K15

Member
  • Content Count

    388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About K15

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I had a couple questions about partition alignment. Some background; I upgraded my laptop from 750GB to a 1TB hard drive. I cloned the drive, then modified the partitions to utilize the additional 250GB. I have 4 partitions (100MB windows, C and D, and a recovery). I thought the tools I was using were 4K aware, but when I booted and used the Seagate align tool, it said the D partition was misaligned. I ran the alignment and it fixed it in less than a minute. I figured all was good. But in checking the actual partition start offsets, D still shows as being misaligned. Here's what I mean; http://i.imgur.com/Z47wjNr.png http://i.imgur.com/5nwmdjY.png The offset is not divisible by 4096, indicating misalignment. Did the align tool just modify the drive firmware in some way to "fake" the alignment? I was considering doing a clean install of windows 10 anyway. If wiping the partitions completely would fix the issue I may just do that. Thanks!
  2. I thought there should be a way to force APM to stay disabled. Can anyone confirm that this should be the case, and how I might do this? I already have windows set to "never" power down the hard drive. According to the drive specs, it has an adaptive method to changing between power states. This doesn't make sense then because if it's intelligent, it wouldn't constantly park and unpark the heads. Could the windows event log help me figure it out?
  3. I have a laptop with a 750GB Hitachi hard drive. HTS547575A9. I noticed when the laptop is on without anything happening, the heads will unload, the disks start spinning down, then they spin up again right away and the heads load back on the disk. It's about 5 seconds or so. "Click, spindown, spinup, click" Then in about 10-20 seconds, it does it again. The laptop is only about 8 months old and I'm at 35,000 load/unloads on the heads. I tried using HDDscan to disable advanced power management. It seems to work until I put the laptop into sleep or shut it down, then the hard drive reverts to APM enabled at 128. Any ideas? Is APM the problem? How do I disable it permanently?
  4. I have a laptop with a Toshiba MK7559GSXP and since it was new, the SMART status has shown "SATA downshift error". The number (2) hasn't changed in months, and there are no other SMART errors. I'm just curious what SATA downshift error count actually means? I've tried to find out through google but I haven't found anything. Thanks.
  5. Hi, I have a laptop with a 500GB Western Digital drive in it (don't have the actual model handy at the moment). I've been having problems with it freezing up every so often. I'll just be using it and windows will become unresponsive and the hard drive light will be on solid. After about 30-60 seconds it will "catch" and start working again. The freezing has gotten more frequent in the last 2 or 3 months. I checked the smart status and the only issue is the UltraDMA CRC Error Count. The raw value used to be around 10. Then it increased to 20, 24 and now it's at 28. This increase has been slow (over the past year or so). Are the issues related? What does the UltraDMA CRC Error Count mean? Is there anything I can do about it? My files are mostly backed up to another computer, but it would still be a hassle to replace the drive. Thanks.
  6. K15

    Variable rpm HDDs

    Interesting points. Nanometers are billionths of a meter, by the way.
  7. A few cycles per day isn't going to harm the drive at all. Even assuming you cycle the drive 20 times per day, that's still about 8 years before you reach the minimum cycles of 50,000 specified for most drives. Some drives have an even higher specified number of cycles. Just my own personal experience here; I have a U series 6 Seagate drive in a satellite receiver. It's about 7 years old. It's been spinning up and down about 2-4 times per hour since new. That's about 120,000-240,000 cycles on a drive specified for 50,000 cycles. That's a big reason why I stopped worrying about cycling my drives.
  8. Did nobody even noticed that the "Non-recoverable read errors per bits read" is still 1 per 10exp15 bits despite the 10exp10bits on the drive ? This means this drive is too large to be safe in a large raid array...may be staying below 4+2 raid 6 drives (= 8TB) will be ok. This drive is 2 terabytes, which is 16 terabits, which is 16exp12 bits. You would have to read the data on the drive, on average, over 600 times before coming up to an error. Though that's still rather bothersome. WD is probably just using the rating for the older generation and doesn't have data yet for the new one. Rest assured, I'm fairly sure these error rates are very cautious.
  9. Did you run the test once or a number of times? Besides, I wouldn't worry about access times. You could spend $180 on a 150GB VelociRaptor to get some of the fastest access times in the world and I can take that $180, buy 6x80GB SATA 2 drives, be slower in the access department but have a 300MB/s STR and still be faster. Its a number that people shouldn't listen to. Sounds like your opinion. Accessing memory takes a few nanoseconds. Accessing the disk takes 12-16 milliseconds. The difference between 12 and 16 milliseconds is 4,000,000 nanoseconds. Accessing data on that slow seagate takes 4,000,000 nanoseconds longer than it does with a hard drive with faster access times, an absolute eternity. You have to think like a CPU. I had two old hard drives; a single platter 8GB maxtor with average access time (about 15ms) and a 2 platter, 40GB seagate U5 with an access time of 20ms or more. The seagate was way, way slower than the Maxtor, despite having a much higher STR.
  10. K15

    Windows 7

    ^^^ The defrag menu should be ...>accessories>system tools>defrag, not >all programs>defrag.
  11. K15

