Mike_T

Seagate 7200.9 ETA?

Recommended Posts

Maxtor, higher reliability? LOL - pull the other one.

212732[/snapback]

Higher reliability. . . as compared to other Maxtors. . . and according to Maxtor marketing literature. . .

212733[/snapback]

Of course hours after I posted that, I came across my first dead seagate :( - 400gb no less...

I still can't stand Maxtor - but anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend has had Seagate die on him and a WD die on him but his older Maxtor is still fine. Does this mean Seagate and WD are the worst ever and we should all stay away from them but Maxtor is the best ever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My friend has had Seagate die on him and a WD die on him but his older Maxtor is still fine. Does this mean Seagate and WD are the worst ever and we should all stay away from them but Maxtor is the best ever?

212758[/snapback]

The majority of my faulty disks have been maxtor - hence my bias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had horrible luck with consumer Maxtor drives, they seem to want to always die on me, from a reliability and price standpoint I love consumer Hitachi disks, my 7K250's have been very dependable never a problem and I have been running them for a few years now. I have Maxtor scsi and esdi drives that have been very dependable running for more then a decade. I also have some 15K47 Hitachi drives that have good drives as well. I have never had any of my Miniscribe drives die, but that's not valid anymore. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7200.9 in the news: ComputerWorld.com Copy of Press release

Nothing major is revealed:

"Seagate ships more than 150 million award-winning Baraccuda 7200-RPM hard drives for PCs. . . The shipment milestone comes as Seagate prepares to launch Barracuda 7200.9, the ninth-generation of the drive. Barracuda 7200.9 combines a massive half-terabyte (500GB) of capacity with a powerful 3 Gigabit/second Serial ATA (SATA) interface."

That's great and all, but how about a ship date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean to use it naked for external USB use (by that I mean I'd like to use an IDE-to-USB cable kit so that I can carry the 500GB drive naked without having to use a USB enclosure)...

I wouldn't run 7K400 without some kind of active cooling (extended periods of usage) or at least some kind of heat sink (might be adequate for short periods of time).

If you intend to run if for long periods of time, using a heat sink only (such as a fanless aluminum enclosure) would probably not be enough cooling for a 5-platter Hitachi (or 4-platter Seagate yet-to-come). If you have only a heat sink, you may use the drive for periods shorter than an hour.

If you intend to run the drive with and IDE-USB-bridge attached, without a heat sink, the temperature will rise more quickly - much faster than the MAXIMUM allowed temperature gradient (which is 15°C/hour for 7K400). Even if you used the drive for very short periods of time (so that the bare drive wouldn't have the time required to overheat), the rate at which temperature changes would be exceeded.

I don't know HOW serious it is to exceed the maximum allowed temperature gradient but I would try to avoid it - as using an aluminum enclosure barely allows to stay within it, using a bare drive will probably double the rate of temperature change after power-up. (A bare drive is about 600 gramms, metal alloy, probably containing mostly aluminum. Aluminum USB enclosures weigh about the same, material is about the same, thermal capacitance about the same. => Double the mass => Double the ability to hold thermal energy => Half the rate of temperature changes.)

212752[/snapback]

Thanks for your input on Hitachi vs. others.

As to the physics of heat transfer/dissipation, wow I'm glad that you mentioned it, very interesting! I didn't consider the cooling benefits of using an enclosure, hmm now I'll have to reconsider my situation :blink:

Maybe if the computer case is metal/aluminum then I can try to place the bare drive (upside down) on the case for faster heat dissipation, or something like that...

What's weird, I've been copying 100GB+ of files to a bare 3.5" drive (old Maxtor 160GB 5400rpm) using the IDE-USB bridge cable I mentioned, and I've had periodic occurrences of write failure. When copying a lot of files at once from multiple sources, after awhile WinXP would complain of delayed write failure, and the drive letter would disappear until I unplug and re-plug the USB cable. Which always confused me because the USB drive connection is not supposed to use delayed/cached writing in Windows (which I'd double check). I eventually noticed that I could avoid such errors by copying fewer files at a time.

But yesterday I swapped for another (identical) IDE-USB bridge cable which had been used elsewhere, and I didn't encounter any further failures. Then again I only tested briefly with the other cable, and only with the drive having been newly cold started. (This other cable was previously used to connect another bare drive for use as a low-load 100BT network share, where it hasn't had problems.)

Either my first bridge cable is bad, or perhaps I should look into heat as the possible culprit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to the physics of heat transfer/dissipation, wow I'm glad that you mentioned it, very interesting!  I didn't consider the cooling benefits of using an enclosure, hmm now I'll have to reconsider my situation :blink:

Maybe if the computer case is metal/aluminum then I can try to place the bare drive (upside down) on the case for faster heat dissipation, or something like that...

