Flurry of Hard Drive Reviews

Sivar writes "After a long hiatus while setting up their new testbed, StorageReview.com has released a number of reviews of the latest hard drives, including Hitachi's Deskstar 7K500 which now occupies the top performance spot for desktop drives, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 which is the first shipping Serial ATA-II drive, the Seagate NL35 for backup servers and other "nearline" storage, and the Western Digital WD4000YR, which interestingly is actually based on their famous (and expensive) Raptor unit." Hitachi's SATA-II drive was also recently reviewed by BigBruin in case you missed it.

Comments

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a solid state drive; sick of mechanical breakdowns and especially the noise.

Re:Bah

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I want a solid state drive; sick of mechanical breakdowns and especially the noise.

If you want to pay 100x more per GB of storage, go right on ahead, I won't stop you, but I won't follow your trail either until the cost difference is a lot lower. Even with buying a second set of drives for off-line backup, mechanical drives are still a far better deal for mass storage.

Frankly, I've had not much of either failures or noise in the past five years, unless you are talking 8+ year old drives, but by then they are too small or slow to be useful anyway.

You could simply switch to a quieter drive, like some Samsungs or Seagates, any good drive review site should show relevant noise measurements. I've found some treatments to make very quiet even quieter by gluing sheets of accoustical foam to various parts inside a computer case that might resonate or reflect sound.

Seagate's "nearline" drive

[SuperBanana]

Storage manufacturers have tackled the issue by introducing a new class of device, the "nearline" drive that, when combined with the aforementioned online and offline segments, tiers today's enterprise storage into three distinct levels. By keeping highly-accessed, current information in the traditional domain of high-speed, swift-actuator drives and relegating less-used but still-accessed data to slower, less expensive devices, drive firms aspire to deliver solutions that balance the needs for performance with cost.

So to cut through the jargon crap- in other words, someone finally remembered that RAID means Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks, and that in most cases, when you've got 5 or more drives in an array, you don't need them to be 15,000 RPM?

Re:Seagate's "nearline" drive

[drsmithy]

So to cut through the jargon crap- in other words, someone finally remembered that RAID means Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks, and that in most cases, when you've got 5 or more drives in an array, you don't need them to be 15,000 RPM?

RAID improves throughput, but not latency. If you need low latency, you need high-RPM drives and no amount of RAID will help you.

Re:Seagate's "nearline" drive

[Noose For A Neck]

No.

RAID does not lower data access times. If you are running an application with lots of random disk accesses e.g. a database, you generally will not be helped by a RAID array in terms of performance unless you are maxing out disk throughput. As 15,000 RPM disks have lower access times, they are used for these sorts of applications. That is why companies are willing to pay outrageous sums for 15,000 RPM disks.

Re:Seagate's "nearline" drive

[Alien Being]

"RAID improves throughput, but not latency."

Argh! This myth needs to end.

The only case in which RAID does not improve latency is that of a single tasking system.

The latency that's important for a multitasking system is the time an application has to wait for its data, not the time it takes the disk to process a single request. The benefits vary depending an access patterns, array geometries and RAID level.

Having more drives simply means there's a better chance that some requests can be handled in parallel. Your claim is akin to saying that people won't have to wait longer at the supermarket checkout when only one lane is open.

Re:Seagate's "nearline" drive

[drsmithy]

Argh! This myth needs to end.

It's not a myth.

It's not an absolute, either, I'll grant you - but it is an excellent rule of thumb.

The only case in which RAID does not improve latency is that of a single tasking system.

This is not correct. RAID *might* improve your latency if its purpose is very specific, the setup can be carefully tuned for the access patterns and the physical placement of data on the disks is predictable, but in general it won't.

The latency that's important for a multitasking system is the time an application has to wait for its data, not the time it takes the disk to process a single request.

I'm confused. How isn't the time a disk takes to process requests directly related to how quickly the data can get to the application, in the general case ?

Having more drives simply means there's a better chance that some requests can be handled in parallel.

