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!

Maxtor's 300 GB Monster Reviewed

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the never-enough-space dept.

Data Storage 484

bustersnyvel writes "Tom's Hardware Guide has a nice article about Maxtor's new 300 GB DiamondMax harddisk. " The question is - will the drive perform despite having only 2mb of cache, and running at 5400 rpm?

cancel ×

484 comments

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

who cares if it performs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202043)

who cares if it performs? If you can afford/need 300 gigs you're probably not using it to store application, you're using it to store large amounts of data that doesn't need to be bursted, etc.

Re:who cares if it performs (1)

dokutake (587467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202060)

Or you can get two and stick them in a RAID array and get 600GB of 10800 effective RPM goodness.

You work for RIAA don't you? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202232)

You work for RIAA, don't you?

Re:who cares if it performs (2, Insightful)

J-B0nd (682712) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202077)

You care a lot if you're capturing a lot of lightly compressed video. That requires a fairly quick drive, I have noticed more dropped frames using Vdub on my 5400 rpm drive than my 7200 drive.

Re:who cares if it performs (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202162)

I'd say having more than one drive is best. You might want the system drive to be pretty quick for good boot and app startup, another huge storage device just to keep things, and if you need performance, then get a small 10k RPM drive as a scratch disk. The scratch disc and system disc can be different partitions on the same drive.

That said, I have plenty of space on my network so I don't need this yet, but it's nice to know the option is there. Then there's the concern of being able to back up this drive, failing being able to backup, then one would want to RAID mirror it, meaning having two drives. Ugh.

Re:who cares if it performs (1)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202105)

If I had a 300GB drive it's likely it would be alone in the box for quite a while (until it was full) so it would be used for apps as well as data.
The spec is, however, perfectly adequate for my needs. I'm not in any particular hurry :)

Re:who cares if it performs (1)

Sir Haxalot (693401) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202127)

who cares if it performs?
Me for one. If I'm going to fork out for a 300gb hard-disk, ok maybe I might not want 8mb cache as I'll mainly use it for storage, but I want at least 7200rpm. Just because it big doesn't mean it can't be fast aswell.

Re:who cares if it performs (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202179)

If I'm going to fork out for a 300gb hard-disk, ok maybe I might not want 8mb cache as I'll mainly use it for storage, but I want at least 7200rpm. Just because it big doesn't mean it can't be fast aswell.

But they're cheaper than a 7200RPM 300GB drive with 8MB of cache would be. The point he was making is that most people buying these Maxtor drives are probably just going to be archiving stuff (porn, video, music, etc.). It doesn't necessarily matter that the drive is fast because it'll usually be used as a secondary drive in a system that already has a fast 40-80GB 7200RPM drive.

Re:who cares if it performs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202139)

I'm afraid in real world situations, if you need 300GB of data stored, you're going to want it all back Right Now. Doesn't look to do anything a well managed RAID wouldn't, but slower

Re:who cares if it performs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202214)

Right. cos I know *I* want to listen to my entire MP3 library and watch all my porn ALL AT ONCE.

speed is not everything :P

Re:who cares if it performs - I WANT TO PERFORM! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202176)

Really! I want to perform! How can I perform? I want to perform something that MEN have performed since day one - FUCK A REAL FEMALE!. 200 years ago men were running after bare naked women in the fucking forest and fucking in the bushes!!! When they catched a female in the forest they fucked here right away without asking here for a date! Why can't it be like that even now? I WANT TO BE A MAN TOO! Biology has made me a man - I want to do what MAN IS SUPPOSED TO DO and that is fucking a real woman!

Where can I get a real woman???? That is a much more important question than asking how some fucking stupid hard disk performs!! Much better if we were able to do that fucking in the bushes as well sometimes!! Are we doomed? Are we not real men because we can't practise what biology has ment us to practise and that is fucking in the bushes???

Re:who cares if it performs (2, Funny)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202184)

Looking at the article:

They all pale, however, compared to Maxtor's monster, which has a full 300 GB of write space. If you're one of those people for whom "big" isn't big enough, this is the one for you.

300GB of write space... not read/write space. This drive is nothing but a subset of /dev/null with an ATA interface!

