FTC

Member
  • Content Count

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FTC

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Hi, I am not using a MyBook drive, but instead a 1TB seagate inside a Tacens Vecto USB/eSATA enclosure, and for what it is worth, just tell you that : - Regarding the cable, I've had no problem so as you suspect yours should be very well a specific MyBook case problem. - Regarding SMART, eSATA is nothing more that the same old SATA interface with a more shielded rigid cable, so it *tends* to be a lot more friendly and supportive for enhanced drive features than USB. This includes reporting of SMART and / or allowing specific HDD features such as AAM, setting of protected areas,.. etc. Seems really strange that you can not read drive temps. - Talking about temps, I would not get concerned unless you can really prove/see that the drive gets hot/hotter than 45-50 ºC in operation. Even in that case it is normally possible to improve heat dissipation by doing some modding or as you say, placing the drive with a fan pointing to it, laying a heatsink on top, or just simply make it rest on top of a cold surface. - Regarding performance, your numbers look right.
  2. Hi, I bought and installed last friday an HM160HC in my thinkpad T42. This is a REALLY fast PATA laptop drive. It gives sustained transfer speeds from 70MB/Sec to 40MB/sec, much faster than any other laptop drive (including the Hitachi 7K100, which maxes out at around 50MB/sec), and offers not that 'off' access times (around 17ms vs Hitachi's 15ms). Regarding noise, also exceptionally silent (even when seeking), so all in all, I am quite impressed. Besides, it is dirty cheap these days...
  3. FTC

    >137GB without 48-bit LBA BIOS/hardware?

    Hi, Well, for what it's worth, I recently connected a 200GB drive to a desktop system with 'unclear' at least 48 bit BIOS support. The IDE channel is a CMD649 based IDE controller, which seems like not having big disks support... BUT, with the enableBigLba thing WIN2K worked flawlessly. As I don't want to find problems in the future, I designed and ran a battery of tests filling up the whole disk and random writing to it, when at the same time accessing other parts of the disk... after a few passes I got convinced that the thing was rock solid as no corruption at all happened... so in summary yes, the Win2K/XP IDE drivers will in some cases overcome the BIOS limitation, but if you go this way my suggestion is ... test it throughfully before trusting your data to that drive!
  4. Hi, Hitachis offer slight better seek times than the rest of the industry's 7200 drives. This said, the linear read throughput ought to be similar for disks with the same density... i.e all 80GB/Platter design ones. There are two problems here : first, industry is moving to 100 or 125 MB/platter designs, which are already faster in linear read than this one. Second is the low capacity of the drive... If you take for instance a 400GB drive and *compare* it's seek performace to that of your 80GB one, the 400ish could be slowlier (a bit), BUT if you compare a seek test in a single 80GB partition in both drives, then the 400GB one will win hands down, because you are kind of 'short stroking' it, so that the heads do only have to move among the first 1/5 tracks of all the platters, giving a much faster access time... So in summary, I would not call this drive a 'speed demon'.
  5. Yep, pretty normal. My 7K60 idles at 37-38 and during virus scan or defrag it can reach 46 or 47 degrees...
  6. Hi, Finally Hitachi announced General Availability for the 7K100... 2.5" notebook drive. The drive is a 7200RPM, 100GB as an evolution to the previous 7K60. I did a cuick compare of both drives characteristics and the main differences are : - Of course, 100GBs vs. 60 - 7K100 22% faster media transfer rates - Same seek times - 7K100 *less* power consumption than 7K60 in most areas. - More or less same noise level specs - 7K100 more 'rugged' i.e 600K load/unload cycles vs. 7K60 'only' 300K, and more shock resistance also. I bet this drive will be a winner... we still have to see them in the field though...
  7. FTC

    bad usb2 enclosure chips

    Hi, Last year I wanted to set up a stable and robust USB2 based backup environment, and found many reliability problems with several combinations of oprating systems / host controllers / enclosure chipsets, so I set up a stress test that was consisting of a loop cycle of file copies... for which I only considered robust enough a combination that worked correctly for 3+ hours without 'write faults', 'read faileds', 'delayed write failed' errors... In my case I could finally determine that the problems were related to some interaction of the first generation NEC host controller (second gen. was OK) with Win2K (XP was OK) AND a specific enclosure chipset (GL811).... I finally decided to switch the host controller card (cheaper option) and all is well since... The morale of the story is that I think you are on for a series of tests in your environment.. decide what works for you and go for it.
  8. Well, just to nitpick a bit and give some more conversation, this is not correct... if you increased your storage amount 58000 times then you have 'just' increased 1.985 (almost 2) times a year during 16 years, since 1.985**16 is aprox, 58000... very close to the first version of moore's law (before he corrected it to double once every 18 months).
  9. Hi, sorry to disagree, but this temps are more than OK for most drives.... hard drives have a max. operating temps in the range of 55ºC, so if you're in the 30s yo're quite safe in this area. Note that it is normal that hard drive temp increases a couple of degrees under load (activity). I've seen this in all brands of disks... So maybe your problem is temp related, but I'd check other components such as your processor's heatsink FAN working correctly, your PSU not switching down under load,...
  10. Hi, Not that I'm a fan of them, but if looking for a *cheap* and *fast* solution, then LaCie builds self contained firewire 800 RAID arrays up to 2 TBS for around 2.5K$ With this you save on dedicating a system, and win in connection and media mobility ... so you can keep it separate from your server while not making the backup. RAID 0, 0+1, 5 is supported.
  11. FTC

    Best Hard Drive

    Hi, Today's best drive is, without doubt, the hitachi 7K60, for as long as performace is your first priority and 60GB is enough for your needs. If you need more capacity, then find one of those 5400 RPM 100 Giggers such as the hitachi 5K100.
  12. Hi, in that case try to go for the fastest you can afford. Hitachi 7K60 is a very good choice, since it is the only 2.5" drive with performance close to desktop drives... but if you definetly need more than 60GB, then the 5K100 will be close.... (493Mbps vs 518Mbps platter transfer rate for the 7K60, and 12 vs 10 ms seek time).
  13. Hi, Really, if you have the space in your desktop, it makes no sense to go 2.5". If it is for sound reasons, just pick a silent 3.5" drive with fluid bearings (such as Maxtors and Hitachis) and AAM and adjust it so that it's silent. It will still be faster than a notebook drive, as silent, and cheaper. Regarding temps, a single platter disk (which can be up to 133GB nowadays) does not get that hot to begin with, plus if adjusted with AAM will even be cooler.
  14. Yep, at least with maxtors the same problem comes many times because maxtor drives count the power on time in minutes, and not in hours... not sure about WD's as this case.. Regarding recalibration and power cycles, they also look good. just keep an eye to see how these are counted... look at the RAW value. A raw value of recalibrations 0 means normally that your drive experimented 0 recalibration retries, which is the best you could expect. And power cycles is normally a counter also... with a raw value of 100h (256) they dont' seem too high either.
  15. FTC

    performance drop over time?

    Hi, unless *old* and *new* are the same brand and model, there is no mistery... 7200 RPM drives from some years ago were slower than today's ones, because even if RPM and access times have ramained more or less similar, transfer rates have increased dramatically due to increased platter density, better/faster electronics and (generally) increased cache sizes and faster supported protocols. ... And seriously, if the disks were the same brand and model, then it has to be your imaging process, that does defragment the files somehow... because as explained in previous appends, there is no magic with hard drives, nor perceptible slowdown with age....