Geeky1University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
edited February 2004
I like Maxtor's DiamondMax 9s. I've got a ton of them (8 to be exact) and they're all fast and quiet. They've been reliable so far (and they'd damn well better stay that way; not only is all my data on the things, but we're talking $>1000 worth of drives here. I will not be happy if they die).
Western Digital is the only company I'll buy. My buddy down the hall just had his Maxtor 160 die. The replacement drive was DOA and then the replacement drive for the replacement was a DOA. Not to mention the customer service people have been incredibly rude to him. I'm a huge believer in Western Digital.
0
Geeky1University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
edited February 2004
My buddy down the hall just had his Maxtor 160 die. The replacement drive was DOA and then the replacement drive for the replacement was a DOA
*Geeky1 curls up into a tiny ball, starts rocking back and forth, makes funny noises*
Not to be picky, but isn't this in the wrong place?
But to answer your question, I went back to the dark side for an experiment and raided 2 Hitachi 80 gig SATA 8 Meg drives. They're fast, quiet and I'm leaving them on almost 24/7 shutting down when the spirit moves me, to see if they even hiccup. I am making networked backups daily (automated) and using ithem daily. They rock!!
I don't know as I'd do it if I didn't have the hardware to do the backups, etc.as I did loose 2-75 GXP's once and had a real bad taste in my mouth from that. The bench's were just too good to pass up.
I hear the seagates are fast. The ones that are native sata.
Seagate ST3160023AS Barracuda 7200.7.
Apparently they are the quietest, and one of the fastest. *shrug*
Seagate SATA drives are the slowest of them all. Go check storagereview.con database and you'll see.
The Hitachi are the fastest non-Raptors SATA drives atm.
I am talking about that one specific drive. The 160gb second gen SATA. It is not the slowest of them all, as I am looking at the site you directed me to right now.
Yes the PATA versions of the drive are the slowest of them all. The SATA is not.
edit: they should also be a little bit cheaper. lets recap- cheaper, quieter, faster than average, if not one of the fastest (this drive specifically, the 160gb SATA, reviews show it is one of the fastest for seek times, transfer rates are average or above average)
I'm not sure what review are you reading but the SATA version you speak of is slower than most of the PATA drives in the review and even slower than the PATA version of the same drive in some of the tests.
I am just relaying what I have read in numerous reviews. That review may say otherwise, but in the reviews I have read, they compare SATA drives vs. SATA drives of the same or similar capacity. Different sizes will give you different speeds. I read in one of the articles that more heads give you faster transfer rates? Well that would explain why all the drives faster than the 160 on your charts are all larger drives. He asked for raid 0 with 2 SATA drives of 120gb. I gave him information based on his request. Thats great, a maxtor maxline plus II 250gb is faster, its also more exensive, spending alot of money is something he wanted to avoid.
Thats a different drive. Thats the 160GB for $125, the benchmarks show a 250GB? I think that would affect the results, and I don't think the model numbers match there either. *shrug*
I hear the seagates are fast. The ones that are native sata.
Seagate ST3160023AS Barracuda 7200.7.
Apparently they are the quietest, and one of the fastest. *shrug*
Went through way to many seagates who's firmware was great as single drives and sucked in raid. They are the only manufacturer I can think of that managed to produce fast single drives that were just terrible in raid. Not simply not the "fastest" but friggin terrible beyond all belief. And I would be willing to bet only EQ on this forum has built more IDE raid arrays and used more differant drives etc... then I have.
I like my Western Digital WDC1600JB raid. I've got two connected to PATA -> SATA adapters and hooked into my VIA8237 southbridge RAID controller, and the ATTO's look good as far as I'm concerned.
I like my Western Digital WDC1600JB raid. I've got two connected to PATA -> SATA adapters and hooked into my VIA8237 southbridge RAID controller, and the ATTO's look good as far as I'm concerned.
-drasnor
And I have seen those same drives kiss 100,000 when tweaked right. make no mistake... 90,000 is nothing to cough about either... Those are finbe atto's no matter what for a two drive array.
IDe isnt like scsi where you hit 300,000.
I've seen four maxtors on a 3ware touch 200,000 and thats killer for ide.
First the Seagates are not slow. When set up properly they burst to 125 M/b's w/3.5% CPU (HD Tach)
They run atto to over 108 M/b (16/K/16K)
They also have one distinct advantage over the other drives. They are the only TRUE sata drive on the market at the moment. All the other sata drives are what is known as bridged drives. They have a built in sata/pata converter. The advantage is that true sata does command queing like scsi (8 commands for sata, 32 for scsi). Bridged drives cannot do command queing. When sata controller FW implementing command queing becomes widely implemented there will be a big improvement.
It is rumored that the Intel controller implements it now which may account for my over 100Mb transfers. Only got 89-90 on the NF7-S board.
