• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cppguru

  • Rank
  1. I have explained why in great detail here: http://forums.storag...-times-warning/
  2. HAHAHA sorry for the LMFAO moment Brian. But this is exactly what I was saying in another post where a user reported slow access speeds of a black hard drive. I think either you or kevin defended WD there but not here. Interesting - maybe getting paid by WD? http://forums.storagereview.com/index.php/topic/36356-wd1003fzex-slow-access-times-warning/ Let me quote what I wrote in that thread: Augmenting to that, the purple idea is just ridiculous, infact retarded. WD needs to get their act together. As for picking the hard drives based on colour, that doesn't tell anything to the "average" user. Hence they "have" to look at the benchmarks and details. And when they do that, then the purpose of a colour is defeated all together because then they know better regardless of the colour on the hard drive. From WD's Ad: OMGGGGG, when I play back a video stored on my seagate disk drive, the entire video is so pixellated and it's not even watchable. I have witnessed this issue with all of my seagate hard drives. 1080p looks like 240i. Guys i have had it with WD. Yes the pipeline from Seagate is also "PURPOSE BUILT" for video recording but atleast seagate doesn't make retarded anti pixellation/improvement firmware claims on their drives. Please guys do test the purple drives to the greatest scrutinity with 0 sympathy given what WD is doing to their customers on their official forums (have you guys even read those?)
  3. cppguru

    WD1003FZEX slow access times warning!

    I agree on most points mentioned by Kevin Hopefully you guys will test out the 1 TB as well. But I strongly disagree with these points as mentioned above: If the spindle speed jeopardized the performance due to vibration - then all enterprise models would have been 5400 RPM disks but this is not the case. Infact Seagate's forthcoming Enterprise Turbo HDD will spin at 15K with 128 GB of Nand Cache designed specifically for NAS/Enterprise/SANs. And if you are talking outside of Enterprise (desktop), most consumers don't go beyond 4 disks so the point is irrelevant. Completely the opposite actually. The mechanical disk drives perform the worse when the cold data is spread across different sectors (not on the same cynlinder). Infact, this is exactly the scenario where a 7200 RPM/10k RPM helps because the data is not in the cache hence we cannot take advantage of spatial locality due to obvious reasons. This is actually very easy to prove mathematically. I am even going to go as far as saying I don't think you know what "cold data" actually means. This is bunkers to say the least. Even with a 30 MB/sec bandwidth cap of USB 2.0 in half duplex mode, no mechanical disk drive in the market today (not even 15k Cheetahs) can saturate this bandwidth in 512/4k Random seek for sectors that are not on the same cynlinder. Negatory. Platter densities and spindle speed are actually mutually exclusive. Areal densities depends on head technology and the recording method (longitudinal/perpendicular etc). A fairly practical counter proof exists with WD Velociraptor drives. 1 TB version Raptor reaches sequential speed in excess of 200 MB/sec yet spins at 10K RPM as well as Seagate's latest generation SAS Cheetah units. This says it all. The fact is that 1 TB black is no better than the blue yet is more expensive. Infact, WD is simply choosing to ignore this issue altogether on their official forums despite numerous complains (please check the link provided by OP?). Some are even going as far as saying the Black is just a rebadged Blue in the case of 1 TB version. The performance numbers don't disagree with that statement so IMHO WD deserves the hate. The idea of sending a flagship model (4 TB Black) to the press is a classical technique that manufacturers use to create a halo affect. In a sense that the top performing unit will propagate to finding it's way in making people think that the entire lineup must be superior. Storage review - as experts in storage should ALWAYS watchout for this IMHO. Kevin, I totally get where you are coming from. But I think you took my point to the extreme. I never said that purpose built drives are bad. Ofcourse not. All I was saying this is the same reason why GM couldn't afford themselves by developing different cars of same type with different brand that took them down. (Pontiac, Saab, Saturn). What I meant to say is they need to simplify their product lineup. Otherwise, we risk of having Yellow, Pink, Magenta and Golden (etc). as well in their product lineup. Why not have simple product lines. Mainstream, Enthusiast, Enterprise Drives like Blue and Black can goto Mainstream. Drives like SSHD and Raptors can goto Enthusiast and Enterprise can have upper 10k and 15k offerings. A hard drive is a hard drive and it should just work. What's exactly wrong with that? (simplicity) If we look back 10 years, we still had NAS, Enterprise storage, SANS - but at the time we didn't have a million different product lineups. As an infrastructure manager, I don't recall hard drives blowing up just because they didn't have a specific category for each application? Infact, most of those drives we have are still working today :/
  4. cppguru

