Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3TB Hard Drive Round Up

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the three-trillion-bytes dept.

Data Storage 238

MojoKid writes "When 3TB hard drives first arrived compatible motherboards with newer UEFI setup utilities weren't quite ready for prime time. However, with the latest Intel and AMD chipsets hitting the market, UEFI has become commonplace and compatibility with 3TB drives is no longer an issue... A detailed look at four of the latest 3TB drives to hit the market from Hitachi, Seagate, and Western Digital shows ... there are some distinct differences between them. Performance-wise, Seagate's Barracuda XT 3TB drive seems to be the current leader but other, slightly less expensive drives, come close."

cancel ×

238 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

nigger nigger (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37328734)

nigger nigger there is no nigger in this post but too many niggers in the world

Re:nigger nigger (1)

tonywong (96839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330206)

Posts that get modded down to -5 should automatically have their IPs revealed.

750,000 hours MTBF. (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37328744)

Seems the trend that as capacity increased so does failure rate. For comparison the older 1TB Seagates claim 1,200,000 hours.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37328808)

If you bought 3 1TB seagate, you'd be 3x as likely to suffer a failure. So that's really more like a 400,000 hour MTBF for 3TB worth of space.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37328834)

But I would have bought four and put them in a DROBO style array. So no data loss.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37328886)

Unless you're using a Drobo to store backups, keeping your only source of data on a Drobo is not a backup. To be clear, RAID is *NOT* a backup. It's redundancy. There is a difference.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37328978)

a backup is redundant information

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329104)

(a->b) --/-> (b->a)

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329376)

RAID protects against hardware failures. It cannot protect you from idiocy. Backups can. I use RAID, it's faster. I don't worry about it.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

jareth-0205 (525594) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329112)

Unless you're using a Drobo to store backups, keeping your only source of data on a Drobo is not a backup. To be clear, RAID is *NOT* a backup. It's redundancy. There is a difference.

Not sure why you've changed the subject to bang on about backups... he was talking about protecting from hardware failures. Which is exactly what RAID does.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (2)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329096)

I break in to your house and steal your Drobo, then what?

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329240)

Then he is in exactly the same situation as if you broke into his house and stole his 3TB disk, which is completely orthogonal to the MTBF.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329246)

My Drobo has gps anti-theft tracking. Your iphone has tracking. Steve Jobs locates you. You go to jail.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329300)

you get shot?

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329526)

I actually did quite thorough review of NAS/Backup boxes for home use and in the end decided to build one myself. Now I have a 4TB Ubuntu box with plenty of room to expand and connectivity and what's most important: total control of the system. The passively cooled mini-itx board and the case supports 6 sata III drives besides having eSata and USB 3.0, the OS launches from a small SSD. Raid is something that many people automatically implement even though it's not always necessary or convenient. I simply rsync the drives to mirror them. I'm not a filesystem guru, but ended up to have ZFS, which apparently has many great features. The file system loves memory though, I've seen it taking 6 gigabytes easily from time to time.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329664)

You're using ZFS... with Ubuntu?

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329930)

I first tried FreeNAS before installing Ubuntu, and ZFS was a natural choice (for the 2TB drives). I didn't want to use the SSD as a cache for ZFS so decided to install Ubuntu on it rather than having an unused HD. The SSD has the default Linux filesystem. I found a great ZFS driver, which doubled the disk to disk transfer rate from fuse-ZFS.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

Bryan3000000 (1356999) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330108)

Pony up. I need to transition off of fuse-ZFS. Is it ZFS on Linux? I've been waiting forever for it to exit beta, but mostly just not having time to experiment.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (2)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330324)

Yes it is (http://zfsonlinux.org/). I installed it from Darik Horn's PPA as instructed in the FAQ. I don't know how fast the disks should optimally be (100 MB/s reads from single disk, WD Caviar Green), but disk to disk rate peaks and goes a bit above 60 MB/s compared to 30 MB/s before. Average is somewhere a bit above 40 MB/s.

Now I have a 4TB Ubuntu box with plenty of Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329684)

can you even watch so much porn in a lifetime ?

