Planning to rebuild my 20TB WHS Flexraid server: Information requested. - Page 22

Also,

Since I am using an Asrock Mobo I wanted to avoid this problem:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1454542/issue-with-wd-red-drives/0_100

Not common; But possible.


I'd have no objection with using a RED drive @ $40 per TB btw...

I just don't like the current and typical $55 per TB they cost now.

I am not sure they have enough real world street testing yet to declare them an obvious winner but I generally view Toshiba HDD's favorably and they have some buzz going now.

I have not seen them for $40 per TB though.

3 TB Barracuda 7200.14 feature three 1TB platters instead of the five 600GB platters seen in many older 3TB designs (like WD's that are popular today).

It's a good reason 3TB Seagate 7200.14's are competitive on speed and energy profile at the same time. Much faster but not a total energy pig to do it. I think it's a good drive.

Aside from the new platters, users are getting 7,200 RPM spindle speed, 64MB cache and several Seagate technologies like OptiCache, which makes the cache process more efficient, SmartAlign which helps legacy computers play nice with 4K sectors and DiscWizard which allows operating systems like Windows XP to take advantage of the full 3TB capacity.

To me- newer design + 1TB platters = better. It's able to deliver more robust performance than other 3TB drives using 800GB or 600GB platters, and it does not use any more energy.

I think it's mostly a myth today that GREEN drives use less energy, and 7200rpm drives must use much more. That's not really true. At least not when you compare a 2 year old design to a modern one.










It's how you win^


lol.













One of the more telling aspects of any newer hard drive is looking at its performance at the inner and outer edges of the platters. As drive density increases or rotational speeds get faster, users can generally expect data transfer speeds to increase as well. In the case of the new 3TB Barracuda , transfer speeds measuring just under 200MB/s compared to under 140MB/s of the previous generations and models. This has been an Achilles heal for GREEN and RED drives as they slow down significantly when they are full, and slow down depending on where the data is stored (inner vs outer edges of platters)

My 3TB and 2TB WD Green drives with 5400rpm spindle speed can read or write at 100MB/sec when new- but slow down to 60MB/sec when full in some situations. Seagates slow down too. But they slow down from about 200MB/sec to about 110MB/sec.. with an average somewhere in between those two for most real world scenarios.

I know I get beat up a lot by Assassin and some of the PRO GREEN advocates on these forums but to me it's a real benefit that should not be dismissed when you factor in the Seagates are cheaper, and they don't really use much more energy or make an excessive amount of heat or noise. Only in a very demanding or delicate situation (like a HTPC in a bedroom) would I think it would even be a factor at all.

For a server- With multiple drives. No way.

No. I hate them. They are crap.






also,



It might be worth noting that 4TB Seagate uses 5 platters of 800GB to achieve the 4TB spec versus 3 platters of 1TB each for the 3TB Seagates.

This matters in energy profile and also performance.

Basically:

600GB<800GB<1000GB Platters.

So using three platters saves energy and increases performance at the same time. That is why the 1TB platter 3TB Seagates are good drives and have a noticable improvement over the 3TB Greens, and older 2TB drives from all MFG's

Yes. You need to pay attention. The newest versions of Green and also RED use 1TB platters. But often those cost more than a Seagate.

My real world experience having owned more than 6 of each is that GREEN is quite a bit slower than just 10%. Granted I have Green drives from a year ago or more.. and none of the very newest.



5400 x 100 = 540,000 divided by 7200 = 75

So... 5400rpm is 75% as fast as 7200rpm so it makes sense it would be about 25% slower.

This is my real world experience anyways. Regardless if my math is correct or it sucks.

lol.

190MB/sec on the Seagate vs 120MB/sec on Green when empty.

145MB/sec on the Seagate vs 80MB/sec on the Green when full.


I am not going to bother to calculate the percentages but it's pretty obvious it is more than 10%.

The speeds I am using I believe to be reasonable and a good representation of real world based in my owning 20 of these HDD's and using them daily.

Note: There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a Green drive in terms of speed as it can easily handle streaming HD with aplomb; but clearly it's much slower than just 10% difference in speed. I am being kind to the Green drives with my speed declarations too.

That is not a direct comparision. And it does not account for the massive slow down when full.

I just ran ATTO on my full 3TB Green.





70MB/sec is all she wrote.


That is word I use to describe the amount a green drive slows down when full.


The Seagate exhibits non of that nonsense.

There is the speed of a Seagate 3TB - 164MB/sec. What is the speed of a WD Green at the same bench ? about 110MB/sec. That's more than 10%

The *average* speed of a Seagate is more than 10% faster than the *maximum* speed of a WD GREEN.

Average speed of a Seagate with 1TB platters is north of 150MB/sec, it's operating in a territory the green drive can't go.

I have 5 brand new in the package. I'l be happy to slap one in the hot swap on my desktop. I will run both and leave the results up on one monitor, while the second monitor displays MY COMPUTER showing the drives and details.

I'll post a side by side screen shot with all the glory.

I'm lazy and they are in the basement. But rest assured I'll do it soon. It's movie time and wife is yelling at me
Stay tuned, I should get to this tomorrow or Saturday. I think you'll be surprised.


