cypherpunks

Member
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cypherpunks

  • Rank
    Member
  1. cypherpunks

    Seagate Promotes SmartAlign Software

    Completely agreed. Uncritically reprinting Seagate's press release without asking this question reflects poorly on SR. A rather evil, but effective way to do this would be to parse the partition table and rotate the partition by the number of sectors required to align it. I.e. if a partition occupies LBAs 63 through 1,000,062, then offset it by 1 sector to apply the following mapping: LBA 63..70 → Block 64..71 (4K sector 8) LBA 71..78 → Block 72..79 (4K sector 10) LBA 1,000,047..1,000,054 → Block 1,000,048..1,000,055 (4K sector 125006) LBA 1,000,055..1,000,061 → Block 1,000,056..1,000,062 (7/8 of 4K sector 125007) LBA 1,000,062 → 63 (1/8 of 4K sector 7) You wouldn't lose any capacity, just trade efficient access to the partition for very inefficient access to the last (probably unused) sector in it.
  2. cypherpunks

    Hitachi 7K1000.C is out

    Are you using windows 7? I noticed higth cpu usage in was hight in win7(with DMA on and AHCI). The benchmark above is from XP(which is giving me faster results than win7).
  3. cypherpunks

    Hitachi 7K1000.C is out

    HDTUNE I'm trying to turn off AAM. None of the Hitachi utilities work. The 500GB model cost 64 pounds.
  4. cypherpunks

    Hitachi 7K1000.C is out

    I just bought a 1TB Hitachi drive model number is HDS721010CLA332 in Wales (I'm on holiday from Switzerland) for 64 pounds. I was going to buy the new 1TB Samsung F3 when I got back but as this Hitachi is the new 500GB per platter model I got it. When I get back next will try and post some benchmarks (if no results are already up).
  5. Hello, even though there are already 2000 GB drives around, these are way too expensive for my tastes. So I was thinking on going with a 1500 GB drive instead. I currently have 3 drives: WD740ADFD --- WD Raptor 74GB (for my OS) WD5000AAKS --- WD 500GB (for storage and backups) HD103UJ --- Samsung 1000GB (for storage and backups) Well... I had. The WD5000AAKS is dying and this is what making me think if I should buy another WD or not. On the other hand, the Raptor is working fine. Fortunately I was able to recover all my data to the 1TB drive. But there was a time when things looked pretty grim. The most important factors are reliability (I guess this partiraly translates into temperature) and noise. From this review does seem to be better than the Samsung HD154UI at noise levels and almost on par in the temperature. And from what I've heard, it's a good idea to stay away from Seagate drives. However, I sure would like to know how and when that temperature was measured. After 1h of intensivy I/O after the drive being working for a week? Or was it after boot? I tend to leave my computer turned on for periods of several weeks, sometimes a couple of months. I wonder if that was what killed my drive. smartmonctl says it's current temperature now is 52ºC, but I can't make an accurate translation of the worst value. So... any reason for not choosing the WD15EADS 1500 GB drive? I've read something here about RE3 and RE4 drives, but I don't understand what this means exactly. Is this technology available for desktop users? How much does it worth? Thank you for your help.
  6. @jf2000 I'm using my WD 74GB Raptor for system drive. Thanks for the HD103UI recommendation. Unfortunately I don't seem to find it on the stores in my country. And (a minor correction) I do hear my WD Raptor quite well. But since it's my system drive, it doesn't "work" very often. Having no swap file helps too. From another thread about the same thing http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=436097 I found an interesting review http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16393/11 (caviar green 1TB and 2TB, spinpoint, barracuda 1.5TB) The Spinpoint F1 seems to be the best choice, while taking into account noise and power, but not disregarding performance completely, in which the F1 shows to have a very good performance. So, thanks again for the F1 tip jf2000. I'll probably buy that one.
  7. Performance is not very important to me in this case. Unless we're talking about 40% slower or something huge like that. I'm more concerned about noise and data safety (ie, that the drive will live many years without problems and no data is lost). Hence me mentioning the WD10EACS as a possible alternative since it's silent and less power consuption probably means a longer life. I currently have one WD Raptor 74GB (for my OS) and one WD 500GB drive (for storage and backups). Any guesses on how the ST31500341AS compares to the WD10EACS in terms of noise and power consuption (I'm not sure if I can get my hands on the newer WD10EADS)? Since the firmware solves the problem I'm tempted to go with the Seagate... unless it's noisier than my other drives. (and I recall that there is a strange formula that says that 2 devices outputting the same volume, together make 1.x more noise) Thanks for the replies.
  8. I need to buy a new HDD and in terms of capacity the ST31500341AS model is the best one. Problems with this choice: I want the drive to be silent and I have no clue of the noise this one makes. The noise info from here doesn't convince me: http://www.span.com/catalog/product_info.p...oducts_id=22251 Any ideas on how this one should behave in comparison with the ones at: http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/bench_sort.php Another and bigger problem is that I've been hearing horror stories with this model. That the drive hangs for about 30 seconds and that you can loose your data. And I've also read that updating the firmware (which Seagate likes to make it very difficult for users) doesn't solve the problem in all cases. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1080005 It's nice to know that WD will be releasing 2TB drives... but it's still away and they'll be expensive. Are the Western Digital 1TB drives, WD10EACS, the best choice for me instead? Although it sucks not getting +50% capacity for +30% price...
  9. cypherpunks

