Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/12/13 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Hah, they're not going to take Optimus Max to client systems any time soon, but they certainly could. I'd bet we'll have 2TB client SSDs next year though from Samsung and maybe Micron. SanDisk's client business isn't really that strong comparatively.
  2. 2 points
    Put them in a server and run some sort of SDS on top of it like Nexenta. Fun learning experience and gets you a cheap SAN.
  3. 2 points
    Note the three years in between though...they've been surprised by the interest in the platform I think. Now, if WD could just get those 2.5" Reds up to 2TB in a 9.5mm...
  4. 2 points
    Long-time watcher of StorageReview, but I registered just to be able to comment on this review. An excellent review, though your testing seems a bit high-end for the likely intended usage. I'd bet the majority of the target users for this SOHO device won't have a backbone that supports iSCSI or even dual-port aggregation. As you point out, 2-10 users in a casual / small office setting or for home use seems a likely audience. Such an audience would be much more likely to have an entry-level GbE switch as opposed to a managed backbone that costs 10x more. To that point, I've used the entire line of BlackArmor devices, and there are three critical issues common to them that seem to be repeated with the replacement Business Storage line... none of which are mentioned in the review, but they may not impact everyone so I'm not sure they necessarily bear mentioning up-front. 1) Performance. You obtained okay numbers in your testbed, but as summarized above, I doubt you'd see that infrastructure in the wild. I'd suggest you at least pair it with testing results from a cheapo GbE switch using a single LAN plug and simple Windows file sharing / disk mapping. Unless the BS line has markedly improved from the BA line, you'll see performance on the order of 15 MB/s read, 10 MB/s write. Horrendous for anything but backups, really, which is all I use my BA boxes for. Also, I recognize that there's a massive disparity of price points and target audience, but I get 110 MB/s--TEN TIMES the performance--from my Synology boxes, and 50-70 MB/s from my Drobos. And that's on a cost-conscious backbone of entry-level GbE switches using one LAN port per device and simple, iSCSI-less file sharing in Windows. There's no comparison at all. 2) Compatibility. Massively overpriced with disks, the BA and BS line are very reasonable when purchased diskless. I've used Buffalo, Seagate, Synology, and Drobo NAS boxes in small-business and personal settings, and diskless BA/BS boxes are far and away the cheapest way really of adding reliable (but not fast!) NAS storage in such contexts. But these NAS boxes only support Seagate disks. True, this is a Seagate device, but it seems as though someone had to intentionally code a rejection routine into the firmware, which is just kind of an obnoxious move. In addition, some of the compatibility notes for "certified drives" listed for the BA line are flat-out falsified--the diskless BA 400 will simply NOT work with the 1.5 TB desktop line of Seagate disks, period. 3) Risk. For those who know what they're doing, these are fairly easy boxes to deploy, and the web-based UI is second only to Synology's in my experience. But it's easy, far too easy, to make a catastrophic mistake. For example, if you set up a BA box using one LAN port, and then try to plug in a second LAN plug, it will not only not work, but it has a strong chance of corrupting the entire array, forcing you to not only lose all data and set everything up again, but in order to even begin to do so, you must eject each disk individually and reformat it using a separate computer. Otherwise it won't set itself up. Now, much of my comments above are from my experience with the older BA boxes, but I'd like to know if those issues have been resolved with the replacement BS line. Anyway, as always, I love seeing info on Storage Review.com so keep up the good work!
