Davin

Hitachi Deskstar 7K250

Recommended Posts

CLICK<MEOW ... and so on.

You funny guy ...... :angry: ...... make me scroll my ass off!

How large is Your monitor?

On my 17" it's damned annoying.

Christer

I'm so sorry, I don't know why it did that :unsure: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It did that because you didn't put any spaces in your click>meow>click charade...  :rolleyes:

Can anybody fix it? It's difficult to read the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update. I don't know what happened, but Newegg refunded me all my money instead of exchanging the drive. Needless to say, I came across a used D740X that was a lot cheaper(this drive is NOT mission critical, and will contain a duplicate of my music on my other computers). No more DOA cats for me :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of discussion about meowing cats but as long as they purr along, I'm okey with it.

I did a simple unscientific test, incorporating a 7K250 120GB/8MB PATA and a Seagate 7200.7 Plus 160GB/8MB PATA. They were interchangeable in a mobile rack in the same computer.

Both HDD's had two partitions of some 85%-15% of diskspace.

Identical Ghost Images of the system drive (approximately 4.5 GB) were created to the small partition of each HDD.

Next, the Image was moved from the small to the large partition.

The Hitachi moved the Image in 4 minutes 40 seconds.

The Seagate moved the Image in 9 minutes 03 seconds.

I understand the difference in this test and as long as the Hitachi's purr along like that ...... ;) ...... let them meow every now and then.

Christer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A firmware was issued, it seems that it fix the meowww sound, i didn't try it myself but you can have a look on this forums :

Envynews : (<=Files to download)

http://www.envynews.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6563

Google translation of the original german site :

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...Flanguage_tools

Silent PC thread :

http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=13277

Be warned, it's not listed on hgst website...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew, so I wasn't going crazy after all (hearing the occasional meow/whine/squeal/banshee noise from my PATA Hitachi 250gb). I know the first one I bought (Jan '04) exhibits the meow; and I think the 2nd one (Nov '03) does it also--but not sure. All I can say is, the first few times it happened, I did NOT realize that it was a hard drive noise... Actually, I was quite freaked out by it... Looking around corners, and so forth

It's really more like an unnatural/ghostly yelp, I'd say

Great drive though

No, not really...

Well I can't decide! Time for another foray into my burgeoning TV career, we already did a pilot for "Surprise Enema"

Edited by housewares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obituary:

I bought my Hitachi 7K250 SATA 80GB around 8 months ago.

The meowing was so loud, I had difficulty sleeping.

So I enclosed it in a silent hard-drive enclosure. Big mistake.

My hard drive has just died. Thankfully, as it was a slow and painful death, I managed to salvage most of my files.

It was a full 8 months old. For an ex-IBM drive, it probably died of old age.

:(RIP

Moral of the story: An apple never falls far from the tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyrell

I don't think the "moral of the story" is appropriate in this case. Most likely the HDD failure has nothing to do with the "apple never falling far from the tree". When you enclose HDD in one of those silent enclosures you risk overheating, and it was just a bad luck that you chose an ex-IBM to put in the silent enclosure. Any drive may and will die from excessive temperatures, not just IBM. If you can't accept/can't understand the risks involved, it's better not to touch you hard drive at all.

BTW, bought 7K250 from Frys this week to replace an old ball-bearing 1600JB WD with a whine. Mine was manufactured in May and so far I haven't heard any meows from it. It's a hell of a lot quiter than old WD, I've been able to cut back the noise almost by half, really astonishing results. I can hear the platters whirring, but the sound is not even remotely as annoying as WD whine. Although I expected it to be somewhat quiter, I'm satisfied with the noise level now. Now, let's just hope that those $140 worth of rebates will come :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recieved two 160 gb sata drives from newegg last week to replace some WD 1600's. I have yet to hear any cat noises. I will update with my firmware revision when I get home from work. I believe the drives were manufactured in late May.

-Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe my ears are immune :) my 6 mths old 200G 7k250 has stopped the meowing. seldom I hear the Click-cha-cha sound(head park on ramp?! ) but absolutely no Meow sound.

Oh... its still fast as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen on the Hitachi website the Deskstar 7K80...

It is like a 7K400 with only 1 platter (40/80GB) and 2MB of cache, but ATA133...

Did you hear of it ? What about it's performance ?