Re:who cares if it performs (2, Informative)

stfvon007 (632997) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202208)

I have 2 maxtor drives. Here are the results of my benchmarks done on them (Both are secondary drives at the time of the benchmarking)

200GB 7200 RPM 8MB cache
34.8 Mbps read 34.6Mbps Write

160GB 5400 RPM 2MB cache
24.9MBps read 23.8MBps Write

The 160 GB drives performance should be simaler to what you get with the 300GB drive. Not as fast as the 7200 8MB cashe's but still fast enough for mostly whatever you need.

Re:who cares if it performs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202218)

if i were going to buy this, it'd be only as a standalone backup device. there's no way i'd trust a raid with something like this; specially considering how much data'd have to be recovered.

Re:who cares if it performs (1)

warrenharding (715713) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202241)

I confer with another user here about Maxtor's reliability. The last time I had to send one back they had no Advance replacement (like WD) and it took me 3 weeks to get my drive replaced. That's just poor business. With a year warranty, you a sucker if you buy one of these.

I'll take two please... (0, Flamebait)

djhankb (254226) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202047)

Striped together for more space for my pr0n!

fp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202048)

fp -AJ

Re:fp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202116)

AXJ? or just AJ?

Holy Crap (1, Funny)

crass751 (682736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202049)

300GB is a lot of pr0n

Re:Holy Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202131)

Too bad it doesn't come pre-loaded.

Re:Holy Crap (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202158)

Actually, according to the RIAA: 300GB = One Trillion Dollars of lost revenue.

A Trillion dollars can buy a lot of porn...

FP???? (-1, Troll)

facilitatorrt (693462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202050)

Who know but this is sure out of date. I mean, I saw that article like last week. I thought that /. was up to speed on things like this.

thats so big (1)

st0rmshadow (643869) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202051)

jeeze. that's insane. i still got 30 gig.

Re:thats so big (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202103)

30 Gig? I still have my 30 MEG! RLL AND the card to support it. I cant bring myself to throw it away. I spent over $900 for it nearly 20 years ago.

-jhon

Re:thats so big (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202181)

Move over. I have a 2mb HDD.

Re:thats so big (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202248)

shit i feel spoiled.
my first drive was 170mb.

Speed? Why? (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202054)

For bulk storage, you don't need speed.

second post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202056)

second post!

Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202057)

Even MORE pr0n!!

Slashdotted already... (1)

JLSigman (699615) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202061)

Could some nice Karma whore post the article here when they get a chance? ;-)

Re:Slashdotted already... (Page 1) (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202082)

Opinions differ wildly in the hard-drive business. While Seagate supplies hard drives with 160 GB of capacity in the ATA area, Hitachi and Western Digital already have 250 GB disks. They all pale, however, compared to Maxtor's monster, which has a full 300 GB of write space. If you're one of those people for whom "big" isn't big enough, this is the one for you.

However, criticism of manufacturers with smaller maximum capacities is inappropriate since the focus of many of these vendors' attention lies elsewhere. As one of the quietest drives spinning at 7,200 rpm, a Barracuda ATA 7200.7 is designed most of all along ergonomic lines and to deliver a good price/performance ratio. Hitachi, Maxtor and Western Digital join the running for highest performance at regular intervals. The result is larger, faster and correspondingly expensive hard drives.

With the 4A300J0, Maxtor is traveling a different route: its aim is to provide as much storage capacity as possible at an acceptable price. The recipe it has chosen consists of 5,400 rpm instead of the favored - because it's quicker - 7,200 rpm and only 2 MB in place of the 8 MB cache usual in top models. Since SATA still costs more, it uses an UltraATA/133 interface. This is ample for the coming months, as transfer rates on the fastest ATA disks are still below 70 MB/s max.

We took a closer look at how the 300 GB monster shapes up against the established major-leaguers from Hitachi, Maxtor and Western Digital.

Re:Slashdotted already... (Page 2) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202110)

Technical Data
Capacity 300 GB
Geometry 4 Platter, 80 GB pro Platter
Rotation speed 5,400
Cache 2 MB
Access time 12.6 ms
Interface UltraATA/133
Warranty 1 Year

The technical details leave no room for criticism. This largest DiamondMax is based on platters of approx. 80 GB. Four of them are used, raising capacity to around 320 GB. However, "only" 300 GB is used - the remainder is probably reserved for error correction.

With four platters, Maxtor is aiming pretty high. Several years ago, IBM put up to five platters per drive in its DTLA series. That offers the advantage of being able to construct very large drives. However, the increased friction causes more heat loss so that hard drives with four platters require cooling sooner than models with only one or two. Large SCSI drives are usually based on multi-platter configurations.

