Here's the product's info page
Barracuda 7200.10 Ultra ATA/100 750-GB Hard Drive
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.js...D&locale=en-US
Barracuda 7200.10 Ultra ATA/100 750-GB Hard Drive
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.js...D&locale=en-US
Barracuda 7200.10 Ultra ATA/100 750-GB Hard Drive, Compatible with 5000??
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Thanks to you both
Hey elorimer. If you will, update me if you have any problems. I have an IDE 750 gig 7200.10 in liz's puter, and plan to move it to one of her replaytvs, and put in a 1TB sata in her puter. I probably won't be doing this for about a month anyway, so knowing of any problems will help me decide if I want to risk it.
thanks again
Hey elorimer. If you will, update me if you have any problems. I have an IDE 750 gig 7200.10 in liz's puter, and plan to move it to one of her replaytvs, and put in a 1TB sata in her puter. I probably won't be doing this for about a month anyway, so knowing of any problems will help me decide if I want to risk it.
thanks again
Cow since you already have the drive give it a try and report back. And actually use it a bit -- give it a workout.
And Henry (for the millionth time) I'm pretty sure there is no case of 8 meg vs 16 meg cache. If the 8meg version of the drive is (5K) compatible then the 16 meg version is as well. I believe this has always been the case going back to the 7200.8 seagates. In fact I'm using a 16 meg cache 7200.3(?) SV35 now and it works absolutely perfectly. 16 meg cache sure isn't needed for anything, but if it's all that's available then it shouldn't matter... if the drive is otherwise compatible. Honestly I have no reason to even care but it's unfair to hapless noobs (and cow) to propagate that myth especially now that ATA drives are getting so scarce. It's apparently a case of too many (at least two) giving advice on something they have zero experience with.
Those who continue to repeat that tediously ignorant yarn really need to try a 16 meg cache once and for all (from a 5K compatible drive series) so they can perhaps quit spouting misinformation on the internet.
![]()
Of course I think we've all learned by now you can't believe everything you read on the web, even here in Cow's (ever enduring) Blog and Diner .
I'm sure you were just teasing the frozen beef with that quip, but (since you forgot the wink) it looked halfway serious if not (gasp) air-headed.
And Henry (for the millionth time) I'm pretty sure there is no case of 8 meg vs 16 meg cache. If the 8meg version of the drive is (5K) compatible then the 16 meg version is as well. I believe this has always been the case going back to the 7200.8 seagates. In fact I'm using a 16 meg cache 7200.3(?) SV35 now and it works absolutely perfectly. 16 meg cache sure isn't needed for anything, but if it's all that's available then it shouldn't matter... if the drive is otherwise compatible. Honestly I have no reason to even care but it's unfair to hapless noobs (and cow) to propagate that myth especially now that ATA drives are getting so scarce. It's apparently a case of too many (at least two) giving advice on something they have zero experience with.
Those who continue to repeat that tediously ignorant yarn really need to try a 16 meg cache once and for all (from a 5K compatible drive series) so they can perhaps quit spouting misinformation on the internet.
Of course I think we've all learned by now you can't believe everything you read on the web, even here in Cow's (ever enduring) Blog and Diner .
I'm sure you were just teasing the frozen beef with that quip, but (since you forgot the wink) it looked halfway serious if not (gasp) air-headed.
Ken, I have read a bunch and I DID find specific examples of certain model drives which DID have problems with 16MB cache versus 8MB cache. Now, that is clearly not the case with the DB-35 drives. But, there were several models, especially the 7200.9 and 7200.10, which were suspect and seemed to be worse with the 16MB cache versus 8MB cache. If the timing was a problem for the ReplayTV, then it is certainly possible that the cache size could contribute to the stability. Whether that is the actual contributing factor or not, I cannot say for sure. But, observation sure seems to indicate that the 16MB cache of specific models were more problematic than the 8MB cache drives. The 7200.10 model drive falls into the category of some people having success and others not. Whether that is specifically due to the cache size isn't clear, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the warning...
And, this page of Gary's, who used to be quite into Replay upgrading (as the website is dedicated) touches on this issue. I think that Mikeboy is also quite aware of problems within specific drive models as he has sold and supported many drive upgrades. You'll also see that Gary's page mentions the 7200.8 drive having no problem with either 8MB or 16MB cache models. So, I certainly wasn't propagating that ALL drives with 16MB cache are bad. If you've read through my posts, you'll see that I have indicated with the DB-35 drives that they seem to work fine with 16MB cache. However, the 7200.10 drive has always been iffy and personally I'm not sure if the 16MB cache contributes to the problem or not. So, as I already stated, there is nothing wrong with the warning. I think in this particular case of 'Cow asking about the 7200.10 model specifically, since it has been somewhat hit or miss (or else you wouldn't be asking him to try it and report back), that there is nothing wrong with him additionally mentioning if the drive is 8MB cache or 16MB cache. And, there is certainly nothing wrong with warning him that if it is 16MB cache that he may have problems with it because the actual problem factor is unknown...
