Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 10/12/13 in all areas

  1. 4 likes
    The more I search this, the more confused I get. I have a WD20EARX that was used in a PVR for a while, and a couple of days ago I shifted it into a PC. "Raw Read Error Rate" data was at 0 to start with. After writing about 1.5TB to it I happened to notice that the data value is now 3. What does this mean? I have a couple of other WD drives in the PC (one a system drive, the other for programs), and as far as I know the "Raw Read Error Rate" data value has never changed from 0.
  2. 4 likes
    OK now, I've heard Windows 8 has native support for 4K drives. Do the "Advanced format" drives work as "native 4K" drives under Windows 8?
  3. 3 likes
    The new WD Black is fast - beating all other 4TB competition in every test. WD Black 4TB Desktop Hard Drive Review (WD4003FZEX)
  4. 3 likes
    Hello, well as you have seen i own a Samsung SP2504C external memory, the ones that you have to plug to the wall to turn on and then plug to the computer, i was using it earlier this day and i turned it off and then i come back a few minutes later, i turned the external memory on and then plugged it to the computer but 3 seconds later after i connected it to the computer it starts to make a clicking noise, I'm really worried that it can be broke, i'm only 17 and wouldn't really afford to buy a new one. please I need all the help I can possibly get T.T. thanks for your time !
  5. 3 likes
    here is a Youtube Video of my HDD. after i have traveled i think it got a pump or something. everything looks in order other than this malfunction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38GUBBnSNfQ Please tell me what's wrong and if it's recoverable btw it's a WD5000AVDS
  6. 3 likes
    Just a heads-up. I have been looking for 3 drives (preferably 4TB) but reading the review and comments here, the WD red seemed like a good idea. So I have been watching for a sale. Newegg has the 3TB red on sale today, but I started looking at comments/reviews on the drive there because the overall score was rather low. Read through them. Very scary. Off my list.
  7. 3 likes
    Got the Spinpoint M9T today, the first 9.5mm 2TB laptop drive. Seagate model ST2000LM003. I will install it into the optical bay of my laptop and run some tests when I have time.
  8. 3 likes
    Hi, I run Windows 7 Pro SP-1 64-Bit with a ASRock P67 PRO3 (B3) MoBo that has a UEFI BIOS. I have: EaseUS Partition Master Pro v9.2.2 EaseUS Partition Wizard Home v8.1.1 Acronis Disk Director 11 Home Acronis True Image 2014 My C, D and E partitions are on a 120 GB NTFS SSD with a MBR. I installed Windows 7 on a pre-partitioned SSD so no hidden "System Partition". I installed a Toshiba PH3200U-1I72 2TB HDD that is Advanced Format 512e and is properly "Aligned" using the Toshiba provided utility. The PH3200U-1I72 is used as storage only on partitions "F" thru "M" set as MBR and working perfectly as below: F is 1.7 TB's Set As NTFS G is 1 GB's Set As Fat32 H is 5 GB's Set As Fat32 I is 4 GB's Set As NTFS J is 30 GB's Set As Fat32 K is 20 GB's Set As Fat32 L is 50 GB's Set As Fat32 M is 50 GB's Set As Fat32 I bought a Toshiba PH3300U-1I72 3TB HDD to replace the 2TB. I know that 3TBers can't utilize the full capacity in MBR, and must be set as GPT to do so. I use Norton's Ghost weekly and it has issues with GPT. I proceeded to contact various partitioning/cloning software companies to see if their products could be used in place of Ghost. The exchange below is between TeraByte Unlimited and me: TBU: "If your new drive uses 4K sector sizes you wouldn't need to have a GPT." Me: Please elaborate. BTW, This is what my present Toshiba 2TB looks like (Near the bottom): http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh147334%28v=ws.10%29.aspx TBU: If you expose the 4K sector size and not the emulated normal 512 byte sector size, you can use an MBR and use the entire space (up to 16TiB). 0xFFFFFFFF*512=2,199,023,255,040 0xFFFFFFFF*4096=17,592,186,040,320 Me: With what software and what is the procedure to go about doing this? Can it be done via a Bootable CD or must it be done in Windows with just my SSD and empty 3TB connected? TBU: It would be a drive feature/option, typically using a jumper. The BIOS would also have to support the larger sizes too so it doesn't crash reading larger sectors, a modern BIOS should be able to handle it. My hunt for answers from Toshiba is a lost cause as their support is a TOTAL joke and does NOT offer E-Mail support. Soooooooooo, I'm here to find out if this "exposing the 4K sector size" can, indeed, be done to my PH3300U-1I72, and if so, EXACTLY how to go about doing it. Thanks in advance for any help you can be. Big Al
  9. 3 likes
    I have bought a portable loudspeaker, the bose soundlink, remarkable for it's performance, due to the speaker's magnet size, according to the design team. I carry that portable speaker in my backpack, along with multiple portable hard disks, and I was wondering if this can be harmful... What do you think?