Other benefits of an USB enclosure versus USB bridge circuit are:

- protection against shock during transportation (reducing non-operational shocks)

- rubber feet that increase friction and prevent the enclosure from sliding on the surface it is placed on (preventing operational shocks)

- silencing.

If you place a drive on the computer case, the vibration-borne acoustic noise is likely to amplify as two pieces of hard metal are loosely on contact with each other and both of them have their own sources of vibration.

You could place small rubber feet on the cover of the drive so that the drive (placed upside down) would not slide and fall down. Also that would soften the contact between the drive and its surface reducing vibration-borne noise. It would eliminate the benefit of using the computers case as a heat sink but I doubt the heat would transfer to the case anyway. A good heat transfer would require that the drive was bolted on to the case.

You could use sandwiching to ad more heat sinking capacity and cooling ability. And here's the results if the "hard drive sandwich" is installed internally. You would keep using it externally but I believe you would benefit from it anyway. Those aluminum plates are better attached to the HDD and they are also very massive, so they would have better heat sinking capability than any USB enclosure on the market. More pictures and instructions @ Silent PC Review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's weird, I've been copying 100GB+ of files to a bare 3.5" drive (old Maxtor 160GB 5400rpm) using the IDE-USB bridge cable I mentioned, and I've had periodic occurrences of write failure.  When copying a lot of files at once from multiple sources, after awhile WinXP would complain of delayed write failure, and the drive letter would disappear until I unplug and re-plug the USB cable.
Well, my Maxline II 300GB (4 platter, 5400rpm) drive (in Maxtor OneTouch first generation enclosure) had the same problem. First I suspected software or USB-bridge to cause it but then some uncorrectable sectors appeared and the drive started head reset clicking when trying to access certain files and so I moved the files and RMAd it.

My 250GB (3 platter, 7200rpm) Maxtor had no problems with delayed write failure on another (identical) OneTouch first gen enclosure even though it got burning hot even on the surface of the enclosure. (The drive inside is probably even hotter.)

Symptoms were about the same expect then I had a delayed write failure, unplugging and plugging the USB cable was not enough. The hard drive had to be power cycled.

Was your drive, btw, Maxtor DiamondMax D540X (4 platter, 5400rpm)? The review says it among the coolest drives SR has reviewed dispite 4 platters it uses. So, I guess it's not heat related because my Maxline II never got hot either. I've read on the Net (sorry, I've got no link - it's been a long time I googled for an answer to the problem I had) they've had some problems with delayed write errors when transferring many files. Maybe it's result from some kind of deviation from the standards (either in the drive or USB-bridge) that causes these drives to lock-up. Some USB-bridges just seem to be incompatible with some certain Maxtor models (and these incompatibilities might even include Maxtor Maxline II and Maxtor OneTouch enclosure).

But yesterday I swapped for another (identical) IDE-USB bridge cable which had been used elsewhere, and I didn't encounter any further failures. Then again I only tested briefly with the other cable, and only with the drive having been newly cold started.
Did you try to transfer over 100GB of files with this new IDE-USB bridge? Are the bridges manufactured the same month?
(This other cable was previously used to connect another bare drive for use as a low-load 100BT network share, where it hasn't had problems.)

212912[/snapback]

If it's incompatibility between that manufacturers USB bridges and some models of Maxtor, the bridge should work normally with other drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seagate today announced availablity of the NL35 series drives, but only in 250 GB and 400 GB capacities. The 500 GB capacity announced 14-June-2004 is still not available. No word on the NL35 500 GB drive or the 7200.9 500 GB drive.

Seagate is great at "paper launches" of new products. Too bad then never give accurate predictions of when they will actually be available for purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bit OT but can anyone confirm that the 200GB 7200.8 and 250gb 7200.8 use the same platter sizes (short shifted I assume)?

212646[/snapback]

All models of 7200.8 don't use the same platters, 200=100*2; 250=133*2, 16GB unavailable; 300=100*3 have one myself; 400=133*3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the delay for the 7200.8 from announcement to availability (6 months) is any indication, we may not see these until early 2006." (then there was a re-calculation post about that actually being 2007)

I LOVE Seagate! Illogical because one with a 5-year warranty fritzed on me after 3 months. The other drives in that system are still apparantly fine.

