• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Archeon

  1. Hi All! In my PC I use an SSD for the OS, and a regular HD for storage. The current storage drive, a 6 TB Western Digital (green) model drive is getting cramped again so I guess it's time for an upgrade. In the last couple of years I always did this like so : I bought a newer and bigger model, copied everything from the old storage drive onto the new one, replaced the drive and put the old drive on the shelf, as a sort of backup in case the new drive would fail in the first couple of months of use. This modus operandi has worked fine for years, but now I'm facing a problem : it seems most manufacturers stop making desktop drives at 6 TB. They do have NAS drives or enterprise drives that are bigger, but I'm not sure if I can use one of those drives in my desktop PC without problems. The only manufacturer that seems to have desktop drives bigger than 6 TB is Seagate, in their Barracuda series. But it's Seagate, you know... I've been burned by that brand in the past (multiple times) and I don't know if I want to take that plunge again. On the other hand, I know one bad series does not make a bad brand... Oh, and there's Toshiba also, but reviews about these disks are scarce and users reviews on Amazon and other are not exactly comforting. If I could choose, I would put a HGST Ultrastar 8 TB or 10 TB drive into my PC, but as said I'm still not sure if that's a good idea. I know about TLER and stuff like that and I'm not sure if this could end up in data loss because enterprise disks are not meant to be used that way? So should I do it, or simply buy a Seagate drive? (yes, I know I could also add a second 6 TB drive, but that's an option I would like to avoid... more noise etc...) Thanks!
  2. Thanks! So I won't have to worry about TLER, head parking algorythms etc? I know those were a problem in the past?
  3. OK, reviving a somewhat older thread. I'm in limbo and I want to ask the help of this forum. See, the prices of the WD 3TB drives have finally come to an acceptable level (for me). There used to be only the WD30EZRSDTL (which is the subject of this review), which is SATA300. However, I've noticed that WD has now also released a SATA600 version of this disk, the WD30EZRX. Apart from the SATA 6Gb/s interface, both disks seem to be identical. They cost about the same as well. Now, logic would dictate that I should choose the 'fastest' of the drives, in this case the WD30EZRX, the 6Gb/s model. (I know this is only the interface and it really should not matter all that much - but if I can I like to be as future-proof as possible, hence why I'm considering this 6Gb/s model even if my mobo currently only has 3Gb/s interfaces) BUT... As said, for now, I don't have a motherboard which features 6Gb/s interfaces... but my next motherboard surely will have those. I also know the WD30EZRSDTL (3Gb/s) comes with a highpoint SATA interface card, however, the WD30EZRX (6Gb/s) does not. I only want to use my new 3TB drive as a data drive, I do NOT intend to boot from it (I've got a nice SSD for that). I'm using Windows 7 on a P45 motherboard with a Core2 Duo E8500 CPU on it. My question is... is that highpoint SATA card necessary for these drives to function correctly? Even if I will only use this drive as a data drive? (I know booting from it requires UEFI, again, I do not want to do this). Basically what I'm asking is: can I connect this WD30EZRX directly to the Intel ICH10 Southbridge of my motherboard? Or will I absolutely need that SATA card because the Intel southbridges are still not compatible with advanced format hard drives (IIRC, I've read this somewhere?), in which case I would probably save myself a lot of trouble if I would just buy the WD30EZRSDTL (3Gb/s) drive, which includes the Highpoint SATA card in its package? Thanks a lot for your thoughts!
  4. Good question! Ok, so that's good news! Another question: will I need to convert this drive to a GPT disk in Win7's harddisk management, or won't this be necessary if I don't create partitions larger than 2GB? Are there downsides of some sort in using GPT disks? Or do you say : "using GPT disks (as secondary drives) is and works exactly the same as standard drives, so you might as well use GPT disks anyway"... ? Cheers!
  5. I'm using Windows 7 64-bit edition on a Core2Duo system, on a regular BIOS motherboard (non-EFI). So I take it I still need that HBA card even if I don't want to boot from the drive? (I have an SSD to boot from, this drive would only be required for pure storage)
  6. I also doubt this is a big problem. I can see the numbers too when I go into the device manager and click on the separate harddrives and 'details'. I can see the original disk also has such a number, but for some reason WHS does not show it for that drive. Oh well... Yes, I'm running the most recent patches and updates. Maybe an upcoming update will also get rid of this 'bug'. So far I'm not experiencing any difficulties with the drives. I've also found WHS to be a lot stabler with PowerPack1.
  7. Hi all, I set up a Windows Home Server with 3 Samsung 1TB drives. This is the second time I've done this. The first time I used three other drives. I've now installed the OS onto a Samsung 1TB drive (HD103UJ). After the install was completed, I added another two 1 TB drives. These last two drives I've purchased in a separate second batch. Now, when I look at my drives in the WHS console, this is what I see: My question is, why is that long number written below those two drives which I've added afterwards? These are the first two drives listed. The first WHS server I installed never showed such a number, but as said this was with 1 TB Samsung drives of another batch. The current OS drive, the lowest drive of the three listed (=also from the first batch), also doesn't show such a long number as you can see. Is this an announcement of trouble to come? Of doesn't this matter at all? Please put my mind at ease! Thanks!
  8. Update! All is fine. The ES Tool utility worked like a charm! I've updated my mobo's (Gigabyte) bios and now all works just fine. VERY relieved! THANKS!!!!
