Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #667 > unrolled thread

Selecting a hard drive

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

Contents

  Selecting a hard drive Haines Brown <haines@HistoricalMaterialism.info> - 2011-09-11 10:51 -0400
    Re: Selecting a hard drive david <none@nospam.com> - 2011-09-11 15:32 +0000
    Re: Selecting a hard drive General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-12 00:35 +0000
    Re: Selecting a hard drive Dirk Weber <dirk-weber@web.de> - 2011-09-13 21:40 +0200
      Re: Selecting a hard drive GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2011-09-13 18:42 -0400
        Re: Selecting a hard drive Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-09-13 23:00 -0400
          Re: Selecting a hard drive GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2011-09-14 16:20 -0400
            Re: Selecting a hard drive Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2011-09-15 01:11 +0000
              Re: Selecting a hard drive Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-09-15 00:03 -0400
              Re: Selecting a hard drive david <none@nospam.com> - 2011-09-15 10:21 +0000
            Re: Selecting a hard drive Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-09-14 23:58 -0400
            Re: Selecting a hard drive David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-09-15 09:02 +0200
              Re: Selecting a hard drive GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2011-09-15 05:24 -0400
                Re: Selecting a hard drive Bill Marcum <bill@lat.localnet> - 2011-09-15 09:15 -0400
        Re: Selecting a hard drive Dirk Weber <dirk-weber@web.de> - 2011-09-14 15:15 +0200
      Re: Selecting a hard drive Haines Brown <haines@HistoricalMaterialism.info> - 2011-09-14 07:53 -0400
        Re: Selecting a hard drive Dirk Weber <dirk-weber@web.de> - 2011-09-14 20:27 +0200

#667 — Selecting a hard drive

My initial query seems to have disappeared, and I apologize if this is a
duplicate.

I'm thinking of installing a second hard drive in my system for
installing linux, and I have some simple questions for choosing another
drive. I'm presently using a Seagate Barracuda SATA 3.0., 32 MB cache,
and I've been happy with it. 

I have no compelling reason to move from Seagate, but I see some
complaints about Barracuda reliability. Seagate Constellation is
apparently an upgrade, but is too new for much feedback. Is WD
considered more reliable these days than Seagate?

The Seagate Constellation supposedly has higher data integrity, but is a
bit mysterious about just what is involved. Is there anything I have to
worry about in switching to the new Constellation regarding such
features as "PowerChoice" that might be incompatible with my existing
hardware and operating system?

64 MB cache is available, and it seems to have much better read/write
times, but I can't always find the data to compare. Is a move from 32 to
64 MB an obvious step to take if affordable?

There is also the option to move to SATA 6.0 from 3.0. My impression is
that my kernel, 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem provides a controller for SATA 6.0,
but wonder if anyone knows of problems. I assume the cable interface
remains the same.

I imagine a slower rotation speed is good for drive life, noise, etc. as
long as the specs are otherwise the same. What are the advantages of
choosing one speed over another?

Haines Brown

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#668

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:51:07 -0400, Haines Brown rearranged some electrons
to say:

> My initial query seems to have disappeared, and I apologize if this is a
> duplicate.
> 
> I'm thinking of installing a second hard drive in my system for
> installing linux, and I have some simple questions for choosing another
> drive. I'm presently using a Seagate Barracuda SATA 3.0., 32 MB cache,
> and I've been happy with it.
> 
>

I've got 4 Barracuda 7200's of various sizes and ages here, all have run 
fine for several years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#669

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:51:07 -0400, Haines Brown wrote:

