HDD bargain of the year?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by ~misfit~, May 3, 2008.

  1. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    http://www.eoneonline.co.nz/shop/CP/HDD/SATA/H1008.html

    I got one of these yesterday. Who needs food when HDDs are that price? These
    little babies really perform too:

    http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1209772832.jpg

    (Ignore the dip in the graph, I did something I/O intensive while the test
    was running, it wasn't there on the previous run.)

    Now I have two of them, with OS and programmes on different drives. The
    difference is really noticable, even when compared with my previous 12 month
    old Seagate SATA II 320GB drive:

    http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1209773053.jpg

    I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25 cents/GB (and $30
    less than I paid for the 320). However, they're flying out the door at that
    price so ring or email before going there if you're going to pick one up,
    get them to hold one for you if needed. Or just order it and have it
    delivered. They're getting them in from Ingram Micro twice a day at the
    moment.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.

    P.S. Disclaimer: I have no vested interest in E-One computers. I just
    thought that maybe some folks here may be interested in this deal.
     
    ~misfit~, May 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ~misfit~

    Gordon Guest

    On 2008-05-03, ~misfit~ <> wrote:
    > http://www.eoneonline.co.nz/shop/CP/HDD/SATA/H1008.html
    >
    > I got one of these yesterday. Who needs food when HDDs are that price? These
    > little babies really perform too:
    >
    > http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1209772832.jpg
    >
    > (Ignore the dip in the graph, I did something I/O intensive while the test
    > was running, it wasn't there on the previous run.)
    >
    > Now I have two of them, with OS and programmes on different drives. The
    > difference is really noticable, even when compared with my previous 12 month
    > old Seagate SATA II 320GB drive:
    >
    > http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1209773053.jpg
    >
    > I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25 cents/GB (and $30
    > less than I paid for the 320). However, they're flying out the door at that
    > price


    Now, I know this is Spam, as in wallet grabbing stuff.
     
    Gordon, May 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ~misfit~

    EMB Guest

    Brian Mathews wrote:
    > On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:11:10 +1200, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >> I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25 cents/GB (and $30
    >> less than I paid for the 320). However, they're flying out the door at that
    >> price so ring or email before going there if you're going to pick one up,
    >> get them to hold one for you if needed. Or just order it and have it
    >> delivered. They're getting them in from Ingram Micro twice a day at the
    >> moment.
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    >
    >
    > This is a Gray Import shop no real warranty.
    >
    >

    FFS Roger you stupid old wanker. What part of getting them the from
    Ingram micro makes them a grey imports?

    Either work on your comprehension and logic skills or go back to your
    PS/2 you senile old fool.
     
    EMB, May 3, 2008
    #3
  4. ~misfit~

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:11:10 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25 cents/GB (and $30
    >less than I paid for the 320). However, they're flying out the door at that
    >price so ring or email before going there if you're going to pick one up,
    >get them to hold one for you if needed. Or just order it and have it
    >delivered. They're getting them in from Ingram Micro twice a day at the
    >moment.


    I wonder if they're clearing out the AS model because of the NS model?
     
    Craig Shore, May 3, 2008
    #4
  5. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    > On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:11:10 +1200, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25 cents/GB
    >> (and $30 less than I paid for the 320). However, they're flying out
    >> the door at that price so ring or email before going there if you're
    >> going to pick one up, get them to hold one for you if needed. Or
    >> just order it and have it delivered. They're getting them in from
    >> Ingram Micro twice a day at the moment.

    >
    > I wonder if they're clearing out the AS model because of the NS model?


    I have no idea, I must admit to ignorance about the NS model.

    <wanders off to Google them>
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 3, 2008
    #5
  6. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "~misfit~" typed:
    > Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    >> On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:11:10 +1200, "~misfit~"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25 cents/GB
    >>> (and $30 less than I paid for the 320). However, they're flying out
    >>> the door at that price so ring or email before going there if you're
    >>> going to pick one up, get them to hold one for you if needed. Or
    >>> just order it and have it delivered. They're getting them in from
    >>> Ingram Micro twice a day at the moment.

    >>
    >> I wonder if they're clearing out the AS model because of the NS
    >> model?

    >
    > I have no idea, I must admit to ignorance about the NS model.
    >
    > <wanders off to Google them>


    Oh, you mean the E series of Enterprise drives? They're not superseding the
    AS models, they co-exist with them, have done for quite a while. (I just
    ddn't know that they had the same model numbers bar the suffix).