Re:Now I have a 4TB Ubuntu box with plenty of Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329916)

can you even watch so much porn in a lifetime ?

You want your porn in good quality with 1080p, 5.1 surround sound and several audio tracks (3 different languages + comments by cast). That is about 25 gb / hour. (just check your bluray backups, its a fair estimate) So actually your lifetime of porn is just 6.66 days.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329880)

You're using ZFS and manually managing backups with rsync? That's ass backwards.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37330354)

Why do you think rsync has to be implemented manually? A system with Rsync with hard links with cron is simple , easy and very effective. You can even use it to create backups the other machines on your network (Windows/Linux etc) on a schedule.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329054)

I've got 3 1TB Barracudas. Actually I can't remember the last time I had an HD failure, although I have noticed that heavy loading (through bit torrent, for example) does make them start to emit strange clunking noises after a while! But overall I would consider them a trusted brand because I've never had one fail, personally.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329338)

I've got 1 1TB Barracuda. My last failure is NOW. I'm currently waiting for the RMA replacement so that I can hopefully rescue some of the data before the drive fails entirely.
I dont particularly trust any hard drive brand, so I still buy based on price per gig.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330370)

I keep on top of the SMART status of my drives and don't wait for them to implode before taking them off line.

While I haven't had any "failures" as such with my 1.5TB and larger Seagates, I have pre-emptively removed a few from active use before they could be a bother.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329342)

I've got 3 1TB Barracudas. Actually I can't remember the last time I had an HD failure, although I have noticed that heavy loading (through bit torrent, for example) does make them start to emit strange clunking noises after a while! But overall I would consider them a trusted brand because I've never had one fail, personally.

Those 'strange clunking noises' are actually hardware viruses chewing on the shell of the drive and trying to get out. Best to spray some Clorox mixed with WD-40 all over everything and let it sit for a while. That should quiet things down a bit.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329632)

I'm very careful about things like that CWD :p.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330360)

Anecdotally I never had a recent Seagate that outlasted a WD or Hitachi drive. In my experience they were good HDDs until they bought out Maxtor then their quality went down.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37328824)

"Seems the trend that as capacity increased so does failure rate. For comparison the older 1TB Seagates claim 1,200,000 hours."

Same problem happens with flash as bits of data get smaller reliability becomes an issue.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37328844)

(750 000 / 24) / 365.25 = 85.5578371 years

Whats the problem?

By then there'll be 1YB drives to back everything up on ;p

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37328956)

80 years ago there were 10^0 bytes stored.
Now there are 10^12
in 80 years time there will be 10^24.

This is exactly how this stuff works.

That's not what MTBF "means" (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329388)

Pun intended. Mean time between failure, it's only the mean, statistics. In the real world, it's quite normal to run drives with over a million hours MTBF and have a couple percent of them fail each year.

MTBF is really only helpful when you're running a bunch of drives and need to calculate projected time and money you'll spend replacing them. It has no real application to one drive's life expectancy.

Re:That's not what MTBF "means" (2)

rthille (8526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329986)

Between two drives, one with 750,000 hour MTBF and one with 75,000 hour MTBF, which would you choose for one or 2 drives? The MTBF isn't exactly predictive of your drives' lifespans, but it definitely has real application to the decision about which drives to buy...

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (3, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329952)

(750 000 / 24) / 365.25 = 85.5578371 years

Whats the problem?

The problem is that HDD manufacturers don't tell you that all their MTBF ratings are actually specified in "dog hours".

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329152)

You really think your hard drive will last 750,000 hours without failing?

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329340)

If you don't use it during that time, it will* :D

*(Though I do remember somebody saying that extreme amounts of time between use will actually cause harm to the disk the next time it's used)

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329178)

Total lie. Most HDD's will fail around 3 years, so ~26,000 hours.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329334)

>Total lie
My hdd still running since 1997 would prove you wrong....although I do not have much on it as it is a small hdd (250gb),
it would still outlast any of the devices today......

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329484)

Wait...you have a 250 gb drive from 1997? I think there may be a typo in that comment...I thought the preview button was mandatory now!!

