Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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...
  3. 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!
  4. 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
  5. 1 point
    Seagate has all the information you could want on their site. You can come back here to read reviews of most of the products you listed.
  6. 1 point
    That's what the linked article suggests; that the value increases over time as long as there are no actual errors.
  7. 1 point
    Sadly, reinstall. It's a massive pain if you have a lot of apps, but the end result is worthwhile.
  8. 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?
  9. 1 point
    Samsung is #1 in SSD drive shipments. I'd love to be crap if that's what it looks like, lol.
  10. 1 point
    At the end of the day it really depends on what advice you want to take and what your position in the market is. If a slight edge in performance is demanded with no regard for reliability, then by all means go with one of the brands that leverage those controllers. Do you have a good backup plan in place? The last 2nd tier SSD controller I remember floating out into the OEM space that saw a lot of action ended up resulting in Apple recalling a lot of Macbook Airs (64GB and 128GB Toshiba SSDs with JMicron controllers) in 2012. Even SandForce with LSI backing it had a ton of issues to iron out well into its production phase, mostly with the help of Intel before they launched the SSD 520. It takes huge R/D to make a reliable solution, and unless you are talking in the tens to hundreds of millions in development you don't have a chance competing with the guys at the top of the pack. Many of those also happen to make the NAND in-house. Also not sure what your beef with the Samsung SSDs are. Even the new TLC-based enterprise drive smokes many of the MLC-based competition, and is warrantied for higher endurance than the Intel S3500. Also you can read whatever you want from other sites. Unlike many of the experts you would love to quote though, we don't give frightening advice pushing RAID0 boot environments or push scary products as "enterprise" that have no serious place in the market. The advice we give to our readership pushes reliable products we know and trust and have come to rely on in our enterprise test lab. This ranges in scale from what I would recommend to my parents to purchase for a home desktop up to what we recommend to enterprise buyers that might fork out 50-200k on a new storage array. On that note let me get back to testing our new EMC VNXe 3200... leveraging you guessed it Samsung SSDs!
  11. 1 point
    X-IO came to the lab yesterday to drop off and deploy a Hyper ISE 710 hybrid storage array in our lab. We'll be posting updates as the review progresses. Here are a few tweets from the first 24 hours - https://twitter.com/storagereview/status/412661801743319041 https://twitter.com/storagereview/status/412686956272041984 https://twitter.com/storagereview/status/413017321024651264
  12. 1 point
    When you swap your board you need to reactivate your Windows 7, I did this in January. My used copy was a System Builder edition you can buy in Germany without a PC. I just did a phone activation and everything worked fine.
  13. 1 point
    I hate how they spend hours to tell what can be done with this new drive, yet even on the homepage under "What’s In the Hard Drive?" they don't provide a single detail except the 7.2k rpm spindle speed. Anyway, "25% faster than HGST" probably means STR, which means at least 1 TB platters (compared to 800 GB in the He6). The picture also shows 6 platters, but you never know if this is actually a picture of this drive. Anyway, competition and innovation are certainly welcome in the long-stagnated HDD market. And it seems like HGST needs to update their He drive with at least 1 TB platters! With a premium technology you have to leading, otherwise the cheaper and simpler solution wins. MrS
  14. 1 point
    Yes and you'll get the glory of performance!
  15. 1 point
    If your budget allows it that larger one would be nice since you could string more devices from it. The nice thing is both of those units have very easy to replace batteries, which can be had for about 1/5th the overall price. Usually you're looking at a 2-5 year lifespan depending on usage.
  16. 1 point
    We hear you...here's the deal, we only have one 512GB sample of the Pro we got at the time of the original review. We need at least 4x512Gb to run our enterprise tests. I'll ask Samsung now for those samples and see what they say. If they free up the drives, we'll get you a review. If not...sadface.
  17. 1 point
    We hear you...don't have the QNAP yet but will be the first to get the Synology I'm sure.
  18. 1 point
    There is no reason to do that, unless your drive is larger than 256TB, in which case NTFS won't even support it. 64KB cluster size is the maximum for NTFS. If your partition is large and going to be used only for huge files, then you can use larger sizes (I'd suggest 16kb) if you want to reduce fragmentation. If it's a boot partition many of the files will be tiny and you will just waste space by using a larger cluster size.