I wanted him to replace my old Deskstar 180GXP 185,2GB as it is a litle bit too loud for my barebone... Is this 7K80 as perf as my old drive ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening, this will be my SECOND (posted the same post in another forum) post here... so please excuse me if it' looks weird in any way.

Anyways, over to my problem...

I have ALOT of Hitachi harddrives, about 12 250GB drives from their deskstar-series...

All of these harddrives are spread out in various computers in my 'computer' room... and what I've noticed with all of these drives, is that the s.m.a.r.t data value called raw-read-error-rate has been fluctuating ALOT... and according to several websites, raw read error rate is something that you don't want to be changing at all... but it's so weird, on some of these boxes i run freebsd (ufs/ufs2) filesystems... and on some of them i run windows (ntfs) filesystems... yet the errors appear on all of them.

Is it supposed to be that way? That the Raw Read Error Rate is supposed to go up and down? Sometimes the value is 65543... and sometimes it's 0... and sometimes 1...

At the moment, it's 1...

SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16

Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:

ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE

1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000b 100 100 060 Pre-fail Always - 1

(This drive is brand new, I installed it yesterday)

Also, the only times when these errors start to fluctuate, is when I read from the drives (and yes, it happens on all of them)

Anyways, EXTREMELY grateful for any replies...

/Doug Bradley...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it supposed to be that way? That the Raw Read Error Rate is supposed to go up and down?  Sometimes the value is 65543... and sometimes it's 0... and sometimes 1...

205681[/snapback]

Well, who knows... How that data field is used, isn't standardized but vendor specific. You should keep your eyes on VALUE and WORST fields and compare them to THRESH (which is the threshold after the drive should be considered defective). If VALUE and WORST are both over THRESH, OK.

You have a VALUE of "100" and the WORST value during the drive's lifetime is "100". It's over the threshold (which is 60 in this case).

My 7K250 has also worst value "100" for RAW (Read-After-Write) Error Rate but I've never bothered checking the data field... mostly because I could not interpret it correctly.

I could check that data field next time I take the drive out of USB case and put it on motherboard's IDE channel. Now I only have report files created with HDD Health. Unfortunately data field is not included in these reports. So I'll check it with AIDA32 or SpeedFan. (AIDA32 converts the data field to decimal, SpeedFan gives it in hexadecimal, if I remember correctly.)

If you doubt your drives are faulty, you should run Hitachi's Drive Fitness Test (DFT) and analyze the drives. I wouldn't be worried though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evening, this will be my SECOND (posted the same post in another forum) post here... so please excuse me if it' looks weird in any way.

Anyways, over to my problem...

I have ALOT of Hitachi harddrives, about 12 250GB drives from their deskstar-series...

All of these harddrives are spread out in various computers in my 'computer' room... and what I've noticed with all of these drives, is that the s.m.a.r.t data value called raw-read-error-rate has been fluctuating ALOT... and according to several websites, raw read error rate is something that you don't want to be changing at all... but it's so weird, on some of these boxes i run freebsd (ufs/ufs2) filesystems... and on some of them i run windows (ntfs) filesystems... yet the errors appear on all of them.

Is it supposed to be that way? That the Raw Read Error Rate is supposed to go up and down? Sometimes the value is 65543... and sometimes it's 0... and sometimes 1...

At the moment, it's 1...

SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16

Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:

ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG    VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE

  1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate    0x000b  100  100  060    Pre-fail  Always      -      1

(This drive is brand new, I installed it yesterday)

Also, the only times when these errors start to fluctuate, is when I read from the drives (and yes, it happens on all of them)

Anyways, EXTREMELY grateful for any replies...

/Doug Bradley...

205681[/snapback]

I am having the same problem with my 2 (I got another one) 400gb seagate drives (PATA)

both are getting raw read error rate figures moving around - and ecc corrected something or other - yet the Raptor 74gb sits at ZERO and NEVER moves, these 2 drives go like 23,000 - or if i don't re-boot for a week - 260,000 right now 3117 and 30754! ?

Is this the drive fixing a bad sector and re-allocating it - but because it's still got spares it's not classed as dead?

Am I losing data / corrupting data?