  10. 3 likes
    I have a portable ultrasound machine that I use for my livelihood. It is basically a chubby labtop with a hard drive and an embedded, very locked down, windows xp based OS. It comes with a crappy, slow, small hard drive which is supposedly really hard to replace with anything else due to the number of partitions and sizes of the partitions used by the proprietary software (I think I heard 5 partitions). Assuming that I can get past that issue, I am looking for a much faster drive (must be IDE) which will increase the overall performance of the unit and will speed up writing ultrasound videos to the hard drive which takes too long with the crappy 40 Gig 5400 rpm drive that it comes with. An obvious choice would be the Momentus XT, I think. ESPECIALLY if they got the firmware to the point that write speeds are improved by caching. Any advice you guys can give toward drive selection and cloning the complexly partitioned drive would be really helpful. B.
  11. 3 likes
    Via email from Marcin: When we review hard drives we generally only have one sample, and even if we have more, long term endurance testing won't be relevant for us because we can't stress the drives long enough to fail. We do on occasion have a drive fail during testing, but there are so many reasons for failure it's hard to say if one out of 10 throws an error that the drives fail 10% of the time. It's something we'd like to do more of but there's not a great methodology to work from.
  12. 3 likes
    Errr 6TB and I can't edit my title :-( "The drive is available now, and has a five-year warranty." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/04/helium_drives_from_hgst/
  13. 3 likes
    Hi, I have accidentally used DISKPART's clean command on one of my hard disk (my intention was to do it in my flash drive). Following is the sequence commands that I ran: diskpart select disk 1 clean create partition primary select partition 1 active I know this is stupid, but IS THERE ANY WAY I CAN GET BACK MY OLD DATA ?? Thank You
  14. 3 likes
    Do the black scorpio drives use intellipark/require 'fixing' with WDIDLE? I have a WD3200BEKT I'm about to put into a gaming console, and I won't be able to monitor it once it's in there. I don't want it to stack up unnecessary LLC, nor do I want the stutter/pausing it can cause.
  15. 3 likes
    I apologize in advance if I am on the wrong section. If so, please kindly direct me to the proper section I have 4 internal hard drives. I've been hearing the 'click of death' for the past couple weeks. Luckily, my computer is still able to run sometimes (although not very smoothly). I want to back up my files onto the other hard drives, but then I realized I don't know which hard drive is doing the click of death. I don't know a lot about computers and I've recently just researched about the 'click of death'. It's safe to assume what I am hearing is the click of death as all symptoms point to it. I can write about my symptoms if needed. However, my problem is that I have 4 hard disk drives. So my question is, how do I find out which hard drive is doing the click of death? Or is it that, if one hard drive is doing it then it spreads to all the other hard drives? I'm not sure what other information I need to provide so feel free to ask the necessary questions and I'll do my best to provide a detailed answer. And hopefully I can get quick responses before my hard drive fails completely and I have no chance to back up my files
  16. 3 likes
    What are the best models of IDE and SATA mobile-racks for Linux?
  17. 3 likes
    There was a lot of discussion asking about this drive a year ago, and since it was not reported on the front page. WD has quietly release their 4TB green drive for $190 US. looks like the same specs as red, just with a 2yr warranty. http://wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=780 http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Green-Desktop-WD40EZRX/dp/B00EHBEUZO/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1379606467&sr=1-1&keywords=4tb+green+hard+drive+internal Now the real questions is should anyone bother with this drive. I am thinking I will just wait til the end of the year and pick up the 5TB Red.
