• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Fox2

  • Rank
  1. Manufacturer: Hitachi Family: Deskstar / Saturn Released: Notes: Model Name (product family): Deskstar 7K2000 Model Number: HDS722020ALA330 or 0F10311 Capacity: 2000 gigabytes URL: Interface: Sata 3Gb/s Spindle Speed: 7200 rotations per minute Seek: 8.2 milliseconds Buffer: 32000 kilobytes Density: gigabytes per platter
  2. The stuff on it is indeed likely to be replacable. It'd be a pain, but doable. There's about 200 MB of it that would be harder (or messier) to replace and that I can back up on a smaller drive. How does the opinion seem now, given this and the above post?
  3. The new 750 GB is exactly that. My current drives are all full, and I've already got 200 GB on another PC here. I want about 500 + GB of extra storage space, and the 750 GB means I wouldn't have to fragment folders of similar content, between drives. So it's not so much about getting a couple of drives for differential backup. Its about actually having 500 - 700 GB more of data long term and wanting a safe way to store them. The options for safety on that scale are: tape backup (costly + need to buy tape drive), blu-ray (not yet affordable but hopefully will be in a year), a 2nd 500-700 GB drive (unaffordable, or going for the most reliable model I can (ES/RE2) and hoping to heck it's good till some other solution comes round or large HD prices drop. That's basically the thinking that's behind the question.
  4. I would, if it was commercial/business use and not home use. I can't afford a second drive. I'm kind of pinning my hopes for backup on drive quality, and on the drive surviving a year till blue-ray (hopefully) becomes affordable, since there's few other means (including tape) that are of a size and price range to back up a terabyte of home-use data on a sensible amount of media. I've been crossing fingers for a year on that one. RAID1 with two of the non-ES model would be about 60% more costly than ES alone, and it's a financial problem to afford that level of cost. I wish it wasn't, but that's why I'm looking at the ES model in the meantime. Problematic, isn't it?
  5. Quietness and coolness aren't issues -- the former isn't excessive for either as best I can tell, the latter is taken care of (open side case, spaced out drives, all running cool already). Although 750 GB would be more proof against whatever law it is that says data storage needs grow exponentially, in practice both 500 and 750 GB are good enough that my attention moves towards reliability rather than size, for the ES and RE2 families.
  6. I'm assuming broadly that the 750 GB and 500 GB Seagate ES models are likely to be not-dissimilar in reliability. Does that help? In case it's relevant, the main use of the drive will be 1/ p2p temp files and 2/ stored media such as movies being read or written (either in bulk as files, or watched as movies). So it will have much random I/O from the p2p functionality, movies being watched, and also many-GB of files being copied to and from, at times.
  7. I'm imminently buying a new high-capacity (500 or 750GB) drive for my desktop system. The disruption caused by loss of a drive with that much data is such that I've decided to spend the extra and get an enterprise drive (WD RE2 or Seagate ES ranges). I would imagine this is a pretty common idea nowadays. I have some questions on the decision. System - desktop system running 24x7, P4, 1 gb ram, XP Pro, non-RAID Usage - heavily multi-tasking (heavy parallel use of each of IM clients, web browsing, p2p, office applications, movies and occasionally movie encoding). 1. Comparing (say) the current WD 500GB RE2 and the Seagate 750GB ES models, are there any significant differences in either reliability or speed? 2. Is there a consensus whether the TLER (and related seagate feature) on these drives can be disabled, and whether this is useful or important in the above environment? Anything else important about making a choice?