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (1)

b0bby (201198) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329832)

Just keep your receipt; Seagate is giving you a 5 year warranty on the 3TB drives.

I have lots of hard drives here which are 4+ years old, I have only had one fail in the past year. I'm sure the oldest drive that's still working here is 8+ years old, and there were lots more that just got cycled out.

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329978)

I got a 5 year warranty on my Seagate 1.5TB drive, and I'm on my third replacement now, two years in. I don't really care if they'll replace it with an empty drive after jumping through their RMA hoops and shipping them the broken drive at my own expense. I want the damn thing to work in the first place. Is that too much to ask for?

Re:750,000 hours MTBF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37330356)

Hardly. I have at least 6 drives from the mid/late 90's, some that have over 7 *spinning years* on them, and all are going strong here in 2011.

Stop treating your drives like crap, and maybe you'll have better luck. I'm not saying drives don't die, just that it isn't nearly as grim as you say.

Re: Unrelated Question.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329762)

Did you used to go by the alias 'Trox Kenja' anywhere? Perhaps TKC rings a bell?

Let me know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37328748)

When I can buy a 3TB SSD.

Re:Let me know (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329254)

Right now if you've got the $$$. Don't expect to find it at Newegg, tho.

3TB Hard Drives in my pants! (1)

slashpot (11017) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329014)

I have rounded up the best 3TB Hard Drives in my pants!

Re:3TB Hard Drives in my pants! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329378)

Where no one but your mother will ever find them.

Re:3TB Hard Drives in my pants! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329680)

Are you sure it's not a 3.5 inch floppy in your pants?

Why the comment on the capacity (4, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329024)

For every drive they comment that the drives have a 2.72TB capacity reported in windows. Why is this surprising them so much? Everyone knows that Windows misreports TiB as TB. Given that all these drives are advertised as 3TB, and 3TB is equal to 2.728TiB it's hardly surprising the capacity that windows reports, is it?

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329130)

The reviewer is an idiot and thinks that formatting takes away that "extra" 0.28 TB from each drive. Common misconception among non-computer people, inexcusable in a tech reviewer.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329198)

Yea, back when we had 1GB drives this was stupid but I guess an acceptable misunderstanding. Now it's just ridiculous. Does this guy actually think that there's 300GB worth of "formatting" on that drive.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329208)

I'm a computer person, and I thought that this was the case. Although I am a Software Developer and drives are hardware, so you can't have expected me to know this.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329742)

You never opened the file properties in Explorer and wondered how 4.92GB could equal 5,284,212,740 bytes?

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329790)

I'm a computer person, and I thought that this was the case. Although I am a Software Developer and drives are hardware, so you can't have expected me to know this.

I would expect you to know how software works and how computers count vs. how people count. This is especially true when the subject of "what is a kilobyte" is discussed in the very first introductory computer classes one would take.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329826)

Oh, I do know the difference. It's just never consistently presented either in marketing literature or in user interfaces.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329278)

Also do not miss the fact the drives have throughput topping 160TB per second. These drives are fast. o_O

http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1712/3tb_roundup_atto_read.png [hothardware.com]

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329288)

160GB/s, but yeh, still rather off the chart ;)

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329666)

Uh, yeah... that's bullshit... I'm going to have to go with 150MB/s.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329746)

160TB/sec is awesome! That's like 5000 Bluray DVDs per second!

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329290)

Because most people think the attempt to change the accepted definition of terabyte is retarded. Rather like Slashdot's posting interface.

This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below.You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329402)

The accepted definition of tera being the one in the SI unit scale that's been used for way longer than computers have existed? There's no change here, just many OSes have an age old bug. Most linux distros, and Mac OS have fixed it now, windows hasn't.

Just for reference, a quick history lesson. The bug was introduced back in the days when 1) CPUs ran at a few kilohertz (that's 1000 hertz, not 1024 hertz, just in case that wasn't clear); 2) division was not an operation available on said CPUs, so it had to be done with software and would take a few hundred cycles; 3) Most of these systems had at most a megabyte of storage; 4) said machines weighed several kilograms (that's 1000 grammes, just to be clear, and 0.001 megagrams). What was provided on these CPUs was a right shift operation, which typically took only 1 clock cycle to complete.