  18. 3 likes
    I was wondering. It seems all alignment checkers/tools just make sure partitions start aligned on 4Kbytes. But what about the offsets internal to the partition? Is it a given that the beginning of the data area is 4K aligned? NTFS structures? FAT copies?
  19. 3 likes
    What's Intel RST good for besides RAID? On XP it provides AHCI. But other than that, on Windows 7 and 8, does it provide any more performance or features than stock Windows 7/8 drivers for HDDs and/or SSDs? If there IS benefit to the drivers, is there any reason to leave the extra services or other software it installs?
  20. 2 likes
    I'm looking for a large hard drive ideally 5-6TB, and historically, I've preferred the WD Black series. Anyways, apparently Hitachi Deskstar makes 6TB NAS hard drives: http://www.hgst.com/hard-drives/internal-drive-kits/nas-desktop-drive-kit Looking at the 6TB version: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145973 Price in US is always cheaper , and it's gotten worse due to the Canadian dollar weakening as of late http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145973 Anyways, the only reviews I could find were these: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8743/hgst-deskstar-nas-4-tb-review http://www.storagereview.com/hgst_4tb_deskstar_nas_hdd_review Performance looks pretty good (at least the 4TB one). The 6TB one I'm not sure of, but areal density is higher (703 Gb/in^2 vs 446). I think it's a 5 platter design (anyone put 6 platters in a non-HE drive?), with ~1.2 TB per platter? Only other thing of note is that they have a larger cache (128 vs 64 MB). Does anyone have any experience with these hard drives? They look like a good buy, certainly better than the WD Green/Red 6TB or Seagate 6TB. I'm going to be using them on my desktop for video editing. How would they compare to the WD Black?
  21. 2 likes
    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.
  22. 2 likes
    Western Digital 2TB Black: $150 OR... 1TB Black: $80 1TB Blue: $57 The total is $137. Should I buy the 1 2TB drive or 2 1TB drives? I am getting a 250GB SSD and a 3TB drive for backup. The Black will be used for leftover games that wont fit on the SSD while the Blue will be used for other data, if I go with 2 1TB drives.
  23. 2 likes
    Hi all, This is my first post in this forum, I hope someone can lend me a hand since now I have get out of ideas. I've built a raid 5 on a Asrock z87 extreme6 using six Western Digital RED 4tb that are connected to the six intel controller SATA3 ports, with the aim of creating a 20Tb Raid 5. The OS is Windows 8.1 x64. I created the raid from the BIOS utility selecting 64kb size (I had option of selecting 64 and 128 but the utility reccomended 64kb in case of raid 5). Once in Windows I formatted the raid unit with a 20Gb partition and write speed was really slow (10 MB/s max), even after waiting raid to be completely constructed (it took several hours) After reading and looking for information I enabled write cache and disabled write-cache buffer flushing. I also set simultaneous on in the Intel Rapid Storage Technology panel. After doing this the write speed increased to 25-30 MB/s. I have notice that physical cluster size is 4098 bytes (usual on those 4tb disks), but logical cluster size is 512 bytes: Shouldn't those cluster sizes match to have a good performance? In this case, how to change it? I've try to delete partition and create again, but selecting different cluster sizes for que partition, and the best performance is using 64kb (the stripes size), but it's only 50-60 MB/s actual speed copying a big MKV file from an SSD, and even doing it if doesn't makes any change on the capture where we see the 512 bytes for logical sector size. AS SSD Benchmark seems to tell that partition is correctly aligned: The results of the speed here seems ok, but as I told, real speed never exceeds 58-59 mb/s in writes. I attack a capture of fdisk, I really don't know if it's ok or bad aligned: ATTO DISK Benchmark: Those 6 discs were installed on a NAS, having a write speed higher than 80 mb/s, where is the problem here? Many thanks in advance
  24. 2 likes
    I saw the new WD Black that has very good performance for a HDD compared to other companies. http://www.wdc.com.ro/en/products/products.aspx?id=760 But the price is also high. For a 256 GB Samsung 840 PRO SSD i can buy a 4TB Seagate HDD. So i would rather choose a faster HDD rather than an SSD that will eventually break. I am interested if Seagate & other companies will bring new generations to the table to compete with WD Black, especially that CES 2014 is around the corner. I am interested in at least a 2TB drive. SSHD is also a possibility but in that case i need a fast mechanical drive like the WD Black that also has some SSD. Thank you.
