New Seagate NAS HDD's - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 06:04 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
DavidT99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Came across these Seagate HDD's designed specifically for NAS.

http://www.seagate.com/gb/en/internal-hard-drives/nas-drives/nas-hdd/

http://www.seagate.com/files/www-content/product-content/nas-fam/nas-hdd/en-gb/docs/nas-hdd-ds1789-1-1305-gb.pdf

http://www.seagate.com/files/www-content/product-content/nas-fam/nas-hdd/en-us/docs/100724684.pdf

Competitors to the WD RED's.

David
DavidT99 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 08:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bryansj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 161
We all know who will fall in love with this drive.

bryansj is offline  
post #3 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 09:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
I'm not into them at all. I said so.

I hate 5400rpm drives.

Unless they are super cheap per GB or somehow great performers I don't see my opinion changing.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #4 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 09:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
It seems like Seagate just copied everything I hate about Western Digital.

I think your mistaken in thinking I have a strong brand preference. I do not.

I have a very strong product preference for the 3TB 7200rpm Seagate with 1TB platters. I like this hard drive because it is consistently the highest performance with very low energy consumption and sells consistently for great prices. Paying more for a crappier NAS oriented drive or "green" 5400rpm drive makes no sense. It's marketing with no real world benefit.

I've long been a WD guy and not a Seagate guy so if WD launched a quality 7200 product with good pricing and energy efficient design I would jump on the bandwagon first.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #5 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 09:42 AM
Senior Member
 
Elpee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Ha...h, now we can see 'RED' drops down in price. I love competition.
Elpee is offline  
post #6 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 09:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nevcairiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Like with WD Red, they are simply not targeted at performance but rather durability. Slower spinning platters can allow longer life spans.

For me personally, a big storage drive doesn't need to be the highest performer. You simply can't have durability/reliability, best performance and a cheap price all in one.

I don't know if these drives bring something in the reliability department to the table in the real world, only long term tests will show that, but if they do I would gladly give up some performance.
Nevcairiel is offline  
post #7 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 10:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
I disagree. Statistically- if you took a look at 5400rpm versus 7200rpm drives.. the 7200rpm drives last longer.

I don't buy that for a second. In fact- the 10k rpm raptor and velociraptor are extremely reliable HDD's. More reliable than any 5400rpm ever made. Slowing the spindle speed does nothing for reliability and everything for lowering the performance. It's a crude and wrong way to make the drive use less energy too.

If in 3 years your theory is proven correct I will change my mind. Reliability is paramount to me. I just don't believe at all 5400rpm are more reliable. I believe they are less reliable.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #8 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 11:41 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
DavidT99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I really don't know why all the HDD manufactures don't just go to Mfusick for design and build advice, clearly all their engineers know nothing. wink.gif

David
jim2100 likes this.
DavidT99 is offline  
post #9 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 12:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidT99 View Post

I really don't know why all the HDD manufactures don't just go to Mfusick for design and build advice, clearly all their engineers know nothing. wink.gif

David

3adbf3e1_1354101845482.gif
amarshonarbangla is online now  
post #10 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 12:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidT99 View Post

I really don't know why all the HDD manufactures don't just go to Mfusick for design and build advice, clearly all their engineers know nothing. wink.gif

David

Thanks wink.gif

I just don't see any point in lowering the spindle speed of a HDD. It's just a dumb idea.

Here's a good rant: (or interesting read)

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1476704/slow-write-speeds-on-flexraid-raid-f-snapshot-raid/0_100#post_23428381

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #11 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nevcairiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Lower spindle speeds do increase reliability. Of course you can also build fast rotating devices that are reliable, but they will cost more. Can't really compare a raptor to a green, for example. tongue.gif

These nas drives are designed for small external nas enclosures, where heat may be a concern because it doesn't have much ventilation. Lowering speed reduces heat, and works for those devices.

Was speed of the new Seagate nas drives even confirmed yet?
jim2100 likes this.
Nevcairiel is offline  
post #12 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 02:25 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
DavidT99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I have read that thread, very interesting........in the past I used to buy Seagate drives but the build quality started to fall behind WD drives IMO. I then tended to go for either WD or Hitachi drives but more recently I have gone back to Seagate. At the moment I have a mix of drives in my server, WD, Hitachi and Seagate, some are 5400 and others 7200 rpm.