  5. 2 points
    You're almost right here. What's missing is that copying small files, even from the same directory, will automatically include some random access too. The files being read may be spread across the disk, they may be written different locations, filling up holes in the current file structure (what ever the OS see fit) and the MFT may be accessed. That's why multi-threaded copy for higher queue depths still improves throughput: the disk can arrange the accesses better through NCQ and can reduce access times. BTW: if the folders you're copying are often the same I'd look into incremental sync'ing with e.g. DirSync (nice freeware). Not sure it can increase QD, but it certainly saves time not to transfer untouched files again. And I'm not a fan of buying large SSDs for storage, that's often a waste of money (IMO). I'd rather use the SSD for temperary storage and as automatic cache. If you're concerned with many small files an SSD would be ideal. And if the SSD cache also buffers writes you may see a massive speed increase. The cache capacity would also be huge compared to the amount of storage required for small files MrS
  6. 1 point
    HGST announced several new HDD, SSD and software solutions today. The releases are summarized below: HGST Ultrastar He8 HDDs Announced HGST Ultrastar 7K6000 HDDs Now Shipping HGST Announces First 10TB Data Center-Class HDD HGST Extends Agreement With Intel to Produce SAS SSDs HGST Ultrastar SN100 Series of SSDs Announced HGST Virident Space Announced
  7. 1 point
    Synology's new DiskStation DS1515+ is a 5-bay NAS that houses up to 30TB of raw storage, a quad-core 2.4GHz CPU, and up to 6GB RAM (with upgrade). It was designed for demanding use-cases and serves reported transfer speeds of 450MB/s and 396.5MB/s (read and write, respectively). Like many of Synology's offerings, it also prioritizes security, providing AES-NI encryption with very little decrease in read speeds, in addition to a suite of other features. Each DS1515+ server is scalable up to 90TB (with two Synology DX513 expansion units), and multiple DiskStation servers can be consolidated through Synology's Central Management System (CMS) for enhanced administrative efficiency. Account integration is easily done thanks to support for Windows AD, LDAP, and Domain Trust. Synology DiskStation DS1515+ Review
  8. 1 point
    Personally I might lean towards the 9361-8i since it seemed to offer the highest performance in our environment. The Areca model is based off it with some minor additions... but why not just buy the deal deal instead? In terms of running hot, all the models that you listed are somewhat designed to be operated in an environment with a certain amount of airflow. If you are using them in a server they will operate for many years just fine. In a desktop, you would need to make sure a gentle/brisk breeze is always flowing over the card's heatsink.
  9. 1 point
    Valleyforge, it's totally OK for you to mistrust OCZ until proven otherwise, and it's totally OK for you not to buy and recommend their products. But claiming this SSD would be a terrible product just because it's from OCZ is not OK - unguilty until proven otherwise. BTW: the controller and basic firmware of this drive have been in service for quite some time in other product(s?) now, so it's not something completely new and unknown. CrazyElf, I'd say that OCZ failures were even more severe with Sandforce 1 rather than 2. But that doesn't matter any more. And regarding your outlook: I see no reason why "budget" drives wouldn't transition over to M.2 as well, once the controller and mainboards are established. They may not need it for write performance, but reads could certainly make use of the additional bandwidth. They even save money on the PCB and case (none for M.2). Regarding QLC: there would be dimishing gains (at best 33% more capacity than TLC, in practice less than that) at amplified cost (16 states to distinguish instead of 8 for TLC). If it's even going to happen it probably needs 3D-NAND and would be used in SD cards etc. at first. We might see phase change memory (PCM) take over before this becomes reality... it's been promised since a few yeras, but recently Hitachi actually showed a very high performing prototype. Forget about that nonsense of PCM replacing DRAM, but replacing NAND is something it could do very well. Oh and what the ARC offers over MX100 and Evo? If it's not price I still consider the exceptionally high write performance at 128 GB as an outstanding feature. MrS
  10. 1 point
    From what I have seen, there is an increasing trend of large slow discs cached with SSDs in a giant RAID10. It sounds like an interesting idea but I am a bit skeptical still. One of the things I have been wondering about: from a virtualization storage perspective, it would seem that the resultant large cluster sizes (ie. for a 32TB volume) would cause performance issues. What are some of your experiences with this?
  11. 1 point
    We did that for a while then stopped...we'll see about re-adding that to the photo shoots.
  12. 1 point
    Hi, I started to transfer a file in Windows 8.1 pro but it will only use up to 22% watching the disk in task manager. I tested it in crystal mark and HD tune and they both give the hard drive 150 MB's Read /write. This is EXTREMEMLY annoying for network transfers as well since I can get 250 MB's R / W out of a server from NIC teaming. How can I set it to use 100% for file transfer? And NO it isn't the main drive so I do not care about other processes.