An UltraATA/133 controller was also included in delivery of the retail kit. Although it's labeled as a Maxtor, it in fact originates from Promise. The Maxtor website, meanwhile, contains the information that this controller is not standard in the retail kit but has to be purchased extra.

2mb of cache? (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202063)

Good Lord! Most laptop drives now have 8 or 16!

Re:2mb of cache? (1)

kormoc (122955) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202112)

umm... I doubt it, as most desktop drives have 2 and a few have 8...

Re:2mb of cache? (0)

cameronsto (553364) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202199)

To make up for the fact that most are slower than 5400rpm, I believe they're 4200rpm.

cameron

fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202064)

fp

Re:fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202092)

damnit, not even close...

Couldn't you have all waited another 60 seconds? (1)

Blaine Hilton (626259) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202069)

Well I read the first 2 pages of the article while it was still waiting for the "future", then I go to read page 3 and its gone! Hit refresh here and sure enough its open for posting. That took what 2 min?

Sometimes size matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202070)

And sometimes, it doesn't. I use a Raptor (10k, 8 meg cache) for applications and OS, but something like this 300 gig drive would be perfect for media storage which doesn't need to be super fast.

I'm waiting for the... (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202076)

I'm waiting for the 1 Tb Hd. It should just be 4 or 5 more years now.

Re:I'm waiting for the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202111)

Well, following conventional wisdom that storage space increases like transistor densities (doubling every 18 months) that would mean that we would have a TB drive in in less than 3 years from now.

Re:I'm waiting for the... (4, Funny)

lakeland (218447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202134)

I've been watching HDD sizes for a while, and they seem to be narrowly beating Moore's law (15-16 months instead of 18.) So if we say we have 300GB today, with 100GB commonplace then I would say we will hit 1TB in about 27 months, with regular drives taking just over fourty months.

Re:I'm waiting for the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202140)

That's a lot of MP3's to piss off the RIAA. :-)

like every new maxtor (4, Insightful)

matticus (93537) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202078)

Like every new Maxtor, the first one that comes out is the 5400/2MB model. This is for the warez kids and the movie people. Then, in a month or two, sure enough comes the 7200/8MB model for the uber-raid systems sold by Advanced Unibyte and Transtec and the like. Give it a year, and the rest of us will be able to afford it when the 500GB model comes out.
Until then, it's dual 120s or 160s for price reasons.

How about just slightly behind the cutting edge? (2, Informative)

Atario (673917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202256)

250GB for $149.99 (after rebate) = less than $0.60/GB [mercurynews.com] . (And 8MB buffer/7200RPM at that...)

Personally... (4, Insightful)

blitzoid (618964) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202085)

Personally I'm not worried so much about speed as I am about reliability. I've had to RMA a couple maxtor drives recently, and losing 300gb of data would really, REALLY suck.

Re:Personally... (1)

matticus (93537) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202189)

I hate to be the one who tells you this, but besides IBM's 75GXP and 60GXP lines (which fail much more than most), Western Digital, Seagate, Maxtor, Samsung, and $harddrivemanufacturer's hard disks all fail pretty regularly. IDE drives have never been the pinnacle of reliability. You get what you pay for. I just make sure to get the ones with the 3 year warranties because of this-in 3 years, you normally have a reason to get a new drive anyway (up until recently, with 300GB what am I saying? MS XP 5 or whatever comes out in 2006 won't need that much space for Joe User unless digital music and movies take off even more).
RMA'ing a couple maxtors is normal. I've found most drive companies have drives that fail about the same rate when I worked for a company that went through different brands like toilet paper.

Re:Personally... (1)

in7ane (678796) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202246)

Same experience here - had an 80GB Maxtor - failed a year after purchase, got replaced under warranty, replacement failed again in a few month - couldn't be bothered anymore.

Switched to a Lacie FW drive now (what do they have inside?). And a Western Digital 20GB that came built into something is running 4 years straight with no problems (fingers crossed).

Maxtor does seem to have a very poor reliability record - look around at other comments and reviews.

I know this guy.... (1)

didipickles (566798) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202086)

A friend of mine has one, and he says its not as quick as some of his other drives. But he says it is really nice if your looking for a huge amount of space. But he doesn't run Half Life 2 off of it. (Oh wait, did I say that out loud?) I mean he doesn't run Jumpstart 3rd Grade off of it....

