Jump to content


Photo

Seagate Enterprise Capacity 6TB 3.5 HDD Review Discussion

HDD

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

#1 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,853 posts

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:43 PM

 

The Seagate Enterprise Capacity 6TB 3.5 HDDv4 is a well performing high capacity drive, a drive that can add up to an additional 50% capacity over current drives with a relatively low price point and all the interface and security features the enterprise wants.

Seagate Enterprise Capacity 6TB 3.5 HDD Review

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview | @BMBeeler

#2 takeshi7

takeshi7

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 12:47 PM

I don't like how this review talks about how the Helium drive uses less power than the conventional Seagate drive, but it doesn't include any data indicating that.  Some power usage measurements/graphs should be included if you're going to say that.


#3 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,853 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 12:53 PM

That is a very good point and we're evaluating how to provide more meaningful data for enterprise reviews like this. For now, we're simply referencing the specs of the drives, which for power tend to be accurate. 


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview | @BMBeeler

#4 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,692 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:20 PM

A quick $299 at Newegg would get one of the desktop versions for testing... :D

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822178520


#5 xgman

xgman

    Member

  • Member
  • 4 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 10:14 AM

A quick $299 at Newegg would get one of the desktop versions for testing... :D

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822178520

Which is exactly half the price of the enterprise version. I wonder what the real differences are?


#6 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,853 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 01:05 PM

Desktop vs enterprise platform.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview | @BMBeeler

#7 johnvam

johnvam

    Member

  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 30 August 2015 - 12:57 AM

Hello,

 

we are using those disks for a Ceph cluster that we have create. The problem is that we are getting very low performance compared to for example our SATA drives that we have to our workstations.

 

Our hardware is a Dell R730xd server. NO RAID configuration is applied, just spare disks. The OS is Ubuntu 12.04 x64

 

The results we are getting are below.

 

 

These are the results on my workstation's SATA disk

============================================================================ 
vtzan@vtzan-Desktop:/backup$ dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=1G count=1 
1+0 records in 
1+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1,1 GB) copied, 10,4504 s, 103 MB/s 
vtzan@vtzan-Desktop:/backup$ dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=4M count=256 
256+0 records in 
256+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1,1 GB) copied, 7,97246 s, 135 MB/s 
vtzan@vtzan-Desktop:/backup$ dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=1M count=1024 
1024+0 records in 
1024+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1,1 GB) copied, 8,16091 s, 132 MB/s 
vtzan@vtzan-Desktop:/backup$ dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=256k count=4096 
4096+0 records in 
4096+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1,1 GB) copied, 8,05868 s, 133 MB/s 
vtzan@vtzan-Desktop:/backup$ dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=64k count=16384 
16384+0 records in 
16384+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1,1 GB) copied, 8,26585 s, 130 MB/s 
vtzan@vtzan-Desktop:/backup$ dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=4k count=262144 
262144+0 records in 
262144+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1,1 GB) copied, 21,4378 s, 50,1 MB/s 

============================================================================ 

 

 

Here is the results from our DELL R730xd server :

======================================================================== 
root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=1G count=1 
1+0 records in 
1+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 5.55031 s, 193 MB/s

root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=4M count=256 
256+0 records in 
256+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 6.97119 s, 154 MB/s 
root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=1M count=1024 
1024+0 records in 
1024+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.9184 s, 72.0 MB/s

root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=256k count=4096 
4096+0 records in 
4096+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 40.0724 s, 26.8 MB/s

root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=64k count=16384 
16384+0 records in 
16384+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 147.296 s, 7.3 MB/s

root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=4k count=262144 
^C41481+0 records in 
41481+0 records out 
169906176 bytes (170 MB) copied, 362.847 s, 468 kB/s 
========================================================================

 

Any suggestion?

Thank you

 

Edited by johnvam, 30 August 2015 - 01:00 AM.

#8 Kevin OBrien

Kevin OBrien

    StorageReview Editor

  • Admin
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 30 August 2015 - 08:40 AM

What OS is the workstation? That last workload looks like 4k random write... Most drives will get pretty low with that. What IO scheduler is that system setup to?

#9 qasdfdsaq

qasdfdsaq

    iNoob

  • Mod
  • 1,597 posts

Posted 31 August 2015 - 10:18 AM

Hello,
 
we are using those disks for a Ceph cluster that we have create. The problem is that we are getting very low performance compared to for example our SATA drives that we have to our workstations.
 
Our hardware is a Dell R730xd server. NO RAID configuration is applied, just spare disks. The OS is Ubuntu 12.04 x64
 
The results we are getting are below.
 
 
Here is the results from our DELL R730xd server :
======================================================================== 
root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=1G count=1 
1+0 records in 
1+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 5.55031 s, 193 MB/s
root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=4M count=256 
256+0 records in 
256+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 6.97119 s, 154 MB/s 
root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=1M count=1024 
1024+0 records in 
1024+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 14.9184 s, 72.0 MB/s
root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=256k count=4096 
4096+0 records in 
4096+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 40.0724 s, 26.8 MB/s
root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=64k count=16384 
16384+0 records in 
16384+0 records out 
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 147.296 s, 7.3 MB/s
root@node-11:~/test-disk# dd if=/dev/zero of=test.dat oflag=direct bs=4k count=262144 
^C41481+0 records in 
41481+0 records out 
169906176 bytes (170 MB) copied, 362.847 s, 468 kB/s 
========================================================================
 
Any suggestion?
Thank you


Given your performance scales down almost linearly with block size this looks like a storage stack/driver/adapter optimization problem. The disk is obviously capable of reaching full speed under the right conditions, so I'd start looking through iostat -x to see where the bottlenecks are happening.

Also, is write caching on?

P.S. Please don't cross-post the same question in multiple threads.
 

That last workload looks like 4k random write...


Yet it's 100% sequential.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users