Certainly, but the chances of it happening are very low. A higher RPM drive will give immediate, predictable and consistent improvements in access times. A RAID array *might*, some of the time, if you're lucky and the planets are correctly aligned - but on average it will actually make latency worse.

Your claim is akin to saying that people won't have to wait longer at the supermarket checkout when only one lane is open.

Your analogy sucks. Not only is the scenario of people being served at checkouts talking about completely independent operations, but that independence also allows for performance hotspots (ie: longer queues in a particular aisle) to be avoided. Accesses to a RAID array exhibit neither of these characteristics.

Performance vs Noise

[Munta]

While high performance drives may be important, I feel that many drive manufacturers are forgetting that noise is a big issue. When you have 3 PC plus running at home high performance drives will just add to already high number of decibels that we have to suffer. Keeping my hearing is probably more important to saving a few milliseconds for each drive seek.

Re:Performance vs Noise

[CyricZ]

Have you invested in a proper server closet? Indeed, many people build them in the basement of their home. You can use various dumb terminal systems to access your computers, even desktop ones. You get the benefits of a desktop under your desk, but without the noise and the increased room temperature.

I know several Scottish folk who even use the chilly winter air to help cool their systems. That may not be an option for you, but if it is, go for it.

Re:Performance vs Noise

[CyricZ]

I administered several of them at a previous job. They're not your typical desktop PC, but they're certainly not 1970s mainframes either.

You obviously do not understand the strength of wood. A properly built server rack can easily handle a 54 kg system. Even the pre-fabricated wooden racks from your typical hardware store are more than sufficient. You can reinforce one of those, if you really feel it to be necessary.

Don't forget that houses are often built from wood. It's a very versatile and strong construction material.

Re:Performance vs Noise

[ZenShadow]

I can't imagine there are very many people who are willing to pay extra for super silent hard drives.

People would probably pay a lot of money for the guaranteed ability to fart super silently, however. :-)

--S

Re:Performance vs Noise

[Diag]

If you think that a hard drive (or any number of hard drives) for that matter could contribute to hearing problems, then I'm assuming that you don't leave your house? Hell, a fart is louder than even the loudest hard drive.

I just spent the last 2 weeks working in a computer room wearing earplugs due to OH&S regulations, because of the excessive noise in the room being generated by several high end disk subsystems.

5000 people farting simultaneously and continuously in an enclosed space could get a bit noisy (and smelly).

When will we see RAM drives

[ylikone]

... that are as big as hard drives with spinning platters? And when will they be re-writable as many times as hard drives with spinning platters?

I really REALLY want a dependable, long-lasting, fast and ample-capacity RAM drive. No more spinning platters please.

Re:When will we see RAM drives

[ZenShadow]

On the other hand, the commonly accepted defacto standard is that RAM is volatile. That's why someone came up with the extended acronym NVRAM...

--S

Re:Testbed

[Noose For A Neck]

Because most people with computers use Windows and there has been a lot of disk benchmarking software developed for Windows.

Besides, a lot of their forum regulars are fanatical Windows supporters, to the point of claiming "...in smp scaling windows is better than linux, and linux is better than freebsd. for vms windows is better than freebsd, and freebsd is better than linux.", so I'd take what they say with a grain of salt.

Noise?

[Billly Gates]

Most places like tomshardware and other benchmarking sites mention that hard drive speed is almost neglibable between teh high end and low end drivers for real desktop apps.

I care about reliability (gone down hill since 2000) and noise. I sense in the rush to devalue pc's into $399 emachines that quality is looked upon last in an effort to cut costs. Isn't there anyone buying anything besides junk anymore? I am not talking about servers either since scsi drives and cards are outrageously expensive.

Re:Noise?

[Lucractius]

look at hiatchi laptop drives like the ones out of IBM (now lenovo *shudder*) laptops. You may find all those attirbutes you seek there.

Re:Testbed

[NineNine]

Why do the folks at storagereview put such nice harddisks into testbeds with Microsoft Windows

Because that's what most people use, maybe? Because that's what most benchmarking tools run on, maybe? If anything, I'd wonder why somebody would do benchmarks on something other than Windows.