I am ALSO STEAMED at Seagate, wrote them many letters. Including:

Dear sir:

On 14 June 2004 Seagate issued a press release at this URL:

http://www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsro...21,2170,00.html This press release had a phrase which really caught my eye: "a new cache size up to 16 Mbytes" Furthur, the document:

http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/marketing/...cuda_7200-8.pdf

was issued in May 2004 and includes "8-Mbyte cache memory with 16-Mbyte option"

"I have been looking for some time for modern, large Seagates with 16 mb cache. I can find no firm reason to believe that they exist. There appears to be no evidence that they have been released in new Dells or Gateways, or that they exist in or out of the US. This is 14-15 months after stating that Barracuda's would be available with 16 MB cache. "

I bought a Maxtor 300 with 16 MB cache about a year ago. I don't regard 300 as huge, I regard it as mainstream. I regard 500 as "Well, nothing bigger, it'll have to do" Maybe that's just me, maybe it's also 25 or 50% of the members here.

I also wish to thank BroadbandBilly for showing me the thread at

http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=18620

Loved, laughed, and loathed "contacted Seagate. The 16MB versions should start becoming available in distribution channels this month (3/2005)" I was told that, then June. Now I'm told 'a September timeframe' which I regard as a few % more reliable as the 03/2005 claim. That claim, in hindsight, seems to be steer droppings. 'Wait until December, the 7200.9's will be out and THEY will have 16 mb cache' Right guys, I you put me in a bubble for 15 months, now you ask that I wait another 4?

Anyone got 'proof' or 'reason to believe' that Dell or Gateway have (or had) these in them?

"ST3400632AS - 400 GB capacity - 16 Megabyte buffer with NCQ enabled" Where are they for sale? (especially in Canada, where I am) Google searches showed nothing (OK, one Czechoslovakia site that talks about it but no sign they exist in numbers, or that anyone is selling them... no warm trails that 100 were shipped to country X, let alone 10,000 or more in the US (not Dell, Gateway, or store shelves) And 10,000 is an amount better suited to Canada! The US shelves should have a LOT more for sale.

This site's FAQ has a question about 2 mb vs 8. I haven't read it, maybe there is a reference to 16 having diminished returns. But I am not the only one wanting 16, and seriously, is 32 going to be overkill in 2007? Hey, *I* would get one!

Let's have a poll on who else would like to see 32 mb cache in 2007...January would be better than December, too!

I have been waiting for a Seagate, SATA / NCQ / 16 mb cache, for over a year. All I ask is that they do what they say they will. And hey, 15 months isn't enough for them to go from paper bravado to 'hey! We have made more than 1000 apart from prototypes and lab-test units'? Pffft, Seagate is damaging their own reputation...so why do I still want a few of those puppies? They have un-earned my respect and business.

Sorry for the rant.

THANKS!

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,

I live only to serve! :) Think yourself lucky you're only waiting for a hard drive. I'm also waiting for nVidia to deliver on their September / October launch of the C51G: :o

Fat chance! If they do, feel free to flame me. If I've got the board I'll not mind the abuse.

B'Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7200.9 in the news: ComputerWorld.com Copy of Press release

Nothing major is revealed:

"Seagate ships more than 150 million award-winning Baraccuda 7200-RPM hard drives for PCs. . . 

212889[/snapback]

Of the 150 million, we surely know of under 0.01% failing in the first year (or however long it's been since they've been out) (mind you maybe there is a cover-up or quietness on ANY drive manufacturer if things fail prematurely...speaking of which, were they 150 million of the "dot-7's" or "dot-eights"? One or more people have suggested that while the 7200.7 is rock-solid, the 7200.8 is a step DOWN in reliability. I find that hard to believe. I am much more inclined to believe that the "big names" are getting MORE reliable with time. On one hand, this speaks to the 5-year warranty. On the other hand, what they give you in years 4 and 5 are pretty lame. Quite some time since I read them, IIRC year 5 offered $10 off you next Seagate purchase or something jaw-droppingly pawltry like that. The bottom line is, losing 100 GB is hard and painful. Losing 400 or 500 is more than just 4 or 5 times worse, I regard it as more "exponential" ....you know what I mean.

I know very little about "SMART and Simple for NT/2000/XP"...it looked impressive and I forwarded it to my supplier / system builder to look at it. Is it a GUI-based, or command-line? Program to be run once a month? Upon every boot-up? The examples posted, I would need a course in interpreting them, I look but I don't fully SEE. Maybe it's in the documentation on on a related site...anybody know??

THANKS

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One or more people have suggested that while the 7200.7 is rock-solid, the 7200.8 is a step DOWN in reliability. I find that hard to believe. I am much more inclined to believe that the "big names" are getting MORE reliable with time.

