Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/17/18 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    Please don't judge... and its better just to nod and say, oooohkay. But what was the fastest Hard Drive in 1999? It could have come out as late as the end of '99, but if it released in Jan 1 of '00, it is off the table. I made it to the legacy hard drive benchmark comparison, but it wasn't able to show many any results. I have the Seagate Cheetah 18LP, the Fujitsu MAG3182LP, and the Atlas 10k. I don't think those products were refreshed until the first quarter of '00. I don't know what a user would have chosen for an in home experience back then if money wasn't an option. For some reason I don't remember much about the Cheetah 18LP. I want to say, most of the attention for in home use during that time was focused on the Fujitsu MAG, and the Atlas 10k. I also don't know what was hot in the IDE space at the time.
  2. 1 point
    Huh, that's interesting. It's been ages since we've seen WD product. They stopped sending us review samples because we test too hard.
  3. 1 point
    Overall, the new 14TB Seagate IronWolf Pro model is a solid option for growing small businesses that rely on NAS devices to store and manage their data. Seagate's new massive capacity point also allows organizations to accomplish this in a very cost-effective manner, including minimizing the need for drive replacements and promoting a smaller footprint in the office. Additionally, the 14TB Pro is bundled with AgileArray technology to promote availability, reliability, and RAID and power usage optimization. As was the case for the 12TB version, the IronWolf 14TB Pro offers a few benefits over the non-Pro model, including an extended warranty (3-year vs. the Pro's 5-year), support for additional drive bays, better mean times between failures and more optimization functionality for multi-users. Seagate IronWolf Pro 14TB NAS HDD Review
  4. 1 point
    Looking at the numbers for the quarter, Seagate is reporting revenue of nearly $3 billion, up from last quarter’s $2.8 billion and up 14% from the same time last year. The company is reporting a GAAP net income of $450 million (or $1.54 diluted earning per share), an increase of 148% year over year. For non-GAAP net income, Seagate saw $496 million (or $1.70 diluted EPS) a 77% increase in year over year. Seagate is reporting gross margin of 30.5% GAAP and 31% non-GAAP and free cash flow of $410 million, up considerably form last year’s $113 million. Seagate Reports 1Q19 Earnings
  5. 1 point
    We do track/collect CPU stats during the runs as part of the vdbench logging if you wanted to see more of the raw output. Its just not a part that we track.
  6. 1 point
    We could remove VROC and run with software RAID and compare results, which of course we did not do for this review. There is a little overhead for VROC but it's not severe from what we can tell. Maybe some day we can dive into this further.
  7. 1 point
    First set is done testing, second set should finish this weekend.
  8. 1 point
    Update: I got confirmed that the test was done in "write through" mode. So this means that, unless anyone would prove otherwise, indeed its RAID 5 and 6 write performance for SSD RAID:s indeed is 25MB/sec per disk set. That is complete junk! I wouldn't even touch that with rubber gloves! So seems anyone who wants data redundancy needs to implement that in software, as hardware simply not provides that, at least not with any performance whatsoever. Incredible, this is 2016, I would really have thought that we were past the 25MB/sec mark on top-of-the-line hardware. Anyhow, thanks for the reality check! Mikael --- Hi everyone - here is an ultra important question: The RAID 5 and RAID 6 benchmark figures are ultra-bad - the write speed has a 98% overhead (6k IOPS = 25MB/sec), and the read has an 80% overhead (130k IOPS = 500MB/sec), for the set of 8 drives. Like, really, so ultra catastrophic that I wouldn't even touch that card - and neither its OEM variant "Megaraid SAS3108". This makes me wonder, however, what settings the benchmark was done with: The recommended settings are to set "Write cache" to "Write through" mode, to enable "Direct I/O" mode, to enable "Disk's cache" (that is, the physical disks' own cache), and to disable the "Read cache" altogether. Perhaps absence of running the test with "CacheVault" would be an indirect reason for the crappy numbers - any thoughts on that? Any completing info on the SSD 4K RW IOPS in RAID 5 and RAID 6 with an actually healthy, proper configuration as described here would be much appreciated!! Please post your thoughts & actual benchmark results - thanks!!