Brian

2TB Seagate Constellation ES in for review

Recommended Posts

We just received Seagate's latest drive in their enterprise-class 3.5" Constellation ES 2TB drive.

Product Page

We'll get it into the testing regimen soon. In the interim, please post questions or specific issues you'd like to see covered with this drive.

Drive highlights:

  • 4th generation enterprise-class drive
  • PowerChoice™ host-selectable power options
  • 6Gb/s SAS performance
  • 2TB, 1TB, 500GB capacities
  • 7200 RPM
  • MTBF of 1.2 million hours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

span.com has 'em for preorder for US$350 for the 2TB SATA version. The SAS version is still listed as "TBC".

I am very curious to finally see these drives out of the tier-1 OEM availability realm and into the realm of us mere mortals... I have ten Barracuda ES.2 1TB SATA's I need to upgrade to Constellation ES 2TB's or A7K2000's at some point. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also really hoping as I'm running out of rack space for the 1TB drives, however if they are still following a 1:10^15 bit uncorrectable error rate that's still insane at 12% per full drive read. For enterprise use (at least using their own label) even in nearline storage where these would be used you would do full checks at least weekly, plus whatever production I/O is going to/from the subsystems.

I know they know how to do it (their tier-1 drives all have 10^16 already). Sure w/ 512byte blocks it takes up more space on the platter for the ECC functions, but I would be more than willing to shell out the same $$ for a 1.5TB drive at 10^16 rating than for a 2TB at 10^15. (heck, would love this on even 1TB drives).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telstar - we'll get there. We have two Hitachi drives in now, but they're not comparable. We'll certainly ask them and WD for their larger enterprise-class drives though so the performance comparisons can be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If possible, note the smart values for the following over the coarse of your testing in relation to the number of bytes or sectors sent. This (at least to me) would be important as this directly would affect a purchase decision. Even though seagate is stating a UER of 10^15, that /could' just be marketing to force people to buy their tier-1 drives. Even a simple capture of what the values are when you start, grab the amount of data read/written over the coarse of the test and then whatever values exist at the end. (assuming you'll be sending a couple TiB or more of data to the drive over the testing regime).

---

1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate

5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct

7 Seek_Error_Rate

10 Spin_Retry_Count

11 Calibration_Retry_Count

13 Read_Soft_Error_Rate

195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered

196 Reallocated_Event_Count

198 Offline_Uncorrectable

199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count

-----

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also working on a review of two Seagate Constellation ES 2TB SATA drives for our site Fudzilla.com. Thanks to the suggestions that many of you have offered the guys at StorageReview, I now have a broader perspective of what to include in our own review. Looking forward to sharing my publication with you guys when it's posted tomorrow morning. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also working on a review of two Seagate Constellation ES 2TB SATA drives for our site Fudzilla.com. Thanks to the suggestions that many of you have offered the guys at StorageReview, I now have a broader perspective of what to include in our own review. Looking forward to sharing my publication with you guys when it's posted tomorrow morning. ;)

Where is the review?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have one of the new 2TB (EARS) WD green drive? I would like to know if there is a performance difference using the 4KB sectors vs the 512B sectors, but i have not seen any reviews comparing the tow formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't...we just have the 1TB 64MB cache WD Caviar Black in right now that's not yet announced.

Well if you have the time, it would be nice if there was a comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we'll do is complete the review, then try to as quickly as possible post other reviews. We have 7-8 drives in house right now, we're finalizing out testing rig and methodology this weekend.

Then we'll polish off the reviews. It's not apples to apples to compare a consumer drive to an enterprise drive so we won't do that, but we'll run the same benchmarks, so you can compare yourself. The first head-to-head we'll have will probably be in the 2.5" notebook platter space...but we'll see. Even then, each drive will get its own review first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant taking the black drive and formating it with the 512Bytes sectors(standard)and then taking the same drive and formating it with the 4KB sectors (new) and seeing if there is a performance difference. Sorry about the confusion. You could even do a third test to show the performance if you use 4KB sector and leave the sectors misaligned. Sorry for the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's some confusion here. The drive /IS/ 4K sector sizes. The only difference is that you have the option for the drive to let the OS see the 4K sectors natively or it can fake it by showing the OS 512byte sectors. Regardless it's still 4K on the platter. So I'm not sure what your test would be for? The overhead of faking out 512b sectors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, the reason why its important is not because how its saved on the drive but translations and aliment overhead. Case in point at least on windows XP you need to realign the sectors; If you do for any 4K block you will have to write to two sectors because the block size is off by 512K. there may or may not be any performance issue, I do not know. As far as i know no one has ever compared them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I'm confusing the issue, but Mkruer it sounds like you want a comparison of aligned vs. unaligned, rather than 512 byte vs. 4K sectors. Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I'm confusing the issue, but Mkruer it sounds like you want a comparison of aligned vs. unaligned, rather than 512 byte vs. 4K sectors. Am I wrong?

Yes, however ideally there should be a third test using 512 byte test, but that has to be done on a completely different drive. So it would not be a true Apples to Apples comparison.

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