  25. 2 likes
    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.
  26. 2 likes
    What is the difference between WD30EFRX-68AX9NO and WD30EFRX-68EUZNO ?
  27. 2 likes
    If you're buying anyway for a NAS you could just as well move up to 4 TB (a NAS can never be big enough). I'd use the Seagate 5.9k rpm drives, as the speed will mostly be limiited by the network anyway. MrS
  28. 2 likes
    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...
  29. 2 likes
    alright, i'm more concerned of the head flying hours. mind you the numbers are changing wildly in the billions mark, as fast as i issue an a smartctl -a command...wtf?!?!??!?! one second, 200 some trillion, next second 400 some trillion... and today i went to set my energy drink on the encloure, it almost seems like an acoustic ding makes one of the two drives click...so for kicks i took my nail and flicked the side of the case, drive clicks....????? i'm worried, these are raid5, but mdadm on creation of raid5 recongnizes them as mirrored, and will do parity build upon adding a 3rd drive. so right now if one pukes, i'm still safe, but, still, this is serious WTF material for such new drives with low hours. and they're lightly accessed....400kb-1Mb on local LAN for movie playing, they basically spin without any serious load, other then the occassional first sunday of the month check (mirror checking until 3rd drive, then parity checking) i have 2 more ordered, will be here the 14th. i plan to make a 2nd array ( and properly sector align the partitions this time), duplicate everything,, destroy the 1st, triple check the first two drives, add a 3rd drive, let it resync, use resize2fs to grow the new MD size, then add the 4th, grow to raid6, ....and hope for the best. heh. this is the my first step, of expanding my home media server. 6tb at a time. obvisouly i started small, and mdadm has fabulous features of expanding without headache, along side of ext4. thank god i picked this method, i'm emptying my 2Tb seed box maybe once every 10 weeks. anyways, what you guys think of these wild smart reads?? i included some important system information. it's a 2.8ghz when called root@razorblade:/home/jason# uname -a Linux razorblade 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.46-1 i686 GNU/Linux root@razorblade:/home/jason# cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 95 model name : AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3800+ stepping : 2 microcode : 0x62 cpu MHz : 1000.000 cache size : 512 KB fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow up extd_apicid pni cx16 lahf_lm svm extapic cr8_legacy bogomips : 2009.08 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts fid vid ttp tm stc root@razorblade:/home/jason# cat /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 448204 kB MemFree: 248404 kB Buffers: 14676 kB Cached: 133568 kB SwapCached: 0 kB Active: 66944 kB Inactive: 95628 kB Active(anon): 14796 kB Inactive(anon): 208 kB Active(file): 52148 kB Inactive(file): 95420 kB Unevictable: 0 kB Mlocked: 0 kB HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree: 0 kB LowTotal: 448204 kB LowFree: 248404 kB SwapTotal: 0 kB SwapFree: 0 kB Dirty: 0 kB Writeback: 0 kB AnonPages: 14328 kB Mapped: 9912 kB Shmem: 688 kB Slab: 29140 kB SReclaimable: 21252 kB SUnreclaim: 7888 kB KernelStack: 1192 kB PageTables: 868 kB NFS_Unstable: 0 kB Bounce: 0 kB WritebackTmp: 0 kB CommitLimit: 224100 kB Committed_AS: 156044 kB VmallocTotal: 576632 kB VmallocUsed: 31864 kB VmallocChunk: 544244 kB HardwareCorrupted: 0 kB AnonHugePages: 0 kB HugePages_Total: 0 HugePages_Free: 0 HugePages_Rsvd: 0 HugePages_Surp: 0 Hugepagesize: 2048 kB DirectMap4k: 41856 kB DirectMap2M: 415744 kB root@razorblade:/home/jason# cat /root/sda smartctl 5.41 2011-06-09 r3365 [i686-linux-3.2.0-4-686-pae] (local build) Copyright © 2002-11 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Device Model: ST3000DM001-1CH166 Serial Number: W1F42CEQ LU WWN Device Id: 5 000c50 06e302226 Firmware Version: CC27 User Capacity: 3,000,592,982,016 bytes [3.00 TB] Sector Sizes: 512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical Device is: Not in smartctl database [for details use: -P showall] ATA Version is: 9 ATA Standard is: Not recognized. Minor revision code: 0x001f Local Time is: Tue Mar 11 16:04:09 2014 EDT SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED General SMART Values: Offline data collection status: (0x82) Offline data collection activity was completed without error. Auto Offline Data Collection: Enabled. Self-test execution status: ( 0) The previous self-test routine completed without error or no self-test has ever been run. Total time to complete Offline data collection: ( 584) seconds. Offline data collection capabilities: (0x7b) SMART execute Offline immediate. Auto Offline data collection on/off support. Suspend Offline collection upon new command. Offline surface scan supported. Self-test supported. Conveyance Self-test supported. Selective Self-test supported. SMART capabilities: (0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering power-saving mode. Supports SMART auto save timer. Error logging capability: (0x01) Error logging supported. General Purpose Logging supported. Short self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 