Raid 0 Raid 5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202087)

It would be a very good idea to use radi with a drive such as this. I would cringe at losing 300GB of data in one failure.

The question is (2, Insightful)

Rufus211 (221883) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202088)

The question is - will the drive perform despite having only 2mb of cache, and running at 5400 rpm?
Because you know...if I have a 300gb hard drive I am OBVIOUSLY using it to run my games off of. Get real, this is for backing up mp3s or videos to. Or if you're a profesional doing video editing that needs insane space you get two of these and RAID them together and poof, they're already faster than a single 7200 rpm HD.

Re:The question is (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202260)

wrong. two drives make for raid 1. Unless you are willing to risk losing 600 GB on a raid 0. Something like raid 53 is probably what most would look for.

It's too big to be useful (4, Interesting)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202094)

A drive that big is hardly useful by itself; it's better off in a RAID 1 or RAID 1+0 configuration. Having 300GB of data on a single hard disk only guarantees that when the disk crashes and FUBARs all of your non-backed-up data, you'll wish you'd gotten 2 of the monsters. Drives this big are just too vulnerable when used singly without RAID or a sound backup plan.

I'm all for innovation, but seriously, who needs a 300GB hard disks except for pr0n c0lLeCt0R5, warez d00ds and RAID junkies?

Re:It's too big to be useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202132)

I'm all for innovation, but seriously, who needs a 300GB hard disks except for pr0n c0lLeCt0R5, warez d00ds and RAID junkies?

Anime. i got 280 gigs and counting.

Re:It's too big to be useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202211)

Anime. i got 280 gigs and counting.

I was going to say the same thing. :-) Tho' I'm only up to about 200 gigs, non-hentai too.

Re:It's too big to be useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202249)

The fact that you had to mention it was non-hentai probably means it is hentai.

Re:It's too big to be useful (1)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202170)

I heard this exact same argument somewhere else... and a while back. It was when 1GB drives started becoming popular

Re:It's too big to be useful (1)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202198)

You probably heard correctly. Except in those days, tape drives were king of long-term backups because it was relatively easy to create a tape big enough to hold a gig of data. Nowadays you would need an enormous amount of tape(s) to fully back up 300GB of data. I know the tape storage companies are scaling tapes up (IIRC there are 80GB tapes floating around), but ATM a 300GB disk is really just too big to easily back up, IMO.

Re:It's too big to be useful (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202240)

uhm, i can backup 400gb to an LTO tape. So you would essentialy need Super DLT or LTO/LTO2 to do this.

(It would probably cost you as much as 10 of these drives to have an LTO/SuperDLT solution/tapes)

So just by 2 of these and mirror them and offload to tape your mission critical stuff.

Re:It's too big to be useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202250)

Maybe it's useful as one really really big swap partition?

Re:It's too big to be useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202212)

C'mon, 640K is enough for any...er, forget it.

Re:It's too big to be useful (1)

Pastey (577467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202192)

Survey says......*DING!*

Home theater PC users!


Seriously. Even using a good codec like DivX or XVid you're still looking at ~1.5GB for a full length ripped DVD with 5.1 surround. A large DVD collection needs a lot of hard disk space.

Re:It's too big to be useful (1)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202193)

A drive that big is hardly useful by itself

This would be a good drive for a small form factor music server that only has room for one hard drive. Rip all your CDs and store them uncompressed or with lossless FLAC compression. If you lose the drive, you lose a weekend of ripping.

Re:It's too big to be useful (1)

KodaK (5477) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202231)

I'm all for innovation, but seriously, who needs a 300GB hard disks except for pr0n c0lLeCt0R5, warez d00ds and RAID junkies?

Well, I'd like to put one in my Tivo. I'm building up quite a collection of concerts off of Direct TV's free channel.

Also, I don't have one, but an HDTV recorder uses up around 10GB/hr, so even at 300GB, that's only 30 hours or so.

To say nothing about data archival and whatnot (I've got a document imaging database that's well over 50GB that's been in use for less than a year, and we're just now ramping up to full speed on it. I'll need one of these puppies soon.)

I do agree, however, that if you're relying on it for any sort of "serious" work, you'd be better off mirroring, at least.

