Jump to content


Photo

Seagate 5,900 RPM 4TB 4 platter Drive?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 cbrworm

cbrworm

    Member

  • Member
  • 131 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:48 PM

So, in the past I have bought the Seagate GoFlex external USB 3.0 drives and pulled out the 4TB 7,200 RPM ST4000DX000 drives. At the time they were available for around $200 (must have been pre-flood). Today I was in Costco and saw they had an identical looking Seagate external USB3.0 4tb drive for $159. So I grabbed a couple. Turns out these now have 5,900 RPM drives in them??? I thought Seagate was done with 'green' drives. I then noticed that these are labeled as backup plus instead of GoFlex.

The drive through the USB3 interface is none too swift, it actually looks like it is being limited by the base, but since I plan to return them I am not going to open them up.

This drive is listed as a ST4000DM000

So I went to the Seagate page to look it up: link

They don't even list spin speeds anymore?!?!, but clearly this 4tb drive pulls less power and has lower throughput than the 3tb drive. They show <8.5msec access times, but don't list latency. It works out to be 17.x ms access time. It is all a bit misleading if you ask me...

Needless to say, they are going back. For the time being I will continue to stick with the Hitachi 7k4000 series for 4TB drives.

#2 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,581 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:37 PM

ST4000DM000 isn't listed in many places. It says "Desktop HDD" for model name and isn't even on Seagate's Barracuda product page.

I don't think a current-generation Barracuda 7200.14 4TB is out yet-- the Seagate site shows only up to the 3TB ST3000DM001, which is 7200rpm like other 7200.14's...

It is all a bit misleading if you ask me...

Given the external drives don't advertise spindle speed or whatnot I would say it's not misleading at all. They promised nothing related to seek time or spindle speed on them. How did you determine it was a 5900rpm drive? Access time/seek time may not be 100% accurate, especially if AAM or verify-after-write is enabled...

I do agree it would be EXTREMELY surprising to see an unannounced 5900rpm drive in the wild, tho the spec sheet makes it smell like a 7200rpm drive given the average/max data rates specified.

#3 cbrworm

cbrworm

    Member

  • Member
  • 131 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:55 AM

The drive reports itself as 5,900 RPM in HDtune and Crystal DiskInfo. The truth is, the performance of it isn't that bad. The old 5 platter, as-yet unreleased, Barracuda (XT?) 4TB drive doesn't perform that much better and runs MUCH hotter.

What I was referring to as being misleading is the Seagate product page that I linked to. It doesn't show RPM or latency, but shows both drives to have <8.5msec access times. Everything else being equal, the 7,200 RPM drive access time (+latency) will be a few msec quicker. They shouldn't make it appear that the drives perform the same aside from throughput.

The reason I was surprised to see it is that it has both 1tb platters and a 5,900 RPM spin speed. Seagate has pretty loudly announced that there is no point in low RPM 'green' drives with the current areal density, yet this is clearly a fairly new model. The flip side of this is that I have always thought it was pretty silly to put 7,200 RPM drives in external enclosures with no heatsinking and little or no ventilation - some of the torture testing I did with the older drives got close to 70C in the enclosure standing vertically in a cool room - not good in my mind, but I believe Seagate spec'd some drives as suitable for very high operating temps.

'Desktop Drive' - could be a new name for LP or Green.

The performance alone would not be cause for me to return them, but the performance combined with the 2,400 hour rating combined with the current state of warranties (not the warranty itself, but the faith in the product that is reflected by the warranty) makes it much less appealing to me than the Hitachi 7K4000 drives - which occasionally go on sale for nearly as cheap. The WD Black 4TB drive is just too expensive for less than the stellar performance I was expecting from it, and I have not yet seen one at a reasonable price.

I need the drives for 24/7 operation, and I have used a number of the ST2000DM001 drives that have been running non-stop since released with no failures so far - one in front of me has been in use about 9 months shows 5,100 hours with 12 power cycles and 3900 head flying hours, but I still don't like the hour spec combined with the short warranty. These are not mission critical applications - for those I do buy enterprise drives along with frequent backups - but I still want them to run trouble free for many years.