    I've looked at them, they're more expensive, they have some features the
    desktop drives don't and vice-versa but in the end it's hard to beat 25c/GB
    and a 5 year warranty.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 3, 2008
    #6
  7. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Gordon" typed:
    > On 2008-05-03, ~misfit~ <> wrote:
    >> http://www.eoneonline.co.nz/shop/CP/HDD/SATA/H1008.html
    >>
    >> I got one of these yesterday. Who needs food when HDDs are that
    >> price? These little babies really perform too:
    >>
    >> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1209772832.jpg
    >>
    >> (Ignore the dip in the graph, I did something I/O intensive while
    >> the test was running, it wasn't there on the previous run.)
    >>
    >> Now I have two of them, with OS and programmes on different drives.
    >> The difference is really noticable, even when compared with my
    >> previous 12 month old Seagate SATA II 320GB drive:
    >>
    >> http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1209773053.jpg
    >>
    >> I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25 cents/GB
    >> (and $30 less than I paid for the 320). However, they're flying out
    >> the door at that price

    >
    > Now, I know this is Spam, as in wallet grabbing stuff.


    Heh! Yeah, it got me to get my wallet out. Luckilly I'd just been paid
    almost exactly that amount for doing a re-install of XP/drivers/AV etc. for
    a mate.
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 3, 2008
    #7
  8. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "thingy" typed:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh intarweb "~misfit~" typed:
    >>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    >>>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:11:10 +1200, "~misfit~"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25 cents/GB
    >>>>> (and $30 less than I paid for the 320). However, they're flying
    >>>>> out the door at that price so ring or email before going there if
    >>>>> you're going to pick one up, get them to hold one for you if
    >>>>> needed. Or just order it and have it delivered. They're getting
    >>>>> them in from Ingram Micro twice a day at the moment.
    >>>> I wonder if they're clearing out the AS model because of the NS
    >>>> model?
    >>> I have no idea, I must admit to ignorance about the NS model.
    >>>
    >>> <wanders off to Google them>

    >>
    >> Oh, you mean the E series of Enterprise drives? They're not
    >> superseding the AS models, they co-exist with them, have done for
    >> quite a while. (I just ddn't know that they had the same model
    >> numbers bar the suffix). I've looked at them, they're more expensive,
    >> they have some features
    >> the desktop drives don't and vice-versa but in the end it's hard to
    >> beat 25c/GB and a 5 year warranty.
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    > I didnt think the ES were that much more? $20 or $30?


    Something like that. However, you're talking 20 - 25% of the cost of the
    desktop Barracudas.

    > url on the features?


    Heh! You ask like I'm selling them. I didn't bring this up. Off the top of
    my head, the ES series *doesn't* support NCQ (which doesn't seen to be of
    much benefit anyway yet) and they only have 16MB of on-board cache compared
    with the .11 series Barracuda's 32MB.

    Conversely the E series are "optimised for workstation/server" use and are
    supposed to be more reliable, have thermal control (?), power management and
    I recall something about 'anti-vibration' although I have no idea how that
    would work. Also they supposedly have better error correction rates. AFAIK
    both series of drives have a 5 yr warranty. I think that the drives are
    largely similar mechanically, the main difference being firmware.

    However.... I hear that there's an ES.2 series on the way..

    I'll try a Google...

    Seagate's ES blurb:

    http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es/

    And their ES.2 (which I've not seen for sale in NZ yet):

    http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es.2/

    The Tech Report's article on the ES series that are common in NZ:

    http://techreport.com/articles.x/10748

    and on the new ES.2 series:

    http://techreport.com/articles.x/13732

    HTH.

    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 5, 2008
    #8
  9. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "~misfit~" typed:
    > Somewhere on teh intarweb "thingy" typed:



    [snip]

    >> I didnt think the ES were that much more? $20 or $30?

    >
    > Something like that. However, you're talking 20 - 25% of the cost of
    > the desktop Barracudas.
    >
    >> url on the features?

    >
    > Heh! You ask like I'm selling them. I didn't bring this up. Off the
    > top of my head, the ES series *doesn't* support NCQ (which doesn't
    > seen to be of much benefit anyway yet) and they only have 16MB of
    > on-board cache compared with the .11 series Barracuda's 32MB.
    >
    > Conversely the E series are "optimised for workstation/server" use
    > and are supposed to be more reliable, have thermal control (?), power
    > management and I recall something about 'anti-vibration' although I
    > have no idea how that would work. Also they supposedly have better
    > error correction rates. AFAIK both series of drives have a 5 yr
    > warranty. I think that the drives are largely similar mechanically,
    > the main difference being firmware.
    > However.... I hear that there's an ES.2 series on the way..


    Ok, on further browsing I see that the ES.2 *is* now available in NZ,
    alongside it's superseded brother, the ES.