Re:It's too big to be useful (1)

Null_Packet (15946) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202237)

Who needs 300GB disks? People who have lots of video data for one, and that's just for personal use. Raw DV footage eats space for lunch. Spinning Disk Backups and Nearline Storage eat also these things up. The 300GB models have been in the pipe for almost a year, and they mean huge capacity differences when you're talking an 80-disk RAId array.

Beside those obvious uses, these enable serious DVD collectors to do what the MPAA has been hoping we never think up: watching DVD's from hard disk, with no loss of quality. You can do it with existing technology, it's just not feasible for those with large DVD collections.

It will perform ... like a dog (1)

henrygb (668225) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202098)

To quote Dr. J, it is like a dog walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.

why did this make news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202100)

this article is not old old, but not new as in just released yesterday. are we going to start just posting anything relating to hardware on slashdot?

Running at 5400rpm (4, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202101)

Yes it only runs at 5400rpm...

...but as a timesaver, it comes with its own RIAA and MPAA subpoenas attached.

thg is bad anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202119)

THG is not the site for information you can rely on. Any subject. For hard disks check out www.storagereview.com

Best wishes

Size VS. Performance (1)

Sasquatchtree (626022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202121)

I think it's really great how we're pushing the capacity bench mark and we can store lots of information on a single drive now. But why not just focus on making a faster drive to get rid of the performance bottlenecks I get. Am i wrong to think that if the speed and access time is the same, it will actually take LONGER to access a certain sector of my drive because it has to search through so much? (Forgive my ignorance but it's a real question)

I've had horrible luck with Maxtor drives (1)

RancidBeef (412397) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202122)

I'm going to stay away from Maxtor drives. I've a greater than 50% failure rate with them. Several were replaced under warranty. The others I managed to "fix" by letting their diagnostic floppy low-level format it (or whatever it does). I have four of their 60 GB drives set up as RAID-5. I'm constantly having to reconstruct the array because one or another of the drives gets kicked off due to spurious errors.

I've never had any trouble with any of the Western Digital drives I've had, although I've heard some people have had trouble with them. I've even got some old 420 MB WD drives that came with my old 486 in '93 that are still running in my firewall box.

Re:I've had horrible luck with Maxtor drives (1)

mst76 (629405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202191)

There are not that many hard drive brands left anymore. I bet that for every brand you name someone on /. can tell you that they've experienced a defective drive.

Article Text: DiamondMax's Plus 300 GB Monster (2, Informative)

fanatic2k4 (618434) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202133)

