[ETA]MrSpadge

Member
  • Content Count

    799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

[ETA]MrSpadge last won the day on August 27 2014

[ETA]MrSpadge had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About [ETA]MrSpadge

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Germany
  1. [ETA]MrSpadge

    Samsung P3 Portable (4TB) Review

    Do you mean they should test their samples for bad sectors or are your 2 sentences unrelated? Bad sector will vary greatly from drive to drive, so single drive samples are pretty much useless. MrS
  2. [ETA]MrSpadge

    Seagate Archive HDD Review (8TB) Discussion

    You mean an external drive enclosure? If so: this one works. Build quality is "well, at least it works". MrS
  3. [ETA]MrSpadge

    Samsung P3 Portable (4TB) Review

    Well, that would make it even more important to test & report MrS
  4. [ETA]MrSpadge

    Samsung P3 Portable (4TB) Review

    The drive has the best performance, yet is using SMR? Apparently that's true for sequential loads of up to 5 GB at once. But everything else is unknown. Guys, you know there's far more to SMR HDD performance than this. You do not necessarily have to test it all, but at least mention a word of caution in the conclusion! MrS
  5. [ETA]MrSpadge

    Seagate Archive HDD Review (8TB) Discussion

    Thanks, this looks far more encouraging (and logical) than the RAID rebuild times from the SR review. At least we can conclude that there are sustained transfers which don't make the drive stutter. MrS
  6. Wow, that's some shocking news! Beware, people, Samsung is using Samsung HDD technology in their HDDs Apart from this marketing joke: wow, 4 TB in 2.5" is impressive. I suspect 4 or 5 platters in a drive of 15 mm physical height. MrS
  7. [ETA]MrSpadge

    Seagate Archive HDD Review (8TB) Discussion

    @point1: Well, matching numbers for one theory do not automatically mean it's true @point2: yes, 1.33 TB platters including the capacity boost from shingling. I'd like to know how large this boost is. Based on traditional 1 TB platters it would be 33%. I think Seagate claimed around 20%, which would match my assumption of 1.1 - 1.2 TB platters without shingling. And thanks for your other information! MrS
  8. Comparing the PCB with the version without Turbo, I wonder where the cache is. Is it inculded in the Samsung module? Apart from this I can't spot any differences. MrS
  9. [ETA]MrSpadge

    Samsung SM951-NVMe M.2 SSD Review

    Thanks for the answer, Kevin. Regarding the 1st point: well, neither drive is SATA. As far as I understand one is PCIe AHCI and the other one is PCIe NVMe. Regarding the capacity vs. performance: Samsung does quote a difference in sequential write performance, taken straight from your review: 512GB - Up to 1,550MB/s 256GB - Up to 1,260MB/s and for the AHCI version, also taken straight from the SR review: 512GB - Up to 1,500MB/s 256GB - Up to 1,200MB/s This makes it even more astonishing that the NVMe version can often keep up with or beat its AHCI cousin. I know it's not easy to comment on drive sizes you don't have in-house, but this doesn't mean you should ignore known differences either. MrS
  10. [ETA]MrSpadge

    Samsung SM951-NVMe M.2 SSD Review

    Excellent drive and a nice review, as always. And some comments from my side: - The previous SM951 is the AHCI version, not the PCIe version. Both of them use PCIe for the data transfer. - "speeds that were by in far the fastest" -> "speeds that were by far the fastest" (I know it's somewhat common and I've already seen it in several SR reviews, but the "in" makes no sense there) - You're comparing a 512 GB AHCI drive versus a 256 GB NVMe drive. That's OK since you're working with what you have. You also list the performance difference due to the smaller capacity in the drive specifications. Yet when you compare the 2 drives, you never mention that part of the performance difference is due to the NVMe driver having fewer NAND dies. Otherwise the AHCI version should never be faster and your results would actually look very strange. This in turn means a 512 GB NVMe drive would be even faster. From my point of view this is a basic analysis of your results, which should not be left up to each reader. MrS
  11. [ETA]MrSpadge

    What's going on with Toshiba's HDDs ?

    A few seem to be available across Europe: link. That's a surprisingly small amount of shops, but on the other hand the drive has only been listed since 2 months by now. BTW: the cheap "Intenso" branded drives with 4 and 5 TB @ 7.2k rpm are also Toshiba. they won't tell you so, but noone else builds affordable 7.2k rpm drives with more than 3 TB. Edit: with 5 platters at 7.2k rpm it would be hard for the drives not to be relatively loud. If this matters depends entirely on the drive's surrounding and the users preferences. MrS
  12. The drive is definitely more vulnerable than others. I would not expect such extreme failure rates without the extreme environment blakcblaze is putting them in. The high amount of vibration in those pods may very well harm the 1st 7.2k rpm drive with 1 TB platters. And this may well be the reason others hesitated for so long to tie this density, and even Seagate themselves didn't use that technology for 4 TB. MrS
  13. [ETA]MrSpadge

    SSD Caching Software. Any suggestions?

    If you've got a mainboard which allows Intel SRT you may still be able to set this up for your new HDD. You should need a spare 60 GB on some SSD, have the mainboard SATA ports switched to RAID (you already do) and then assign this space as cache. I haven't actually tried such SSD partitioning, but if you're buying the parts anyway you might as well try it. If you have a backup of your stuff, of course. MrS
  14. [ETA]MrSpadge

    Intel SSD 750 Review Discusison

    This sounds weird. The at 10 ms compared to 15 ms the latency reduced to 2/3, or 50% better - which ever way you want to look at it. But there's no factor of 2. And calling it "only half as fast" implies that high values would be better, whereas it's actually the opposite. And considering the significant latency difference between these drives the TPS benchmark scores seem about the same: 6312 vs. 6304 is a difference of just ~0.1%! What's the standard deviation between a few runs of this test? I'd be surprised if it's anything less than 1%. BTW: even with a hypothetical standard deviation of 0.1% it would make sense to only report 4 significant digits. I'm pretty sure your 5th and 6th digit are meaningless at best, and simply make the important numbers harder to read. Apart from that: thanks for testing and the article! MrS
  15. It also depends on how loud the other components in your system (or the entire surrounding) are. Another factor is the mounting: if the drive is firmly attached to a rattling metal case, the noise is far larger than with a decoupled mounting. This does not directly answer your question, but what I want to say is this: if you can hear a 5k rpm drive, a 7k rpm drive is audibly louder. If not.. chances are pretty good that you won't hear the 7k rpm drive either. MrS