    > I'll try a Google...
    >
    > Seagate's ES blurb:
    >
    > http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es/
    >
    > And their ES.2 (which I've not seen for sale in NZ yet):
    >
    > http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es.2/
    >
    > The Tech Report's article on the ES series that are common in NZ:
    >
    > http://techreport.com/articles.x/10748
    >
    > and on the new ES.2 series:
    >
    > http://techreport.com/articles.x/13732


    Now I've taken the time to read this I'll quote the final passage:

    "Conclusions
    To say that the Barracuda ES.2's performance is disappointing would be an
    understatement. In fact, we were so surprised by the drive's scores in some
    tests that we contacted Seagate to see what was up. It's been a couple of
    weeks since, and they're still looking into it. Meanwhile, the ES.2 is
    widely available for sale, compelling us to share our results.

    Those results largely speak for themselves. In most tests, the Barracuda
    ES.2 is slower than not only its desktop counterpart, but also its direct
    rivals. This uninspired performance is particularly prevalent when we look
    at our FC-Test results, which show the ES.2 to be much slower than the
    competition in most cases. With 250GB platters and a 32MB cache, the ES.2
    should be able to do better.

    In fact, the drive can do better. One needs to look no further than the
    performance of its desktop counterpart, the Barracuda 7200.11, to see that
    the ES.2 is capable of delivering better performance. This is especially
    apparent in IOMeter-a test that should highlight the ES.2's enterprise
    credentials-where the ES.2 delivers lower transaction rates and slower
    response times than the 7200.11. The opposite should be the case, as
    evidenced by the original Barracuda ES, which consistently outperforms its
    7200.10 counterpart in IOMeter.

    The Barracuda ES.2 isn't completely without merit, of course. The drive
    blitzed our disk-intensive iPEAK multitasking workloads, often beating
    opponents by significant margins. It also offers extremely high throughput
    in synthetic transfer rate tests and when reading and copying extremely
    large files. Random access times are among the lowest we've measured for a
    drive spinning at 7,200RPM, as well. But those flashes of brilliance don't
    burn brightly enough to illuminate an otherwise bleak performance outlook,
    especially considering the nearly $50 price premium that the drive commands
    over the Barracuda 7200.11. Seagate may well address whatever is keeping the
    ES.2 from reaching its full potential, but until then, the drive is a tough
    sell. "

    That tells me that I did the right thing buying 7200.11 drives <whew!>. I
    *had* done my research beforehand (for 500GB drives, for terrabyte drives,
    if I could have afforded them, I would have looked more closely at the
    Samsung F1 drive) but it's nice to see further confirmation.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 5, 2008
    #9
  10. ~misfit~

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:46:22 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Somewhere on teh intarweb "thingy" typed:
    >> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "~misfit~" typed:
    >>>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    >>>>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:11:10 +1200, "~misfit~"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25 cents/GB
    >>>>>> (and $30 less than I paid for the 320). However, they're flying
    >>>>>> out the door at that price so ring or email before going there if
    >>>>>> you're going to pick one up, get them to hold one for you if
    >>>>>> needed. Or just order it and have it delivered. They're getting
    >>>>>> them in from Ingram Micro twice a day at the moment.
    >>>>> I wonder if they're clearing out the AS model because of the NS
    >>>>> model?
    >>>> I have no idea, I must admit to ignorance about the NS model.
    >>>>
    >>>> <wanders off to Google them>
    >>>
    >>> Oh, you mean the E series of Enterprise drives? They're not
    >>> superseding the AS models, they co-exist with them, have done for
    >>> quite a while. (I just ddn't know that they had the same model
    >>> numbers bar the suffix). I've looked at them, they're more expensive,
    >>> they have some features
    >>> the desktop drives don't and vice-versa but in the end it's hard to
    >>> beat 25c/GB and a 5 year warranty.
    >>>
    >>> Cheers,

    >>
    >> I didnt think the ES were that much more? $20 or $30?

    >
    >Something like that. However, you're talking 20 - 25% of the cost of the
    >desktop Barracudas.
    >
    >> url on the features?

    >
    >Heh! You ask like I'm selling them. I didn't bring this up. Off the top of
    >my head, the ES series *doesn't* support NCQ (which doesn't seen to be of
    >much benefit anyway yet) and they only have 16MB of on-board cache compared
    >with the .11 series Barracuda's 32MB.
    >
    >Conversely the E series are "optimised for workstation/server" use and are
    >supposed to be more reliable, have thermal control (?), power management and
    >I recall something about 'anti-vibration' although I have no idea how that
    >would work. Also they supposedly have better error correction rates. AFAIK
    >both series of drives have a 5 yr warranty. I think that the drives are
    >largely similar mechanically, the main difference being firmware.
    >
    >However.... I hear that there's an ES.2 series on the way..
    >
    >I'll try a Google...
    >
    >Seagate's ES blurb:
    >
    >http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es/
    >
    >And their ES.2 (which I've not seen for sale in NZ yet):
    >
    >http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es.2/


    http://www.tastech.co.nz/details/103140.htm

    I paid $220 for the 500gig one on the 1st of March, they've come down
    to $176 now, but that 7200.11 you got is bloody cheap.