Henry
Ken, I have read a bunch and I DID find specific examples of certain model drives which DID have problems with 16MB cache versus 8MB cache. Now, that is clearly not the case with the DB-35 drives. But, there were several models, especially the 7200.9 and 7200.10, which were suspect and seemed to be worse with the 16MB cache versus 8MB cache. If the timing was a problem for the ReplayTV, then it is certainly possible that the cache size could contribute to the stability. Whether that is the actual contributing factor or not, I cannot say for sure. But, observation sure seems to indicate that the 16MB cache of specific models were more problematic than the 8MB cache drives. The 7200.10 model drive falls into the category of some people having success and others not. Whether that is specifically due to the cache size isn't clear, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the warning...
And, this page of Gary's, who used to be quite into Replay upgrading (as the website is dedicated) touches on this issue. I think that Mikeboy is also quite aware of problems within specific drive models as he has sold and supported many drive upgrades. You'll also see that Gary's page mentions the 7200.8 drive having no problem with either 8MB or 16MB cache models. So, I certainly wasn't propagating that ALL drives with 16MB cache are bad. If you've read through my posts, you'll see that I have indicated with the DB-35 drives that they seem to work fine with 16MB cache. However, the 7200.10 drive has always been iffy and personally I'm not sure if the 16MB cache contributes to the problem or not. So, as I already stated, there is nothing wrong with the warning. I think in this particular case of 'Cow asking about the 7200.10 model specifically, since it has been somewhat hit or miss (or else you wouldn't be asking him to try it and report back), that there is nothing wrong with him additionally mentioning if the drive is 8MB cache or 16MB cache. And, there is certainly nothing wrong with warning him that if it is 16MB cache that he may have problems with it because the actual problem factor is unknown...
Henry
I suspect I've read most/all those posts and most/all of yours and I still see no evidence that cache ever plays a factor. Still evaluating any *credible* evidence which may surface.
Do you have any experience or has Mikeyboy said anything specifically about cache size? I certainly take his word for it that the DB35's he's using are good (in replays) but still I'd never use one (in a replay) personally just since I don't have to. As far as posts about the 7200.10's working, looks to me like it's more drive size, not cache size that comes into play in the examples I saw of course none of us really has the full answer to this mystery, so we can only evaluate further evidence if it becomes available. Complicating the matter is likely different hardware and firmware variation over time even in particular drive revisions and families.
As well there are varying degrees of what people will put up with as *compatible* (acceptable) but for me it means virtually no unexpected spontaneous panic reboots, and I don't see them. So I guess I'm pretty picky about this issue after putting up with my first (unstable) pre-alcatraz 5K for a year or more.
I'll be interested in the follow up to cow's really really big IDE adventure so I will stay tuned for this one.
![]()
Do you have any experience or has Mikeyboy said anything specifically about cache size? I certainly take his word for it that the DB35's he's using are good (in replays) but still I'd never use one (in a replay) personally just since I don't have to. As far as posts about the 7200.10's working, looks to me like it's more drive size, not cache size that comes into play in the examples I saw of course none of us really has the full answer to this mystery, so we can only evaluate further evidence if it becomes available. Complicating the matter is likely different hardware and firmware variation over time even in particular drive revisions and families.
As well there are varying degrees of what people will put up with as *compatible* (acceptable) but for me it means virtually no unexpected spontaneous panic reboots, and I don't see them. So I guess I'm pretty picky about this issue after putting up with my first (unstable) pre-alcatraz 5K for a year or more.
I'll be interested in the follow up to cow's really really big IDE adventure so I will stay tuned for this one.
Seems all my Seagate SV35's are SV35.2.
And it looks like Seagate is replacing the DB35 CE's with something called Pipeline HD™ (SATA only of course) DB35 topped out at 750 GB. While they released SV35.3 in 1TB it's SATA only as well.
It's possible they may be no longer producing any 3.5" ATA drives.
![]()
(
![]()
for ReplayTVs otherwise
![]()
)
Seems all my Seagate SV35's are SV35.2.
And it looks like Seagate is replacing the DB35 CE's with something called Pipeline HD™ (SATA only of course) DB35 topped out at 750 GB. While they released SV35.3 in 1TB it's SATA only as well.
It's possible they may be no longer producing any 3.5" ATA drives.
(
Sometime in the last two weeks, it appears to have died.
![]()
Now I am at Please Wait.
Update: I did a low level format on the drive in a PC and it survived just fine, so it doesn't look like the drive itself is bad. Add me to the not compatible side of the ledger.
Sometime in the last two weeks, it appears to have died.
Update: I did a low level format on the drive in a PC and it survived just fine, so it doesn't look like the drive itself is bad. Add me to the not compatible side of the ledger.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Join the discussion
