|
IBM Deskstar 120GXP
-
Group:
Patron
-
Posts:
2,670
-
Joined:
30-December 01
Posted 22 February 2002 - 05:16 PM
Yeah, IBM drives have been real champions in RAID 0 so far...
"If humans were intelligent enough to understand the workings of their own brains, their brains would be too complex for them to understand..."
If you would like to remove this advertisement, please register.
 - Member
-
Group:
Member
-
Posts:
37
-
Joined:
23-January 02
Posted 23 February 2002 - 03:01 AM
Quote PS. We don't know anything about this drive's reliability yet. It's unfair to place it in the same category as the notorious previous model from IBM, the 75GXP... Give time for the product to show itself!
Yes, that's true. Interestingly, thats exactly what I thought when I replaced my faulty 3x75gxp RAID-0 array with a 3x60gxp RAID array 
Well, the 60gxp array has gone down, too, so a WD1200BB is doing the work now, supported by a handfull of swappable Maxtor backup drives. I'm very happy with the WD1200BB ... I'll try to avoid IBM drives for the moment, until more is known on its reliability. I heard people complain about the RAID performance of WD1200BB/JB drives, too, which is a shame ...
 - Member
-
Group:
Member
-
Posts:
1
-
Joined:
23-February 02
Posted 23 February 2002 - 03:37 AM
Nice review of the 120GXP. As a matter of interest the failure rates of recent IBM drives (taken from SR's reliability database) are below:
14GXP 6.45% Sample size: 62
34GXP 15.84% Sample size: 101
75GXP 35.51% Sample size: 1453 :!:
60GXP 16.32% Sample size: 435
These figures are taken from the original raw data. Hopefully the 120GXP will return IBM's reputation for building reliable IDE drives.
Any chance of remaking the reliability database? I believe that the data was lost. This was very valuable information for consumers and system builders who ordinarily have to rely on rumour and heresay for reliability information.
-
Group:
Patron
-
Posts:
2,670
-
Joined:
30-December 01
Posted 23 February 2002 - 05:45 AM
Quote Yes, that's true. Interestingly, thats exactly what I thought when I replaced my faulty 3x75gxp RAID-0 array with a 3x60gxp RAID array
Well, the 60gxp array has gone down, too, so a WD1200BB is doing the work now, supported by a handfull of swappable Maxtor backup drives. I'm very happy with the WD1200BB ... I'll try to avoid IBM drives for the moment, until more is known on its reliability. I heard people complain about the RAID performance of WD1200BB/JB drives, too, which is a shame ...
Fair enough... 
"If humans were intelligent enough to understand the workings of their own brains, their brains would be too complex for them to understand..."
 - Member
-
Group:
Member
-
Posts:
166
-
Joined:
23-February 02
Posted 23 February 2002 - 11:18 PM
Quote How can a drive be labelled a good server drive when the manufacturer recommendation is 333 power-on hours a month (~11-12 poh/day). In my experience, servers are pretty much required to be up 24/7. :roll:
Just wanted to point out that most small businesses, and particularly offices, are only open during the daytime. In these situations, Windows Power Management can be used to power down the hard drive(s) "after hours".
I suppose that, technically, the drive is still on during this time, but I would think being in a low-power state would certainly extend that recommended 11-12 poh-day.
 - Member
-
Group:
Member
-
Posts:
23
-
Joined:
02-January 02
Posted 24 February 2002 - 01:30 PM
- Member
-
Group:
Member
-
Posts:
166
-
Joined:
23-February 02
Posted 24 February 2002 - 05:19 PM
Quote Seems like the smaller wd drives uses 40gb pr. platter.
Hard to argue against people having the drive and benchmarks to back it up, but I am surprised. I can't find any mention from WD regarding this drive configuration.
It would make sense, though, to offer more than just the 120GB capacity. It could be that making the 40GB platters costs them enough that, until now, they haven't wanted to sell them in anything but the most expensive drives.
Here's the real dilemma: now how do we know which drive we are buying??
-
Group:
Patron
-
Posts:
2,252
-
Joined:
29-December 01
Posted 24 February 2002 - 11:00 PM
Quote Quote
Seems like the smaller wd drives uses 40gb pr. platter.
Hard to argue against people having the drive and benchmarks to back it up, but I am surprised. I can't find any mention from WD regarding this drive configuration.
It would make sense, though, to offer more than just the 120GB capacity. It could be that making the 40GB platters costs them enough that, until now, they haven't wanted to sell them in anything but the most expensive drives.
Here's the real dilemma: now how do we know which drive we are buying??
Serial number prefix and the suffix on the model number. Or, if you have a way of scanning the drive to see how many physical heads it has, that'd be another way to do it.
- Member
-
Group:
Member
-
Posts:
166
-
Joined:
23-February 02
Posted 24 February 2002 - 11:36 PM
Quote Serial number prefix and the suffix on the model number. Or, if you have a way of scanning the drive to see how many physical heads it has, that'd be another way to do it.
Um... Yeah.... I think that's what Knut meant when he pointed out the different revision numbers.
I'd just like to take this moment to be a complete jerk and point out that most of the time, online retailers will not read you serial numbers off of hard drives. Also, most brick and mortar stores will not let open up a box, "scan the drive to see how many physical heads it has" and then tell them, "Sorry, this isn't the one I wanted."
CLARIFICATION: How would people know BEFOREHAND what drive a reseller had when purchasing online (outside of the reseller reporting the serial numbers, which is not likely from most resellers)?
FURTHER CLARIFICATION: That is mostly a rhetorical question to show the potential problems as well as my displeasure with WD using the same model number for (in my view) substancially different HDDs.
 - Member
-
Group:
Member
-
Posts:
1
-
Joined:
25-February 02
Posted 25 February 2002 - 06:54 AM
I was looking at the 40gb 120gxp and noticed that it was the exact same size as the 40gb 60gxp..I was thinking they were the same drives until I read that 120gxp uses 1 40gb platter instead of 2 20gb platters. So what did they do with the 60gb 120gxp? 1 40gb platter and 1 20gb? If so, how does this affect the performance..will the 40gb or 60gb perform on par with the larger 120gxp's?
1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
|
|
Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
MultiQuote