    >The Tech Report's article on the ES series that are common in NZ:
    >
    >http://techreport.com/articles.x/10748
    >
    >and on the new ES.2 series:
    >
    >http://techreport.com/articles.x/13732
    >

    I got my ES2 at the start of March. Tastech, Ascent, PP, have them.

    That's a very comprehensive review, guess the ES2 drive I got isn't
    that flash and the one you got is bloody amazing for the price
    assuming the performance of the 500gig ones is the same as the 1000gig
    ones in that review.
    It was worth paying extra for me as it's accessed over an ethernet
    network only so that's more of a bottleneck than the drives speed
    perfomance, and I was more concerned about long term reliability than
    speed. It's storing my photos, music etc.
     
    Craig Shore, May 5, 2008
    #10
  11. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "thingy" typed:
    > Craig Shore wrote:
    >> On Mon, 5 May 2008 11:46:22 +1200, "~misfit~"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "thingy" typed:
    >>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "~misfit~" typed:
    >>>>>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    >>>>>>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:11:10 +1200, "~misfit~"
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I'm impressed. At $125 including GST it works out at 25
    >>>>>>>> cents/GB (and $30 less than I paid for the 320). However,
    >>>>>>>> they're flying out the door at that price so ring or email
    >>>>>>>> before going there if you're going to pick one up, get them to
    >>>>>>>> hold one for you if needed. Or just order it and have it
    >>>>>>>> delivered. They're getting them in from Ingram Micro twice a
    >>>>>>>> day at the moment.
    >>>>>>> I wonder if they're clearing out the AS model because of the NS
    >>>>>>> model?
    >>>>>> I have no idea, I must admit to ignorance about the NS model.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <wanders off to Google them>
    >>>>> Oh, you mean the E series of Enterprise drives? They're not
    >>>>> superseding the AS models, they co-exist with them, have done for
    >>>>> quite a while. (I just ddn't know that they had the same model
    >>>>> numbers bar the suffix). I've looked at them, they're more
    >>>>> expensive, they have some features
    >>>>> the desktop drives don't and vice-versa but in the end it's hard
    >>>>> to beat 25c/GB and a 5 year warranty.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Cheers,
    >>>> I didnt think the ES were that much more? $20 or $30?
    >>> Something like that. However, you're talking 20 - 25% of the cost
    >>> of the desktop Barracudas.
    >>>
    >>>> url on the features?
    >>> Heh! You ask like I'm selling them. I didn't bring this up. Off the
    >>> top of my head, the ES series *doesn't* support NCQ (which doesn't
    >>> seen to be of much benefit anyway yet) and they only have 16MB of
    >>> on-board cache compared with the .11 series Barracuda's 32MB.
    >>>
    >>> Conversely the E series are "optimised for workstation/server" use
    >>> and are supposed to be more reliable, have thermal control (?),
    >>> power management and I recall something about 'anti-vibration'
    >>> although I have no idea how that would work. Also they supposedly
    >>> have better error correction rates. AFAIK both series of drives
    >>> have a 5 yr warranty. I think that the drives are largely similar
    >>> mechanically, the main difference being firmware. However.... I hear
    >>> that there's an ES.2 series on the way..
    >>>
    >>> I'll try a Google...
    >>>
    >>> Seagate's ES blurb:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es/
    >>>
    >>> And their ES.2 (which I've not seen for sale in NZ yet):
    >>>
    >>> http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es.2/

    >>
    >> http://www.tastech.co.nz/details/103140.htm


    Yeah, I found them too once I looked. I hadn't seen them locally previously
    and my first reply was OTTOMH. ;-)

    >> I paid $220 for the 500gig one on the 1st of March, they've come down
    >> to $176 now, but that 7200.11 you got is bloody cheap.


    It sure was. Crazy price.

    >>> The Tech Report's article on the ES series that are common in NZ:
    >>>
    >>> http://techreport.com/articles.x/10748
    >>>
    >>> and on the new ES.2 series:
    >>>
    >>> http://techreport.com/articles.x/13732
    >>>

    >> I got my ES2 at the start of March. Tastech, Ascent, PP, have them.
    >>
    >> That's a very comprehensive review,


    It's a bloody good site.