#4 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,581 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 03:24 PM

The drive reports itself as 5,900 RPM in HDtune and Crystal DiskInfo

That begs one question-- can either one of those utilities be trusted to report correct info on what is apparently a brand-new, unannounced drive?

, but shows both drives to have <8.5msec access times. Everything else being equal, the 7,200 RPM drive access time (+latency) will be a few msec quicker.

Ten years ago I would have agreed, but if you've kept track, head technology has apparently not kept pace with platter technology over this period, and access times have increased as track density has gone up. Before, yes, it was a pretty reliable metric of what was or was not a 7200rpm disk (or a 5400rpm disk), but now... I am not so sure I would 100% consider it reliable.

but I still don't like the hour spec combined

Unfortunately that's a side effective of the "8 hour a day" POH (power on hour) spec that Hitachi started pushing back in the Deskstar 75GXP (or was it 60GXP? or 120GXP?) days. The drives generally still do hum along nicely much longer, but the AFR (annualized failure rate) metric does tend to go up proportionally as one would expect.

#5 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 755 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 01:36 PM

Those 2400h are approximately 8h a day over one year. I understand it as "we expect you to run the drive no more than this for our projected annualized failure rates to be correct". So this wouldn't make me worry about their reliability. It should actually (on average) last longer than a 5 platter 7.2k rpm drive.

And Seagate making a lower-rpm drive again makes complete sense. I never understood this "7.2k is enough for anyone" anyhow. 4 platters at less power consumption than 3 platters at 7.2k rpm says it all - there's a clear market & need for such drives. And not to forget that it's easier to reach higher data densities and platter counts at lower rpms.

MrS

#6 Valleyforge

Valleyforge

    Member

  • Member
  • 134 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 08:07 AM

The 3TB external boxes use a normal ST3000DM001 7200rpm unit - Seagate seem to have given up on their 5900rpm line. Perhaps the 4TB unit is also 7200rpm?

Personally I liked the 5900rpm units - I have three 2TB ones in a RAID5 array, running for over a year with zero issues to report. They're even reasonably useful as a single drive in a PC, the speed isn't particularly bad.

Edited by Valleyforge, 07 February 2013 - 08:11 AM.

Laptop: Dell inspiron E7440, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 mSATA, Win7 Pro
Workstation: i5-4690K, Z97I-Plus, H100i, Obsidian 250D, 480GB Crucial M500, 1TB WD Black, Win8.1 Pro, Hyper-V

NAS: Asustor AS-604T, 3GB RAM, 180GB Intel Pro 1500 & 2x4TB HGST NAS

HTPC:Intel NUC D54250WYK, 4GB, 64GB Crucial M4 mSATA, Win7 Pro

HTPC 2:Intel NUC DN2820, 4GB, 64GB Crucial M4 mSATA, Win7 Pro


 

#7 nocho

nocho

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:39 PM

The 3TB external boxes use a normal ST3000DM001 7200rpm unit - Seagate seem to have given up on their 5900rpm line. Perhaps the 4TB unit is also 7200rpm?

Personally I liked the 5900rpm units - I have three 2TB ones in a RAID5 array, running for over a year with zero issues to report. They're even reasonably useful as a single drive in a PC, the speed isn't particularly bad.


Negative, just had received four Seagate Backup Plus's from Amazaon. Popped them open they're still running the 5900rpm drives. (ST4000DM000)

#8 christianh

christianh

    Member

  • Member
  • 6 posts

Posted 16 March 2013 - 05:54 PM


Those 2400h are approximately 8h a day over one year. I understand it as "we expect you to run the drive no more than this for our projected annualized failure rates to be correct". So this wouldn't make me worry about their reliability. It should actually (on average) last longer than a 5 platter 7.2k rpm drive.

And Seagate making a lower-rpm drive again makes complete sense. I never understood this "7.2k is enough for anyone" anyhow. 4 platters at less power consumption than 3 platters at 7.2k rpm says it all - there's a clear market & need for such drives. And not to forget that it's easier to reach higher data densities and platter counts at lower rpms.

MrS



How is 2400h nothing to worry about? I am nearing 12000 hours with my old WD 2tb Green. And my other 2tb green is at nearly 9000 power on hours. Both have 3 platters and 6 heads.