> My initial query seems to have disappeared, and I apologize if this is a
> duplicate.
> 
> I'm thinking of installing a second hard drive in my system for
> installing linux, and I have some simple questions for choosing another
> drive. I'm presently using a Seagate Barracuda SATA 3.0., 32 MB cache,
> and I've been happy with it.
> 
> I have no compelling reason to move from Seagate, but I see some
> complaints about Barracuda reliability. Seagate Constellation is
> apparently an upgrade, but is too new for much feedback. Is WD
> considered more reliable these days than Seagate?
> 
> The Seagate Constellation supposedly has higher data integrity, but is a
> bit mysterious about just what is involved. Is there anything I have to
> worry about in switching to the new Constellation regarding such
> features as "PowerChoice" that might be incompatible with my existing
> hardware and operating system?
> 
> 64 MB cache is available, and it seems to have much better read/write
> times, but I can't always find the data to compare. Is a move from 32 to
> 64 MB an obvious step to take if affordable?
> 
> There is also the option to move to SATA 6.0 from 3.0. My impression is
> that my kernel, 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem provides a controller for SATA 6.0,
> but wonder if anyone knows of problems. I assume the cable interface
> remains the same.
> 
> I imagine a slower rotation speed is good for drive life, noise, etc. as
> long as the specs are otherwise the same. What are the advantages of
> choosing one speed over another?
> 
> Haines Brown

I've had 3 or 4 1TB Seagates die on me, the last one was a replacement 
drive that Seagate sent me when I RMAed a dead drive. It lasted 4 days 
before it died completely, I haven't bothered to RMA it or my other bad 
Seagates because I've completely lost confidence in them. I've just had a 
Hitachi 2TB/64M cache drive die on me last week, I have several others 
which are still OK and I replaced the bad one with another Hitachi however 
I've lost confidence in them also. A have a couple of new machines with 
2TB Western Digital drives, however I haven't had them long enough to say 
if WD drives are reliable or not. Frankly I'm not sure if anyone builds a 
reliable drive anymore. I backup everything critical to multiple machines 
both on and offsite so a drive failure never causes me any trouble, just 
the time to swap out and commission a new drive (I always run badblocks on 
a drive before I format it, a single pattern on badblocks takes about 12 
hours on a 2TB drive so that's what I run. The default is four patterns 
but that would take two days so I don't do that). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#671

Op 11-09-11 16:51, Haines Brown schreef:
> I'm thinking of installing a second hard drive in my system for
> installing linux, and I have some simple questions for choosing another
> drive. I'm presently using a Seagate Barracuda SATA 3.0., 32 MB cache,
> and I've been happy with it. 


I have been using hdds for some 15 years now. None of them did ever die.
I sorted them out when they finally became too slow and - much more
important - too small. Ok, the newer were always faster, but for some
years now there is not really a difference to be felt between newer and
still newer hdds.

I always chose them by price, so I had quite a lot of manufacturers
represented in my pcs, no problem.

Unless you are a gamer (I have no idea which cache might be better in
that case) I would say that normally the cache size today is sufficient,
I would not care about that.

I think much more important is the ram size and the processor clock rate.

But there is still the same old problem with the hdds as has been so
from the beginning: They always will be too small someday and you will
have to buy a new, bigger one.

;-)

Our first pc had a 40 mb (megabytes!) hdd, would be a bit too small
nowadays.

Groetjes uit Arft,

Dirk



-- 
D. Weber
Arft, Germany (50°23'N 07°05'E)
If possible, no html mails please

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#672

Dirk Weber wrote:

> 
> Our first pc had a 40 mb (megabytes!) hdd, would be a bit too small
> nowadays.
> 

My first pc (1977) didn't have a hard drive and was not available with a 
hard drive. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#673

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, GangGreene wrote:

> Dirk Weber wrote:
>
>>
>> Our first pc had a 40 mb (megabytes!) hdd, would be a bit too small
>> nowadays.
>>
>
> My first pc (1977) didn't have a hard drive and was not available with a
> hard drive.
>
>
I didn't get my first computer until 1979, but there wasn't even a floppy 
drive for it.

    Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#679

Michael Black wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, GangGreene wrote:
> 
>> Dirk Weber wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Our first pc had a 40 mb (megabytes!) hdd, would be a bit too small
>>> nowadays.
>>>
>>
>> My first pc (1977) didn't have a hard drive and was not available with a
>> hard drive.
>>
>>
> I didn't get my first computer until 1979, but there wasn't even a floppy
> drive for it.
> 
>     Michael
Oh first computer, that would be an 6800 breadboard computer with a little 
bit of static ram, as in 256 bytes....Yes Bytes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#680

On 2011-09-14, GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
> Oh first computer, that would be an 6800 breadboard computer with a little 
> bit of static ram, as in 256 bytes....Yes Bytes.