    >> guess the ES2 drive I got isn't
    >> that flash and the one you got is bloody amazing for the price
    >> assuming the performance of the 500gig ones is the same as the
    >> 1000gig ones in that review.


    I'm told that the 500GB 7200.11's are actually quite a bit faster than the
    1TB version. They're certainly cheaper per GB at the moment. Heh, it's
    easier to find $125 (twice, LOL) than it is to find..... Oh, they're looking
    well-priced at E-One too (the 1TB 7200.11), only $295 inc. GST. Still,
    dearer than $250 for two 500GB's and I get the benefit of having OS and
    programmes loading off different drives. (Both partitions backed up
    [Acronis] to the data partition of the other drive.)

    >> It was worth paying extra for me as it's accessed over an ethernet
    >> network only so that's more of a bottleneck than the drives speed
    >> perfomance, and I was more concerned about long term reliability than
    >> speed. It's storing my photos, music etc.

    >
    > me too...


    Whereas I'm using mine in my desktop (which doubles as a file server for the
    flatmate <g>). I have two of the 7200.11 500GB drives now, Win XP partition
    on the 'start' of one (5GB), programmes partition (15GB) on the start of the
    other. Boot times and programme load times have increased incredibly from
    the pair of 320GB Seagate's that I was using before.

    Just a thought, I wonder if they get the MTBF figures from simulating the
    *expected* drive usage patterns? If so, the MTBF of the two different series
    could well be put down to power-cycling that you'd execpt from desktop
    usage. As they use largely the same mechanical bits I wonder if the MTBF's
    would be closer if the same usage pattern was simulated? (I have my PC on
    24/7.)

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 5, 2008
    #11
  12. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "thingy" typed:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    > 8><----------
    >>>> Cheers,
    >>> I didnt think the ES were that much more? $20 or $30?

    >>
    >> Something like that. However, you're talking 20 - 25% of the cost of
    >> the desktop Barracudas.
    >>
    >>> url on the features?

    >>
    >> Heh! You ask like I'm selling them. I didn't bring this up. Off the
    >> top of my head, the ES series *doesn't* support NCQ (which doesn't
    >> seen to be of much benefit anyway yet) and they only have 16MB of
    >> on-board cache compared with the .11 series Barracuda's 32MB.
    >>
    >> Conversely the E series are "optimised for workstation/server" use
    >> and are supposed to be more reliable, have thermal control (?),
    >> power management and I recall something about 'anti-vibration'
    >> although I have no idea how that would work.

    >
    > Seems to detect vibration....


    Yeah, once I checked The Tech Review and read the article I picked that one
    up. :)

    > Also they supposedly have better error correction rates. AFAIK
    >> both series of drives have a 5 yr warranty. I think that the drives
    >> are largely similar mechanically, the main difference being firmware.
    >>
    >> However.... I hear that there's an ES.2 series on the way..

    >
    > here they are and available,
    >
    > http://www.pp.co.nz/products.php?pp_id=AA05915
    >
    > http://www.pp.co.nz/products.php?pp_id=HD00009


    Mmmm, I found them everywhere I looked too now. I didn't see any a couple
    months ago when I first looked. That'll teach me to reply without checking
    my facts.

    >> I'll try a Google...
    >>
    >> Seagate's ES blurb:
    >>
    >> http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es/
    >>
    >> And their ES.2 (which I've not seen for sale in NZ yet):

    >
    > See above.
    >
    >> http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/barracuda_es.2/
    >>
    >> The Tech Report's article on the ES series that are common in NZ:
    >>
    >> http://techreport.com/articles.x/10748
    >>
    >> and on the new ES.2 series:
    >>
    >> http://techreport.com/articles.x/13732
    >>
    >> HTH.
    >>
    >> Shaun.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Interesting site.....now in my bookmarks.


    Yeah, I use it a bit.

    > ES would only seem to be of use where you are raiding...maybe for 2
    > raided disks its no biggee, but I'm pondering 3~5 disks in a raid 5,
    > so for reliability of the raid itself the ES and especially the ES.2
    > would seem the better option, especially as the additional cost is
    > minor, at least compared to the pain of recovering if the raid
    > breaks....


    You have a point. However, have a look at my speculation about projected
    MTBF rates in my other reply to you. My 7200.11's run 24/7 and are (very)
    well-cooled... Hardly typical desktop usage.

    > I'd expect NCQ to only be of an advantage on a "decent" raid
    > controller and under hvy load....no biggee for a small home server,
    > but small but busy office....or these seem to be what EMC etc shove
    > in their SAN disk arrays...
    >
    > What really makes me puke is the obscene profit margin of the
    > "enterprise" storage vendors....these 1TB ES.2 are $430 odd, a certain
    > iscsi vendor quoted me $2500 as a "special discounted price" for 1TB
    > SATA drives....they wont even be paying the retail cost from pp.co.nz
    > that I do....so a factor of 8~10 profit margin that's obnoxious...