  19. 1 point
    You're very welcome. When I was doing those measurements, I was mostly interested in confirming the difference in upstream bandwidth between PCIe 1.0 and PCIe 2.0 chipsets, using one 6G controller and one older 3G controller. As such, I didn't do every possible measurement in a proper experimental matrix and that's why those graphics appear to be somewhat "spotty". Also, because there are so many PCI-Express motherboards installed worldwide, I put a little extra focus into exploring how easily it was to achieve high speed with PCIe 1.0 chipsets. What became very clear is that 2 x modern 6G SSDs in a RAID 0 array come pretty close to reaching MAX HEADROOM with a PCIe 1.0 chipset: roughly 2 @ 500 = ~1,000 MB/second (certainly above 900). There is no performance gain to be expected from 4 x 6G SSDs with a PCIe 1.0 chipset. The "sweet spot" was predictably 4 x 6G SSDs with a PCIe 2.0 chipset and a 6G controller like the Highpoint RocketRAID 2720SGL: that measurement was done on an ASUS P5Q Deluxe motherboard with an Intel Q6600 CPU. I really do enjoy working on that workstation, because regular file system operations are truly SNAPPY, particularly program LAUNCH. The other, less obvious issue was the lack of TRIM with these RAID 0 arrays; and, that's why I'm recommending that builders take a close look at Plextor's garbage collection for PCs that lack TRIM for some reason. The folks at xbitlabs.com produce a very useful comparison here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/toshiba-thnsnh_5.html#sect0 Incidentally, in our workstations that have 2 or more PCIe slots, we've been installing RAID controllers in the primary x16 slot; and, some of the older PCIe motherboards complain a little about that setup: I need to press F1 to finish POST and STARTUP; but with that minor exception those PCIe 1.0 chipsets still work fine with a RocketRAID 2720SGL installed in the primary x16 slot. Many less experienced Highpoint users stumble on the INT13 factory default: what they need to do is install the card withOUT any drives attached, and flash the card's bios to disable INT13. Then, the card won't interfere with chipset RAID settings. THE problem is that INT13 ENABLED on the 2720SGL has been known to DISABLE on-board RAID functionality e.g. it's like the chipset's ICH10R isn't even there at all! The solution is to revert the BIOS to IDE or AHCI modes, and sometimes IDE is the ONLY setting that will work again after the 2720SGL is installed with INT13 ENABLED. Also, the latest bios needs to be flashed, in order to operate the SATA channels at 6 GHz (using SFF-8087 "fan-out" cables). ... all "bleeding edge" lessons, to be sure :-) Hope this helps.
  20. 1 point
    I'd be incredibly amazed if someone specifically tried to cheat our benchmarks. Our sample range is 4TB (capacity of the drive), we use direct IO (test isn't buffered) and the testing environment is Linux. I'm not sure how you would get around random access requests skipping around such a massive area.
  21. 1 point
    Just got this feedback and added it to the story - The drives will be available in SAS and SATA interfaces and only in 6TB capacity. HGST is not disclosing platter configuration at this time.
  22. 1 point
    Hello, I hooked up my new 3T my book for mac to my MBAir which read the drive well with no problems. However, after I did a full ejections of the few partitions of the drive, and the few partitions then disappeared from the computer screen, and turned off the power, I thought the ejection was complete. But I left the drive still hooked up to the computer , thinking it was powered off. Hours later, my computer screen showed the warning that the drive was not properly ejected and the power was on! What should I do to eject the drive correctly, disconnect the drive from the computer without unhooking it from the computer and removing the ac power plug? I have a different maxtor external hard drive and it is ok once I eject the drive, turn off the ac power switch but leaving it connected to the computer. No further warning that the drive is improperly ejected. Please help and thanks. Gerry.
  23. 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?
  24. 1 point
    I'd love to see an interview from someone at Toshiba about their 3.5" HDD plans for the rest of this year. Is there any chance SR could interview someone at Toshiba? I'd like to know what consumer or prosumer 3.5" HDDs Toshiba plans to sell in the near future, and when they plan to release them. Most of HGST's large 5400rpm HDDs seem to be disappearing from the market, and I wonder whether they will reappear under a Toshiba label, and if so, when?
  25. 1 point
    My F6 key doesn't work when i press it during the windows xp setup at the period where it says press f2 blah blah, press f6 blah blah. I've tried the key on two keyboards, an older keyboard without the F Lock function and my new one with the F Lock key. I have a gigabyte 8iPE1000 Pro 2 gt 2004 mobo. How could my F6 key not work? So dodgy.