    WTB: Where to buy hard drives in bulk?

    I was looking on google when i came across this post, but one of the other results was buy.com, they have 20 packs, but there isn't much of a deal on them http://www.buy.com/cat/bulk-pack-hard-drive/16209.html
  10. cypherpunks

    WTB: 5x 20GB Drives

    I don't really care who makes em, sata or ide, i just have 5 or so boxes that id like to get running again. Looking to spend about $50, is there any online store i can get them though, or is eBay my best bet? So far the cheapest hdd i've came across is 40GB SATA for $30, to me that seams insane for so little space, i know there is the absolute lowest price it can be before there selling it bellow the cost of the materials, but the materials can't cost that much for a hdd.
  11. As Samsung Spinpoint F1 drives are now trickling into the channel, is there an ETA on when we will see a review?
  12. cypherpunks

    How to enable NCQ?

    From what I've read, you cannot enable NCQ if you haven't set your SATA drive to AHCI before the OS install. Does anyone here have any hands-on experience that either debunks or confirms this? http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=444831
  13. cypherpunks

    Maximum number of drives in raid 5

    great question, I'm looking for the answer as well. I don't think the other posters in this thread understood the question. basically, when using the redundancy algorithm (ECC, error correcting code) in RAID-5, what is the maximum amount of data loss possible while still being able to reconstruct the original data in full? 25%? (4 drive raid) 20%? (5 drive raid) 1%? (100 drive raid). and I think I've finally figured it out: http://www.commodore.ca/windows/raid5/raid5.htm take a look at the 2nd and 3rd illustrations. the "parity" information really is PARITY (revisit parity if you forgot what it is). it doesn't matter how many bits/drives there are, as long as only ONE fails, the data can be recovered. you can have an INFINITE number of drives and maintain full data recovery, as long as only one fails and the rest stay up during your rebuild process. that's awesome! that said, there's a risk that the time it takes to rebuild an enormous array is long enough for another drive to fail. that's where RAID-6 comes in. it uses two parity drives. here's an article about it: http://www.serverwatch.com/hreviews/articl...10823_3508871_1 and it quotes Richard Scruggs, HP's product manager for server storage as saying: "RAID 5 had a limit of somewhere between 10 and 14 drives in one system". by "limit", he was referring to the risk of another drive failing during the rebuild operation. the risk for home users may outweigh the price of another drive being "wasted" on parity. i'm running a 6x400GB RAID-5 through Windows XP's software (had to be hacked for support in the workstation OS) right now, its working great. I had to cross my fingers and hope that 6 drives would work. I'm really glad to know what the limitations are now!
  14. I noticed that the latest WD1500ADFD (150Gb, 10k rpm) HD from WD uses the old SATA1 interface (at a rate of 1.5Gb/s). Why is this? The older modles such as the WD3200KS (320b, 72k rpm) utilise the more advanced SATA 2 interface (at a rate of 3Gb/s). Why has WD used older tech in a later model drive?
  15. I can't edit the previous post, but I have another question... http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newdisksmartxy0.png What is the diffrence between Value and Data ? also in WD is Power-On Time Count reported in minuties or hours ?