Why do both my 400gb seagates do it, but not my WD? :(

MEH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am having the same problem with my 2 (I got another one) 400gb seagate drives (PATA)

both are getting raw read error rate figures moving around - and ecc corrected something or other

That not a problem - that's perfectly normal operation for a Seagate drive. Seagate drives show it's raw error rate in SMART values, other manufacturers' drives merely just HIDE it from you view. Yet you continue to blame Seagate for their honesty?
- yet the Raptor 74gb sits at ZERO and NEVER moves
But have you noticed that the Raptor is a Western Digital (= "non-Seagate") drive. They tend to keep the "raw error rate" attribute at value "100" and raw data of that attribute at "0". IMHO, that's actually quite useless information, but there's one benefit: people who don't understand how to use SMART won't claim their drive's faulty due to their faulty interpretation of SMART values.

You don't really understand that there is NO such standard that say raw error rate should be "100" and it's data field "0". The reason why some manufacturers use these values for acceptable operation is to avoid people complaining without REAL reason. Every drive manufacturer use SMART attributes their own way and attribute values cannot be compared to values of another drive.

Is this the drive fixing a bad sector and re-allocating it - but because it's still got spares it's not classed as dead?

Am I losing data / corrupting data?

It's very unlikely that your drive has bad sectors. It's also unlikely that you're getting corrupted data.

The SMART values of you drives are:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~scottylans/pics/Seagate.jpg

( That's the link you posted on http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=20396 )

Why do I think so?

A) because all Seagates tend to have non-zero value in "raw error rate" and "hardware ECC recovered" attributes and still be amongst the most reliable drives on the market

B) because you're "reallocated sector count" is ZERO, "offline uncorrectable sector count" is ZERO and "current pending sector count" is ZERO.

Reallocated sector count means the number of (bad) sectors that have been reallocated.

Offline uncorrectable sector count means the number of (bad) sectors that cannot be reallocated.

Current pending sector count means the number of (bad) sectors that have data on them and cannot be reallocated at the moment. (Reallocation can be forced by writing something on the sector that is "pending".)

C) It is perfectly acceptable for a drive to use ECC (error-correction-code) to correct data read from a sector. In most cases ECC is able to make the corrections to the data.

To avoid having the drive use ECC from time to time would require the use of greatly lower data density. Even though using ECC to correct data will take some time, reducing data density would slow down the operation of the drive much more. (And at the same time reduce the capacity of the drive.)

If the ECC is unable to correct the data read from sector, it's required to read the sector again. If the drive has to retry reading of a sector several times, only THEN will it become a "bad sector". Your drives have no such sectors.

Why do both my 400gb seagates do it, but not my WD? :(

212934[/snapback]

Because it's perfectly normal operation for a Seagate. (I know I'm repeating myself but I hope the same discussion does not have to take place in every board of SR forum.) Edited by whiic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key word in that SMART variable is "Raw". Of course hard drives have errors and lots of error correction, so I wouldn't worry about the raw error rate and I'd expect it to change!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone--

Just came across this site and thread, and really value the expertise you all are sharing so freely. Thanks!

I've been looking into the 7K250 250GB drive. I haven't found anything new about the "meow" sound, but I did find a PDF Hitachi White Paper that talks about the head load/unload process that seems to be the source of the loud click people have mentioned. It doesn't actually mention anything about noises, but you can see (literally) where the click probably originates.

This document is dated 1/10/05. It's not the same as the 11/03 "Load / unload technology" link on the 7K250 product page; instead, you get to it through the "Technical Library documentation" link on the same page.

Hope someone finds this useful, or at least interesting.

Now it's off to enjoy my (very rainy) Friday night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone. I'm new here, but luckily ran into this 7k250 posts just when I bought a 160gb 7k250 at CompUSA.

My dilemma is to either take the "meow sound" risk and hope the new firmware is installed on it

OR

to go with the slower Seagate 200gb Ultra ata?? I'm running a brand new hp xw4300 system so I'm not sure if the Seagate will slow it down. My boot drive is off a samsung 160gb sata. Can anyone give some feedback or suggestions PLEASE?? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its highly unlikely to find a meowing individual for sale today. I bought mine 1st quarter 2005, and drive drive has manufactured December 2004. No meow here.

When did the silent firmware appear? 2nd quarter 2004? 1st quarter 2004? Well, that's quite irrelevant(*) as for over a year all of them have been equipped with silent firmware. Today, finding a meowing drive (that has been lying on the shelf for over a year) from a BIG retailer like CompUSA, is like winning a lottery. Highly unlikely.

Before buying 7K250, check the price of newer generation Hitachi, T7K250, as well.

(*) Irrelevant enough so that I don't even bother to search the topic here on SR for the information. I think it was mentioned somewhere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now