Size vs. Noise

[fredistheking]

The problem is that the density per disc is currently only about 125GB. So any drive over 125GB will have more than a single platter. The WD4000YR has 5 platters as do the Hitachi 400GB and 500GB. This extra mass is the problem which leads to higher temperatures, more noise and more power consumption.

160GB per platter is just on the horizon and with newer TUMR heads expect that to go up to 250GB per platter in a year. I wouldn't hold my breath for perpendicular recording. It still seems to be a couple years away.

Not quite there

[fredistheking]

Right now you can get 2GB flash chips. Put a few of these together and you have enough space for a decent install. The problem is that the performance is not quite there yet. You can expect raw read and right performance aroun 10MB/s on the fastest chips on the market. This is still alot less than the 50MB/s+ you find on desktop drives.

Samsung will do it before anyone else. WD, Seagate and Hitachi don't have any flash business so they are not going to push for it.

Re:Not quite there

[bst82551]

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000770065138/

80 MB/s transfer. $1900.

Brian

Re:Not quite there

[fredistheking]

I don't think $1900 means its ready to take over.

Samsung Samsung Samsung

[slaker]

SR makes a habit of forgetting about the other commodity drive manufacturer, Samsung. How much do they forget? Well, at one point at least, an Australian forum member (Tannin, if you know SR's forums) had to send them a drive to review because they couldn't or wouldn't make the effort to get one themselves. Also interesting is that Samsung has no relationship with SR as far as advertising.

Which is a goddamned shame, because they really are genuinely good drives (far better than the for-shit products Maxtor and WD are shoveling out these days), ones I buy in preference to any other vendor's. They've been extremely reliable for me and have a nice mix of performance characteristics.

I'm not a big fan of their self-reporting reliability database, and I can't hazard to guess why they're testing "desktop" performance in their Enterprise-I/O Xeon system... nor why they can't do any testing on *nix. But those are all are reasons why I have become frustrated with SR over the last few years.

I'm just one person. My opinions aren't going to mean shit to anyone here. But then, I'm one guy with around 12TB worth of Hitachi and Samsung drives keeping his apartment warm, so it's not like I don't have a little bit of experience with commodity hard disks.

Re:Samsung Samsung Samsung

[darkwhite]

Reliability reports on drives grouped by manufacturer cannot be trusted except when they're extreme low outliers (e.g. IBM's Deathstar). All major brands today are about equally reliable for practical purposes (except when you have severe heat dissipation issues maybe). In 8 years and no less than 15 different drives of 10 different models, I have not had a Maxtor drive die on me.

In general, I find that clean power is much more necessary than a preferred manufacturer. Dirty power from a cheap or overloaded power supply may kill the most reliable drive ever.

storagereview; one of the few smart review sites

[nostriluu]

Slightly off topic, but Storage Review has always allowed the end user to compare any device to another by selection (eg 5400 rpm maxtor vs 10000 rpm WD) using discreet data fields (eg noise and heat). No other review site I know lets you do this, and its a very useful feature. Very often other review sites will scatter related devices across different non intersecting reviews, and I doubt they bother to break the data down to this level of detail.

Always desktops, rarely laptops

[Proc6]

With over half the PC's sold being laptops and nearly all laptops' RAM and HD being just as user replace/upgradable as any desktop, reviewers should really give the laptop world some love.

Enough with speed. More capacity and reliability.

[sdo1]

I'm getting really tired of hyper-speed, super cheap drives that fail after a year. I've got 100's of gigs of media (ripped DVDs, ripped CDs, etc. etc.) that DO NOT need incredible latency or access speed numbers. Give me 5400 RPM drives (or slower!) that run cool and reliably! I'd imagine that most users are in the same boat. If you need a 200G drive, it's not because you need 200G for applications and games. It's because of media.

Capacity, yes. Increase that. Reliability, yes. Improve that. But hard drive speed is a grossly overrated and mostly unneeded attribute.

-S

Re:Enough with speed. More capacity and reliabilit

[macslut]

I'm right there with you. I have a handful of 250GB drives and a couple of 400GB drives. I would pay *more* for my drives to be 5400...even that is overkill. I want them big, quiet, cool and reliable. Speed is simply a non-issue *for me*.