    WD1003FZEX slow access times warning!

    This thread is so closely related to my personal experience that I hope the admins won't mind me sharing another sentiment augmenting to what I already said above. To reduce complexity, maybe the OP prefers to stick with a single fast hard disk? Why push SSD when the OP is merely asking if anyone else has witnessed the behaviour he noticed? This thread (thanks to OP) is precisely the reason I have ditched WD altogether in favour of seagate. Seagate was clever *enough* to drop their "Green" line altogether. As seagate claims, their standard 7200 RPM disk is not much power hungry compared to a Green drive. That IMHO was a good move. The fact that WD has started giving us stinker such as a Black drive with Dual Proc and blah blah marketing stuff attached to it which - let's face it is NO faster than a regular 7200 RPM drive is just such a big turn off and sufficient reason to ditch WD. I personally think this issue is serious enough that if the editors/admins here at Storage Review point that out - WD will start thinking *clearly* again and stop hyperbolizing their products taking advantage of loyal customer base (which - like myself will eventually turn their back on them). Look at their current product line-up and compare it to seagate it's just unbelievable. Green, Blue, Red, Black, Xe, Re, Se etc. With the difference in price and performance between 7200 RPM and 5400/5900 RPM disks, I really think both manufacturers should completely drop making 5900/5400 RPM drives. Stick to seagate. Much simpler product lines. 7200.xx means you get a good 7200.xx drive. Or if you get SSHD, then you know you are getting SSHD.
  5. cppguru

    RamDisk test

    This whole idea of RAM disk makes no sense professionally speaking. Calm yourself down boys and girls - let me explain why before you jump at me Think about it, what's the purpose of RAM disk? To speed up your slow file system. Obviously RAM disk is volatile so system has to be on otherwise you lose the files. If you look at the Operating System design (say since the times of linux kernel 2.6+), Linux will cache the file system for you anyway. If you look at the free RAM under top/htop - you will see close to 0 bytes available. This is by design because memory that is not being "used" is seen as a waste of resources. So may as well cache some files there. Windows has a similar strategy - look under resource monitor. Have you ever thought what the "Standby" memory is all about? It's cached memory for your file system. Hence, really any modern operating system WILL cache your file system anyway. And if you think you can manually put stuff in a RAM disk (which you can) and do a better job at it, you'd be surprised because an LRU (Least Recently Used) algorithm can do a much better job than you can in caching your hot data. This is ofcourse as long as your computer stays on - but the same goes for RAM disk anyway. I will note that the credit to this knowledge does not entirely belong to me, most of it was provided in notes for our Operating System course at the Uni by our instructor/prof. That computer looks yummy, I am open to trading
  6. Is there any specific reason you need PCIe Ver 3.0 X16 lanes? The reason I ask is because you are looking at tops 5% performance difference between PCIe Gen 2.0 x16 lane compared to a PCIe Gen 3.0 x16 lane. Unless you are working with very large datasets (> 4GB per gpGPU), I doubt you will notice much difference between the bandwidth from a practical application standpoint.
  7. This is a can of worms to be honest. I have seagates with 0 failures for about last 9 years. I think it's all about the environment the drive is operating under. For instance, is there construction going on near your house? The problem really is shock While the drive is spinning. I have personally dropped hard disks multiple times (when not spinning) and it just seems to power back up as if nothing happened. I have tried this from about 5 feet height with multiple drives (Hitachi, Seagate, WD). Looking at the white sheet from Seagate does support this as well if you look at their max Gs for the two cases (parked, operating). If you are THAT concerned about your data, run two hard drives in Raid 1 and be done with it.
  8. I second the opinion on dban but really HDTune will do the job as well. Just simple Write 0s will suffice. There was a study done by an Australian University on Computer Forensic studies and they proved Multiple Overwrites to be pointless using some properly sound scientific method. I'll see if I can find the PDF for that proceeding in case you don't believe me.
  9. cppguru

    WD1003FZEX slow access times warning!

