hdman

Member
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About hdman

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Australia
  1. Just came across this drive, and then your review. First, a few typos: “neither hadware or software” neither hardware nor software “EUFI” UEFI I also do not believe this is an Advanced Format drive with SmartAlign. All published specifications indicate it’s a standard 512-byte sector drive, like the 2TB version of the series. AnandTech’s review of the external model initially stated the drive used 4K sectors, but later retracted this after clarification from Seagate. I guess time will tell.
  2. There has been talk for some time about HDD manufacturers increasing the sector size of mainstream drives from 512 bytes to 4096 bytes (4KB). Wouldn’t this also increase the 2 TiB MBR partition limit to 16 TiB?
  3. hdman

    Seagate 7200.12 series

    Just noticed some interesting changes on the Seagate 7200.12 series page. The data sheet PDF has effectively been withdrawn, and replaced with an updated Product Overview at the same URL. Comparison of the old Product Overview PDF with the new one reveals the following changes: 160-MB/s maximum sustained data rate – now 125 Shock, Nonoperating: 1 ms (Gs) 350 – now 300 (1 TB) Acoustics, Idle (bels) 2.7 – now 2.5 (1 TB) Acoustics, Seek (bels) 2.8 – now 2.7 (1 TB) Addition of 8 MB (250GB) model.
  4. Nah, I would have, if I’d bitten. There was nothing dodgy about the label, it looked like a regular 7200.11. More rigorous Googling does turn up some discussion in English-speaking forums, though noone’s dedicated a topic to it before. They’re calling it Great Trash http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...mp;#entry828656 Also, I found it listed on some certification site, dated 2008-02-14, so it looks like it’s been around for a while. http://certificates.iecee.org/cbtestcert/c...1d?OpenDocument
  5. Oh, I never considered that possibility, thanks for pointing it out Spod! And no hard feelings, jf2000. It only bothered me that staff working for WD made such a blunder in their Knowledge Base, and it still hasn’t been corrected. Good to see it’s been officially announced.
  6. I went to my local computer store today looking for a 1TB drive. They were out of stock of the ones at the top of my list (WD1001FALS, WD10EVCS, WD10EADS), so I decided to go for the in-stock Seagate, thinking it’d be the same model (ST31000333AS) I had purchased a few months earlier. I was presented with a brand new drive in a static bag, bearing a label that read Barracuda GT 7200.11. This immediately threw me off as I’d never heard of a “Barracuda – something – 7200.x†before... well, not since the Barracuda ATA V. When I saw it was the old 4-platter ST31000340AS model with the problematic SD15 firmware, I said no thanks. I also noticed it was made in China, site code WUXISG, if that’s any help. (I had wanted the 333AS model partly to try and replicate an unusual issue I have with mine.) What do you suppose this GT is, a rebadged/relabelled drive? Something that will only be sold in a few markets? Googling a few different combinations of those keywords reveals very few hits, and none that I could find in English, so this’ll be the first. If noone here knows now, hopefully others will be drawn in to enlighten us at some point.
  7. hdman

    Seagate 7200.12 series

    ST31000528AS is currently leading ST31000523AS, 810 to 502 initial hits on Google, and 47 to 32 after clicking on the last page. One week on, the website and PDF still don’t match – place your bets now! I guess Seagate has more pressing matters to attend to.
  8. Could you please explain the reason for your post? I fail to see any relevance to any post within this topic. Seeing as it comes immediately after my post discussing tebibytes and terabytes, perhaps you’d like to point out where I’ve gone wrong?
  9. With the launch of this drive seemingly imminent, look what has appeared on the WD support site: http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/ph...hp?p_faqid=2754They should know better than this. The issue is the 2 Tebibyte (TiB) partition limit with MBR. A 2 Terabyte drive falls short of this (1.82 TiB). It’s not as though the limit is 2 TB and they’re making 2 TiB drives! And why would they bring this up now? I doubt we’ll be seeing 3 TB drives for some time.
  10. Specifications for the Seagate 7200.12 series are now available. http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/...racuda_7200.12/ Note that the site currently lists the 1TB model number as ST31000523AS, which may be incorrect as the PDF has ST31000528AS (along with ST3750528AS). It’s also interesting that Seagate is now using the number 5 in the model number to denote 32MB cache, having previously used 3 in the 7200.11 series. There was some previous discussion about the new series in these topics: http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?...c=27391&hl= http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?...c=27348&hl=
  11. That particular buyer got in early and has a 5-year warranty! I posted my analysis of the authenticity of the pictures here: http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?...st&p=254798 But you’re right, by the time it’s available for the rest of us, it’ll be down to 3 years.
  12. D’oh! Sorry guys, there goes my hypothesis. Well, it has been fairly uniform since the 7200.8 at least. Along with the 16MB cache ST3250410AS there was also the 8MB cache ST3250310AS and ST3160310AS, but these were all late additions to the 7200.10 line-up (I have older PDFs in which these drives do not appear). http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/...racuda_7200.10/ Time will tell if this early ST3500410AS is the one we’ll be buying. The 7200.11 PDF states that the 16MB cache versions of the 500GB and 750GB drives are “not available through distributionâ€. http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/...uda_7200_11.pdf I’ve checked out the pictures of the drive here: http://skyline798.blog118.fc2.com/blog-entry-1266.html Although the serial number has been obscured from the close-up, it’s still readable in the wider shot: 5VM0ACX0. Entering this number, along with just ST3500 for the model number, into the Seagate warranty page, confirms that the part number is 9HY142-310 as depicted. Googling part number 9HY142 finds no hits, so I can believe it’s a brand new product. http://support.seagate.com/customer/warranty_validation.jsp The Warranty Expiration date is 23-Dec-2013. According to the Seagate Datecode Calculator, the date code 09262 represents Build Date: Saturday, December 27, 2008. http://www.westernnetworks.com/tools/seagatedatecode.php
  13. Quite a few websites mention that. Some such as the Australian ones seem to have removed it. But I find that drive a little odd. Why only 16MB cache? Most/all of their current 7200.11 500GB drives have 32MB cache and even if the cache size isn't necessary the added cost must be minimal yet the marketing value is high. I’d be surprised if ST3500410AS is the correct model number for a single platter 500GB drive with 16MB cache. For many years now, OEM Seagate desktop-class drive model numbers have followed a uniform convention. Take, for example, the model ST31000340AS, which specifies: Seagate Technology 3½†1000GB 32MB 4-platter 0 [iD#] ATA SATA The ID number provides a means of differentiating drives with similar specs. The single digit used for the cache has progressed as follows: 2 – 2 MB 8 – 8 MB 6 – 16 MB 3 – 32 MB 4 – 64 MB? If the model number is correct, it could be a 64MB cache model.
  14. hdman

    Defragging only "free space"

    Thanks. I read through the FAQ, which lists the five methods of defrag available, but doesn’t specifically say it does what I’m after. But now that you mention it, it sounds like this one: http://www.oo-software.com/en/products/oodefrag/faq/#toc_2330-day free trial too, nice! I’ll give it a go.
  15. I would like to defrag just the free space on some of my hard drives, which are used for video recording. The drives are almost always 80 to 100% full of heavily fragmented static files, which I don’t need to defrag. The free space, on the other hand, is where I keep recording and deleting new files, and performance is noticeably reduced by fragmentation. Is there any software with the option of defragging only the free space? I’ve had a look at the websites of a few (O&O Defrag, Diskeeper) and haven’t found anything yet. I vaguely recall being able to do it with something like Norton Utilities under NT more than 5 years ago.