Some clever software engineers noticed that a right shift by 10 from the byte size got "close enough" to the correct size of a file in kilobytes. They acknowledged that it was a bug, but were happy to let it slide, because it was so close that it didn't matter, and it meant that if you were displaying a directory with 20 files in it, you spend 20 clock cycles computing the size to display, instead of 2000 (getting on for 0.2 seconds).

On the hard drives that they were dealing with where files were never more than a few kilobytes they never displayed a significant error. We now do display significant errors (of 300GB or more), and we now do have sufficient clock cycles to do divisions. Because of that, many OS vendors are fixing this age old bug.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329518)

Because most people think the attempt to change the accepted definition of terabyte is retarded. Rather like Slashdot's posting interface.

This comment will not be saved until you click the Submit button below.You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

The time-delay isn't that bad. What's really retarded is how every time you click inside the comment window, instead of simply placing the cursor where you clicked, it has to unnest another level of comments above. It's impossible to place the cursor with the mouse until all the levels of nesting are opened. I've never seen anything more stupid on a website in my life. Why does Slashdot do this?

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329760)

I just refuse to use words like tebibibibyte that I can't pronounce without sounding like I have a speech impediment.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329756)

Everyone knows that Windows misreports TiB as TB.

Uh, no; "everyone*" knows that hard drive manufacturers, computer manufacturers, and resellers misrepresent TiB as TB, and in the rare cases they do disclose it in advertising or on the outside packaging, it is in 3- or 4-point fine print in a low-contrast color and written in a very technical manner that may as well come across as greek to a nontechnical person, or will refer the user to a web site.

Windows reports the traditionally-accepted units to the end user* accurately and consistently. OS X threw a wrench into the works by showing capacities in base 10, which only confuses the user by throwing away the standard in effort to be more intuitive, except then the capacity appears to be different than in other systems. What would the correct solution be? For everyone (manufacturers, resellers, Microsoft, Apple, Linux vendors, etc.) to use KiB, KB, MB, MiB, GB, GiB, TiB, TB correctly and consistently, so there is truth in advertising and in daily use.

* "everyone" != everyone

small

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329834)

Uh, no; "everyone*" knows that hard drive manufacturers, computer manufacturers, and resellers misrepresent TiB as TB

They do? Those hard drives have a label on them saying 3TB, and indeed store 3,000,000,000,000 bytes, I don't see any misrepresentation there, given that the IEEE, ISO and SI standards all agree that kilo means 10^3, mega means 10^6, giga means 10^9 and tera means 10^12.

Windows reports the traditionally-accepted units to the end user* accurately and consistently.

What percentage of end users do you think are involved in the computer industry and know that some software engineer years ago knew right shift 10 was more efficient than divide by 1000? What percentage do you think know the every day SI unit scale? You may be living in a fantasy land where kilo, mega, giga and tera don't have their traditionally accepted meanings, the majority of the population are not.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329846)

What would the correct solution be? For everyone (manufacturers, resellers, Microsoft, Apple, Linux vendors, etc.) to use KiB, KB, MB, MiB, GB, GiB, TiB, TB correctly and consistently

Sorry to reply again–but this would indeed be the solution. Apple, linux vendors and hard drive makers are already using them correctly (and consistently). Microsoft is not, they need to catch up.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329992)

I say print 'em all. Let God sort it out.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

J-1000 (869558) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329792)

According to Google unit conversion, 1 mebibyte = 1 megabyte, and both equal 1024 kilobytes each. Can someone please explain?

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329888)

Google is getting it wrong. 1 Mega byte is equal to 1000 kilo bytes, which is equal to 1000000 bytes. 1 Mebi byte is equal to 1024 kibi bytes, which is equal to 1048576 bytes. These are agreed standards by the IEEE, ISO and IEC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330016)

Way to complex.

For us American consumers, I would suggest

Small
Medium
Large
XXL
XXXL
Oprah Winfrey

None of this mathy stuff.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330064)

You have to plan for the future.

What's beyond Oprah Winfrey? And what happens if she shrinks? Is that data loss? Is it recoverable or reusable?