1) minutes. Extended self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 255) minutes. Conveyance self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 2) minutes. SCT capabilities: (0x3085) SCT Status supported. SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 108 099 006 Pre-fail Always - 16622608 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 095 093 000 Pre-fail Always - 0 4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always - 41 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 010 Pre-fail Always - 0 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 061 060 030 Pre-fail Always - 17185157530 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 098 098 000 Old_age Always - 1870 10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail Always - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always - 41 183 Runtime_Bad_Block 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 184 End-to-End_Error 0x0032 100 100 099 Old_age Always - 0 187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 188 Command_Timeout 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 189 High_Fly_Writes 0x003a 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022 072 066 045 Old_age Always - 28 (Min/Max 22/31) 191 G-Sense_Error_Rate 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 33 193 Load_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 65 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 028 040 000 Old_age Always - 28 (0 17 0 0) 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age Offline - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x003e 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0 240 Head_Flying_Hours 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 34497177323342 241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 13822404900 242 Total_LBAs_Read 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 45934373780 SMART Error Log Version: 1 No Errors Logged SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Extended offline Completed without error 00% 1316 - # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% 1311 - SMART Selective self-test log data structure revision number 1 SPAN MIN_LBA MAX_LBA CURRENT_TEST_STATUS 1 0 0 Not_testing 2 0 0 Not_testing 3 0 0 Not_testing 4 0 0 Not_testing 5 0 0 Not_testing Selective self-test flags (0x0): After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk. If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute delay. and for sdb root@razorblade:/home/jason# cat /root/sdb smartctl 5.41 2011-06-09 r3365 [i686-linux-3.2.0-4-686-pae] (local build) Copyright © 2002-11 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Device Model: ST3000DM001-1CH166 Serial Number: W1F440Q7 LU WWN Device Id: 5 000c50 06e31d5e3 Firmware Version: CC27 User Capacity: 3,000,592,982,016 bytes [3.00 TB] Sector Sizes: 512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical Device is: Not in smartctl database [for details use: -P showall] ATA Version is: 9 ATA Standard is: Not recognized. Minor revision code: 0x001f Local Time is: Tue Mar 11 16:04:16 2014 EDT SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED General SMART Values: Offline data collection status: (0x82) Offline data collection activity was completed without error. Auto Offline Data Collection: Enabled. Self-test execution status: ( 0) The previous self-test routine completed without error or no self-test has ever been run. Total time to complete Offline data collection: ( 584) seconds. Offline data collection capabilities: (0x7b) SMART execute Offline immediate. Auto Offline data collection on/off support. Suspend Offline collection upon new command. Offline surface scan supported. Self-test supported. Conveyance Self-test supported. Selective Self-test supported. SMART capabilities: (0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering power-saving mode. Supports SMART auto save timer. Error logging capability: (0x01) Error logging supported. General Purpose Logging supported. Short self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 1) minutes. Extended self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 255) minutes. Conveyance self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 2) minutes. SCT capabilities: (0x3085) SCT Status supported. SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 108 099 006 Pre-fail Always - 15164504 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 095 093 000 Pre-fail Always - 0 4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always - 41 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 010 Pre-fail Always - 0 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 058 058 030 Pre-fail Always - 30070347153 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 098 098 000 Old_age Always - 1870 10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail Always - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always - 41 183 Runtime_Bad_Block 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 184 End-to-End_Error 0x0032 100 100 099 Old_age Always - 0 187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 188 Command_Timeout 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 189 High_Fly_Writes 0x003a 