qwe123

Seagate 7200.10 Review

Recommended Posts

I ordered the 320GB (ST3320620AS) from Newegg, got it yesterday. My drive definitely has the loud seeks that people were complaining about, and has the drive spindle label on it. After installing it, I ran HD Tach and got some pretty nasty results for access time... averaging around 24ms. I did a benchmark with HD Tune, which gave me this:

320.jpg

So I assume something must be wrong to give all those super high seeks, right? I'm using it with an ABIT IC7-G, and I've tried it on the two different SATA controllers on the board, but only one cable so far. Since I'm not all that knowledgeable when it comes to hard drives, I'll ask my stupid question about it: will anything, such as the cable, BIOS, drivers, transfer mode (I have yet to figure out how to set this properly.. despite much searching), etc. affect the seek time to make it do something like that, or is it just a problem with the drive?

Any information someone can offer about the really high seeks would certainly be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, cbope, did your drive have the spindle label or not?

Can you clarify what is the 'spindle label' i.e. some kind of description of what it looks like an/or maybe even a picture of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while ago I picked up some 4 x 320gb 7200.10's. I set them up on my server using the onboard Nvidia RAID-5. I'm also comparing them to my other 300gb 7200.9's in RAID-5 and RAID-10.

Read speed for the 7200.10's are super fast :D Just take a look...

4X Seagate 7200.10 320gb (RAID-5) vs 4X Seagate 7200.9 300gb (RAID-5)

hdtach_4x320gb_720010.gif

4X Seagate 7200.10 320gb (RAID-5) vs 4X Seagate 7200.9 300gb (RAID-10)

hdtach_4x300gb_72009.gif

These 7200.10 truely mops the floor. I think I got lucky and got a really good batch, compared to others here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just tested with HD Tune. Here are the results

4X Seagate 7200.10 320gb (RAID-5)

HDTune_Benchmark_NVIDIA_RAID5_894.27G.png

4X Seagate 7200.9 300gb (RAID-10)

HDTune_Benchmark_NVIDIA_RAID_0_1_558.92G.png

So we just picked up a Dell poweredge 1800 and I was thinking about going with 3 of the 320gig 7200.10 for the dell cert 6channel sata in RAID5 from newegg for storage however now I'm getting worried from the reviews in this.

Quick question for all you storage dorks. I'm a networking dork so don't know about storage. This is just for a fileserver of windows home directories, print queue and some corporate file usage. I was thinking about getting 3 x320 to start in RAID 5 and add maybe one later if needed. Right now the server we are using for this is Domain controller with only 160 gig storage so 600gigs should be plenty. However I don't know the performance decrease with using only 3 drives rather 4.

Also, is it recommended to run raid 5 on the system partition? I was planning on doing one of two things:

-First, have not decided. System will either run windows 2003, red hat or the new suse enterprise.

1) Just go with 3x320gb 7200.10 in RAID 5 and put the system partition and all storage on it.

2) Go with 3x320gb 7200.10 RAID 5 and put storage on it. Then get 2 raptors or higher speed satas and do RAID1 for the system partition.

Anyhow, thanks for the input.

-PK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't run any OS in a RAID5 along with the data. OS performance will be less than optimal and your entire system (OS and data) will be wiped-out if two drives in the array fail at the same time (which has happened to me twice even though I had a hot spare, although it was data only).

Segregating data from the operating system is the way to go. Your idea of running 2 fast mirrored drives in RAID1 is an exellent way to maximize OS performance while still providing a hot backup. Keeping the data separate in RAID5 is smart, however if the data is irreplaceable you might consider incremental backups to a separate system -- or to a system in an off-site location.

One simple option you might want to explore is Infrants ReadyNAS NV, which can be set to automatically backup folders over a LAN or WAN. I'm in the middle of a similar project and that product looks interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"however now I'm getting worried from the reviews in this"

Why? I have not seen any indication that there are any problems with the 7200.10.

I don't normally recommend RAID5 for system volume, best practice would be RAID1 (mirror) and RAID5 for the storage volume, it is much easier to recover the OS from a catastrophic disaster/failure with RAID1 then RAID5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"however now I'm getting worried from the reviews in this"

Why? I have not seen any indication that there are any problems with the 7200.10.

I don't normally recommend RAID5 for system volume, best practice would be RAID1 (mirror) and RAID5 for the storage volume, it is much easier to recover the OS from a catastrophic disaster/failure with RAID1 then RAID5

My concern was just with the two different versions, one with the drive spindle label and the other without. Hopefully I'll get the ones with the label;) from newegg. I just picked up 3 for 89.99/piece. Pretty decent deal with not rebate crap! PS> Use promo code 'buybarracuda' and get additional $5 off to making 89.99.