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37330074)

None of that English stuff either, it seems.
 
Doesn't it suck that just about the time you feel the need to mouth off about others being fools you prove yourself among their number?
 
Next time try to proof read and if you still don't know what I'm talking about try taking up 4th grade English.

Re:Why the comment on the capacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329980)

Dude, that ship has sailed. MiB, GiB, TiB have failed in the marketplace of ideas. Let it go.

7200 RPM data drives (1)

89cents (589228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329122)

Instead of paying $179 for a 3TB 7200 TB drive, it makes more sense to pay $129 for a 3TB 5400 RPM drive such as this Hitachi:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145493 [newegg.com]

and then add a small SSD with the savings for the OS/apps. The new BIOS/chipsets even allow you to combine them so that the SSD is used as a large cache drive.

Re:7200 RPM data drives (2)

akirapill (1137883) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329274)

The speed of high capacity drives can matter a great deal depending on what the system is used for, and read/write speed is not just important for applications and the OS. Ask anyone who does realtime uncompressed video or multi-track audio recording.

Re:7200 RPM data drives (1)

BobNET (119675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329498)

If they're doing realtime video or multitrack audio, then they can probably afford the faster drive.

Re:7200 RPM data drives (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330140)

The speed of high capacity drives can matter a great deal depending on what the system is used for, and read/write speed is not just important for applications and the OS. Ask anyone who does realtime uncompressed video or multi-track audio recording.

Yes, but.... as the capacity of a platter increases without increasing the size, the rpm needed to obtain a set transfer rate goes down. It's basic math... when the bit density increases, the read head has to cover less area to pick up the same number of bits. That's not to say that a 7200rpm 3TB drive will not be faster than a 5400rpm 3TB drive, but it does mean that the difference between the two won't be as significant as a 7200rpm 80GB drive versus a 5400rpm 80GB drive, as the transfer will run into other bottlenecks first.

Just check out the reviews for similar cases... the 1TB WD Scorpio Blue laptop hard drive runs at 5200rpm, but because the data is so densely packed, that drive is faster than most 7200rpm 500GB laptop hard drives, and in sustained read it's faster than some SSD's.

More to the point: for most computer users, you will never really notice the difference in speed between a 7200rpm drive and a 5400rpm drive. You will, however, notice the difference in noise. For specific applications, it'll make a difference, but for most of us, it won't at all.

Very bad experience with the Hitachi (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329716)

it makes more sense to pay $129 for a 3TB 5400 RPM drive such as this Hitachi:

I had a really bad experience with this hitachi (not the more expensive one mentioned in the article). I ordered one and started synchronizing a 2TB drive onto this one.

At first everything worked well, but after the first 1TB or so it started to slow down. I re-started the transfer from the middle, but after 10 hours it had only transferred 100GB!

I bought the Seagate 3TB drives and that seems to be working much better (in that a full 2TB transfer took only 10 hours or so in a dual USB 3.0 dock).

I agree that for some uses a large but slowish drive can suffice, but for photography work it's really better to simply have a large fast drive (the SSD cache would not really help much since the write speeds are slow).

Graphed speeds are wrong? (2)

Nemilar (173603) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329174)

Am I reading the graphs wrong, or are they claiming 160,000MB/s throughput on those drives?

Is that supposed to be KB/s? I might buy 160MB/s (that's still crazy high), but 160GB?

Re:Graphed speeds are wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329196)

Has to be K.

Re:Graphed speeds are wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329444)

Maybe it's burst throughput and not sustained?

Re:Graphed speeds are wrong? (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329780)

No. The fastest SATA interface currently available bursts at 600MB/s.

Re:Graphed speeds are wrong? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329838)

Burst throughput from the drive itself still can not surpass SATA throughput, and even SATA-3 is not *that* fast.

Re:Graphed speeds are wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37330124)

no they are correct. the cache on the drives is 64MB which is screwing up by dumping burst read data. they should have accounted for this but didnt.