I was just mentioning the change because I did a low level format and fresh install on these same 2 Seagate drives and ran them on my NF7 and they only turned 85-90Mb. Moved the same drives to my Intel, low leveled and did a fresh install. Scores went up to the 108. Used same partition sizes and everything else. The Intel controller is just faster. Seagates aren't the fastest things on the market, but they are quiet and performance is very close to the top for a 7200 drive.
BTW: I'm running your Modified 13 bios for the IC7 with the new SATA bioses in it. It works great. Tried the 14b4, modded and unmodded. Something in that bios makes the machine go off into la la land. Like it is doing that background thinking thing. Went back to 13 and the SNAP is back.
I know it's another board and all, but thanks for the modded bioses. Abit has gotten pretty bad about bios releases as of late.
Seagates aren't the fastest things on the market, but they are quiet and performance is very close to the top for a 7200 drive.
My bro has always been a big fan of Seagate, simply because they are quieter than most, like ya said. However I've always questioned what he considers to be quiet, access noise or general drive humm? or both?
My old (and now sadly lost, literally) WD1200JB's, had very quiet access noise (IMO), but their overall humm was quite loud. My SATA WD RAPTORS, are loud on both fronts. I'm just curious what other people consider to be the part of a hard drive that should be the quietest.
p.s (I can only manage just over 100MB/per sec read scores on my NF7-S, that's stock, 16/16 with two Raptors.)
I was just mentioning the change because I did a low level format and fresh install on these same 2 Seagate drives and ran them on my NF7 and they only turned 85-90Mb. Moved the same drives to my Intel, low leveled and did a fresh install. Scores went up to the 108. Used same partition sizes and everything else. The Intel controller is just faster. Seagates aren't the fastest things on the market, but they are quiet and performance is very close to the top for a 7200 drive.
BTW: I'm running your Modified 13 bios for the IC7 with the new SATA bioses in it. It works great. Tried the 14b4, modded and unmodded. Something in that bios makes the machine go off into la la land. Like it is doing that background thinking thing. Went back to 13 and the SNAP is back.
I know it's another board and all, but thanks for the modded bioses. Abit has gotten pretty bad about bios releases as of late.
Thanks!
Yeah, I knew what you meant. Sorry, I thought you had Hitachi's as well thus my off base reply.
I'm glad my bios is working well for you. Are you using the latest with the Intel ROM update?
btw: I sold those Hitachi to Mondi, these are my actual drives:
2 x 30GB Maxtor's 2MB cache RAID0 16/16 NTFS, fully loaded C:\ partition...
First the Seagates are not slow. When set up properly they burst to 125 M/b's w/3.5% CPU (HD Tach)
They run atto to over 108 M/b (16/K/16K)
They also have one distinct advantage over the other drives. They are the only TRUE sata drive on the market at the moment. All the other sata drives are what is known as bridged drives. They have a built in sata/pata converter. The advantage is that true sata does command queing like scsi (8 commands for sata, 32 for scsi). Bridged drives cannot do command queing. When sata controller FW implementing command queing becomes widely implemented there will be a big improvement.
It is rumored that the Intel controller implements it now which may account for my over 100Mb transfers. Only got 89-90 on the NF7-S board.
If you look at those benches, although the seagates at the back of the pack its a difference of only 7% max. This isn't huge and in the range that minor tweak may yield even closer (or further results). I like my seagates (i've got a whack of 40 GB sg's) which I find to be by far the quiest ide drives I've ever used. They run very smoothly with hardly any variation in noise. It all depends what you need... I'm hopefully building a Hitachi SATA raid (mode 1 but i'll hopefully have time to bench it in 0 before installing) for a client simply because he had to have the highest benchmark. So it all depends what's most important to you.
I'm glad my bios is working well for you. Are you using the latest with the Intel ROM update?
I'm pretty sure I got the one that has both the Intel and Silicon updated bios in it. The Intel shows 3.5.0.3003. Don't run the Silicon unless I'm doing a ghost backup so I can't check it, but I'm pretty sure it's the latest one too.
Thanks!
Yeah, I knew what you meant. Sorry, I thought you had Hitachi's as well thus my off base reply.
I'm glad my bios is working well for you. Are you using the latest with the Intel ROM update?
btw: I sold those Hitachi to Mondi, these are my actual drives:
2 x 30GB Maxtor's 2MB cache RAID0 16/16 NTFS, fully loaded C:\ partition...
Crap Eq. Those are the kinda scores most guys with wd se's would kill for.
Comments
*Geeky1 curls up into a tiny ball, starts rocking back and forth, makes funny noises*
But to answer your question, I went back to the dark side for an experiment and raided 2 Hitachi 80 gig SATA 8 Meg drives. They're fast, quiet and I'm leaving them on almost 24/7 shutting down when the spirit moves me, to see if they even hiccup. I am making networked backups daily (automated) and using ithem daily. They rock!!