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022 071 066 045 Old_age Always - 29 (Min/Max 22/32) 191 G-Sense_Error_Rate 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 33 193 Load_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 66 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 029 040 000 Old_age Always - 29 (0 17 0 0) 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age Offline - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x003e 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0 240 Head_Flying_Hours 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 9345848837966 241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 7833754512 242 Total_LBAs_Read 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 51393562395 SMART Error Log Version: 1 No Errors Logged SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Extended offline Completed without error 00% 1316 - # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% 1311 - SMART Selective self-test log data structure revision number 1 SPAN MIN_LBA MAX_LBA CURRENT_TEST_STATUS 1 0 0 Not_testing 2 0 0 Not_testing 3 0 0 Not_testing 4 0 0 Not_testing 5 0 0 Not_testing Selective self-test flags (0x0): After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk. If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute delay
  30. 2 likes
    Hi. I own a Samsung NP-Q1 and the motherboard has broken connections, so this mini-tablet isn't working anymore. I know though, that the hard disk, which is a Hitachi HTC426060G8CE00, is still working. So I thought that I can use this as an additional HDD for my pc. The only problem is that this HDD has different pins, which I can't connect to IDE or SATA. I admit: I am no technician at all, but I am asking you if there is a possibility for me to connect it somehow to my PC either via SATA or IDE or other connections to be identificated as an additional HDD... P.S. I also send you 3 pics for you to see the connector pins... Regards
  31. 2 likes
    Test results: HD Tune Read http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/3/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-hd-tune-read HDTune - Benchmark - Read - Average Toshiba speed same as WD. HDTune - Benchmark - Read - Access Time 12.3 ms for WD, 15.6 ms for Toshiba Test results: HD Tune Write http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/4/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-hd-tune-write HDTune - Benchmark - Write - Average WD same as Toshiba. HDTune - Benchmark - Write - Access Time 11.2 ms for WD, 14 ms for Toshiba Test results: Atto Random Read http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/5/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-atto-random-read Atto - Read - QD 4 - 4 kB - Average speed 142.7 MB for WD, 115,7 MB for Toshiba Atto - Read - QD 4 - 1 MB - Average speed WD same as Toshiba. Test results: Atto Random Write http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/6/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-atto-random-write Atto - Write - QD 4 - 4 kB - Average speed 129.6 MB for WD, 91 MB for Toshiba, both not good, but it's random write. Atto - Write - QD 4 - 1 MB - Average speed Toshiba 189,5 MB, WD 142,3 MB. Much better the Toshiba it seems. Test results: PCMark7 http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/7/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-resultsnpcmark7 PCMark 7 - Storage Total score Toshiba > WD Won is almost all subscores : http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/8/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-resultsnpcmark7-subscores Test results: PCMark8 http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/9/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-pcmark8 Another model was tested there. Energy level http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/11/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-energy-consumption Noise production http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/12/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-noise-production Noise (idle) WD 33.1 dB, Toshiba 33.6 dB Noise (active) WD 40.6 dB, Toshiba 34.4 dB (too loud the WD. The 1TB toshiba one of the less noisy drives) ************************************************************ Very different results and conclusions from Storage Review. Are we talking about same model here, the new black ? They say the Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 3TB is faster in every benchmark. http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/13/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-conclusion What do you say Brian ?
  32. 2 likes
    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.
  33. 2 likes
    I'd like to put a backup HDD on my WiFi network. It seems to me this would be a NAS with WiFi built-in, but I'm not finding anything like this. I suppose I could plug a WiFi dongle into a regular NAS and that might give me what I want, but I'd think someone would already make a product like this (with WiFi built-in). Maybe I'm not searching on the right terms. Seagate's Wireless Plus seems perfect, except it wants to be the hub of the network, not an attachment to another network, so no deal. Any suggestions? Thanks.