Re:Testbed

[ZenShadow]

Windows is only as unstable as the administrator that's managing it.

That said, many Windows administrators are notoriously unstable due to the low barrier to entry. That's one of the main reasons I prefer Linux on my servers for most applications. :-)

--S

re: WD and Maxtor, etc.

[King_TJ]

Well, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. Though I never expected a lot from Samsung, my parents have one of their older IDE drives in their machine to this day that still performs just fine - at least 6 or 7 years now. Only problem now is, it just doesn't have enough capacity for modern OS's and software.

Meanwhile, I was always a traditional supporter of both WD and Maxtor (because frankly, I used a lot of Seagates and always had crashes/failures with 'em), but the warranty situation today is CRAP!

1 year only on any new retail-boxed Maxtor drive?? 1 year only on any WD drive that's not labeled a "special edition"? What's so "special" about a decent quality of build??

My 250GB SATA Maxtor DiamondMax drive just died on me, only 3 months past the 1 year warranty - and I'm now counting the days before the second one of mine does the same - since I bought both from the same place, at the same time - and both have the same manufacture date stamped on them.

I actually went back to buying Seagate for my newer SATA drives, because they're backing them with a 5 year warranty. It seems like the rules of "who is good, and who is junk" have changed around in recent years - so we'll see. If not, then at least Seagate will be swapping my drives out for free for me every so often over the next 4 or 5 years.

Is the comparison with NCQ fair or even useful?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see lots of benchmarking with and without NCQ enabled, and it appears that people are completely missing the point. If you have the option (and it works properly), you should never run a disk without NCQ! Benchmarking them together is a real disservice to all who don't understand the purpose of tagged command queueing.

NCQ allows the OS to know what has been committed to disk, which is very important from a reliability perspective. File systems do not function properly without this assurance, and can be seriously damaged on power failure.

To be fair, comparisons with NCQ should be made when write caching is turned off. Only in this case do you get the same level of reliability. Of course, ATA will be completely slaughtered, but it is a fair comparison. This abysmal performance led to the use of write caching; increasing performance at the expense of reliability. Now that it is possible to restore the reliability with NCQ, making a comparison without clarifying this point is not at all helpful.

The thing I would like to know is which disks actually implement NCQ properly, and which still lie to the system? Since drive manufacturers have been "cheating" for years on their IDE drives, has the situation truly been fixed? Spindle speed aside, it should now be possible to achieve the performance AND reliability that SCSI devices have offered for years. Unfortunately reviewers never seem to address this aspect.

Re:Testbed

[Tony Hoyle]

Administrators can be quite unstable.. especially if you're the 1000th user to ask "has the network crashed?"

reliability: the cost of offshoring?

[nido]

I care about reliability (gone down hill since 2000)

2000, eh? That's about the end of the dot-com boom. So it fits, I guess...

Since the technology bubble burst, "there's been a scramble to move from the high-cost sites [North America/Western Europe -me] to the low-cost sites in China," said Flint Pulskamp, an analyst with the market research firm IDC. "In the late 1990s, Solectron used to make motherboards for Intel right here in Milpitas, in the heart of Silicon Valley. That's unthinkable now."

-http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/44242.html

high-cost site: quality
low-cost site: quantity

anyone got a link for when various manufacturers started moving offshore? Like, Maxtor/WD/Seagate/etc.? Many computing technologies originally came from American companies, but, with cutthroat competition being what it is, as soon as one company in a category moves to china, the rest probably aren't going to be too far behind...

Re:Enough with speed. More capacity and reliabilit

[toddestan]

I agree. I bought some Samsung 160GB 5400RPM drives back when they were being phased out. Cool, quiet, reliable - great drives.

I think it's time for the Quantum Bigfoot drives to make a comeback. With today's technology, I'm sure we could easily have a 1TB drive with 5.25" platters. I'd buy one. I wouldn't really care about speed or latency issues, as I would certainly have a fast 3.5" drive to boot the OS off of.