  13. 1 point
    I don't know what your deal is, but they do not, and never have sold refurbished drives in external drives. Total nonsense. I've been buying Seagate externals and shucking them for years, and I've never once got a refurb inside. They've got normal drives in them, sometimes with slightly different firmware, but otherwise normal drives. I'm currently using 4 Seagate drives I pulled out of external boxes, an old 2TB Barracuda LP (nearly 4 years on that drive), a 3TB Barracuda XT, and two 4TB Desktop.15 drives. All are in a NAS box, and all have run perfectly. Buying externals sometimes means you lose warranty (sometimes the bare drive will have warranty, sometime it'll be an OEM drive with no warranty), but it's a cheap way of getting the newest drives, and I personally prefer buying externals and shucking them than risk buying a bare drive that may have been mishandled somewhere along the supply chain. Only drive I've had that's failed recently was a 1TB WD Green shucked from a Toshiba external drive years ago, but it had a hard life in it's external box before I ripped it out and used it 24/7 for a year at which point it died.
  14. 1 point
    I didn't notice any significant latency while running HBase on a small Hadoop VM cluster off an 840 Pro Raid 0. It's all about stripe to allocation size. If you want responsiveness you'd better get it right. You can experience a 10x variation in 4kQ1 random writes across different settings. The 840 Pro for the price is no slouch, certainly not a joke. And with it's low price and 5 year warranty that's why it's in the "big data" data center. And SR got it right about over provisioning. 840 Pro has OP via the magician software, but it doesn't support OP in Raid. What high end workloads are you running?
  15. 1 point
    We started this today FYI, so should have some information to give you soon.
  16. 1 point
    I believe they just rate minimum endurance figures, with some expectation that the models will support more than that in certain scenarios. They just won't warranty anything above that.
  17. 1 point
    Not the pro sadly, just the regular desktop form factor 4-bay guy. Yes, we're based in the US but our readership is global.
  18. 1 point
    http://www.techhive.com/article/116572/article.html You'd need a magnet the size of a fridge to case damage. No worries with your speaker.
  19. 1 point
    If price isn't crucial you could look at enterprise drives, but I'm guessing those will be out of the ballpark in terms of what you want to spend. Don't really need speed...could do Seagate NAS drives. We're using them effectively here - http://www.storagereview.com/supermicro_superworkstation_5037ai_review Deskstar 5K is another good choice. The new WD Blacks are really nice in terms of speed...there are so many variables, it mostly comes back to budget.
  20. 1 point
    The power chart is showing isolated access to either the SSD-only or the HDD-only to show how power consumption varies from the baseline Blue Slim that the Black2 is based around.
  21. 1 point
    1000va is quite small for a gaming rig, as you've found. I'd aim for 2000va, and then if necessary an external battery cabinet to extend runtime. I did just that for my NAS, with enough batteries to keep it going for 2 hours. Once thing I've learned is power cycles and by extension temperature cycles kill mechanical drives faster than anything else. So I went extreme on battery backup. And I have a generator at the ready. An oversized UPS will be more efficient and run a lot longer than a smaller one near its limit. I realize that this is overkill for most folks :-)
  22. 1 point
    Try using the hard drive manufacturer's diagnostics to check the drives' smart data. You can get if from the respective mfg's websites. That software will often pass failing drives, but it may identify the bad drive in this case. In any event, be sure to back up everything; that should be done even if you didn't have a failing drive. The issue is with the drive's controller and mechanics, so I don't know any way to provoke the behaviour, aside from accessing the drive. Often failing drives will cause the Windows file explorer to hang or be slow when opening directories on the drive. That could also give you clues.
  23. 1 point
    http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.storagereview.com%2F&client=googlechrome&hl=en-US That is the info I received when I attempted to load up storagereview with Google Chrome 23.0.1271.64 with adblock plus extension and do-not-track enabled.
  24. 1 point
    would it be possible to return the discussion box to 4 ongoing instead of 2? 2 will make it harder(at least for me:)) to keep track of what is what.
  25. 1 point
    Not because I’m a speed freak or anything, but because it’s cheaper. Depending on the drive, it can be anywhere from $10 to $50 cheaper to buy two 120’s and RAID them then to buy their 240 equivalent. However, the age old debate continues; does RAID 0 really increase performance beyond sequential? I may be more inclined to buy a single 240GB at a marginally higher price for the simplicity then 120GBx2. That is if real world performance isn’t improved by much. And by real world, I mean the HTPC, Gaming and Productivity bench’s. You don’t have to do a full battery of disks. Or even a full battery of tests. Just slap two 120’s in RAID 0, toss your real world bench’s at it and post the results. OKGO!