You had 256 bytes?  My first computer had rubber bands and pegs:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digi-Comp_I

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
   protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
   an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
   resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Roger Blake wrote:

> On 2011-09-14, GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Oh first computer, that would be an 6800 breadboard computer with a little
>> bit of static ram, as in 256 bytes....Yes Bytes.
>
> You had 256 bytes?  My first computer had rubber bands and pegs:
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digi-Comp_I
>
About 1969, there was something in the paper about a pair of kids building 
their own computer.  And that was the point where I decided I wanted one 
for myself.  I think that was the trigger for my interest in electronics, 
but I'm not sure anymore if there was something else.  It took a decade 
before I got mine, and it was obviously much fancier (even if looking back 
it was "primitive" in itself).  The whole initial wave of "home computers" 
wsa about people like me, who wanted one for no reason other than to have 
one, and then suddenly it became possible.

In retrospect I think I was scammed.  The "computer" that those kids in 
the newspaper built had to be on par with the Digi-Comp. Yet what they 
built wasn't revealed at the time, so I imagined a much fuller computer,
and since the article said they'd built it, then having a computer at 
home had to be within the realm of possibility.

At least I knew about Arpanet a year before I got my first computer in 
1979.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 01:11:31 +0000, Roger Blake rearranged some electrons
to say:

> On 2011-09-14, GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Oh first computer, that would be an 6800 breadboard computer with a
>> little bit of static ram, as in 256 bytes....Yes Bytes.
> 
> You had 256 bytes?  My first computer had rubber bands and pegs:
> 
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digi-Comp_I

I had forgotten about that one... I had one of those too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, GangGreene wrote:

> Michael Black wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, GangGreene wrote:
>>
>>> Dirk Weber wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our first pc had a 40 mb (megabytes!) hdd, would be a bit too small
>>>> nowadays.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My first pc (1977) didn't have a hard drive and was not available with a
>>> hard drive.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't get my first computer until 1979, but there wasn't even a floppy
>> drive for it.
>>
>>     Michael
> Oh first computer, that would be an 6800 breadboard computer with a little
> bit of static ram, as in 256 bytes....Yes Bytes.
>
It would have been ludicrous to have the circuitry to refresh dynamic RAM 
if there was only 256bytes of it.

I admit I was spoiled, my KIM-1 with the 6502 had 1K of RAM.

In the early nineties, someone gave me a Processor Technology RAM board 
from the seventies.  16K of dynamic RAM, it cost a pretty penny when new. 
And yet, other than as a collector's item, completely valueless just a 
short time later.

Who could imagine that memory would become so cheap, and "permanent" that 
they'd keep music in it?

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683

On 14/09/2011 22:20, GangGreene wrote:
> Michael Black wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, GangGreene wrote:
>>
>>> Dirk Weber wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our first pc had a 40 mb (megabytes!) hdd, would be a bit too small
>>>> nowadays.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My first pc (1977) didn't have a hard drive and was not available with a
>>> hard drive.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't get my first computer until 1979, but there wasn't even a floppy
>> drive for it.
>>
>>      Michael
> Oh first computer, that would be an 6800 breadboard computer with a little
> bit of static ram, as in 256 bytes....Yes Bytes.

You should take up embedded systems programming - then you can go back 
to such devices.  The smallest I've used had 1K flash for program 
memory, 64 bytes eeprom, and no static ram at all - all you had was the 
32 8-bit registers.

Of course, I wouldn't normally refer to these systems as "computers" !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684

David Brown wrote:

> On 14/09/2011 22:20, GangGreene wrote:
>> Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, GangGreene wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dirk Weber wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Our first pc had a 40 mb (megabytes!) hdd, would be a bit too small
>>>>> nowadays.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My first pc (1977) didn't have a hard drive and was not available with
>>>> a hard drive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I didn't get my first computer until 1979, but there wasn't even a
>>> floppy drive for it.
>>>
>>>      Michael
>> Oh first computer, that would be an 6800 breadboard computer with a
>> little bit of static ram, as in 256 bytes....Yes Bytes.
> 
> You should take up embedded systems programming - then you can go back
> to such devices.  The smallest I've used had 1K flash for program
> memory, 64 bytes eeprom, and no static ram at all - all you had was the
> 32 8-bit registers.
> 
> Of course, I wouldn't normally refer to these systems as "computers" !

