Sign in to follow this  
kevinhoque

Seagate ST3500320AS

Recommended Posts

Hi folks. I bought one of these drives last week and when I got it installed it reported that it was a 820AS rather than a 320AS. A little trawling around the net and I discovered that my hard drive had been sold to me with dodgy firmware - the 820AS meaning 8MB cache rather than 32MB cache. So I downloaded and installed new firmware, which was supposed to fix everything. Thing is, when I look at the info re this drive in HD Tune it reports that the cache size is zero! Also tried Aida32 and it says cache size is unknown. Can these apps be trusted?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also recently bought one of these. My 7200.11 also has the old firmware, but I think I'm OK with the 32MB buffer as per the Seagate website info. HD Tune does, however, report a size of zero, which is a bit disconcerting.

I have another issue with the ST3500320AS. Here's a copy of a post posted on ocforums that describes the situation:

I'm in the process of setting up an Intel ICH9R-based RAID array consisting of three (or possibly four) Seagate 500GB drives. This array will be mixed in that two of the drives are 7200.10s (ST3500630AS) and the other is a 7200.11 (ST3500320AS).

I've been benchmarking the three drive array in RAID5 and my results are distinctly subpar (see http://techreport.com/forums/viewtop...r=asc&start=30 and look for user ToddLC). This could be caused by a number of things such as the fact that the array is mixed, a buggy Intel driver for an ICH9R running on Vista x64, or individual drive issues.

In this thread I want to restrict the discussion to an individual drive issue I encountered while trying to isolate the problem.

In general, the 7200.11 is substantially faster than the 7200.10s. This is what one would expect given that the 7200.11 has a higher bit density than the 7200.10. For example, sequential read for the 7200.11 is around 100MB/s versus 70 for the 7200.10.

But for a particular scenario, the 7200.11 bogs down and I would like to know if others have experienced this problem or can replicate it. This benchmark was done using IOMeter on raw disks. The non-default parameter values are: 16KB transfer size, 50% read/50% write, 100% sequential, outstanding I/Os between 1 and 10.

What's strange with the results is that the transfer rate goes down as the number of outstanding I/Os goes up. Here are a few data points:

#I/Os, Transfer Rate (MB/s)

7200.11

1 9.2

5 3.6

10 3.2

7200.10

1 8.8

5 8.5

10 17

Notice that the 7200.11 transfers at around 1/3 the rate at 10 outstanding I/Os compared to one I/O. The 7200.10 exhibits more or less what you would expect - faster at 10 than one I/O.

This unexpected 7200.11 behavior pretty much happens with any small transfer size combined with mixed reads and writes. It gets worse the smaller the transfer size.

I can't see how this could be caused by anything other than the drive as the 7200.10 behaves as expected. You would think the more overlapped I/Os, the better the drive could schedule the head placement. I thought this was what NCQ was all about.

I'm wondering whether there is a problem with the scheduling algorithms in the 7200.11, i.e., a firmware problem. My drive has the SD04 firmware.

Please try this test if you get a chance. I'd really like to know if my drive is at fault or this is a general issue.

----------------------------------------------------------

Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3P; Version F4 BIOS

Intel E6600

2GB OCZ2P800R21G 5-5-5-15 @ 400MHz Slots 1,3

2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-6400 4-4-4-12 @ 400MHZ Slots 2,4

XFX GeForce 8600GTS

One 400GB Seagate ST3400620AS

Two 500GB Seagate ST3500630AS

One 500GB Seagate ST3500320AS

LiteOn LH-20A1L-06

All stock timings, HSF

Corsair HX520W

Antec P180

Windows Vista x64 Home Premium

Could you run this benchmark on your ST3500320AS? As I said in my ocforums msg, I'd like to know if my drive is peculiar. If yours is faster, I might upgrade the firmware, but don't really want to if it is a futile effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a few threads on other forums- HDTune and whatnot simply aren't reporting cache size properly. I wouldn't worry about it. If you're that nervous, check in SeaTools from Seagate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a few threads on other forums- HDTune and whatnot simply aren't reporting cache size properly. I wouldn't worry about it. If you're that nervous, check in SeaTools from Seagate.

I tried the DOS version of Seatools and it didn't tell me the cache size--unless i was using it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a small off topic note, is this drive loud to anyone, I got one and I thought it was bad but I just got my 2nd one today and its making the same noise, almost like a light static noise. My new WD is dead quiet but this one seems to make noise when read/writing.

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
Sign in to follow this