Popular Content

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

  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
    Find a new place to interview, sounds like a crazy man.
  7. 1 point
    It looks like you have a poor electrical connector from your computer's power supply. Loose fitting connector that either had too much resistance or a one that partially bridged a pin next to it. I'd clean up the spot as best I could, removing some of the burnt plastic maybe with a razor blade of a fine grit sandpaper. If the drive still powers up and has no other signs of failure you can probably keep using it. Just don't use the same fitting from the PSU anymore.
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
    I'll hopefully have my hands on them in another couple of weeks (getting a production R630). For heavy workloads I'd really only consider the SanDisk or Micron 1.8" models. Not a ton of players in the space.
  10. 1 point
    What Progressive Capacity means is that WD can use odd-formatted platters in drives in boxes of 20 drives to hit a specific capacity point, like 1PB. The capacity of the drives within that box to hit a 1PB target are somewhat irrelevant, data centers looking at this class of drive often are not using RAID and are more concerned about capacity in a specific footprint. WD Ae Cold Data Storage HDDs Announced
  11. 1 point
    The Synology DiskStation DS414 is a 4-bay NAS targeted at SMB and consumers looking for a powerful NAS with a competitive price. The DS414 has a max capacity of 16TB (4TB HDD x 4) and features a Dual Core 1.33 GHz processor, 1GB of DDR3 RAM, and Synology’s DiskStation Manager (DSM) software. The device also sports USB 2.0, USB 3.0, and two Gigabit LAN ports. The DS414 has four tool-less, hot-swappable bays accessed beneath the front panel for quick drive swap out. Running Synology’s award-winning OS, the device allows seamless file-sharing across multiple platforms. Synology DiskStation DS414 Review
  12. 1 point
    Hello My laptop shuts down without any message & some times it just get freezed. I updated my windows VISTA through windows update. Now the error message shown during boot up is failed to load winload file- Repair the windows. I took out the harddrive & connected to my brother's laptop. I ran disk check & following results are shown. It found 1 bad cluster. Do i need to change my hardisk? Diskcheck results are attached. Please help!!!!
  13. 1 point
    Whatever you think, brainiac. Your opinion is your opinion. My opinion is fact.
  14. 1 point
    Millions of computers rely on SSD for the system drive, there's no need to fear it. Back up regularly and you're in good shape should something go bad. HDDs fail without warning too. Red is not advisable or supported in PC. 5K vs 7K is probably less relevant for you in terms of large sequential reads and writes.
  15. 1 point
    I don't like the Sandforce controller, and would go with the Samsung 840. If your load is high and you use your Notebook all day long I would think about the Samsung 840 Pro, which is even more reliable. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-Series-128GB-Solid-State/dp/B009LI7CKI/ref=sr_1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1389610359&sr=1-2&keywords=samsung+840+Pro
  16. 1 point
    We've been working on Fusion-io's ION product, with up to eight ioScale flash devices thus far in the 11 PCIe slot Supermicro platform with Emulex FC cards and Brocade FC switch. We've posted early VMmark 2.51 results (4 cards) already, the full review continues to take shape as data is collected. Running the cards this week in RAID0 to show top end performance.
  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
    Sounds like you should just buy a Synology or perhaps a Netgear in five/six bay config.
  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
    I'm 99% sure it's not SMR as those drives are so poor for performance profiles that a consumer needs. I think they're just really good at engineering the platters Should know more soon, waiting on review samples.
  22. 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.
  23. 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!
  24. 1 point
    Hi everyone. I'm running two machines on one 21" monitor which is PanaSync Pro. It has BNC and VGA connectors on the back and you can switch between them through OSD menu. So I needed VGA-BNC cable. I had a lot of old cables from broken monitors so I picked one with VGA connector on one end, of course, and cut the other end open. Then I went to a local electronic store and bought 5 BNC connectors which ran about 15 bucks total, if memory serves me right. I soldered them onto the open ends according to specifications of the cable and making sure about the signals. All works flawlessly and keeps me very happy about it. This is just for someone who enjoys hands-on weekend projects. If anyone wants the same cable I can make it custom, but not sure about price and shipping expense... I just couldn't find any of those cables in local computer stores, that's why...
  25. 1 point
    I currently have 3 NIC's in my computer. I would like to have more network bandwith by using two or three of them at the same time. However, I tried doing it and it does not work so well. One of my NIC's has internet sharing enabled. So it has a fixed ip adress and acts like a DHCP server. Other computers on the network get their IP's from that NIC. However, when I put another NIC, it does not have an IP adress. So it's not communicating with the network. How do I configure both NIC's for them to work together? I saw that with intel NIC's, you could combine two NIC's to form a single one to double your bandwith. In other words, by combining two NIC's you would have one 200mBit NIC. Does someone know how to do this without intel's pro set application (i have a 3com, a linksys and an onboard Sis).