I love you all. DiamondMax's Plus 300 GB Monster Created: October 8, 2003 By: Patrick Schmid Achim Roos Opinions differ wildly in the hard-drive business. While Seagate supplies hard drives with 160 GB of capacity in the ATA area, Hitachi and Western Digital already have 250 GB disks. They all pale, however, compared to Maxtor's monster, which has a full 300 GB of write space. If you're one of those people for whom "big" isn't big enough, this is the one for you. However, criticism of manufacturers with smaller maximum capacities is inappropriate since the focus of many of these vendors' attention lies elsewhere. As one of the quietest drives spinning at 7,200 rpm, a Barracuda ATA 7200.7 is designed most of all along ergonomic lines and to deliver a good price/performance ratio. Hitachi, Maxtor and Western Digital join the running for highest performance at regular intervals. The result is larger, faster and correspondingly expensive hard drives. With the 4A300J0, Maxtor is traveling a different route: its aim is to provide as much storage capacity as possible at an acceptable price. The recipe it has chosen consists of 5,400 rpm instead of the favored - because it's quicker - 7,200 rpm and only 2 MB in place of the 8 MB cache usual in top models. Since SATA still costs more, it uses an UltraATA/133 interface. This is ample for the coming months, as transfer rates on the fastest ATA disks are still below 70 MB/s max. We took a closer look at how the 300 GB monster shapes up against the established major-leaguers from Hitachi, Maxtor and Western Digital. Technical Data Capacity 300 GB Geometry 4 Platter, 80 GB pro Platter Rotation speed 5,400 Cache 2 MB Access time 12.6 ms Interface UltraATA/133 Warranty 1 Year The technical details leave no room for criticism. This largest DiamondMax is based on platters of approx. 80 GB. Four of them are used, raising capacity to around 320 GB. However, "only" 300 GB is used - the remainder is probably reserved for error correction. With four platters, Maxtor is aiming pretty high. Several years ago, IBM put up to five platters per drive in its DTLA series. That offers the advantage of being able to construct very large drives. However, the increased friction causes more heat loss so that hard drives with four platters require cooling sooner than models with only one or two. Large SCSI drives are usually based on multi-platter configurations. An UltraATA/133 controller was also included in delivery of the retail kit. Although it's labeled as a Maxtor, it in fact originates from Promise. The Maxtor website, meanwhile, contains the information that this controller is not standard in the retail kit but has to be purchased extra. The DiamondMax Plus is scarcely audible, produces only minimal vibrations and at 39C stays comfortably cool. Active cooling can be safely dispensed with; for permanent operation, however, we still recommend it. In this context, the short guarantee period of one year should be noted. You should consider this very carefully if you're planning to operate the product continuously. We would have liked to have seen a longer guarantee period for a drive of this caliber. est Setup Test System Processor Intel Pentium 4, 2.0 GHz 256 KB L2-Cache (Willamette) Motherboard Intel D845EBT, Intel 845E chipset RAM 256 MB DDR/PC2100, CL2, Infineon Controller i845E UltraDMA/100 controller (ICH4) Silicon Image Sil3112, Serial ATA Display Adapter NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 400 Network Card 3COM 905TX PCI 100 MBit Operating System Windows XP Pro 5.10.2600 Service Pack 1 Benchmarks and Tests Office Applications ZD WinBench 99 - Business Disk Winmark 2.0 c't h2benchw High-End Applications ZD WinBench 99 - High-End Disk Winmark 2.0 Performance Measurements HD Tach 2.61, c't h2benchw I/O performance Intel I/O meter Drivers and Settings Graphics Driver NVIDIA reference driver 29.42 Drivers Intel Application Accelerator 2.3 DirectX Version 9.0 Resolution 1024x768, 16-bit, 85 Hz refresh Even if the DiamondMax Plus 300 GB isn't nimble enough to take on the faster-spinning flagships from Western Digital and Maxtor, its overall performance is respectable for a 5,400 rpm drive. Above all, the excellent data transfer rates are certainly welcome. Only the longer seek times resulting from the low turn rate and the lower I/O performance mean this disk makes little sense for demanding users running it under permanent load or as a system drive. That said, the hard drive is not designed to do this. After all, anyone able to cough up the princely sum of around $411 will no doubt have their own operating system hard drive that also spins quicker. A 7,200 rpm 80 GB hard drive with 8 MB of cache will currently set you back little more than $106. In view of its large storage capacity, the guarantee of just one year is dubious, since even in two years, 300 GB should still be big enough to save it from the scrap heap. Even if guarantees of several years are reserved for the top 7,200 rpm models, a two-year warranty would at least reduce the vendor's risk of having to honor a guarantee of two years. Ultimately, equipment purchases should not only be a question of numbers, but should involve a fair degree of trust, too. However, it is curretly part of a promotion, which means that if you go for the kit now, the card will be included.

Re: DiamondMax's Plus 300 GB Monster (Formatted) (1)

fanatic2k4 (618434) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202157)

DiamondMax's Plus 300 GB Monster
Created: October 8, 2003
By: Patrick Schmid & Achim Roos

Opinions differ wildly in the hard-drive business. While Seagate supplies hard drives with 160 GB of capacity in the ATA area, Hitachi and Western Digital already have 250 GB disks. They all pale, however, compared to Maxtor's monster, which has a full 300 GB of write space. If you're one of those people for whom "big" isn't big enough, this is the one for you.

However, criticism of manufacturers with smaller maximum capacities is inappropriate since the focus of many of these vendors' attention lies elsewhere. As one of the quietest drives spinning at 7,200 rpm, a Barracuda ATA 7200.7 is designed most of all along ergonomic lines and to deliver a good price/performance ratio. Hitachi, Maxtor and Western Digital join the running for highest performance at regular intervals. The result is larger, faster and correspondingly expensive hard drives.

With the 4A300J0, Maxtor is traveling a different route: its aim is to provide as much storage capacity as possible at an acceptable price. The recipe it has chosen consists of 5,400 rpm instead of the favored - because it's quicker - 7,200 rpm and only 2 MB in place of the 8 MB cache usual in top models. Since SATA still costs more, it uses an UltraATA/133 interface. This is ample for the coming months, as transfer rates on the fastest ATA disks are still below 70 MB/s max.

We took a closer look at how the 300 GB monster shapes up against the established major-leaguers from Hitachi, Maxtor and Western Digital.

