Popular Content

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

  1. 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...
  2. 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!
  3. 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
  4. 1 point
    The purpose of cache vault is to replace the battery model with something that can last longer due to the flash memory and capacitor. It is not accessible to the card or the volumes on the card for use as a cache. The capacitor allows the card to keep the data that was sitting in the card cache ram viable in a crash and can write it out to disks when power is restored. I think that any amount of cachecade wild be nice even if it were mlc. It helps buffer more read/write at faster seeks. Just checking, did you get all the pieces? I think the cachevault is on the card but the caps are on a second card and cable. I think that is how my 9271 is.
  5. 1 point
    Specifically, they have little ability to innovate going forward and I question their ability to build a proper support network. Note that the opinion is largely based on a US-centric slant, some brands have better adoption in Europe or Asia for instance. The decision to rebrand the M550 is a pretty clear case. They had no ability to create a new product with the delays in SandForce, so the best option was to copy Micron and hope to make money by selling a slower version for $10 less? Poor business sense and not something I'd invest my money in as an SSD buyer.
  6. 1 point
    We have some new Areca cards in for testing, we'll see if it's best Looks a lot like LSI.
  7. 1 point
    What is a S.M.A.R.T diagnostic saying about the drive? Check the Hard disk manufacturers' site or use UBCD for hdd diagnostic tools. The tools may not work so well if the hard drive is in a usb enclosure,so you may have to put the hard drive back into the orginal laptop and run the bootable cd/usb tools. http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/ If it comes back clean, the OS(Vista) is corrupted. You will need to look into repairing it or just reinstalling it(sometimes best option). It it gives you a specific error message during loading, do some research on with Google. If SMART fails, then it would be time for a new drive. You may also want to consider a SSD. SSD VS Hard disk(HDD) guide.
  8. 1 point
    Does anyone know what the story is with the published endurance figure for the M550 drives? It's 72TB of data written, but that same figure applies to all capacities of the drive. So for a 128GB drive that equates to 562.5 full drive writes (ignoring write amplification). But for the 1TB drive, 72TB is only 72 drive writes. Is the NAND used in the 1TB model really that bad?
  9. 1 point
    I haven't noticed the file naming issues you are referring to, although I'll admit that my primary usage with the Synology units is from Windows/Linux PCs. I do use a MacBook Air at home to one though which I've never encountered any issues with. I can use a thunderbolt to LAN adapter to see what the file transfer speeds would be like back and forth. The DAS storage options for the Mac Mini are somewhat limiting. The Drobo units are painfully slow, and the Lacie/WD/etc units that attach over thunderbolt while incredibly fast are limited to RAID0/1/JBOD through software RAID in the OS on your mac. I'd prefer going with RAID6 to capture more usable capacity and protection for such a large dataset, which is something the NAS will provide.
  10. 1 point
    lol! We don't really care what a mfg would rather we do, but we do what we obviously believe is best and I think Samsung is anyway quite happy with the 840 EVO being the world's best seller and the 840 PRO following as 2nd best seller for many months in a row. Bottom line is, the drive is being used in both environments and gaining more and more popularity in the enterprise while no-one actually tested it in a professional review recently and certainly nobody did any enterprise review on the drive and it did supposedly improve a lot since launch, so I believe a refresh of the old review or a new review of this drive would be a good idea which will prove to be quite a popular and unique place on your website...
  11. 1 point
    I'd reach out to them. I'm not sure of the refurb process but it could just entail a quick drive check and wipe.
  12. 1 point
    TLC, at least Samsung's version, appears to be the solution to the price/capacity battle for consumer SSD. It's not inherently evil and keeps the price of SSDs under control. I'd guess we'll see more of it soon as the other majors struggle to catch up to Samsung, who's clearly dominating in this space.