I think my plan is to use the two 80gigers that came with the dell for the os mirror and then storage raid5 on these 3 320gigers. Then hopefully I will get some extra money in a month or two and be able to upgrade to raptors or something.

Do any of the older raptors have NCQ? or 3gbs ? or do I have to pick up the new $$$ 150 raptor?

Thnx again for the input!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do any of the older raptors have NCQ? or 3gbs ? or do I have to pick up the new $$$ 150 raptor?

Thnx again for the input!

Actually none of the raptors (not even the new 150 gig one) have 3gb SATA. From all indications, its not really needed on the drive end... YET.

It will be needed shortly, probably the next gen of raptors.

Where its really needed is in the motherboard controller, so that raid setups have enough bandwidth.

I suggest reading the storagereview's review on the raptor 150.

Does your fileserver tend to have multiple accesses simultaneously to the same drive? That's the enviroment that NCQ really helps (otherwise it tends to slow things down).

NCQ is present on the latest 150 gig raptor, I think the previous ones (the 36 gig for sure, and I think the 74 gig) have a differant similar solution called TCQ if I recall right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888

FYI:

Although 3 months on market is still a baby-age also for HDD, my pretty large distributors' information is showing exceptionally good reliability for 7200.10 320GB so far, just like the old famous 7200.7 was. On relative comparable scale it is 1.8 times more reliable than 7200.9 one-platter models, 2.2 times more reliable than the new Raptors, 3 times more reliable than WD3200 and WD800, 3.7 times more reliable than T7K250(250GB version), 4 times more reliable than Samsung P120 and P80SD series, 6 times more reliable than some larger capacity 7200.9 models, 9 times more reliable than 7200.8 models, 11...19 times more reliable than Maxtor's MLIII/DM10 series.

Of course, usually this rating would drop in some amount in future when the new drive series gets more mature. Also, there may be some local delays in RMA'ing which could arise the rating especially for the models being on market just couple of months yet. But still, looks very promising anyway... However I was not able to detect any realistic ratings for 750GB and 500GB models from 7200.10 series because of just insufficient number of drives sold yet.

However, on side-note, looking on a few other aspects, there's something wrong with WD4000 and WD5000 series which are always giving lower than average reliability ratings. But at the same time these more-expensive series aren't sold in very big quantities yet, so the results can't be taken very seriously so far. The other clear finding is that so-called "short-stroked" models have always about just 2 times lower reliabilities than for their basic "mother" models! And that's equally true for Seagate, WD, Hitachi (didn't analyzed others). Interesting, sounds like these "short-stroked" models really have including a lot of bad drives from mother series formatted onto lower capacities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

888, if I remember correctly, you make these reliability ratings by dividing sold drives with failed drives (giving high value for reliable drives) or by dividing failed drives with sold drives (giving low value for reliable drives). Anyway, you don't calculate the time before failure, or have "time" part of the algebra at all, wasn't that right? I understand why, because having time a part of the maths makes it very hard to handle as all drives are sold at different times and all would need a separate counter for uptime.

Understanding the limited resources your approach has probably the best effore-to-result ratio. For old drive series it might be quite accurate, providing anough participating drives (i.e drives sold). For new drive series, it can't be accurate, no matter how many distributors share their failure rate data. It's not just that new drive series means less drives sold... even one month on the market might give enough participating drives if the drive series is liked by the customers (like 7200.10 320GB most likely is)... but the main problem would be the lack of developed faults: majority of deaths would be D.O.A. You already acknowledged this in your post ("usually this rating would drop in some amount in future when the new drive series gets more mature").

How many drives of the mentioned series have been sold (through the distributors you've collected the data from)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
you make these reliability ratings by dividing sold drives with failed drives (giving high value for reliable drives) or by dividing failed drives with sold drives (giving low value for reliable drives). Anyway, you don't calculate the time before failure, or have "time" part of the algebra at all, wasn't that right?

How many drives of the mentioned series have been sold (through the distributors you've collected the data from)?

Yes, you're right. The time value is very important but it is impossible to gather in my situation. If I worked for some large distributor then maybe I was able to keep up this statistics but then very probably I had to be silent about talking the results here and there ;)

So yes, I simply can divide the number of sold drives to the number of failed drives (includes also DOA drives!). I think it still says something because of most of these drive series are relatively new and all they are relatively popular now.

