.

That might be something for me, though I'm unsure if I want to start experimenting with RAID. Heard many good things about it, and I suppose that I'll want some data redundancy at some point in my future.

I love Slayer

I suppose I avoided saying it but yes, my external drives are filled mostly with films and music, as well as an easy way to access backups of programmes, documents/photographs and settings etc if a meltdown occurs (the stuff that's backed up on DVDs). I've been experimenting with that method you wrote here, but I generally end up with a lot of extra rubbish I don't need like the file attributes. I just want a list of files so I know what to get again, should a drive fail on me.

I use a WD Raptor as my main boot drive and an astonishingly fast Seagate 7200.10 as my secondary internal drive. I'm surprised by the performance of this drive, I often think it's faster than the Raptor. The WD GP that you use is probably faster than my external drives regardless. Plus, the WD MyBook has a very annoying and unintelligent power saving feature that makes the drive spin up at stupid times, like when I shut down my computer.

As SomeJoe7777 has already pointed out "Enterprise Class" and "Specifically for RAID" are not just smoke screen terms to hide "inferior" hardware performance.

What seems to be "inferior" is your knowledge.

Granted, this drive is not for everyone as it can be out performed by a few other drives so people will not be willing to pony up the extra $40 - $50 for for this WD "Enterprise Class" 1TB drive. What I want is reliability and the ability to function properly in a RAID configuration for redundancy purposes (not to be confused with backup).

1.2M hours MTBF refers to the estimated life of the drive based on statistical analysis based on the types of parts used, manufacturing process and assembly process (to put it simply). To put a "human spin" on this subject, in the life insurance business actuaries do complex statistical analysis to determine what type of people (example: sex, smoker/non-smoker, current health) are considered too high risk to insure. Based on the risks and age they determine the monthly premium to cover the expected payout upon death and also to make a little profit as well. Unless the policy dies prematurely.

Double post.

There aren't that many 1 Tb drives out there, or maybe I'm just so far out of the loop that I don't know? Regardless, Newegg doesn't offer many for sale. I was considering buying a Blue-ray burner and some 50 gb discs instead, but the hard drive turned out to be much cheaper. Plus, I move a lot and carting all these damn discs around is maddening.

Other than the WD GP drive that you good folks recommended (and that has caused some controversy here), can you recommend something faster? 1.2 million hours MTBF sounds nice, but once I thought about it, I realised that's the equivalent of about 137 years. In five years, I imagine that I'll be buying a 500 Tb replacement drive. I'd prefer the slightly decreased reliability over wasting my life waiting on a hard drive, or becoming annoyed the way I currently am with my stupid WD MyBook.

You said the Seagate was slightly faster than the Hitachi? I'm more than happy with my current 320 Gb Seagate Barracuda as my secondary internal drive. It's amazing.

No, I'm arguing because your evaluation of the WD drive is flat wrong and you're too arrogant to admit it.

That's correct, and I never said otherwise.

This one of your problems. You fail to realize that "performance" means more than just speed. It also refers to reliability, longevity, control of errors under adverse conditions instead of lab conditions, etc. These "technologies" are not meaningless, they're very real in terms of what they're designed to do.

No. I never said those things, and neither did anyone else. You have failed to understand a word I've said. Re-read my posts.

This is your main problem. You are either unwilling or unable to open your mind and grasp a fundamental understanding of these items. They are indeed "meaningless gibberish" to you because you "don't want to know" what they mean. Your attitude and arrogance are preventing you from making anything more than a superficial, uninformed, and in this case, incorrect judgement.

This is, of course, the conclusion you would be expected to draw due to your lack of understanding of the topic.

You are nowhere near qualified to argue the merits of MTBF since you don't understand the term or the methodology behind it.

The bottom line is that the WD drive is not a "bad drive" at all, but a good fit for certain applications in certain settings. Would I choose this drive for a single machine that would be used for typical home use or gaming? Probably not. Speed would be the underlying important factor, as as the WD-RE2-GP is slower than some other 1TB drives, it wouldn't be the best choice. On the other hand, if I'm selecting drives to use in SAN enclosures in a datacenter, and I have 12 SAN units that have to be populated with 15 drives each, I would definitely choose the WD-RE2-GP over 7200.11s due to the lower power consumption, higher reliability, and the RAID-friendly design.

To the OP:

Sorry to get off topic, but I dislike seeing incorrect information posted from people who don't know what they're talking about.

For your application, the recommended drive would probably be the 1TB Seagate 7200.11. If you would like more reliability and are willing to pay for it, you can also look at the 1TB Seagate Barracuda ES.2. This is actually Seagate's competitor to the WD RE2. It's 1.2M hours MTBF with a 0.73% AFR at 24/7 operation, has a PowerTrim feature to reduce power consumption (not as much as the RE2-GP), server-tuned firmware, and has broad spectrum vibrational tolerance. However, it's as fast as the 7200.11 (indeed, it's based on the same design).

Don't let your experience with the WD MyBook affect your decision here. The MyBook is a pretty poorly designed external drive. The RE2 is enterprise-class ... totally different. If you don't like the lower speeds of the RE2-GP, you can also look at the WD RE2 (non-GP version). The highest capacity is 750GB instead of 1TB, but it has the high reliability, and is faster than the RE2-GP. It's roughly equivalent to the Seagate Barracuda ES series drives, which are one generation back from current offerings (i.e. 7200.10 equivalent).

Given the choices, the Seagate is probably the best choice for you.
It's the one I ordered for my new rig days ago. It comes with 5 year
warranty, more time than most people will need. (Of course, no
harddrive will last 137 years, as common sense dictates) This compared
to WD's 0-3 years warranty, depending on model. There is also Samsung,
although its DOA rate seems to be higher than other brands, and its
performance is slightly lower, so no reason to take a chance.

The WD 1TB disk is inferior in performance. This has been shown by
numerous benchmarks, and is beyond dispute. If the various "features"
WD claimed helped, they weren't enough to make a difference. The
advantage to the WD disk is it saves power significantly, especially
while idle, and generates slightly less heat. So, for purely storage
drive (like in a media center where you store movies, instead of
running installed programs from), it's a good choice. Although shorter
warranty impacts overall value.

WD is an old brand, and has a lot of loyal fans who will stay loyal
despite specs, benchmarks, and common sense. You should not listen to
those kinds of people. I won't waste any more breath with the loyal
fanboys, since they've made up their mind years ago and pledged to
advertise for WD no matter what.

"WD is an old brand", Dagger - you're funny, and I'm glad someone is passionate about hard drives, but i think its a little misplaced.

As with all products, whether Video Cards, Hard Drives, processors, etc. you have to match
1. What you will be doing with it
2. What performance you want or need
3. What it will cost.

To the primary post : External USB drives are being replaced with a possible internal drive. Nothing is slower than any drive connected through USB, so performance wasn't an issue, and it was not noted that it would be now. Heat plays a factor in any drives life span, and the reason i mentioned the WD's is they simply run significantly cooler and quieter than the seagate or maxtor's in my other systems. I much prefer to have the WD-GPs in a case that sits within 3 feet of me.

I would not advise any 5400 rpm drive as a primary hard drive, but for data storage as with the original post it seems to be suitable and the cheapest.