2400h is a joke!

Edited by christianh, 16 March 2013 - 05:54 PM.

#9 cbrworm

cbrworm

    Member

  • Member
  • 131 posts

Posted 16 March 2013 - 08:38 PM

Drive on Newegg

#10 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 755 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 04:42 AM

How is 2400h nothing to worry about? I am nearing 12000 hours with my old WD 2tb Green. And my other 2tb green is at nearly 9000 power on hours. Both have 3 platters and 6 heads.

2400h is a joke!

Of course drives last longer than 2400h. Mine routinely get >50k hours before being passed on to someone else. However.. I think you didn't understand what I said. 8h/day has been Seagates assumed standard usage scenario for years now for desktop drives. It's this usage they base their annual failure rate (AFR) of <1% on. So if you run your drive 24/7 you'll get (approximately) a 3 times higher AFR. At <3% this is still rather low. The real world increase is going to be lower, especially since most wear-and-tear for HDDs happens during startup, so the actual increase in AFR will be less than 3.

This does not mean the drives are failing after 2400h, or that they would be expected to. Or that the warrenty would be tied to this runtime (such claims would probably be illegal in Germany anyway, but not sure about the US.. they've got some strange laws there).

I'm obviously not speaking officially for Seagate here, but I'm pretty sure this is just poor communication from their side.

MrS

#11 MadMacMan

MadMacMan

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 06:53 AM

I totally agree with the OP. Seagate made a BIG deal about "The Power of One" about a year ago, explaining how they were eliminating "green" drives and consoldiating SKU's and how everyone with a "green" drive was only saving 20c a year on their power bill. I have purchased 3 of the ST4000DM000 drives and yes, they are 5,900rpm and come with 64MB of cache. The high performance 4TB drives have the ST4000DX000 designation. So, DX in the middle, instead of DM; I'm assuming the X in DX stands for the XT, as in Barracuda XT? They run at 7,200rpm and have 128MB cache. They also have 5x800GB platters inside, whereas the slower "DM" model has 4x1TB platters. How am I doing so far, Seagate???

I am pi$$ed. I'm using them in a Drobo 5D by replacing one by one the...(wait for it) five 3TB ST3000DM1's that I have in it now. Those, of course, are the high-performance 7,200rpm 3TB drives. You know, the "Power of One". I also agree with the OP on the opinion of "misleading". At the very least, they come off as misleading by surreptitiously re-intorducing their "green" drives. If they hadn't been so secretive, I would have had the correct information about what's what with the 4TB drives, but now I'm sitting here with a bunch of 5,900rpm drives that I didn't want.

What do you guys think about using the 5,900rpm drives in a Drobo? I'm using it mainly for storage, so I'm not rendering video to it. Which is beside the point, because assuming I want to re-sell the array to go up to a newer model, for example, the resale value is less with the 5,900rpm drives in the Drobo.

Edited by MadMacMan, 04 May 2013 - 06:55 AM.

#12 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 755 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 04:33 PM

Misleading marketing for sure (don't people in the US quickly sue because of lesser issues, and usually get millions out of it?). But the drives are probably not as bad as you think. Actually for bulk storage the low rpm drives are best suited. During regular access you're probably limited by the interface anyway rather than STR of individual drives. Which, BTW, won't be much lower due to the higher density platters. Random accesses are a different story, of course, but how often will this occur in a performance-critical way?

MrS

#13 Valleyforge

Valleyforge

    Member

  • Member
  • 134 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:22 AM

Got a pair of these 4TB 5900rpm drives at the weekend. Bought them in the Seagate Expansion external box, ripped the mech out of them. Now running them on a Server 2012 Storage Spaces Mirror. I'm getting a solid 110MB/s read speed from them. Writes are slower due to the software parity. They seem quiet and cool compared to the ST3000DM001 I run in the same machine. They do make a clatter unloading the heads, similar to the WD Green. I'm pretty happy with them, and they were very cheap.

Some people need to catch a grip in this thread, though. Seagate didn't rape your daughter or burn out your car. They just changed their mind about selling 5900rpm drives. :rolleyes: Personally I'm happy to use the slower speeds, I've no need for a 7200rpm drive, as I can only extract data as fast as Gigabit will allow.

