• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About NetAsh

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. Budget... I have 8 hdd slots left and would like to fill them as cheap as possible. Added cost by buying 8x500 instead of 8x320 is justifiable if performance increases. No, I cant afford 1TB+ of ssd. My IO load if separated into multiple disks should be quite sequential but intensive on writes - this might kill all ssd performance benefits and the ssd's themselves too
  2. So far the only measurable performance difference for the same drive generation (and manufacturer) single and double/multi plater is how relatively fast performance degrade moving from outer to inner zone. If my IO load is highly parallel (and it is), more disks is always better performance. In this case even marginally worse acoustics/vibration is more noticeable. Capacity is not the issue to me - 320GB plater or 500GB one, only first 150GB will be formated. ... so please back to topic: your favorite 320GB or 500GB single platers
  3. There are always a better and more expensive drive/solution like 15K rpm or ssd drives - do not care - can not afford If 500GB one plater list is complete 320GB one platers please. As I said before denser disk should be faster, but might be the opposite... By the way - these are not for my desktop or something
  4. use autofs (auto mount feature in linux) idle disks spin down by kernel (not the case with usb disks, there crappy ide/sata->usb controlers control spin up/down) if this will not notably prolong yours disk life, it at least should save some heat/energy/noise large disk farms at least once a year routinely force spin up - over wise disks my jam
  5. One plater versus multi platers, simply from physical perspective, has potential to be more silent, run cooler and generate less vibration Densest plate should be faster on sequential reads or writes, plus than using short stroking technique denser plate equals shorter worst case actuator movement paths 7200rpm should be a guaranty for "more or less reasonable price" So far, I saw two recommendations: Seagate 7200.12 500GB Samsung F3 500GB Any more?
  6. Hello, I do not require lots of capacity, but need lots of spindles for more or less reasonable price, and believe 7200rpm one plater with densest plate (biggest capacity) will do the trick. The problem starts than someone tries to figure out how many each current disk have - manufacturers do not specify this in theirs spec sheets anymore. Last time (long ago) I heavily searched - my choice was Samsung HD322HJ (F1 320GB). Now I am reading lots of news about 500GB plates... Is there any 500GB one platers in the market, or 320GB one platers is still the best choice, or maybe even HD322HJ does not show its age Any suggestions please...
  7. There is only one actuator per drive. For example, a 10-head actuator has 6 arms. Those arms are all made from one block (usually of aluminum), so they all move in concert... We are talking about the same things, just my naming was wrong - I wrongly named these "aluminum arms" actuators
  8. If the single-platter drive platform is a separate design from the multi-platter platform, then it probably will have a lighter actuator. The VCM is typically designed for a particular actuator, though, so it may not have a faster access time (may even be worse, depending on the design). If the platforms are identical, with the only difference being whether there is physically one (or two or more) disks, then power, acoustics, and vibration performance will be better the fewer disks there are. Actuators can be designed for multi-platters and then stripped down for single disks by leaving off some of the heads and using a balance weight. Or, a design specifically for a single disk is used, which may (or may not) be faster. Lets say, there are two metal peaces with heads on top, or there are four identical ones. I disassembled quite a few disks, and all these metal peaces (actuators I guess) move in tandem. The bigger the array of these actuators - the heavier. If heavier - the task of moving accurately is more complicated... On the other hand if all else is the same but the disk count. Partitioning two times bigger disk in half and limiting disk operations in the outer zone partition, I would expect actuator lightness is miserable argument versus shorter distances actuator needs to travel and better sequential performance of outer zone...
  9. but why on the server? Blinking lights on the network gear makes no noise, do not consume power like mad or generate enormous amounts of heat compared to multiterabait storage arrays Servers do backups I can access my data despite my home pc is off And lots more reasons I can't think now - You name it It doesn't frighten me, it just hurts ... I'm considering to buy many things for October, and the velociraptor would be the biggest hole in my pocket ... To buy or not to buy, that is the only question (after you can die, that's not a problem ) I have better places to spend my money than on overpriced toys By the way for a price of WD3000HLFS you can buy up to five 320G 7200rpm disks. Distribute your load, or raid them correctly and guess that - these disks in tandem will run circles around raptor (unless you are running heavy on a disk single threaded task - unlikely) These overpriced monsters make sense only than you are space/port/power/heat limited and these restrains are more common on servers or heavy workstations, not on casual home/game pc... As for the ssd - from the os perspective they look like an ordinary disks. And trust me - linux has more toys to effectively exploit performance benefits of ssd (like flash oriented file systems) than windows
  10. The same applies to seagate spec, plus we assume Sustained Data Rate correlates to 105M/s -> 250G/d and 115M/s -> 320G/d than ST3160813AS 160 1d/1h 320G/d ST3320613AS 320 1d/2h 320G/d ST3500320AS 500 2d/4h 250G/d ST3640323AS 640 2d/4h 320G/d ST3750330AS 750 3d/6h 250G/d ST31000333AS 1T 3d/6h 333G/d ST31000340AS 1T 4d/8h 250G/d p.s. I believe seagate has a typo in 640 weight
  11. It sux a little, manufacturers stopped specifying disk/head counts in specs. Nerveless humans suppose to be a smart creatures According this samsung spec disks are groupt into tree groups by criteria: capacity VS (power OR weight). 160,250,320 - lightest on power/weight 500,650 - the middle 750,1000 - all max Out of that, I make assumption: 160 1d/1h 320G/d (disk, plate you name it) 250 1d/2h 250G/d 320 1d/2h 320G/d 500 2d/4h 250G/d 650 2d/4h 320G/d 750 3d/6h 250G/d 1TB 3d/6h 320G/d I am right ?
  12. For starters by reading this NCQ thread, I got feeling all these problems affect windows only. And my primary os is linux. If windows will find a space in my pc - it will happen only as the virtualized guest... Anyway nobody wants a dogy product even if it does not affect yours use paterns, so I guess will wait and see how this NCQ thing resolve.. Does high failure rates affect seagate 7200.11 or other/older 320GB disks too? As for disk space - capacity is not a priority for me. I might happily fit with os and my primary dataset in 80GB, all other data like backups, multimedia and etc I prefer to dump over network to a server Only these retarded prices for small drives stop me from doing so. I even considered WD1500HLFS as an option, but so far the price premium frightens to death... For now I do not look into anything bigger than 320GB... My arguments/assumptions for single-plater are: less mass in rotation should equate to less power, less vibration, less noise... Single-platers lighter actuator might result in less time needed to calm down after seek, but this must be proven with tests, this is only assumption, and this contradicts with yours "usually have worse access time". By the way 320GB per single plate is quite "modern" My primary intent by posting there is to verify witch ones are one platers (from the model list I provided). It seams hitachi falls out
  13. If I am not wrong, all newest generation disks with 320GB capacity are single-platers, and the biggest single-platers too. Hitachi HDT721032SLA360 Samsung HD322HJ Seagate ST3320613AS WesternDigital WD3200AAKS If not this discussion, I would probably choose Samsung (hiped to be the most silent). Now I am lost, and cant deside...
  14. as for ssd - it seems, we have lots of waiting to do prices are definitely too high 1799$ for 32GB , unless it achieves near ram drive speeds, but certainly they are not as for 5400rpm drives, their lineups are more recent than 7200rpm ones, and, if reviews to be believed, the performance lag not that much. but I guess soon to be expected 7200rpm refreshes will widen the gap a little
  15. as for upcoming new drives, I sea few problems: for egzample momentus_7200_2.pdf refers only to sata disks (no mention of plain old ata) it might be the same with hgst ones too