  13. 1 point
    Another vote for the 840 Evo. It's got a very well balanced controller and makes clever use of that TLC NAND. In the real world you don't have to worry about its write cycles. And you're not going to fill it with 4k random data repeatedly, since you said you're going to place OS and programs there. The price premium for that Plextor is insane IMO. I didn't look up the Kingston V300, but the 840 Evo likely performs better enough to warrent the price premium over the V300. MrS
  14. 1 point
    Your Toshiba 2.5" HDD appears to be a standard laptop SATA "form factor": as such, there appears to be an adapter affixed to that Toshiba HDD, which mates with the data and power connectors on your laptop motherboard. In your last photo above, just count the pins. BIG CLUE was your statement that you just "drop it in": that appears to be the geometry implied by those 2 rows of contact pins. MY SUGGESTION / FWIW: remove the Toshiba entirely, and check to see if you can remove the plastic adapter: it may be screwed on, or it may be a "press fit" (as we used to say, when I was a carpenter). "Press Fit" means NO FASTENERS (nails or screws etc.) I'm making that suggestion because I upgraded a laptop for a friend, about 5 years ago, and it also had the same type of adapter: I merely removed the adapter from the old 2.5" HDD and installed that adapter on the new 2.5" HDD, and the new HDD worked fine. 2.5" SATA SSDs have the same connector geometry as 2.5" SATA HDDs. Therefore, if that adapter can be removed you should try attaching it to your 2.5" SSD, being very careful not to bend any pins. Hope this helps. UPDATE: Here's what your Toshiba MK1665GSX HDD2H85 looks like, as manufactured by the factory i.e. withOUT that plastic adapter: http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=MK1665GSX-NDW
  15. 1 point
    Format the drive as exFAT. exFAT supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K, 128K, 256K, 512K, 1M, 2M, 4M, 8M, 16M, 32M.
  16. 1 point
    We hear you...don't have the QNAP yet but will be the first to get the Synology I'm sure.
  17. 1 point
    This next measurement was what we were expecting from 4 x Samsung 840 Pro 128GB in RAID-0 a Highpoint RocketRAID 2720SGL controller and a PCIe 2.0 chipset (i.e. twice the upstream bandwidth of a PCIe 1.0 chipset, and all SSDs properly ALIGNed):
  18. 1 point
    The Samsung mobile guys still live on within Seagate.
  19. 1 point
    Local seller e-shop listed this drive yesterday at 270.29 Euros ( http://www.e-shop.gr/product?id=PER.303057 ). The price is nearly the same as with the WD4001FAEX model ( http://www.e-shop.gr/product?id=PER.304687 ) and is better than what I expected. But still, there are cheaper models that will do fine for pure storage in my rig. The only thing that holds me from going with them is that I'm getting kind of "demoralized" if I don't use high-performing staff.
  20. 1 point
    I like to test my desktop drives on Linux, because most vendors ignore it and target AS SSD, DiskMark, HD Tune and other Windows stuff. Running a find(1) with a cold buffer cache gives a good impression about random read access times. Likewise you can mount something -o sync, extract uncompressed tar archives and delete huge directory trees to get a peek on random write performance. If a drive looks bad there, it may even be the case, that the vendor wants it to look bad, so they can sell expensive enterprise drives with a slightly different firmware instead. The 8 GB flash caches take the issue to next level. While having almost no effect in practice, because they are to small. 8 GB is just big enough, to make drive look good in benchmarks against SSDs and impress with mostly irrelevant boot times. And that is what sells them. I'm accusing no-one here, but I'm very skeptical and suspicious. If something looks like a engineering marvel out of nowhere, it most likely isn't true. Remember SoftRAM 95?
  21. 1 point
    Effective queue depth is ThreadsxQueue... although it looks like the label on that chart is wrong. For HDD sequential its 1T/4Q.
  22. 1 point
    Do you have $80-100 to spend on an SSD in addition to bulk storage? What drive do you have now?
  23. 1 point
    Fair point. We're working on next gen testing for these things and will take that into consideration. For now though at least the results are relative.
  24. 1 point
    Hi, I use this site to choose what drive buy next... Unfortunantly I never see a real comparison betweeb drives of two or three or four previous generation. Never seen a reviews that let readers to easily understand if it's the time to upgrade. Imho a great reviews with modern drives vs previous one is the must for people who are seeking for an upgrade. Is it the time to upgrade?
  25. 1 point
    In Linux, you can move and delete/unlink an open file. The file is then deleted when it's closed. In Windows, you can only sometimes rename an open file, but you can't delete an open file. I'm wondering, why not?