KAL001

Member
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About KAL001

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Agreed. But the difference is no so significant. WD6400AAKS was only example.
  2. Those are not recommendations. They are the only options in a 500GB/single_platter/7200RPM category. It was your requirements. 6400AAKS seems to be better 7200RPM drive than 7200.12, but you want 500GB platters, not the best product.
  3. Seagate 7200.12 is the only one at the moment, I think. No. New Samsung Spinpoint F3 HD502HJ has 500GB platters and 7200RPM. Seagate 7200.12 is much slower than older 320GB-platter generations of WD and Samsung.
  4. It looks like stale-mate here. I don't have Windows, and it seems you don't acknowledge any test "posted somewhere". In addition, your way of communication discourage me from any discussion
  5. 6_6_6 All right. I finish here. Maybe you had a bad day. Maybe my English is so wrong that you answer me on questions I have never asked. That's OK. Calm down and relax I ask my question about NCQ (Windows), Caviar Black and 7200.12 somewhere else. Because this topic is obviously for people speaking Chinese. Have a nice day. zsero @ Jul 23 2009, 12:56 AM) >> How good that I found this thread, I am really puzzled about my drives multithreaded performance! I have a new Seagate 7200.12 1TB and an old Samsung HD501LJ. The Seagate has amazing single threaded performance, the Samsung a little less, but when I try just 2 reading threads they almost die.
  6. You ask everybody on this forum, how does he use information he obtain here? Good luck I don't think I asked anything about "Linux". AFAIK you can find variety of tests on the web using task1+task2+task3+.... simultaneously to measure the performance of the drive. Guess what? Seagate fail in comparison with competition. Non of these test are made on Linux. In addition, It was not me complaining here, that my Seagate and Samsung drives die when multitasking. I only answered on that post.
  7. 6_6_6 => I don't have any Windows installation. And as I said, I trust your results. The only thing I was asking was experiences of Barracuda 7200.12 and Caviar Black in this topic.
  8. I did it many times, but because of this conversation, I have tried it once again: WD6401AALS drive, Opensuse 11.1 64bit, Ext3 filesystem: - 3 simultanous instances of tar+gzip compression +/- 11GB of files each. - copying large amount of files - playing video in SMPLayer - seaching file on the disk No problem at all. System does not hang up, video is smooth, all of these task proceed and i can do more and more. In my experience, trying this with Baracuda 7200.11 640GB resulted in to slower environment, occasionally hanging up, and tasks completed noticeably later. I don't have any Barracuda here, to make some comparison once again. That's why I'm asking and collecting information. I don't understand, what's your problem with it.
  9. 6_6_6 => I have made myself similar comparison among Seagate 7200.11 ST3640323AS, WD6400AAKS and WD6401AALS. All have 640GB, 2 platters, 7200RPM. I used Linux and Ext3 filesystem. The result of WD drives were similar, but both kicked Seagate's ass with more than 20% advantage in time. So. I don't understand, why your results differs so much, and I don't think they are incorrect. But I don't remember anybody else claiming that 7200RPM Seagate drives work well in real multitasking multiuser environment. Oh. I have another question. You tested Caviar Green. Have you tried Caviar Black? And have you any experience with Barracuda 7200.12?
  10. Have you tried WD Caviar Blue or Caviar Black drives? According to my experience, WD drives are really considerably faster in these tasks.
  11. Yeah, I watch that thread for a few days. Before 5 minutes, I posted answer there.
  12. I did not see any 7200.12 review on Anandtech and Storagereview yet. Xbitlabs revew rates 7200.12 more positive. But they test this drive in addition on first 32GB partition which is the real situation - almost everybody has OS on first partition - and on those first 32GB Seagate beats Caviar Black due to the higher density. This sounds to me like an "urban legend" little bit. I have seen many statements, that Seagate NCQ implementation is better (this thread), unfortunately none of them came with some sufficient proof. And, in multiuser environment test on the web, Seagate drives loose with WD...
  13. Seagate ships Barracuda LP product line in range 1-2TB. These drives are similar to 7200.12 but with 5900RPM speed. http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/...s/barracuda_lp/
  14. I am not comparing between two sites. Let's have a look at those results. On Techreport (WXP 32bit), Barracuda felt behind Samsung F1 (this drive can be found in both reviews), but on Bit-Tech (Vista 64bit) Barracuda was noticeably faster than F1, close to the Velociraptor. Samsung F1 and 7200.11 could be reference drives to make some comparison. Exept 10k and 15k SAS drives, I don't see any noticeable great product from Seagate. Baracuda ES 7200rpm SATA/SAS are known as slow and deffective. So which 7200/5900 Seagate drives are better than competition?
  15. KAL001

    Is enabling AHCI worth it?

    Any measurable data? Few months ago, I was interested in this topic and I was watching this thread.. AFAIK the result of that discussion was, that WDs implementation of NCQ is functional too.