David
DavidT99 is offline  
post #13 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 02:27 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
DavidT99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

3adbf3e1_1354101845482.gif

Are photos of one self allowed biggrin.gif

David
DavidT99 is offline  
post #14 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 02:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidT99 View Post

Are photos of one self allowed biggrin.gif

David

Wouldn't know since I am yet to see anyone post a pic of themselves on this forum smile.gif
amarshonarbangla is online now  
post #15 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 02:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidT99 View Post

Are photos of one self allowed biggrin.gif

David

Wouldn't know since I am yet to see anyone post a pic of themselves on this forum smile.gif

http://www.avsforum.com/g/a/89468/avatars/

No... I am not puppy. lol.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #16 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 03:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

http://www.avsforum.com/g/a/89468/avatars/

No... I am not puppy. lol.

I guess it is allowed.
amarshonarbangla is online now  
post #17 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 03:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Why would it not be allowed?

That's actually me in my avatar. I signed in with Facebook one time and it grabbed it. That was about a year ago, just after I got married.
It has been that way for a long time.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #18 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 03:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post


No... I am not puppy. lol.

900x900px-LL-0a933829_304182_2038291593138_359019773_n.jpeg

My dog is grown up now btw...


*


My pup was my old avatar (as was the other picture of myself)

Lots of guys in the theater building forum use real names, real pictures etc...

It's only the PC nerds that don't post real pics tongue.gif

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #19 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 04:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Why would it not be allowed?

Idk. David raised the question. Ask him :P
amarshonarbangla is online now  
post #20 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 04:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

900x900px-LL-0a933829_304182_2038291593138_359019773_n.jpeg

My dog is grown up now btw...


*


My pup was my old avatar (as was the other picture of myself)

Lots of guys in the theater building forum use real names, real pictures etc...

It's only the PC nerds that don't post real pics tongue.gif

Cute dog, cute owner.

I guess I am a PC nerd

i7ak.jpg
amarshonarbangla is online now  
post #21 of 105 Old 06-14-2013, 04:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Lol. I'm a PC nerd too biggrin.gif

I am not sure why this forum is the way it is, and other forums are more open and like a community.

I really enjoy hanging out in the dedicated theater building forum. All the people there are really good people and I admire the passion they put into their dedicated builds. I'm jealous actually.

It might be a different type of person or personality over there. I am not sure.


hey... wait a minute! Did you call me cute tongue.gif

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #22 of 105 Old 06-15-2013, 12:36 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
DavidT99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

Idk. David raised the question. Ask him :P

It was a rhetorical question.............biggrin.gif

David
DavidT99 is offline  
post #23 of 105 Old 06-15-2013, 11:02 AM
Member
 
likelinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I disagree. Statistically- if you took a look at 5400rpm versus 7200rpm drives.. the 7200rpm drives last longer..

Do you have any whitepapers or research data to prove what you are saying? You make claim that statistically that 7200 RPM drives last longer than 5400 RPM drives. Please provide your data reference for such claim.
jim2100 likes this.
likelinus is offline  
post #24 of 105 Old 06-16-2013, 07:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by likelinus View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I disagree. Statistically- if you took a look at 5400rpm versus 7200rpm drives.. the 7200rpm drives last longer..

Do you have any whitepapers or research data to prove what you are saying? You make claim that statistically that 7200 RPM drives last longer than 5400 RPM drives. Please provide your data reference for such claim.

If you disagree with me then you provide evidence tongue.gif

It's common knowledge that 7200rpm enterprise level drives last longer than 5400rpm "green" drives. I'm not going to get into a "prove god exists" debate leading to semantics. It's so easy for people to ask for evidence, but it's a major burden on the person being asked. Frankly - I am not going to play that game. And it is certainly not because I am running away or feel I am wrong. I am sure somewhere exists the data your requesting- I am just too lazy to go find it for you.

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I know the statistics I have seen in the past show that 10k rpm raptor and velocirator where higher in reliability than more normal drives, and also the 5400rpm drives were among the very worst. I give zero credit to the nonsense idea that 5400rpm have increased reliability. I'm calling BS on that. That might be the biggest pile of BS I've ever read on this forum. I just totally refuse to allow someone to call me out for "evidence" or some formal white paper for support of such a ridiculous myth.


5400rpm HDD's are not more reliable than faster spindle speed drives. I dare anyone to try and prove they are.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #25 of 105 Old 06-16-2013, 07:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nevcairiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 106
If you compare enterprise level drives with consumer drives, and consider that "proof", your comparison is already flawed, and much more ridiculous then any claims a manufacturer could make.
Calling yourself lazy, and challenging the other parties in a discussion to find the proof is always easy, especially if no clear proof exists in either direction - it doesn't make your statements any more true.

