Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/23/18 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Huh, that's interesting. It's been ages since we've seen WD product. They stopped sending us review samples because we test too hard.
  2. 1 point
    Overall, the new 14TB Seagate IronWolf Pro model is a solid option for growing small businesses that rely on NAS devices to store and manage their data. Seagate's new massive capacity point also allows organizations to accomplish this in a very cost-effective manner, including minimizing the need for drive replacements and promoting a smaller footprint in the office. Additionally, the 14TB Pro is bundled with AgileArray technology to promote availability, reliability, and RAID and power usage optimization. As was the case for the 12TB version, the IronWolf 14TB Pro offers a few benefits over the non-Pro model, including an extended warranty (3-year vs. the Pro's 5-year), support for additional drive bays, better mean times between failures and more optimization functionality for multi-users. Seagate IronWolf Pro 14TB NAS HDD Review
  3. 1 point
    Looking at the numbers for the quarter, Seagate is reporting revenue of nearly $3 billion, up from last quarter’s $2.8 billion and up 14% from the same time last year. The company is reporting a GAAP net income of $450 million (or $1.54 diluted earning per share), an increase of 148% year over year. For non-GAAP net income, Seagate saw $496 million (or $1.70 diluted EPS) a 77% increase in year over year. Seagate is reporting gross margin of 30.5% GAAP and 31% non-GAAP and free cash flow of $410 million, up considerably form last year’s $113 million. Seagate Reports 1Q19 Earnings
  4. 1 point
    We do track/collect CPU stats during the runs as part of the vdbench logging if you wanted to see more of the raw output. Its just not a part that we track.
  5. 1 point
    We could remove VROC and run with software RAID and compare results, which of course we did not do for this review. There is a little overhead for VROC but it's not severe from what we can tell. Maybe some day we can dive into this further.
  6. 1 point
    First set is done testing, second set should finish this weekend.
  7. 1 point
    This is the line for full latency, and correct that it is in microseconds: lat (usec): min=211, max=466, avg=267.94, stdev=18.39
  8. 1 point
    Context of what your are testing will help greatly on this.
  9. 1 point
    What are you testing? Also I've never used the -invalidate flag before, what is that used with?
  10. 1 point
    While both are about the same, just make sure that a USB external drive is not your sole backup and when using them on Windows machines use the safe eject to help avoid losing your data in a mishap, I second the motion on HGST drives. I have 20 in two arrays that have been on 24/7 for the past 4 years without a failure. Yup, I know that I just jinxed myself.
  11. 1 point
    If you really want something durable go for an HGST drive. I have 4 of them running non-stop for the last 4 years. But to answer your question, have a look at Blackblaze stats: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-2017/ Now, these are NOT consumer drives but these stats pretty much reflect the overall reliability of a drive.
  12. 1 point
    For a single drive sample, they'd be exactly the same, or so close you wouldn't be able to tell.
  13. 1 point
    We haven't heard anything from end user HDD guys in ages. I can't even recall testing one that wasn't some sort of hybrid abomination for a year or more.
  14. 1 point
    We're badly overdue. If memory serves, the top 2.5" used to be around 50% the capacity of the top 3.5". That's before 3.5s went to high platter counts. Still, 3TB should be out. The only good news I've seen is in SSDs. After a 3-year stall, there's finally some price movement. Baby steps though, nothing dramatic yet. 2TB and 4TB have dipped below their 2015 prices, everything smaller is still above 2015.
  15. 1 point
    Good Morning all, im a DBA and shortly envolved in Hardwarepurchases. We are mainly using fujitsu-servers, ordered by some fujitsu-reseller. Now getting a look at the prices i was astonished! In EVERY offer we get the CPU-Prices are WAY above the intel arc recommended customer price. (add 500 - 2000 bucks to the listprice, depending on the exact cpu!!) Is this normal in serverbuisness or is our reseller crappy? Please help the new gui!
  16. 1 point
    Update: I got confirmed that the test was done in "write through" mode. So this means that, unless anyone would prove otherwise, indeed its RAID 5 and 6 write performance for SSD RAID:s indeed is 25MB/sec per disk set. That is complete junk! I wouldn't even touch that with rubber gloves! So seems anyone who wants data redundancy needs to implement that in software, as hardware simply not provides that, at least not with any performance whatsoever. Incredible, this is 2016, I would really have thought that we were past the 25MB/sec mark on top-of-the-line hardware. Anyhow, thanks for the reality check! Mikael --- Hi everyone - here is an ultra important question: The RAID 5 and RAID 6 benchmark figures are ultra-bad - the write speed has a 98% overhead (6k IOPS = 25MB/sec), and the read has an 80% overhead (130k IOPS = 500MB/sec), for the set of 8 drives. Like, really, so ultra catastrophic that I wouldn't even touch that card - and neither its OEM variant "Megaraid SAS3108". This makes me wonder, however, what settings the benchmark was done with: The recommended settings are to set "Write cache" to "Write through" mode, to enable "Direct I/O" mode, to enable "Disk's cache" (that is, the physical disks' own cache), and to disable the "Read cache" altogether. Perhaps absence of running the test with "CacheVault" would be an indirect reason for the crappy numbers - any thoughts on that? Any completing info on the SSD 4K RW IOPS in RAID 5 and RAID 6 with an actually healthy, proper configuration as described here would be much appreciated!! Please post your thoughts & actual benchmark results - thanks!!
  17. 0 points
    I can't help you guys, just to say - two 9361 (bbu, cachecade, etc) are working fine, I tried DELL and IBM ones, mixed or both DELL, no problems at all. The only change from default settings is that I have disabled BIOS on the cards because I don't need to boot from RAID and it's bit faster. Also, they can be configured thru UEFI bios (bottom of advanced page). If more than one 3961 is installed, UEFI bios nicely lists all of them in advanced page and I can select which one to configure IBM 5210 or DELLs 9361. If it matters my mobo is ASUS Z10PE-D16 WS (dual socket). So problem looks more like mobo configuration than controller issue. Silly to mention but any OEM card can be flashed with firmware from broadcom, maybe they fixed issue by the time? Have you tried ? I flashed IBM and DELL cards with one from broadcom, they work well.
  18. 0 points
    Please explain what you meant reader50.
  19. 0 points
    Hmmm. One detail. I don't need all that power unlike the majority of SUV drivers that need several hundred hp to feel a real man As to the topic, it's just for curiosity's sake. Fuel efficiency doesn't seem to vary that much between a manual and an automatic but an automatic seems so easy. Too bad automatics often cost between €1200 and €2500 more than an equivalent manual and typically they're not available on all versions of a given series. Usually only with the more powerful engines.
  20. 0 points
    BTW francois, what car do you drive? About the only Audi I'd ever consider is an A6 station wagon as the only other station wagon, an A4, is just way too small for what it costs. Like mosts cars from the VW group these days.