    Windows 7

    "The sheer simplicity of the Classic is unequalled". Well said,I often wonder where the need or the cause for a change in Windows comes from.You'd like to think there is some underlying need or reason to complicate an otherwise straight forward process.I guess there might be or not. This post goes to both you and the original poster. People still use the old start menu? The XP-style menu is simpler than the classic for a big reason; the commonly used programs feature. Vista's goes a step further with its integrated search. WAY faster than dicking around with the sliding menus. Type "ca" in the search and the first option is "calculator" which is very probably what most people want when they type "ca" in there. "no" gives notepad. And so on. Very quick for programs not on the main pane/common used programs of the start menu. You have to remember, the reason you like a certain interface is probably because you are used to it. Your comment of "I often wonder where the need or the cause for a change in Windows comes from" seems to prove this point. In order to analyze new interfaces without bias, you have to understand this point. You will very quickly realize the places in the new interface that bother you, but you will be completely unaware of the places where it's much faster. THAT is where the need to change comes from. Making routine tasks more efficient, which you don't even notice. I don't know how you could, without bias, tell me that clicking; start>programs>accessories>calculator is better than; start>type "ca" and hit enter. It's even worse for defragmenter; start>programs>accessories>all programs>disk defrag VS start>type "def" and hit enter. The difference is astonishing. I'm baffled why anyone still uses the classic start menu. Using the search box is faster, every single time. Unlike the menus, the speed of launching doesn't depend on how deep the program is in the start menu. I agree with microsoft's decision; the classic start menu deserves to die. The newer style is far more efficient. I just really don't understand how someone can say that slogging through menus every time I need a program is faster, cleaner or simpler. Of course you can add programs to the main pane of the classic start menu, which could emulate the commonly used programs feature. But you can ALSO add programs to the main pane of windows vista/7's start menu permanently. That point is moot. As for the taskbar, I agree to a certain extent. For some programs, it makes no sense to group windows. I think the main goal of the new taskbar is consistency. It goes back to the taskbar's original goal with windows 95; window switching. The quick launch toolbar, while well-liked, is not consistent with the taskbar's primary function. By combining launching and switching, the taskbar is more consistent. Besides, most of the people that would be bothered with the new "group everything" function of the new taskbar use alt-tab switching anyway, which still exists in windows 7. Going back to what I said earlier, though the new taskbar might be a little more annoying in a couple ways, there are other ways where it will be way better. Jump lists look promising, for example. The fact that the taskbar can be changed back to the old style is also a plus. I imagine microsoft will eventually kill the old style taskbar like it killed the classic start menu.
  12. K15

    Hard Drive Choice

    I'm a fan of Western Digital. I can say that it should be quiet. Seagates haven't had a reputation for being quiet for years, plus they don't have AAM. No idea how noisy the Hitachi would be. I haven't read any reviews saying Hitachis are particularly good or bad for noise. Samsung and WD seem to be the leaders in quiet drives, at least currently.
  13. ^^^ what he said. Hard drive manufacturers do an excellent job of keeping seek times for 3 or 4 platter drives as low as for single platter drives. This isn't an easy thing to do with modern track densities. The point should also be made that most people don't buy the largest hard drive in a family. The flagship capacity is always low-volume, compared to the single or 2 platter drives. So though releasing the flagship capacity gives them a lot of marketing hype, it would be better to get that hype when they are already shipping drives with fewer platters. After all, I bought my 160GB 7200.9 mainly because I knew it had a single platter. Besides all that, WD hasn't pushed the capacity envelope for years. When was the last time they were first to release a larger-than-any-other capacity? I don't think that's bad (I think WD concentrates more on performance), it's just something to keep in mind.
  14. I'm rather miffed about the warranty reduction but let's face it. None of the other manufacturers have brought their warranties of their entire desktop drive series back to 5 years like Seagate did. Either they're all incredibly dumb or it's only a small minority of us with which the 5 year warranty actually made a difference. Sadly I think it's the later. That's probably true. Honestly it's not even a big deal to me. I've already pretty much retired my 160GB 7200.9 which is only 3.5 years old, still has warranty left. It just got too small. I'm even quickly filling up the WD3200AAKS that I bought to replace it. That may be the biggest reason Seagate cut warranty, especially with the recent jumps in capacity, more and more drives are being retired long before the 5 year warranty is up.
  15. Oh I know. I wasn't trying to justify the drive's behavior, just trying to ease the original poster's concerns. As for speedfan, are you saying that every time it polls the drive temperature, the drive unloads the heads? That would certainly explain things. They really are awful aren't they? The drive is a U6 and has AAM enabled. For a satellite receiver, seek time is irrelevant, so it doesn't much matter. I must admit that the drive is very quiet for a ball bearing drive and the seeks are nearly inaudible. Just for fun, when I had it out to rip shows off it, I ran HDtach. Access time was something like 23ms. I also have a U5. Back when 40GB was big, it was used purely for data (ie MP3) storage. In that computer the 8GB Maxtor (boot/app drive) was FAR faster. I would die if I had to use a U-series drive as a boot/app drive. Something I don't get is how Seagate always kept the "official" seek time spec on those drives as 8.9ms. Who were they kidding?