    Jesus! That really is obscene.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 5, 2008
    #12
  13. ~misfit~

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:47:16 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:


    >Just a thought, I wonder if they get the MTBF figures from simulating the
    >*expected* drive usage patterns? If so, the MTBF of the two different series
    >could well be put down to power-cycling that you'd execpt from desktop
    >usage. As they use largely the same mechanical bits I wonder if the MTBF's
    >would be closer if the same usage pattern was simulated? (I have my PC on
    >24/7.)


    It's probably more to do with it's ability to deal with vibration.

    Here's the temp of mine running 24/7
    http://craig.orconhosting.net.nz/
     
    Craig Shore, May 5, 2008
    #13
  14. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    > On Mon, 5 May 2008 18:47:16 +1200, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Just a thought, I wonder if they get the MTBF figures from
    >> simulating the *expected* drive usage patterns? If so, the MTBF of
    >> the two different series could well be put down to power-cycling
    >> that you'd execpt from desktop usage. As they use largely the same
    >> mechanical bits I wonder if the MTBF's would be closer if the same
    >> usage pattern was simulated? (I have my PC on 24/7.)

    >
    > It's probably more to do with it's ability to deal with vibration.


    Hmmm, could be I suppose. I got the impression that the ability to deal with
    vibration was simply a means to stop the drive from getting itself into a
    loop trying to read data if it was getting errors (which would be worse for
    a server than a desktop) but I could have read it wrong.

    > Here's the temp of mine running 24/7
    > http://craig.orconhosting.net.nz/


    Interesting. What utility did you use to get that data? I'm running Windows
    XP Pro and I monitor HDD temps with good old Motherboard Monitor5 (although
    it doesn't work for much else on this board). I have four drives in this
    machine, two 7200.11 500GB and two 7200.10 320GB. The 11s run consistently
    3°C cooler than the 10s and that's with the 10s being used as data drives,
    idling most of the time, whereas the 11s house the OS and programmes.

    I see that you have one reading there, an average of 17°C. That's quite cool
    for a HDD and, by current wisdom, probably too cool as far as longevity
    goes. (No, I can't cite sources, although the Google data dump of their use
    of desktop drives showed that higher temps weren't as bad as thought, that
    cooler temps were in fact worse than "hotter".) Mine are running at between
    21 and 26° over the last few days and I worry that 21° might be a bit cool.
    As with an internal combustion engine, one would assume that a hard drive is
    designed to run best within a certain temperature range. Any metalic
    'machine' that is made of varying metals with varying coeffiecients of
    thermal expansion has an ideal operating range. As your drive is an
    "enterprise class" drive I would think that it's designed to run hotter. Or
    not. LOL.

    I'd be happier if my drives ran at, say 26°C consistently. I might have to
    see if there's any way I can run the twin 12cm fans that cool my drive bays
    off a thermistor-driven PWM circuit. I have a couple circuits I canabilised
    out of old power supplies. However, they were designed to run a single 8cm
    fan with the thermistor contacting a heatsink. I don't know if I could use
    one to run both 12cm fans or even if it'd switch at the relatively low temps
    I'd like to maintain. Must talk to my electrically knowledgable mate. :)

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 5, 2008
    #14
  15. ~misfit~

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Tue, 6 May 2008 01:33:47 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Interesting. What utility did you use to get that data?


    Hard Disk Sentinel

    >I see that you have one reading there, an average of 17°C. That's quite cool
    >for a HDD and, by current wisdom, probably too cool as far as longevity
    >goes. (No, I can't cite sources, although the Google data dump of their use
    >of desktop drives showed that higher temps weren't as bad as thought, that
    >cooler temps were in fact worse than "hotter".) Mine are running at between
    >21 and 26° over the last few days and I worry that 21° might be a bit cool.
    >As with an internal combustion engine, one would assume that a hard drive is
    >designed to run best within a certain temperature range. Any metalic
    >'machine' that is made of varying metals with varying coeffiecients of
    >thermal expansion has an ideal operating range. As your drive is an
    >"enterprise class" drive I would think that it's designed to run hotter. Or
    >not. LOL.


    Mine have ususally been hotter in the past, this one is in an unheated
    room now (except for a bit of sun), and as you can see by the graph
    it's getting cooler in Christchurch. I might try shutting their
    cooling fan off and see what happens.
     
    Craig Shore, May 5, 2008
    #15
  16. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    > On Tue, 6 May 2008 01:33:47 +1200, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting. What utility did you use to get that data?