Both empty or full a Seagate 1TB tri-platter 7200.14 will slay a Green drive in both read and write speeds. It's really no contest at all.

I will test 2 different GREEN drives. I'll even post the serial numbers and pictures.
I will test 2 different Seagates, I'll even post the serial number and pictures.

There's at least 40MB/sec + difference in speed on the green drives best day real world.

I am going to post the benches of all my drives as a project this weekend, with screens shots and pictures of the drives, list of the models etc...

Stay tuned. I must go now.. lol.

I am not following you at all here. Sorry.

I've never had a Seagate drop below 100MB/sec. I have 10 of them.

I've never had a GREEN drive go over 100MB/sec when more than half full. I have 10 of those too.

Our argument is getting a bit silly. Both products have been reviewed and tested independently by multiple sites.
It's obvious the speed difference between the two is more than 10%. That's all I was saying. You said 10% and I believed that to be false and inaccurate.

90MB/sec vs 100MB/sec is 10% right ???? Well no way a full Green drive is doing 90MB/sec when the full Seagate is doing 100/MB sec. Not until hell freezes over, pigs fly, and the fat lady sings.

Every single one of my Seagates reads and writes consistently over 100MB/sec real world, even full. And I've never had a full green hit 90MB. They can do 120MB new easily, but they it's common to drop below 80MB/sec when full.
Two of my 2TB greens only do 60MB/sec.

Heck- I just tested and posted a quick ATTO on my full Green 3TB showing you 70MB/sec.
So if we use the review you posted at almost 100MB/sec as the "slowest" a Seagate gets that is 30% difference by my math ?? Yes ?
Or is my math wrong ?


?

70/MB/sec GREEN full
vs
100MB/sec Seagate full.

let us say this is the "slowest" these drives get. That is 30% difference in speed.

If you use the "fastest" the results are the same. 200MB/sec vs 140MB/sec is the same 30% difference in speed.

I'm not understand your 5% your claiming. It's not ever going to make sense to me because I know it's wrong.

You always speak like this. Use words like "actual data" "unbiased sources" "tests and reviews" thinking it makes you sound more correct. It doesn't work when the data is not in your favor.








http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-01-Read-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2901.html

Here is the link:




153.17 is how much percent faster than 94.39 or 93.35 ????

Oh.. right. It's only 10%

I am talking about real world. Notice how my original guestimates and speed declarations I made are holding up to be extremely accurate?? It's because I have 20 of these HDD's I used daily.

I'm not pulling this out my ass. It's clear to me your completely wrong about the 10% claim you made and you won't back down.

Let's look at your TomsHardware data:


We can look at maximum writes, minimum writes, or average writes too:


MAXIMUM:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-05-Write-Throughput-Maximum-h2benchw-3.16,2903.html






Minimum:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-06-Write-Throughput-Minimum-h2benchw-3.16,2905.html




OUCH! under 60MB/sec

Average:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-04-Write-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2904.html





How can you claim it's only 10%?
Edited by Mfusick - 2/28/13 at 7:11pm

This is the biggest rubbish claim I've ever seen you make. It's almost shameful.

I posted your own Tomshardware links- that you used as indpendent and unbiased. I posted read and write. I even posted the MAX (probably higher than real world) The Minimum (probably lower than real world) and the average (probably closest to real world) ..... And you say this ???

really ?


I'm at a loss at this point. Really I am.

You said the difference was 10%. I called BS on that.

There is no way you can take that above data and claim anything near 10% in both read or write- real world. It's just not going to make any sense to anyone.

I already knew the results of all this because I live with these myself daily and I pay attention to this stuff because I care. Often I get critizized by you for caring; I am repeatedly told it does not matter. But it does matter to me, I like 60% faster and I can't help it.
I know my Seagate drives are real world faster than my WD green drives; And I know real world they are a lot more than "10%" faster.

If your not going to credit a benchmark as a good source to measure the difference in speed then there is really no more point in my continuing. I am not going to get a stop watch and time a movie transfer, but if I did I am certain it's still faster than 10%

I guess I could. I did not mean I was not willing. I was trying to express that to go to that length and effort to convince you, or prove my point your wrong when you say "only 10%" seemed silly.

Your right in that the results would be interesting. I did not mean to suggested otherwise. I meant to suggest your being stubborn and I should not have to do that.



Please don't hate me:




I could not help myself

BTW you know that the benchmarks you posted above for the Seagate XT ST33000651AS is an older design that does not use 1TB platters right ? You know it's not at all what we are talking about when we talk about the 7200.14's that sell for $120 today with 1TB platters and newer and better modern design ???

Seagate 3TB Barracuda XT Review (ST33000651AS)
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_3tb_barracuda_xt_review_st33000651as



Not the same as

Seagate Barracuda 3TB Review (1TB Platters - ST3000DM001)
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_3tb_review_1tb_platters_st3000dm001

Originally you posted this below:


Not really fair--- Wouldn't you agree ???


I'm really not trying to be stubborn and much of this is fun and tongue in cheek if anything. Arguing hard drive speeds isn't life or death so I hope I don't come across too seriously

I'm just having a tough time letting go But I can be stubborn too...