looking for new hard drive

[poopypoo]

fwiw, the drive that died was a maxtor DiamondPlus 9 (2MB cache). I've had it since 2003 I think... might be 2004. I've been abusing it with lots of data storage/deletion/backup more than anything else I own, so I wasn't surprised it was going to die out.

Is the Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 series pretty much what I should be looking for?

Thank you all for your opinions.

yeah for my $$ i'd go http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148099 300gb 7200.9. shame you can't sit on it for a bit since the 7200.10s are soon-to-be-launched. the 7200.9s are slightly loud (not really but at least a little louder than 7200.8s and samsungs), but solid-performing drives. for games and such you may want to turn off NCQ, though.

 

[Simon F]

But no matter how well you prepare, HDD failure always leaves you reeling. I suppose RAID would help with that, but my (limited) experience with RAID leaves me thinking it's more trouble than it's worth. So, I pay the small premium for peace of mind.

I already had 2 small IBM disks running in Mirrored RAID. Suffice to say, they've been going for some time without a hiccough.

 

[NANOTEC]

I've heard a lot of good things about the newer Maxtors, and with the acquisition by Seagate I'm in a wait-and-see mode. However, they have a lot to overcome after my years as a PC repairman. Their failure rate struck me as abnormally high, and the fact that this is a rather "trendy" claim against that specific company seems damning. Of course, I'm so stodgy I'll only buy Seagates. I've owned a number of WDs and been happy with them, but SG has a great reputation, long-standing, and a great warranty to back it up. I realize they're falling behind in performance, and if I were disappointed with my HDD performance, I would switch, but I'm not, and in the end the #1 criterion for me when it comes to HDDs is reliability.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Seagate is falling behind in performance.

the 7200.9s are slightly loud (not really but at least a little louder than 7200.8s and samsungs), but solid-performing drives

I also find it really annoying that some people look at paper specs about noise level and interface types then automtically think they're an expert on the matter. I mean what moron buys a SATAII HD because they think they're getting 300 MB/s data transfer rates? Imagine the look on their face when they finally realize that they're getting much less than 100MB/s let alone 300MB/s. As to hardrive noise level, that has more to do with the frequency than dB. The Seagates are extremely quiet. Fujitsu HDDs for laptops are also very quiet and no that's not from looking at paper specs that's after using them.

 

[Guden Oden]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Seagate is falling behind in performance.

You're right - in a way. Seagate has already fallen behind, they did that years ago. Their ATA drives have been pedestrian in speed for a long time now. Recent example:

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9: In its flagship 500 GB incarnation, the Barracuda 7200.9 is a middling performer at best. The loss of half its capacity and half its buffer leaves the 250-gigabyte 'Cuda a relatively poor performer.

Unless you want to run a file/webserver using consumer harddrives, Seagate simply isn't the way to go when performance is concerned.

I mean what moron buys a SATAII HD because they think they're getting 300 MB/s data transfer rates?

Um, more people than you think, apparantly... There are many such ignoramuses out there, unfortunately. But they're that way simply because they don't know any better, they read the specs sheet, it says 300MB/s. So that's what they believe. Nothing they can really be faulted for. Most people don't know how an automatic gearbox works, even though they might drive a car with one every day. Should we all point and laugh at them?

Do you know how they work?

 

[NANOTEC]

You're right - in a way. Seagate has already fallen behind, they did that years ago. Their ATA drives have been pedestrian in speed for a long time now. Recent example:

Unless you want to run a file/webserver using consumer harddrives, Seagate simply isn't the way to go when performance is concerned.


Um, more people than you think, apparantly... There are many such ignoramuses out there, unfortunately. But they're that way simply because they don't know any better, they read the specs sheet, it says 300MB/s. So that's what they believe. Nothing they can really be faulted for. Most people don't know how an automatic gearbox works, even though they might drive a car with one every day. Should we all point and laugh at them?

Do you know how they work?

There's nothing in that review that indicates their HDDs as a whole have fallen behind. It's one review of one specific model. In fact reading the conclusions to the models tested none of them did all that well except for the Hitachi. I guess WD, Seagate, Maxtor, and Samsung have all fallen behind according to that review.

Oh and yeah I actually do know how an automatic transmission works and how automotive combustion engines work. In fact I've tore down engines to it's individual components and rebuilt it. I've changed brake pads and repacked whieel bearings and replaced a radiator too. I also know how to troubleshoot engine problems. That's not the point though which is paper spec shopping without knowing what the specs really mean.