    >
    > Hard Disk Sentinel


    Ok, thanks. I'm downloading it now. (Used my daily cap overnight and am
    rate-limited to 64/64kbps.)

    >> I see that you have one reading there, an average of 17°C. That's
    >> quite cool for a HDD and, by current wisdom, probably too cool as
    >> far as longevity goes. (No, I can't cite sources, although the
    >> Google data dump of their use of desktop drives showed that higher
    >> temps weren't as bad as thought, that cooler temps were in fact
    >> worse than "hotter".) Mine are running at between 21 and 26° over
    >> the last few days and I worry that 21° might be a bit cool. As with
    >> an internal combustion engine, one would assume that a hard drive is
    >> designed to run best within a certain temperature range. Any metalic
    >> 'machine' that is made of varying metals with varying coeffiecients
    >> of thermal expansion has an ideal operating range. As your drive is
    >> an "enterprise class" drive I would think that it's designed to run
    >> hotter. Or not. LOL.

    >
    > Mine have ususally been hotter in the past, this one is in an unheated
    > room now (except for a bit of sun), and as you can see by the graph
    > it's getting cooler in Christchurch. I might try shutting their
    > cooling fan off and see what happens.


    That might be a good idea. Monitoring the results of course. <g> My 7200.10
    320GBs were topping out at around 32° when it was warmer. I was happy with
    that. They're 24 and 25 now in an unheated room (16°C, the invalid's benefit
    doesn't pay enough for room heating, only electric blankets) while the
    7200.11's are at 21 and 22. (All figures quoted are, of course, reported by
    the drives themselves and may or may not be accurate.)

    I'd like to get the temps up a bit. I thought about it after I wrote that
    post last night. My motherboard (Asus P5K-E WiFi/AP) has both a CPU Q-Fan
    control (one header) and a seperate Chassis Q-Fan control with 4 monitored,
    controlled chassis fan headers. Supposedly you set a target temp in BIOS and
    if the temp is below that the fan headers PWM circuit kicks in to slow the
    fans down to queiten the PC.

    Which would be wonderful (if it works as advertised) except that the twin
    12cm fans in the front conect via molex! I might have to peel a label off
    one of them and see if it has the solder pad for a speed-monitoring wire
    (I've found a lot of fans do) and solder a three-pin headers onto them if
    they do.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 5, 2008
    #16
  17. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    > On Tue, 6 May 2008 01:33:47 +1200, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting. What utility did you use to get that data?

    >
    > Hard Disk Sentinel


    This is an excellent programme. However, I'm concerned about something.

    On the "Information" tab for the 7200.11/500GB drives, under "Buffer Size"
    it has 0KB. For the 7200.10/320GB drives it says 16384KB. The 7200.11s are
    supposed to have 32MB. You'd think that, if Hard Disk Sentinel can get it
    right for the .10s it would also read the .11s correctly too.

    Does anyone know of any other software I can use to check this? Seatools for
    Windows gave the drives the all-clear on the long self-tests but it didn't
    specifically say anything about the buffer or cache.

    Could you please check your ES.2 in HDS and see what it says? Thanks.
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 6, 2008
    #17
  18. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "thingy" typed:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    > 8><-----
    >
    >> You have a point. However, have a look at my speculation about
    >> projected MTBF rates in my other reply to you. My 7200.11's run 24/7
    >> and are (very) well-cooled... Hardly typical desktop usage.

    >
    > The ES.2 lists a mtbf far higher than the 7200.11s, Though the same
    > 5yr warrantee.


    Yes, 1.2 million hours compared with 0.75 million I believe. (? OTTOMH
    again.)

    However, we know that MTBF figures are extrapolated using *expected usage*
    patterns from a representative sample of HDDs stress-tested to failure.

    My point is, are the 'expected usage patterns' used in the equations
    different for the two different families of drive?

    If so, it's quite reasonable that the MTBF figures would show the difference
    that they do. If the enterprise-class drives figures were reached by using
    'expected usage patterns' that apply to most situations enterprise class
    drives experience, monitored and coddled by sysadmins and probably
    power/thermal cycled far less, compared with desktop drives 'administered'
    by Joe User (i.e. Switch it on when you need it, switch it off when you
    don't. Have it sitting on a carpeted floor and have the case vents block by
    the end of the first year....)

    Actually, in the above scenario, the 7200.11 would likely last years longer
    (despite the lower projected MTBF) than the ES.2 would as the ES.2 would,
    more than likely, log far more hours per year than the 7200.11.

    We know that they two families of drive share a lot of the same mechanical
    bits. I'm assuming spindle bearings and platters would be among the shared
    parts.

