• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About xerces8

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. Quite an old thread, is there a newer version? Anyway here is my contribution: Model Family: SAMSUNG SpinPoint F3 RE Device Model: SAMSUNG HE103SJ Serial Number: S2JBJ90B202606 LU WWN Device Id: 5 0024e9 20473dc4c Firmware Version: 1AJ10001 User Capacity: 1,000,204,886,016 bytes [1.00 TB] Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical Rotation Rate: 7200 rpm SCTERC: supported default: 70/70 (7/7 seconds) reboot/poweroff: did not test Does is actually work? No. It always times out after 2.5 seconds (I have a few bad sectors) The smartctl -l scterc command set the new values and rereading confirms they are set, but no effect, the actual timeout stays 2.5 seconds. Tested under SystemRescure-CD v4.9.3 (32 bit mode). smartctl 6.4 2015-06-04 r4109 [i686-linux-4.4.50-std493-i586] (local build) [AMD] RS880 Host Bridge SB7x0/SB8x0/SB9x0 SATA Controller [AHCI mode] (rev 40) Regards, David
  2. Seagate BarraCuda Pro 10TB HDD Review (the discussion link in the article leads to a message "The page you requested does not exist Error code: 1S160/2") The article says : Nonrecoverable read errors per bits: 1 per 1014 The datasheet says: Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read, Max 1 per 10E15 Which is correct? Or am I looking at the wrong datasheet? Also: How much data reads did you do in the review? Were and read errors (URE) encountered? Regards, David
  3. Also this scientific paper* claims the opposite: * https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast15/technical-sessions/presentation/aghayev
  4. The link by continuum above and others I could find* are consistent: SMR drives show about 10 times higher number in 4K write than read. * like http://goughlui.com/2015/05/24/review-seagate-archive-8tb-3-5-internal-hard-drive/
  5. How would one determine by tests whether a HDD uses SMR? What I gathered is: - 4K writes (like in CrystalDiskMark) benchmark gives about 10 times higher values that reads ( 10MB/s vs 1MB/s) - write access time (like measured by HDTune) is 10 time less than "normal" (e.g. 0.8 ms) - sequential writes are 3 times slower than reads (I could not confirm this yet conclusively on my drive) Any other ideas? I did my tests on a Seagate ST5000DM000 5TB drive taken out of an eclosure (Seagate Desktop Expansion 5TB USB3.0 drive - STEB5000200 ).
  6. 1.) "You can change from performance to quite mode..." No, you can't. SeaTools does not even offer such an option (and others explained why). I also tried obscure internal leaked Seagate tools. Nope. Can't change it. 2.) "not performing in line with it's manufacturers specifications" - In your quote it is clear that the 320GB model has 11ms t2t time, so adding the average latency of 4.16ms gives about 15.2ms, which is more or less what I measured. (16.5ms - HD Tune has probably some application, OS, driver etc overhead) PS: Oh, now I see the thread ended in feb 2009 and not feb 2010 :-p
  7. It's the same architecture, so the results should be close enough to be comparable. If you wanna nitpick that much, open your own review site. (actually heck you could offer to help Eugene out...) I am not nitpicking. The results are not comparable (13 ms vs 20 ms). I'll return the drive and get over with.
  8. 1.) What has this to do with Vista or 2008 compatibility ? 2.) Maybe your computers clock is going wrong. Sometime it does even on good hardware. It is a known Windows bug. (errr, feature)
  9. On another PC I have two Samsung HD642JJ drives. They both have 13 ms access time. After setting AM mode to "quiet", they have 15 ms. I'll try the Seagate 320GB on another PC and then return it if it is there slow too.
  10. 1.) The first linked test does not have my drive. 2.) Seagate disks (at least mine) do not have a AAM option. I tested. I googled. It is a fact.
  11. It is already in my first post, but I repeat it to make it clear: - I did many tests (using many different test tools, even under different OS-s) - it is not a theoretical problem, the drive is not a yotta faster tha the old 80GB drive. In practice. Doing real life stuff. So : I am not complaining about some benchmark numbers. I am complaining about a slow drive.
  12. Hi! I have a new Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 320GB drive (ST3320613AS , FWSD22). I noticed it has a large access time : 16.5 ms. An old 80 GB drive has 13.0 ms (same PC, same controller, ICH6) I googled a bit to see other tests and I see many (but not all) new 320 GB (single platter) drives have such slow access times. On my drive the slowness is also visible in practice (compiling a project). The access time was measured with HD Tune. I/O Meter also confirms (using the same sized partition) the new disk is no faster than the old one. Is this some general property of current single platter drives ? Regards, David PS: I'll attach measurements in following posts. My old 80 GB disk: new 320GB disk:
  13. No, because iPEAK does not work in 2008 (see my other thread). But practical experirence shows that the disk behaves the same in win 2008. (that practical experiences are the reason I did the iPEAK test in the first place) (maybe I'll try to "transplant" the MSAHCI driver into win 2003 to try...) (if I'll have time) Regards, David
  14. Here are some test results that beg for an explanation. They are the iPEAK tests Tech Report uses in their hard drive tests. The hardware is Asus P5K-E BIOS v1102 Intel P35 , ICH9R Samsung HD642JJ , FW: 1AA01112 S/N : S1AFJ1MQ801006 The test were done in Windows XP and 2003, drive is connected to the Intel ICH9R adapter. BIOS is set to IDE mode, then to AHCI mode. Driver for AHCI is Intels IMSM v8.5 (v8.6 gives the same results). One can see that in one test IDE mode is FOUR times faster than AHCI.
  15. OK, this happened on Windows 2008: - get rid of excess drive letter - set RankDisk to run in compatibility mode Windows 2003 It starts, but a few seconds after a test is running, it gives an error: GetOverlappedResult failed: 5 5 supposedly means an "Access Denied" error After confirming the error dialog, it starts the next est, but that fails the same way.