 

[Skrying]

There's nothing in that review that indicates their HDDs as a whole have fallen behind. It's one review of one specific model. In fact reading the conclusions to the models tested none of them did all that well except for the Hitachi. I guess WD, Seagate, Maxtor, and Samsung have all fallen behind according to that review.

Oh and yeah I actually do know how an automatic transmission works and how automotive combustion engines work. In fact I've tore down engines to it's individual components and rebuilt it. I've changed brake pads and repacked whieel bearings and replaced a radiator too. I also know how to troubleshoot engine problems. That's not the point though which is paper spec shopping without knowing what the specs really mean.

Your reply shows that you really didnt get Guden's example. He's not talking about you, its great you have advanced knowledge about the internal workings of a car, he wasnt talking about you. Most people, even ones who I'd consider more informed than others, when it comes to HD dont realize just how little the data transfer speed is used compared to the maximum theoritical. Many buy SATAII because of the claimed data transfer speeds, I'd even venture to say more buy without knowledge or real transfer speeds than those who do.

As for Seagate being behind in performance. Its true they are not the top performers, sometimes falling towards the lower end of the pack, but I dont buy them because they are blazing fast. Like lots of products I buy them because of support and relibility.

 

[Guden Oden]

There's nothing in that review that indicates their HDDs as a whole have fallen behind. It's one review of one specific model.

You need to look at the bigger picture. Like I already said, this is just a recent example, if you look at SR reviews of past generations of drives, you'll see the barracuda has been sucking performance-wise for years. It's not news, and trying to make it look like there isn't a pattern here is just futile and dumb.

I guess WD, Seagate, Maxtor, and Samsung have all fallen behind according to that review.

You'd think that yes, except few if any of those other manufacturers have a reputation as unfailing as seagate's of mediocre (at best) desktop performance. Instead of arguing with me over this like don quijote against his windmills, go look at past generations for more examples.

Oh and yeah I actually do know how an automatic transmission works and how automotive combustion engines work.

Good for you. The point however was to show that if all the info you get about a product is it transfers data at 300MB/s, that's what you're going to believe. It doesn't make you dumb, or stupid. 'Normal' people simply don't have any way of knowing that interface transmission speed is different from the drive's internal datarate.

 

[DudeMiester]

I got a HD myself recently. I wanted to get a Hitachi T7K250, but no one had any in stock. I was pressed for time, since my old HD was on the verge of death, so I had to settle for a WD3200JB. I'll just use this one as a backup when I upgrade later this year, and get 2 of those Hitachi is RAID 0 for my main drive.

 

[NANOTEC]

Your reply shows that you really didnt get Guden's example. He's not talking about you, its great you have advanced knowledge about the internal workings of a car, he wasnt talking about you. Most people, even ones who I'd consider more informed than others, when it comes to HD dont realize just how little the data transfer speed is used compared to the maximum theoritical. Many buy SATAII because of the claimed data transfer speeds, I'd even venture to say more buy without knowledge or real transfer speeds than those who do.

Actually I did get what he was saying. I was only having a little fun by going with his question.

As for Seagate being behind in performance. Its true they are not the top performers, sometimes falling towards the lower end of the pack, but I dont buy them because they are blazing fast. Like lots of products I buy them because of support and relibility.

I haven't seen evidence that says Seagate drives as a whole are falling behind. Looking at thoe review it seems some drives are better at some benchmarks than others and that it applies to all the drives being tested.

You need to look at the bigger picture. Like I already said, this is just a recent example, if you look at SR reviews of past generations of drives, you'll see the barracuda has been sucking performance-wise for years. It's not news, and trying to make it look like there isn't a pattern here is just futile and dumb.

First of all you're talking about the Baracuda's. Seagate also has the Cheetah line. Second The Baracudas do well in certain benchmarks and poorly in others. This can be said of the majority of HDs out there. This is not news.

You'd think that yes, except few if any of those other manufacturers have a reputation as unfailing as seagate's of mediocre (at best) desktop performance. Instead of arguing with me over this like don quijote against his windmills, go look at past generations for more examples.

I've already looked at the reviews and there is not evidence that Seagates as a whole are falling behind.

Good for you. The point however was to show that if all the info you get about a product is it transfers data at 300MB/s, that's what you're going to believe. It doesn't make you dumb, or stupid. 'Normal' people simply don't have any way of knowing that interface transmission speed is different from the drive's internal datarate.

Well then they shouldn't buy them according to specs they don't understand. That's what makes them uninformed. The annoying thing is that when they see others happy with a puny ATA100 HD, they go off about how it's slow compared to SATA and all that nonsense as if they're the resident expert simply from looking at paper specs. You see this ignorance all the time.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200510/ST3500641AS_1.html

Seems pretty competitive to me.