I don't trust my data to a single huge drive (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329200)

Sure, a single external drive for backups is one thing but for everyday use I prefer to use RAID-5 or RAID-Z. Sure it's anecdotal but it just seems to me that newer drives fail more often than older ones. Not to mention that losing all the data on a 3 TB disk is a bit worse than losing all the data on a 540 MB or even 9 GB disk was. Sure I had important data on those as well, but it was easier to keep the most important stuff backed up properly.

Re:I don't trust my data to a single huge drive (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329374)

The idea of a rational backup strategy is that you don't lose data, no matter what size drive you are using. So if you're worried about a 3TB drive failing, you're doing it wrong.

Re:I don't trust my data to a single huge drive (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329882)

The rational backup strategy for my movie collection *is* a RAID-1. One of which has actually failed (Samsung 2GB) so I have to replace it *quick*. It's not 100 safe or anything, but it's a balanced decission in my opinion.

Documents are stored on my SSD, my RAID and online, but I don't need 3 GB for that anyway.

Re:I don't trust my data to a single huge drive (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330050)

And that's fine. But backup strategy shouldn't be based on 'ooh, that drive is too big to fail'. That IS what RAID is for, after all.

Re:I don't trust my data to a single huge drive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37329394)

That's why you buy several of these, fill them, and then go blind.

Re:I don't trust my data to a single huge drive (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#37330082)

The claims that newer drives are more error prone is a fallacy, resulting from a failure to understand basic statistics. These are people who in the past have bought one, maybe two hard drives, but now they have several OS drives on several computers, plus several more for bulk storage, portable storage, etc. When you have five times the number of drives, you are five times more likely to suffer a failure in one of them. People are experiencing more failures, because there is more to fail, and they are incorrectly equating that to a belief about reliability.

3TB (1)

TheMan28 (2456174) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329584)

Woow that is really big

Why compare speed? (1)

obi1one (524241) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329608)

Why compare read and write speeds on huge (and in a few cases low rpm low energy use) drives like these? For most users, the selling point is huge amount of storage for large files (video etc) in a single drive. Energy usage and heat producion might be relevant, and maybe a quick speed benchmark to give people an idea of what the drives are capable of, but 5 pages of speed benchmarks is silly. The differences in speed are so small really (20% between the fastest and slowest seems about typical) as well. Who buys 3 TB hard drives based on speed benchmarks? Give me big cheap drives with a decent warranty please, Ill use SSDs when I want speed.

Not A Bad Review IF . . . (1)

tgeek (941867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329648)

. . . your intention is to put a single 3TB drive in a desktop machine. IMNSHO, that's a fairly risky and unwise proposition. I think the review would've been better if the authors had covered a few more items of interest to the storage systems market (even the hobbyist/consumer/SOHO segments). For example: How much power does each drive consume? Temperatures? Noise? Error recovery (particulary WD's TLER)? I think these things might be of some interest to the broader market for these types of drives.

BIOS doesn't recognize my drive (1)

mcelrath (8027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329650)

How many times have we been through this "my BIOS doesn't recognize my drive because it's too large". Then the BIOS vendors find another way to tack on another factor of two. Then next year we have the same problem. Why the hell can't we solve this problem once and for all? Is there some fool that actually believes that next year, drives won't be bigger?

Re:BIOS doesn't recognize my drive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37330318)

If you follow the UEFI link in the summary, you will find this quote: "... allows for a maximum disk and partition size of 9.4 ZB (9.4 × 10^21 bytes)". This maybe won't solve it once and for all, but still...

My personal choice on Backups. (1)

Meridock (2428404) | more than 2 years ago | (#37329712)

I have been burned on 80GB drive failure, where the backup was on a different drive in the same machine (cost reasons), so I upgraded to a NAS with RAID (money more available)... Later on, I was in the process of backup, and I experienced a failure of the array due to a firmware issue and still lost a LOT of data. Those 2 experiences made me invest in redundancy AND backups. I now have a second NAS with RAID that is the primary backup device, and a set of cheap HD's for secondary backups. Is this overkill? Nope, not unless I find a way to place these in two remote locations :) So the better plan you have and execution of the plan - the 3TB drive failure should mean as much as a 1.44MB Floppy that goes t-up.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>