View unanswered posts    View active topics

All times are UTC - 6 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Print view Previous topic   Next topic  
Author Message
Search for:
 Post subject: 2TB Seagate drive, $169
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:17 am 
Offline
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:07 am
Posts: 1532
Location: California
For those in the bay area Fry's has the Seagate 2TB drive on sale for $169. This is a lower-power 5900RPM drive. I already have one in my box and they are very quiet.

In advance of being asked -- the "9" in "5900" is not a typo -- they run this drive at a slightly higher speed than the classic 5400 RPMs. The performance and power consumption is very good when compared to other green drives.

_________________
Marc

The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:51 pm 
Offline
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:31 pm
Posts: 1996
Location: /dev/null
Can you post the results of an hdparm test?

Code:
# hdparm -Tt /dev/sdX


Obviously change the X to the correct letter for your 2 gig drive :)

For comparison, here is the results of my 1 TB Seagate 7200.12 drive, average of three runs:

Code:
# hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
Timing cached reads: 14765 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7382.33 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 367 MB in 3.01 seconds = 121.82 MB/sec

_________________
Retired KM user (R4 - R6.04); friend to LH users.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:08 pm 
Offline
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:07 am
Posts: 1532
Location: California
Results for Seagate 2TB 5900RPM drive
Code:
 Timing cached reads:   12836 MB in  2.00 seconds = 6433.22 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  352 MB in  3.00 seconds = 117.17 MB/sec


Results for 750GB WD green drive:
Code:
 Timing cached reads:   6514 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3259.97 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  178 MB in  3.02 seconds =  59.01 MB/sec


Results for 1TB WD green drive:
Code:
 Timing cached reads:   7480 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3744.96 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  270 MB in  3.02 seconds =  89.38 MB/sec


Given the massive difference between the Seagate drive and the two WD driver, I ran the test 2 more times on the Seagate drive and saw the following:
Code:
 Timing cached reads:   6456 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3231.46 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  340 MB in  3.01 seconds = 112.84 MB/sec
root@mythhd:~# hdparm -Tt /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   8208 MB in  2.00 seconds = 4110.16 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  346 MB in  3.00 seconds = 115.25 MB/sec

[/quote]

_________________
Marc

The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:50 am 
Offline
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:20 pm
Posts: 98
Location: Krakow, Poland, EU
Results for Seagate 750GB 7200RPM 8MB ATA/100 pvr dedicated drive (DB35.3 Series - ST3750840ACE)

Code:
 Timing cached reads:   834 MB in  2.00 seconds = 416.38 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  212 MB in  3.02 seconds =  70.22 MB/sec


I guess hdparm -T results mainly depend on the mainboard, and are not relevant to jauge the drive itself; at least, it confirms that even old motherboard is not a bottleneck compared to drive's sustained data transfer rate. :wink:

Obviously, the frontier stands between 750GB and 1TB drives; transfer rate is all about arial density and drives above 750GB achieve far higher bit density with less platters. Impressive performance, marc.aronson, for that 2TB Seagate drive spinning at 5900 rpm ! Twice as better as my 750GB Seagate spinning at 7200 rpm.

BTW, Seagate's specification for ST3750840ACE claims a 78 Mbytes/sec theoretical sustained data transfer rate :? ; what's about discrepancies between observed and theoretical values for your own drives ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:37 pm 
Offline
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 11:55 pm
Posts: 1206
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
From my (probably naive) perspective, transfer rates don't matter that much. A full HD capture is less than 20M BITS (not bytes) per second, or about 9MB/sec. If the access time of the drive is reasonable, any of these drives can happily record and play more HD streams than any of us could stand watching!

I guess this is from the perspective of a combined FE/BE setup. If you have lots of FE boxes connecting to a single BE, I can see the concern about transfer rates...

_________________
Do you code to live, or live to code?
Search LinHES forum through Google


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:26 pm 
Offline
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:31 pm
Posts: 1996
Location: /dev/null
It's more a function of how fast the system feels. In most modern systems, the HDD is definetly the slowest component.

_________________
Retired KM user (R4 - R6.04); friend to LH users.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:09 pm 
Offline
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:20 pm
Posts: 98
Location: Krakow, Poland, EU
Liv2Cod, might you paste here 'hdparm -Tt' output for your backend's drive ? We are off-topic here, it's just for fun. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


All times are UTC - 6 hours




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Theme Created By ceyhansuyu