    I have noticed similar trend as well. Same rotational latency but higher seek times so you are not the only one. WD has lost their mind in my opinion when it comes to optimizing their drives which, as you witnessed are not really any better than the Blue drives. I think the simple answer is the tradeoff they made in order to improve sequential rates over access time (likely due to firmware).
  10. i have no idea wtf is going on here (i lost track after the 5th post) but i wanted to say cool. And 30k USD is a good amount. Umm you may want to ignore my question but what is the Communication per Computation cost ratio for your setup? Is there any interpolation or fragmentation in play or have you measured it?
  11. Have you considered this one: https://www.asus.com/Commercial_Servers_Workstations/P9X79E_WS/
  12. cppguru

    Hitachi Z7K500 Review ?

    Thank you.
  13. Hello, http://www.storagereview.com/hitachi_travelstar_z7k500_review I read that, and re-read it again. So what we are being told is that Western Digital's 500 GB Blue Drive that has a spindle speed of 5400 RPM is faster than Hitachi's 500 GB Drive that spins at 7200 RPM? I just don't buy that. I had a Blue drive in my laptop and after getting the 7200 RPM Version, I felt noticeable speedup. There is something definitely wrong with the way test data was interpreted in that review and should be re-evaluated with care.
  14. cppguru

    Deteriorating Hard Drive Access Times

    Well said. So now the question is for my hunt of a hard drive (prefer mechanical) in 2.5" form factor and 9.5mm height for laptop. I'm noticing there isn't a single 10,000 RPM hard drive because seeing the benchmarks - I see a velociraptor particularly interesting as it's access time is very low and sequential speed is still very high but they are not available for laptop. Any alternatives (Besides SSD ofcourse) ? What is the single most fastest 2.5" mechanic drive out there? Clearly the 320 GB Scorpio black is slower than it's 250 GB version and I prefer to stay away from hybrid drives because my usage does not involve frequently used data.
  15. cppguru

    Deteriorating Hard Drive Access Times

    Honestly I don't think it has anything to do with the head technology. And I'm specifically referring to WD Blacks (I have their 250 GB, 320 GB version both perform very differently but employ the same head technology) compared to my aging 7200.11 500 GB from seagate, their 4K Random Times are much slower compared to my Seagate 7200.11 500 GB. Both drives spin at 7200 RPM. Afterall if you think about it, the head's job is to read the smallest unit on the platters (I.e. a sector) - byte addressable, it is the control arm and the firmware that actually positions the head. I strongly believe that this is purely optimization problem in the software (firmware) - where Manufacturer's are readily increasing sequential speeds (good) but with increased random access times as a tradeoff. As promised, here are HD Tune - anyone interested please note the Random, 4K Random and Butterfly seek times. All drives were formatted using Windows 7. Benchmark is done under Windows 7 64 bit as well. The screenshots are attached. 1st Screenshot: My 4 year old Seagate 7200.11 500 GB 2nd Screenshot: The all new Hitachi Z7K500 7200 RPM 500 GB (compare the Random 49 IOPS to Seagate's 82 IOPS - that's almost twice as slow!!! for a 7200 RPM HD !!!) 3rd Screenshot: WD Black 250 GB 4th Screenshot: WD Black 320 GB (Notice the Random access time is much higher compared to the same generation WD Black 250 GB mentioned above which discredits the argument about different head technology. Both WD Black drives employ the same head technology because they are the same generation drives. Also noticed how much faster 320 GB Black is in Sequential speed compared to 250 GB Black).