  34. 2 likes
    I know it's a semi-off topic, but I'm posting it here as it may be commented by a "sensitive" user group: - I'm planning to use an external HDD as a synchronize unit between home/office PC; basically you plug in the disk and the software will synchronize bidirectionally accordingly: music, pictures, documents, videos: 140GB in 105,000 files in 13,000 folders There are many tools that will help such as MS Synctoy, PureSync, Freefilesync, Allway sync, etc, however all of them (apparently) will require scanning both sides each time to verify changes. It takes time; boring on a daily basis. I was wondering if it exists any other tool that will manage changes with other techniques, could be a database, and/or a hook on the filesystem API, tracking changes in real time, fastening the scan phase as it would constantly know what files have changed since last sync. Lightning fast! Any idea?
  35. 2 likes
    QNAP Systems has announced the release of the TS-x70 Pro series Turbo NAS, available in 4, 6, and 8-bay tower models for home and small/home office use. The TS-x70 Pro series is powered by a Dual-Core Intel Core i3 3.3 GHz Processor and 2GB DDR3 RAM, which delivers smooth real-time multimedia transcoding capabilities and up to 447MB read and 446MB write speeds with optional 4 Gigabit LAN port configuration. QNAP TS-x70 Pro Series Turbo NAS Announced
  36. 2 likes
    StorageReview has come upon information that OCZ and Panasonic have formed a licensing deal to market and sell Panasonic branded Indilinx Barefoot SSDs. Panasonic is launching two SSDs initially, one dubbed Premium and one Premium Pro. The Panasonic Premium is due to ship almost immediately, the Premium Pro early 2014. The drives will be available largely in the APAC region where the Panasonic brand is very strong, with additional distribution to follow. This marks the first ever OCZ licensing deal and is a clear benefit of the Indilinx acquisition and the resulting Barefoot SSD controller technology. Panasonic To License OCZ Barefoot 3 Controller and SSD Design - EXCLUSIVE
  37. 2 likes
    I've been rather demoralized by the development race in HDDs, but after the laugh last years WD4001FAEX gave me, I've been rather pleased to watch the review of the new black edition drive. Even though still far from what I'd want to see, as this is the first performance upgrade from WD after 5 years old 2TB Black edition. I'm currently out of storage and will want new large drives soon. But I don't know if these drives will fit in my system. SSD is for the OS drive. A RAID-0 array of 2 1TB Velociraptors is for the gaming drive and the rest are pretty much for pure storage. Maybe these drives would be an overkill for storage and I might opt for other 4TB drives. It will depend on the price difference.
  38. 2 likes
    HGST has announced that it is now shipping the MegaScale DC 4000.B, a new 3.5-inch, 4TB, 6 Gb/s SATA hard drive engineered for long-term data retention and other 24/7 environments that manage infrequently accessed data with less than 180TB transferred per drive, per year. According to HGST, the 4TB MegaScale DC 4000.B requires up to 45 percent less operating power and 29 percent reduced idle power compared to typical 4TB enterprise HDDs, and 40% less power than HGST’s own 4TB Ultrastar 7K4000. HGST Now Shipping 4TB Second-Generation MegaScale DC Cold Storage Hard Drive
  39. 2 likes
    Hi all, I have a 19" rack. The only thing is that the depth is limited to 60cm (23.6") so installing equipment is quite difficult since I have only a maximum depth size of 17.7" (45cm). For now I am searching a rackmount storage chassis (it doesn't matter how high it is, since I have plenty much space available) where I can install at least 12 hot swap 3,5" hard discs but to be honest I cannot find a chassis which matches to those figures. Any suggestion where I can find a chassis with 12 or 16 hot swap 3,5" drives which is not deeper than 17.7" In addition it would be nice if I can install also motherboard, pcu and some extension cards. thx and cheers
  40. 2 likes
    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!
  41. 2 likes
    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
  42. 2 likes
    Yesterday, my primary data drive went out (I have 6 hard drives but only 1 primary I keep data on.. ) Seagate Barracuda 3 tb ST3000DM001 Anyway, I ripped it out of the chasis to listen to it.. and it sounds like the physical head/arm inside, is hitting something or is damaged.. it makes about 3-4 clicks and today it made more like a screech after the 4th or 5th one.. like the head was digging into the platters or something? As is standard when it's hooked up to the computer it slows down the whole boot process.. maybe not sending the data requested down the "sata" cable.. So I was just wondering if it's possible to fix this with electronics.. (circuit boards) rather than a clean room? Are there any tests that can be done?