Edited by Valleyforge, 09 May 2013 - 06:26 AM.

Laptop: Dell inspiron E7440, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 mSATA, Win7 Pro
Workstation: i5-4690K, Z97I-Plus, H100i, Obsidian 250D, 480GB Crucial M500, 1TB WD Black, Win8.1 Pro, Hyper-V

NAS: Asustor AS-604T, 3GB RAM, 180GB Intel Pro 1500 & 2x4TB HGST NAS

HTPC:Intel NUC D54250WYK, 4GB, 64GB Crucial M4 mSATA, Win7 Pro

HTPC 2:Intel NUC DN2820, 4GB, 64GB Crucial M4 mSATA, Win7 Pro


 

#14 BugMagnet

BugMagnet

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 02 June 2013 - 11:29 AM

FWIW, newegg lists this as a 5900 RPM drive

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822178338

Seagate lists it as a 15th generation drive, "Desktop HDD.15" in contrast to "7200.14" for the smaller TB+ drives

Sustained data rate is reported to be ~14% less than their 3TB and under drives in the 7200.14 version (180 vs 210 MB/s)
Average data rate is reported to be ~6% less (146 vs 156 MB/s)

Latency ~23% greater than the 3TB 7200.14 (5.10 vs 4.16 ms)

Power consumption is slightly lower.


"Rated workload
Average rate of <55TB/year. The MTBF specification for the drive assumes the I/O workload does not exceed the average annualized workload rate limit of 55TB/year. Workloads exceeding the annualized rate may degrade the drive MTBF and impact product reliability. The average annualized workload rate limit is in units of TB per year, or TB per 8760 power-on hours. Workload rate limit = TB transferred × (8760/recorded power-on hours)"

Publication Number: 100710254, Rev. C
March 2013
http://origin-www.se...10254-rev-c.pdf

As to the relentless assertion that enterprise drives are more reliable, not so fast, not so sure.

"Key observations from Dr. Schroeder’s research:
High-end “enterprise” drives versus “consumer” drives?

"Interestingly, we observe little difference in replacement rates between SCSI, FC and SATA drives, potentially an indication that disk-independent factors, such as operating conditions, affect replacement rates more than component specific factors."

http://storagemojo.c...disks-is-wrong/
http://static.usenix.../schroeder.html
http://static.usenix...r/schroeder.pdf

And last but not least, tigerdirect is selling this for less than $160 today

#15 fzabkar

fzabkar

    Member

  • Member
  • 31 posts

Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:43 PM

I'm assuming the X in DX stands for the XT, as in Barracuda XT? They run at 7,200rpm and have 128MB cache. They also have 5x800GB platters inside, whereas the slower "DM" model has 4x1TB platters. How am I doing so far, Seagate???

New, Simplified Seagate Model Numbers:
http://www.seagate.c...at-sheet-gb.pdf

DX = Desktop Premium
DM = Mainstream
DL = Entry Level
LX = Laptop Premium
LM = Laptop Mainstream
LT = Laptop Thin

As for the number of platters, ISTM that the benchmark comparisons suggest that both the DM and DX drives have the same number of platters.

The following examples show maximum transfer rates of between 170 and 176 MB/s:

http://www.rwlabs.co.../4TB_HDD/17.PNG
http://i294.photobuc...zps1b1bcdbc.png
http://legitreviews....dtune-write.jpg

If the 7200 RPM drive has a transfer rate of 210 MB/s, then ...

(5900 / 7200) x 210 = 172.1

... which suggests that the difference in transfer rates is in direct proportion to RPM, and is not related to platter density.

OTOH, if you are comparing the data transfer rates of an 800GB per platter drive against a 1TB per platter drive, then, all other things (eg RPM) being equal, I have found that the relationship is ...

(transfer rate A) / (transfer rate B) = sqrt (density A / density B)

So the difference in transfer rate would be ...

sqrt (0.8 / 1) = 0.894

... a reduction by about 10%.

Edited by fzabkar, 02 June 2013 - 04:18 PM.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users