Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  1. 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!
  2. 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
  3. 1 point
    We have some new Areca cards in for testing, we'll see if it's best Looks a lot like LSI.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 1 point
    The two drives can be separated with standard sata connectors. We have an exploded image in the review and more shots in the forums thread. I was told today the MSRP is $129, but I don't see it anywhere in retail.
  7. 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.
  8. 1 point
    We've actually been working on a new web server test for some time but got busy with other benchmarks. We do aim to pick that back up again, would give web hosts a perfect benchmark to consider. Let me see how they reply and then we'll decide what to do.
  9. 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...
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 1 point
    Hi don't know exactly what your budget and needs are, but this would be my dream SQL box. - Boot/OS/Binaries/pagefile/crash dump : 2 mechanic HDD in mirror (Can be slow you only boot OS once. Pagefile swapping might be slow but with proper amount of memory allocation there merely be any.) - Raid (0+)1 of SSDs for SQL logs - Raid 6 of 4 15K SAS for SQL databases Now if the database data are small enough: - Raid 1 of SSDs for data - raid 6 of 4 10K SAS for BLOBs/File stream storage (optional) Hope that gives you ideas m a r c
  16. 1 point
    We have a 470 that's almost done, waiting on final results with SSD and 10GbE card. We haven't done as much with QNAP as others mostly because the uptake here is so much lower. We'll see how it goes though with a few reviews and decide where to go from there.
  17. 1 point
  18. 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?
  19. 1 point
    Seeing some good latency improvements in our HDD vs HDD+ZD-XL configuration in our new SQL Server benchmark. Latency dropping 2x at the higher levels.
  20. 1 point
    Effective queue depth is ThreadsxQueue... although it looks like the label on that chart is wrong. For HDD sequential its 1T/4Q.
  21. 1 point
    Don't worry about the number of platters. You may uncover some hidden issue with that old hard drive controller, but Seagate's own documentation says that they will work with 1.5Gb controllers.
  22. 1 point
    I don't think you'll find much market for a used SSD, I wouldn't buy one, but maybe you can...I just don't know. As to what to buy, depends on your budget, I'd probably lean toward the Samsung EVO for best of both worlds.
  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
    you overpayed, a $15 cable would suffice for anything shorter than ~6ft for 1600x1200. If somebody needs these, maybe ebay would be the best place to sell them.