I don't know as I'd do it if I didn't have the hardware to do the backups, etc.as I did loose 2-75 GXP's once and had a real bad taste in my mouth from that. The bench's were just too good to pass up.
Flint
Tex
Seagate ST3160023AS Barracuda 7200.7.
Apparently they are the quietest, and one of the fastest. *shrug*
The Hitachi are the fastest non-Raptors SATA drives atm.
Yes the PATA versions of the drive are the slowest of them all. The SATA is not.
edit: they should also be a little bit cheaper. lets recap- cheaper, quieter, faster than average, if not one of the fastest (this drive specifically, the 160gb SATA, reviews show it is one of the fastest for seek times, transfer rates are average or above average)
but..., whatever floats your boat.
2 x Hitachi 160GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive, Model HDS722516VLSA80, OEM = $250
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=22-148-018&catalog=14&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=0
2 x Seagate 160GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive, Model ST3160023AS, OEM = $263
I rather pay $13 less for the second fastest SATA hard drive on the market.
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200310/20031007HDS722525VLSA80_2.html
Thats a different drive. Thats the 160GB for $125, the benchmarks show a 250GB? I think that would affect the results, and I don't think the model numbers match there either. *shrug*
Went through way to many seagates who's firmware was great as single drives and sucked in raid. They are the only manufacturer I can think of that managed to produce fast single drives that were just terrible in raid. Not simply not the "fastest" but friggin terrible beyond all belief. And I would be willing to bet only EQ on this forum has built more IDE raid arrays and used more differant drives etc... then I have.
Tex
-drasnor
And thats what i say but put "Equito" where name was...
And I have seen those same drives kiss 100,000 when tweaked right. make no mistake... 90,000 is nothing to cough about either... Those are finbe atto's no matter what for a two drive array.
IDe isnt like scsi where you hit 300,000.
I've seen four maxtors on a 3ware touch 200,000 and thats killer for ide.
Tex
-drasnor
i just need some native sata now
First the Seagates are not slow. When set up properly they burst to 125 M/b's w/3.5% CPU (HD Tach)
They run atto to over 108 M/b (16/K/16K)
They also have one distinct advantage over the other drives. They are the only TRUE sata drive on the market at the moment. All the other sata drives are what is known as bridged drives. They have a built in sata/pata converter. The advantage is that true sata does command queing like scsi (8 commands for sata, 32 for scsi). Bridged drives cannot do command queing. When sata controller FW implementing command queing becomes widely implemented there will be a big improvement.
It is rumored that the Intel controller implements it now which may account for my over 100Mb transfers. Only got 89-90 on the NF7-S board.
btw: nice to see you again!
2 x 80GB Hitachi RAID-0 16/16 NTFS
I was just mentioning the change because I did a low level format and fresh install on these same 2 Seagate drives and ran them on my NF7 and they only turned 85-90Mb. Moved the same drives to my Intel, low leveled and did a fresh install. Scores went up to the 108. Used same partition sizes and everything else. The Intel controller is just faster. Seagates aren't the fastest things on the market, but they are quiet and performance is very close to the top for a 7200 drive.
BTW: I'm running your Modified 13 bios for the IC7 with the new SATA bioses in it. It works great. Tried the 14b4, modded and unmodded. Something in that bios makes the machine go off into la la land. Like it is doing that background thinking thing. Went back to 13 and the SNAP is back.
I know it's another board and all, but thanks for the modded bioses. Abit has gotten pretty bad about bios releases as of late.
My bro has always been a big fan of Seagate, simply because they are quieter than most, like ya said. However I've always questioned what he considers to be quiet, access noise or general drive humm? or both?
My old (and now sadly lost, literally) WD1200JB's, had very quiet access noise (IMO), but their overall humm was quite loud. My SATA WD RAPTORS, are loud on both fronts. I'm just curious what other people consider to be the part of a hard drive that should be the quietest.
p.s (I can only manage just over 100MB/per sec read scores on my NF7-S, that's stock, 16/16 with two Raptors.)
Yeah, I knew what you meant. Sorry, I thought you had Hitachi's as well thus my off base reply.
I'm glad my bios is working well for you. Are you using the latest with the Intel ROM update?
btw: I sold those Hitachi to Mondi, these are my actual drives:
2 x 30GB Maxtor's 2MB cache RAID0 16/16 NTFS, fully loaded C:\ partition...
I'm pretty sure I got the one that has both the Intel and Silicon updated bios in it. The Intel shows 3.5.0.3003. Don't run the Silicon unless I'm doing a ghost backup so I can't check it, but I'm pretty sure it's the latest one too.
Thanks again for the updates.
Good job
Tex