    Anyway, it's all pure speculation (but makes sense to my mind) without any
    data from Seagate about how they determine MTBF for the differing
    drive-types. I find it interesting that Google use desktop class drives in
    their servers rather than enterprise class drives. They probably know more
    than I do about it though. ;-)

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 7, 2008
    #18
  19. ~misfit~

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Wed, 7 May 2008 02:14:07 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    >> On Tue, 6 May 2008 01:33:47 +1200, "~misfit~"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Interesting. What utility did you use to get that data?

    >>
    >> Hard Disk Sentinel

    >
    >This is an excellent programme. However, I'm concerned about something.
    >
    >On the "Information" tab for the 7200.11/500GB drives, under "Buffer Size"
    >it has 0KB. For the 7200.10/320GB drives it says 16384KB. The 7200.11s are
    >supposed to have 32MB. You'd think that, if Hard Disk Sentinel can get it
    >right for the .10s it would also read the .11s correctly too.
    >
    >Does anyone know of any other software I can use to check this? Seatools for
    >Windows gave the drives the all-clear on the long self-tests but it didn't
    >specifically say anything about the buffer or cache.
    >
    >Could you please check your ES.2 in HDS and see what it says? Thanks.


    Buffer Size,0 KB

    They (Seagate) probably changed the specs on how they report it.
    Weren't you listening to Roger when he told you it's a FACT you can't
    use anyone elses tools on Seagate drives because Seagate said so. :)

    I only use the program to track the temperature. Shutting off a few
    fans seems to have improved things. Can't shut the bugger in front of
    them off yet as it's hooked up to the mainboard temperature alarm,
    i'll have to drag the box to a monitor & keyboard to fix it.
     
    Craig Shore, May 7, 2008
    #19
  20. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    > On Wed, 7 May 2008 02:14:07 +1200, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
    >>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 01:33:47 +1200, "~misfit~"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Interesting. What utility did you use to get that data?
    >>>
    >>> Hard Disk Sentinel

    >>
    >> This is an excellent programme. However, I'm concerned about
    >> something.
    >>
    >> On the "Information" tab for the 7200.11/500GB drives, under "Buffer
    >> Size" it has 0KB. For the 7200.10/320GB drives it says 16384KB. The
    >> 7200.11s are supposed to have 32MB. You'd think that, if Hard Disk
    >> Sentinel can get it right for the .10s it would also read the .11s
    >> correctly too.
    >>
    >> Does anyone know of any other software I can use to check this?
    >> Seatools for Windows gave the drives the all-clear on the long
    >> self-tests but it didn't specifically say anything about the buffer
    >> or cache.
    >>
    >> Could you please check your ES.2 in HDS and see what it says? Thanks.

    >
    > Buffer Size,0 KB


    Ok, that's put my mind at rest a bit. I had a horrible paranoid feeling that
    Seagate might be dumping their defective drives in NZ. ;-)

    > They (Seagate) probably changed the specs on how they report it.
    > Weren't you listening to Roger when he told you it's a FACT you can't
    > use anyone elses tools on Seagate drives because Seagate said so. :)


    Roger said something worth listening to? I guess it's an extreme case of
    "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". On the odd occasion the law of averages says he
    must get something right I suppose.

    > I only use the program to track the temperature.


    It seems to have so much potential though. It informed me of the 17
    re-mapped sectors on one of my 7200.10/320MB drives that I didn't know about
    for ages and seems to give a lot of info. Also, as you say, the temperature
    monitoring side of things is very useful. However, my systray area is
    getting a bit crowded with four new icons there. <g>

    > Shutting off a few
    > fans seems to have improved things.


    Yeah, personally I don't like to see HDDs running much below 20°C. Ideally
    I'd like to keep them in the 28 to 32° range but it's hard to achieve such
    precise control without having a seperate enclosure for drives.

    > Can't shut the bugger in front of
    > them off yet as it's hooked up to the mainboard temperature alarm,
    > i'll have to drag the box to a monitor & keyboard to fix it.


    Good luck with that. A louvre arangement wouldn't work?

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, May 7, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bigmaggot
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    403
    Jeff Turl
    Oct 23, 2003
  2. Bullet

    Bargain.exe

    Bullet, Apr 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,164
    Plato
    Apr 3, 2004
  3. allan eudale

    CHEAPFLIGHTS BARGAIN HOLIDAYS

    allan eudale, Jul 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    395
    Avenger©
    Jul 10, 2004
  4. ashjas
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,150
  5. smolderingwick

    2 year AAS degree (w/certs) vs. 4 year CIS degree

    smolderingwick, Feb 6, 2011, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,932
    smolderingwick
    Feb 6, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page