The absolute number of 7200.10 320GB drives participating in this statistics has been 1681 so far (mostly SATA version). Not much still, but collected from 5 different sources and from many different batches from different manufacturing dates. Generally the retail-OEM versions, not the batches directly forwarded to big OEM assemblers. The other older drive series compared to above had much more drives included.

Still, take these statistics as an random illustration of the current moment only. These aren't constants, I even noticed within one same series between the sub-models the reliability variance is sometimes surprisingly large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have the new 7200.9s? The 300GB is now using 166GB platters shortstroked, and with 16mb cache I wonder how those fare against the 320gb 7200.10. I wonder if the performance gap between the two generations is closing. I'm sure there are other technical differences between the two drives that separate them in terms of speed right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
Does anyone have the new 7200.9s? The 300GB is now using 166GB platters shortstroked, and with 16mb cache I wonder how those fare against the 320gb 7200.10. I wonder if the performance gap between the two generations is closing. I'm sure there are other technical differences between the two drives that separate them in terms of speed right?

The #1 key to the performance and real speed is firmware. Seagate hasn't been anything good in it, just for desktop user firmwares, through the different drive series recently. But of course there may be some differences in these 7200.9/7200.10 drives' firmwares. No more data yet... But wasn't Seagate saying lately that their 7200.9 200...500GB models are planned to take down from the production after the 7200.10 is in full mass production oneday?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently purchase a couple 320GB versions from Newegg (about a week apart). The first one that arrived was built in China and has the supposedly "loud" motor. The second one arrived a couple days ago was built in Singapore, and it has the supposedly "quiet" motor. Comparing the two, I don't really notice any difference in loudness so maybe Seagate has correct the issue with the chinese models. I as ran several HD Tune tests with both, and if anything the chinese one is actually a bit faster (but really the differences are very small so I would just consider them equal). Basically I'm seeing minimum transfer rates of upper 30s, maximum rates of mid 70s, and average rates in the lower 60s. I also get seek times in the mid 13s and a burst rate in the lower 90s. Also note they are not RAIDed (yet) and are being controlled by the onboard SATA-I controller in my Dell 8400. I plan to setup them up in a Matrix RAID and use them for data; I'll continue to use my OEM 7200.7 Seagate as the system drive.

Edited by bcm00re

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is minimal, and if you bother to read my post you would have seen that I especially avoided the term "LOUD", because there is no way any sane person could call either of them loud, except possibly the lunatic fringe that expect everyone to conform to their idea of quiet (i.e. inaudible)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The difference is minimal, and if you bother to read my post you would have seen that I especially avoided the term "LOUD", because there is no way any sane person could call either of them loud"

How loud a HDD sounds depends entirely on the system and many of us have quite noisy computers which practically makes HDD noise quite unrecognizable (if it doesn't whine like a worn-out BB drive). Some other people have passively cooled computers without fans or possibly some water cooling with a big radiator using an inaudibly low noise fan. In certain environments everything but the quitest 3.5" might be considered loud... if not even that being too loud (in which case mounting a laptop drive inside a desktop computer is an option).

"except possibly the lunatic fringe that expect everyone to conform to their idea of quiet (i.e. inaudible)"

Are you expecting all of us to conform to your idea of "LOUD"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to post a quick note that my 7200.10 just failed on me. About one month of use in a MythTV box that I was setting up, not even in active use for recording yet although I had backed up a ton of data yet.

Date code of 06446, I just requested an RMA tonight.

The drive started with read errors, and when I rebooted it would not POST and allow the BIOS to see it. It does the click-whirr every 8 seconds or so, and nothing. I let it sit off 24 hours, then moved it to another box to try again, and still nothing.

Does anyone have any links on things to try to get it up long enough to recover data from it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
Can someone post some non 320gb graphs too? I want to see how smaller platter size like for the 250gb will impact performance...

Found on PAGE 6 (the same topic here):

Just bought the 200 GB version.

Read Max. 77 MB/s

Read Min. 42 MB/s

Avg Read. 62.2 MB/s

So that 7200.10 200GB seems a little (about 3...5 MB/s) slower than 320GB

Also the 7200.10 750GB is a bit (about 1...3 MB/s) slower than 320GB

(The graphs for 750GB version have been posted in many reviews on other sites)

7200.10 750GB reviews/tests:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2760

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/29/sea...the_big_league/

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1964080,00.asp

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/barra...10/index.x?pg=1

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.asp...cleid=827&cid=4

http://www.bigbruin.com/reviews05/review.p...ate750gb&file=1

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.as...cookie%5Ftest=1

http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/storage...uda_750/001.htm

Edited by 888

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