wouldn't that be Android ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686

On 2011-09-15, GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
>> 
>> You should take up embedded systems programming - then you can go back
>> to such devices.  The smallest I've used had 1K flash for program
>> memory, 64 bytes eeprom, and no static ram at all - all you had was the
>> 32 8-bit registers.
>> 
>> Of course, I wouldn't normally refer to these systems as "computers" !
>
> wouldn't that be Android ?
>
Android is based on Linux, so I'm sure it requires much more memory, as in
megabytes.


-- 
Confession is good for the soul, but bad for the career.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#676

Op 14-09-11 00:42, GangGreene schreef:
> Dirk Weber wrote:
> 
>>
>> Our first pc had a 40 mb (megabytes!) hdd, would be a bit too small
>> nowadays.
>>
> 
> My first pc (1977) didn't have a hard drive and was not available with a 
> hard drive. 
> 
I remember this kind of machines. When I had my first computer course we
had pcs which had also just two 5.25 inch floppy drives. In one you
inserted the DOS floppy the other was for the data.

These were some IBM XT compatible machines.

Our first one was an AT 286/12 (i. e. a clock rate of 12 megahertz),
later I upgraded it with a 287 numeric coprocessor. That was quite an
advantage. Operating system was MS-DOS, no Linux existing yet.

Well I am lucky these times are gone now, nowadays you can really work
with a pc.

Groetjes zut Arft,

Dirk



-- 
D. Weber
Arft, Germany (50°23'N 07°05'E)
If possible, no html mails please

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675

Dirk,

Thanks. I, too, have had good luck. Only one drive to go in last 13
years. As you indicate, filling the disk is the common reason to change
for a new one. I've got 1 Tb WD Passport for backups that I still can't
believe.

I understand that a bigger cash is a benefit to gamers, but I was asking
whether a 64 Mb cache had _any_ advantage over 32 Mb for the non-gamer.

Also still open is my question whether it is best to pick the slowest
rotation speed for a given data transfer or access time.

Haines

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#678

Op 14-09-11 13:53, Haines Brown schreef:
> I understand that a bigger cash is a benefit to gamers, but I was asking
> whether a 64 Mb cache had _any_ advantage over 32 Mb for the non-gamer.

Maybe when working with a database managing system. Probably not for
normal text processing and communication (mails, news, skype etc.). No
idea about video processing.

> 
> Also still open is my question whether it is best to pick the slowest
> rotation speed for a given data transfer or access time.

Yes, I would think so. I always choose the alternative with slower
rotation speed if possible, even if that might mean a minus in performance.

For normal office procedures the performance of a hdd is less important
than normally guessed - at least that is result of my experiences. You
can of course feel a performance difference when working with an usb
stick as data storage. Then you sometimes have to wait till f.e. an
office file is exported to pdf. But remember that usb sticks are much
slower in writing than normal hdds.

But working with an usb connected external hdd give no impression of
slower performance - and these are normally slower than internal hdds.
(I used to hvae two external hdds connected to my workstation - before I
installed a file server pc in our lan).

You will also find that the size/price relation is quite different
between the size classes of hdds. Older hdds of maybe 300 gbyte cost
more per mbyte than hdds of about 1 tb, or 2 tb. You should have this in
mind when choosing a hdd. And of course the price per gbyte will
diminish with the time.

I remember times when 80 gbyte hdds had the best size/price relation,
then 200 gbyte hdds, afterwards 1 tbyte drives ... And now? Havent
bought a hdd for more than a year now, so I have no idea.

Here in Germany we have some mail order shops where you can buy hdds for
a good price, much cheaper than in an electronics store. If you should
be interested in the prices over here just have a look at
www.reichelt.de (no, I am not related to that company - although I wish
I were).

Groetjes uit Arft,

Dirk


-- 
D. Weber
Arft, Germany (50°23'N 07°05'E)
If possible, no html mails please

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware

csiph-web