  43. 2 likes
    Hi, I Wanna To Buy 1TB External Hard Drive For My Dell Inspiron 15R N5110,But Don't Know Which Brand Is Better For External Hard drive So I Need Your Help. According To You Which Company/Brand Is Better For External Hard drive ?
  44. 2 likes
    hi my friends Yesterday i try to change cluster size one of drives on my hard disk from 4k to 32k , during processing power down and pc turned off when i checkd drive after that i have problem and lost all data on this drive i also use chkdsk and repaired somethings but still drive not formating and 80% of recovering data is damaged becouse drive have multi cluster sizes! my data on this drive is really important for me and i dont have chance to get them again plz help me for repairing this problem and recover my important files sry for bad english tnx
  45. 2 likes
    Hello, My configuration: Intel P4, OS: Windows 7, RAM: 1Gb, HDD:500Gb -- BARRACUDA 7200.12 -- ST3500418AS Yesterday, I decided to reinstall a copy of windows 7 ultimate and I did it well. After the installation, the computer reboots and I started with my essentials. After that, I restarted my computer and I opened another folder to continue the customization. At that time, I left the folder opened and went to do something else in the room. When I came back, the computer has already restarted "itself" and my screen was showing such a message like "Can't find an OS, please strike F1 to continue and F2 to run setup utiliy ". I choose to strike F1 and nothing appends, the prompt started to blink and after 5 seconds the sceen turned to black. I waited until 10 minutes and the Computer rebooted twice "itself". The same screen appeared and I rebooted again. I decided to look through the bios if the disk exists, and it was there. So I restarted for the fourth time, and the same problem appends. I tried to put my disk as an external SATA/USB disk on my laptop and it's loading, but the loading time is very long. It's also impossible to open any of the partitions. I'm very confused because many datas from my office are there, and i will be very difficult for me to loose them. I don't even want to think about it. So, please I want to know if there is any other way to restore the disk or if there is a solution to recover my datas from my datas' partition...? Thank you!
  46. 2 likes
    Hi. My WD Passport Edge works fine, but the USB cable is not very smooth or pliable, and each end has a crimped appearance. Did I get a wonky one, or are they all like this.
  47. 2 likes
    I was reminiscing about the WD Expert 18gb review I read here in 1999 and I can't find it, also the google cache isn't finding it properly either. Are these still around? That's from an era when I would read this site daily and read every review religiously. Anyone?
  48. 2 likes
    Looking for a mechanical solution for destroying data on SSD drives. I don't care if it makes the drive unusable, my focus is on making any data on the drive unrecoverable by any means. I know I can throw it in the fireplace, burn the chips with a blowtorch or cut them in half with wire snips, but that's not what I'm looking for. What I want to know, is where on the circuit board or what pin of what chip, can I apply 12 to 24 volts of medium to high current, that will ensure complete destruction of all memory registers in all the flash chips on the drive? I know this may be more of a question for an electrical engineer, but I'm hoping someone here may have an answer or be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks to anyone that can help. ~Rocket
  49. 2 likes
    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!
  50. 2 likes
    I installed a 9U rackmount case in my garage last year in order to not have to hear the humming of the computers/hard drives and to have a large area to dissipate heat (also helps in the winter when the garage is nice and cool) The specific problem I have is the depth... it's around 22" which really restricts the rackmount enclosures I can place in it to a depth of around 20" to 21". Now... I want to get either a 2U with 8 swappable 3.5" drive bays or a 3U enclosure with 12 swappable 3.5" drive bays. I don't believe I can get such chassis to enclose a motherboard as well as the swappable bays at a maximum depth of 21", so I'm considering the following with a storage system rackmount case with the motherboard in a separate 2U or 3U chassis: Storage Chassis: Norco DS-1220 3U (from http://www.directron.com/ds1220.html b/c they ship to Canada) Motherboard (for RAID card): ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe (for RAID card compatibility) RAID Card: RocketRAID 2322 Host Adapter (http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr2322.htm to replace the one coming with the Norco) Hard Drives: Seagate 1TB (ST31000340AS) Operating System: Undecided between an embedded NAS OS on a USB stick or Windows 2003 Small Business (or Windows Home server if they get their act together) If anyone has done this before or can recommend a different rackmountable setup(minding my depth constraints), I would highly appreciate any feedback. Thank-you!