I call BS on anything Mfusick says, and i challenge him to proof me wrong!
jim2100 likes this.
Nevcairiel is offline  
post #26 of 105 Old 06-16-2013, 08:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post

If you compare enterprise level drives with consumer drives, and consider that "proof", your comparison is already flawed, and much more ridiculous then any claims a manufacturer could make.
Calling yourself lazy, and challenging the other parties in a discussion to find the proof is always easy, especially if no clear proof exists in either direction - it doesn't make your statements any more true.

It does not make my statement any less true either wink.gif

You hit the nail on the head with" especially if no clear proof exists in either direction".

That is exactly my position. I'm not trying to say faster spindle speeds last longer, instead I am trying to say slower spindle speeds do not last longer. There is a difference and the difference is I think for real world all HDD's are simply HDD's and they are all about the same. Choosing a 5400rpm drive because you think it might last longer is stupid, and there is no science or logic that can support that choice. On the other side- it's a shame if consumers don't choose a 7200rpm drive because there's some BS myth that they might not last as long.

All consumer HDD have return and failure rates in the first three years from about 2%-10% historically. Any model you choose is likely to be about the same as another you might have choosen.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #27 of 105 Old 06-16-2013, 08:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Your experience can be predicted by comparing "the mean time between failure" (MTBF) and the total hours you use your drive. Almost all hard drives have between 1%-10% failure rates and the results are so various and all over the place based on model, mfg, and the entity recording the data. Almost every hard drive study in existence finds different results- and the technology and actual specs of the models being produced change so frequently that it is very stupid to look at an old study on a drive that is no longer made and think it will directly translate to models currently being MFG today. There is nothing of value to be found in a white paper on HDD reliability that will help a consumer buy a model today.


Annualized failure rate:

Annualized failure rate (AFR) gives the estimated probability that a device or component will fail during a full year of use. It is a relation between the mean time between failure (MTBF) and the hours that a number of devices are run per year. AFR is estimated from a sample of like components — AFR and MTBF as given by vendors are population statistics that can not predict the behaviour of an individual unit.

For example, AFR is used to characterize the reliability of hard disk drives.
The relationship between AFR and MTBF is:


This equation assumes that the drives are powered on for the full 8760 hours of a year, and gives the estimated fraction of an original sample of drives that will suffer from disk failures, or, equivalently, 1 − AFR is the fraction of drives that will show no failures over a year. It is based on an exponential failure distribution (see Failure rate for a full derivation).
This can be approximated by, assuming a small AFR,

(expressed in %)
For example, a common specification for PATA and SATA drives may be 300,000 MTBF, giving a theoretical 2.88% annualized failure rate i.e. a 2.88% chance that a given drive will fail during a year of use.
The AFR for a drive is derived from time-to-fail data from a reliability-demonstration test (RDT).
Note that annualized failure rate will increase towards and beyond the end of the service life of a device or component. Google's 2007 study found, based on a large field sample of drives, that actual AFRs for individual drives ranged from 1.7% for first year drives to over 8.6% for three-year old drives. A CMU 2007 study showed an estimated 3% mean AFR over 1–5 years based on replacement logs for a large sample of drives.
link

http://static.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder.pdf

That's probably one of the better white papers on HDD reliability^

But like I said- it's all totally crap today. Studying reliability of models no longer for sale or being produced has no translation to a purchase decision today. White papers are useless to a consumer. A hard drive is a hard drive. They are all about the same and they all fail at some point.

If you compare the MTBF of a 10,000rpm WD hard drive today ( 1.4 million hours ) to a 5400rpm drive ( 300,000) it's pretty obvious which is going to last longer A WD black is rated at 1,000,000 and a Blue is 600,000. Last time I saw a Green rated was 300,000 but then WD stopped rating them. That is the old data and ratings I remember. When 5400rpm Intellipower drives started coming out and failing at an increasing rate WD made the move to stop publishing MTBF rates for 5400rpm drives and only does so on the 10k and 7200 drives because the data and ratings for 5400rpm drives are generally poor.