214076[/snapback]

If you look at the SR reliability database, the 7200.7 family is more reliable than 90% of all drives tested at SR, and indeed all previous Seagate 7200 models since the Barracuda 2 have been very reliable. The 7200.8 is more reliable than 3%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If the delay for the 7200.8 from announcement to availability (6 months) is any indication, we may not see these until early 2006." (then there was a re-calculation post about that actually being 2007)

I LOVE Seagate! Illogical because one with a 5-year warranty fritzed on me after 3 months. The other drives in that system are still apparantly fine.

I am ALSO STEAMED at Seagate, wrote them many letters. Including:

  Dear sir:

    On 14 June 2004 Seagate issued a press release at this URL:

http://www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsro...21,2170,00.html  This press release had a phrase which really caught my eye: "a new cache size up to 16 Mbytes"  Furthur, the document:

http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/marketing/...cuda_7200-8.pdf

was issued in May 2004 and includes "8-Mbyte cache memory with 16-Mbyte option"

    "I have been looking for some time for modern, large Seagates with 16 mb cache. I can find no firm reason to believe that they exist. There appears to be no evidence that they have been released in new Dells or Gateways, or that they exist in or out of the US. This is 14-15 months after stating that Barracuda's would be available with 16 MB cache. "

    I bought a Maxtor 300 with 16 MB cache about a year ago. I don't regard 300 as huge, I regard it as mainstream. I regard 500 as "Well, nothing bigger, it'll have to do" Maybe that's just me, maybe it's also 25 or 50% of the members here.

I also wish to thank BroadbandBilly for showing me the thread at

http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=18620

Loved, laughed, and loathed "contacted Seagate. The 16MB versions should start becoming available in distribution channels this month (3/2005)" I was told that, then June. Now I'm told 'a September timeframe' which I regard as a few % more reliable as the 03/2005 claim. That claim, in hindsight, seems to be steer droppings. 'Wait until December, the 7200.9's will be out and THEY will have 16 mb cache' Right guys, I you put me in a bubble for 15 months, now you ask that I wait another 4?

Anyone got 'proof' or 'reason to believe' that Dell or Gateway have (or had) these in them?

"ST3400632AS - 400 GB capacity - 16 Megabyte buffer with NCQ enabled" Where are they for sale? (especially in Canada, where I am) Google searches showed nothing (OK, one Czechoslovakia site that talks about it but no sign they exist in numbers, or that anyone is selling them... no warm trails that 100 were shipped to country X, let alone 10,000 or more in the US (not Dell, Gateway, or store shelves) And 10,000 is an amount better suited to Canada! The US shelves should have a LOT more for sale.

This site's FAQ has a question about 2 mb vs 8. I haven't read it, maybe there is a reference to 16 having diminished returns. But I am not the only one wanting 16, and seriously, is 32 going to be overkill in 2007? Hey, *I* would get one!

Let's have a poll on who else would like to see 32 mb cache in 2007...January would be better than December, too!

I have been waiting for a Seagate, SATA / NCQ / 16 mb cache, for over a year. All I ask is that they do what they say they will. And hey, 15 months isn't enough for them to go from paper bravado to 'hey! We have made more than 1000 apart from prototypes and lab-test units'? Pffft, Seagate is damaging their own reputation...so why do I still want a few of those puppies? They have un-earned my respect and business.

Sorry for the rant.

THANKS!

Rob

213936[/snapback]

The 7200.9 is avaible in Germany and also in Japan:

http://geizhals.at/?fs=7200.9&in=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it's possible, you know why ?

214167[/snapback]

We probably see here the same thing that hit HGST earlier: a larger number of platters make the assembly wobble more, hence making it harder to keep the heads on track with the high track density...

so the first drives coming out with the high track density tend to have fewer platters.

Yéti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite a few online retailers have Seagate 7200.9 drives now, in capacities ranging from 40 to 160 GB.  Hopefully it won't be too long before the 500 GB version shows.

215687[/snapback]

can you point us to these websites?

40gb's?!?!?! they still make those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I highly doubt there's a 40gb version of the 7200.9. Its either 3x133GB platters or 4x125gb so even if they did a single headed drive it'd be a minimum of 60GB.

Of course the manufacturers have gotten into the habit of shipping drives that are part of the same "family" but have different platter densities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One or more people have suggested that while the 7200.7 is rock-solid, the 7200.8 is a step DOWN in reliability. I find that hard to believe. I am much more inclined to believe that the "big names" are getting MORE reliable with time.
Have 12 of those .7s and I have to admit that the 7200.7 are rock solid here too. None failed so far... Haven't got around to buy those .8s yet as I found out, rather limited stock and have to order as well.. It seems that the higher the capacity the less reliable it seems. Is storage technology hitting the limits there? I wonder if the .9s have a radical design departure and technology from the .8s... Will it be as reliable as the .7s? :ph34r:

Playing the waiting game... :D

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