  9. Hi All ! I've just experienced the strangest thing, and it's really got me stumped. I've bought a couple of Samsung F1 1TB drives. I'm currently using two Western Digital 500 GB drives in my system, and since I didn't want to go through the trouble of re-installing my system, I decided to clone the boot disk. For this I used Acronis True Image 10 (and 11 in a second try). Since I only own one desktop PC, and I've learned before that it's not a good idea to try and clone the OS/bootdisk on the same system the disk is currently running from, I decided to remove the disk from the system, put it in an external USB enclosure and connect it to my laptop. I also put the new destination 1 TB disk in a different enclosure and also connected it to my laptop. After this, I started the cloning process. The original disk was partitioned in one primary partition of 50 GB (OS) and one extended partition with one logical partition of 400 GB (approx.) for the data. I used the automatic settings of Arconis True image, which means the partitions on the destination disk are created with the same percentage of storage. (in this case, simply doubled: 100 GB OS partition, 800 GB data partition). The cloning itself too HOURS, way too much in my opinion, but I put this down to the sluggishness of the USB 2 interfaces both harddisks were subjected to. After ten hours or so, the cloning was successfully finished. I could see in my Windows Drive management screen that the cloning was indeed successful. All partitions were made, and all data was copies. I could access the data on the cloned drive (the Samsung 1 TB). I then removed the disk from the system (via the 'remove USB device icon etc), and put the disk into my main desktop system. Result: error, no boot. Strange. I put the disk back into the USB enclosure and connected it again to the laptop. What I saw then blew my mind! In the Windows disk management software, I could see the disk, but it only showed as a disk of 32 MB! No more! I can partition this space if I want to, but also removing the partition does not show a larger disk size than 32 MB anymore. I'm guessing this is the 32 MB of cache that is showing, and that the diskspace of 1 TB is 'gone' (no idea where!). I also booted a Knoppix Linux CD to see if it showed the same thing, and it did! For some reason this disk has been transformed from a 1 TB disk into a 32 MB disk! I tried low-level formatting it, but the low level application refuses to start because the disk is too small! I then guess this was maybe a one-off, and beacuse I used Acronis True Image 10. I then downloaded version 11. Then, after another 10 hours of cloning, I ended up with exactly the same 'symptom'. That second disk had also turned into a 32 MB disk! Talk about strange! I have NEVER experience this before, and I don't know what to do, other than trade in these disks under warranty (which won't be a problem BTW, but I would rather know what's causing this!). Why does this happen? Could this be because I cloned them via the USB interface instead of connecting them straight to the SATA interface. Even better: anyone got any idea how I can fix this? Thanks for any input you can provide!
  10. Thanks very much - I'll give that a try! I've indeed got a Gigabyte board in my desktop pc, a GA-P965-DQ6 (rev1). You mean everything was ok with the cloning process, but the error happened the moment I connected the cloned HD to my desktop motherboard? If this is the case, I'll update my mobo's bios right away!
  11. Sorry, forgot to respond to this... Yes, both drives (I've tried two times, once with Acronis True Image v10 and once with v11) worked fine beforehand, and showed their correct capacity. Even the cloning worked fine. I could see the files on the cloned drive and access them. It's only once I powered down the drive and re-applied power to it that the drives showed up as 32 MB of capacity! I did absolutely NOTHING else to both drives than perform the clone as descibed above.
  12. Ok, this is what I've already tried: Booted in Windows: drive shows as 32 MB Booted with Knoppix (Linux):drive shows as 32 MB. PC's BIOS: drive shows as 32 MB! Searched for the samsung low level formatting utility and created a boot disk with the util. This is what Samsung drive util info says: Model name: Samsung HD103UJ FW Revision: 1AA01110 Current size: 31 MB (LBA: 65134) Native size: 953869MB (LBA: 1953525168) Current AAM mode : disabled LBA Mode : support LBA 48 bit mode: ON DMA mode :support NCQ mode : support Maximum queue depth: 32 As you can see, even Samsungs's own file info util shows the drive as 31 MB. I then decided to low level format the drive. But even the low level format utility showed the drive as 31 MB!!!! I could manually change the LBA from 65134 to 1953525168, after which the drive showed the correct size, but every time I started low level formatting, the size returned to 31 MB! So then I just gave up. I'll RMA the drives. I will however get into contact with Acronis, because it's obvious their utility is at fault here. I'll also -once I get new drives- try this again, but this time from the SATA connectors of a different PC and not via USB. I'm very curious to know what Acronis will have to say about this. It's like the harddisk firmware got flashed somehow. Very strange.
  13. Hi all ! I'm checking out some HD's now because I'm in the market to buy 2 within the next couple of months. I've noticed that Maxtor has released two new lines of drives : The Maxline III line and the DiamondMax 10 line. Could somebody tell me what the difference is between those drives? As far as I can tell, they both come in 250 and 300gig flavours, each have 16mb of cache and both are native SATA. So what's the difference ??? Thanks in advance !
  14. I meant 25 euros cheaper than the Maxline drive. The Maxline drive is actually about 240 euros over here. Damn, I wish I could buy at US prices...
  15. The DiamondMax 10 drive does seem to be a bit cheaper than the Maxline though. About 25 euros here in Belgium. But all other specs seem similar. So what is the difference? Oooooh, the mystery !
  16. This is what is says on the Maxtor site : Based on an integrated, single-chip native SATA solution, DiamondMax 10 drives feature native command queuing along with the company’s exclusive dual-processor technology and large buffers to deliver unparalleled speeds compared to traditional drives in their class. Maxtor site So I guess this one IS also native SATA ? I really don't know which one of those two drives is the better drive. I hope that storagereview does a review on them soon!