I find it funny they stopped rating MTBF for the GREEN 5400rpm.. etc.. But still provide the ratings for 7200rpm and 10,000rpm Enterprise level drives in product brochures:

http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/OVR/ENG/2178-001010.pdf

You have to dig into the spec sheet to find any data at all on this subject:
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771438.pdf

And^ You only find a rating for 300,000 load and unload cycles.. with no MTBF data at all. rolleyes.gif


I have seen some specs for the WD RED that suggest 1,000,000 MTBF and if I had to guess I'd say the RED is more durable than the GREEN drives- but both are less durable statistically than a faster Raptor 10,000rpm Hard drive from the same MFG. The Audio Video drives, and the Enterprise drives @ 7200rpm are rated as much as 2 million MTBF suggesting they are also more reliable than 5400rpm drives. The idea a slower spindle speed drive lasts longer is just BS. There are many factors that determine reliability other than spindle speed. The reason the faster drives are more reliable is not because they spin faster- but because they are build and designed better. The reason why 5400rpm are among the worst reliability today is because they are designed to be affordable, quiet and cool- and not at all designed to be durable in a demanding environment and heavy use.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #28 of 105 Old 06-16-2013, 08:42 AM
Member
 
Bumtrinket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Statistically- if you took a look at 5400rpm versus 7200rpm drives.. the 7200rpm drives last longer.

I just don't believe at all 5400rpm are more reliable. I believe they are less reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I'm not trying to say faster spindle speeds last longer, instead I am trying to say slower spindle speeds do not last longer. There is a difference and the difference is I think for real world all HDD's are simply HDD's and they are all about the same.

"sniggers"

On another note, your wife is very pretty and you have a lovely dog. smile.gif
Bumtrinket is offline  
post #29 of 105 Old 06-16-2013, 08:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 20,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumtrinket View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Statistically- if you took a look at 5400rpm versus 7200rpm drives.. the 7200rpm drives last longer.

I just don't believe at all 5400rpm are more reliable. I believe they are less reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I'm not trying to say faster spindle speeds last longer, instead I am trying to say slower spindle speeds do not last longer. There is a difference and the difference is I think for real world all HDD's are simply HDD's and they are all about the same.

"sniggers"

On another note, your wife is very pretty and you have a lovely dog. smile.gif

Thanks biggrin.gif

I did contradict myself; the reason being I was over aggressive with my words trying to strongly make the point 5400rpm are not superior in reliability. I generally feel it's going to be a crap shoot for a consumer and making a decision on the reliability of a 5400rpm versus a 7200rpm is stupid. Use other factors as a purchase decision. I think most consumer level HDD's are generally about the same.



Cliffs Notes:

7200rpm and 5400rpm reliability for more ordinary consumer levels drives is about the same, and thinking one is more reliable than the other is stupid. Making a purchase decision on the myth one is better or worse than the other is also stupid. Make your purchase decision based on other factors (MTBF ratings, warranty, price, capacity, performance, energy consumption etc... etc.. ) The myth a slower spinning HDD will last longer simply because it spins slower is total BS.

-


"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #30 of 105 Old 06-16-2013, 08:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
I am not going to argue this (yet) again but I have dug up a few extremely interesting articles that I read a few years ago for those interested. These reference the Google study and also another very interesting paper that was awarded the "academic computer science best paper" award.

Its a little dated but the data still is true today. StorageMojo did an excellent synopsis of the subject using these two studies and specifically weighs in on the whole mean time between failure nonsense.

Everything You Know About Disks Is Wrong

Other links:
Google's Failure Trends in a Large Disk Drive Population (pdf)
Bianca Schroeder of CMU’s Parallel Data Lab paper: Disk failures in the real world: What does an MTTF of 1,000,000 hours mean to you?
NetApp Weighs In On Disks

Some interesting comments from these studies...

On High End Enterprise vs Consumer drives
Quote:
Interestingly, we observe little difference in replacement rates between SCSI, FC and SATA drives, potentially an indication that disk-independent factors, such as operating conditions, affect replacement rates more than component specific factors.”

Actual MTBF...
Quote:
The weighted average ARR was 3.4 times larger than 0.88%, corresponding to a datasheet MTTF of 1,000,000 hours.”

In other words, that 1 million hour MTBF is really about 300,000 hours – about what consumer drives are spec’d at.

Actual MTBFs (or AFRs) of “enterprise” and “consumer” drives are pretty much the same...
Quote:
This tidbit known mostly to industry insiders is largely true, especially when comparing comparable drive sizes. But how storage arrays handle the respective drive type failures is what continues to perpetuate the customer perception that more expensive drives should be more reliable. One of the storage industry’s dirty secrets is that most enterprise and consumer drives are made up of largely the same components. However, their external interfaces (FC, SCSI, SAS or SATA) and most importantly their respective firmware design priorities / resulting goals play a huge role in determining enterprise vs. consumer drive behavior in the real world.
assassin is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off