Technical Data
Capacity 300 GB
Geometry 4 Platter, 80 GB pro Platter
Rotation speed 5,400
Cache 2 MB
Access time 12.6 ms
Interface UltraATA/133
Warranty 1 Year

The technical details leave no room for criticism. This largest DiamondMax is based on platters of approx. 80 GB. Four of them are used, raising capacity to around 320 GB. However, "only" 300 GB is used - the remainder is probably reserved for error correction.

With four platters, Maxtor is aiming pretty high. Several years ago, IBM put up to five platters per drive in its DTLA series. That offers the advantage of being able to construct very large drives. However, the increased friction causes more heat loss so that hard drives with four platters require cooling sooner than models with only one or two. Large SCSI drives are usually based on multi-platter configurations.

An UltraATA/133 controller was also included in delivery of the retail kit. Although it's labeled as a Maxtor, it in fact originates from Promise. The Maxtor website, meanwhile, contains the information that this controller is not standard in the retail kit but has to be purchased extra.

The DiamondMax Plus is scarcely audible, produces only minimal vibrations and at 39C stays comfortably cool. Active cooling can be safely dispensed with; for permanent operation, however, we still recommend it. In this context, the short guarantee period of one year should be noted. You should consider this very carefully if you're planning to operate the product continuously. We would have liked to have seen a longer guarantee period for a drive of this caliber.

est Setup

Test System
Processor Intel Pentium 4, 2.0 GHz
256 KB L2-Cache (Willamette)
Motherboard Intel D845EBT, Intel 845E chipset
RAM 256 MB DDR/PC2100, CL2, Infineon
Controller i845E UltraDMA/100 controller (ICH4)
Silicon Image Sil3112, Serial ATA
Display Adapter NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 400
Network Card 3COM 905TX PCI 100 MBit
Operating System Windows XP Pro 5.10.2600 Service Pack 1

Benchmarks and Tests
Office Applications ZD WinBench 99 - Business Disk Winmark 2.0 c't h2benchw
High-End Applications ZD WinBench 99 - High-End Disk Winmark 2.0
Performance Measurements HD Tach 2.61, c't h2benchw
I/O performance Intel I/O meter

Drivers and Settings
Graphics Driver NVIDIA reference driver 29.42
Drivers Intel Application Accelerator 2.3
DirectX Version 9.0
Resolution 1024x768, 16-bit, 85 Hz refresh

Even if the DiamondMax Plus 300 GB isn't nimble enough to take on the faster-spinning flagships from Western Digital and Maxtor, its overall performance is respectable for a 5,400 rpm drive. Above all, the excellent data transfer rates are certainly welcome.

Only the longer seek times resulting from the low turn rate and the lower I/O performance mean this disk makes little sense for demanding users running it under permanent load or as a system drive. That said, the hard drive is not designed to do this. After all, anyone able to cough up the princely sum of around $411 will no doubt have their own operating system hard drive that also spins quicker. A 7,200 rpm 80 GB hard drive with 8 MB of cache will currently set you back little more than $106.

In view of its large storage capacity, the guarantee of just one year is dubious, since even in two years, 300 GB should still be big enough to save it from the scrap heap. Even if guarantees of several years are reserved for the top 7,200 rpm models, a two-year warranty would at least reduce the vendor's risk of having to honor a guarantee of two years. Ultimately, equipment purchases should not only be a question of numbers, but should involve a fair degree of trust, too.

However, it is curretly part of a promotion, which means that if you go for the kit now, the card will be included.

Tom's Hardware conclusion (3, Interesting)

elviscious (681985) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202138)

Conclusion: Large, fast, quiet-if only the guarantee were longer

Even if the DiamondMax Plus 300 GB isn't nimble enough to take on the faster-spinning flagships from Western Digital and Maxtor, its overall performance is respectable for a 5,400 rpm drive. Above all, the excellent data transfer rates are certainly welcome.

Only the longer seek times resulting from the low turn rate and the lower I/O performance mean this disk makes little sense for demanding users running it under permanent load or as a system drive. That said, the hard drive is not designed to do this. After all, anyone able to cough up the princely sum of around $411 will no doubt have their own operating system hard drive that also spins quicker. A 7,200 rpm 80 GB hard drive with 8 MB of cache will currently set you back little more than $106.

In view of its large storage capacity, the guarantee of just one year is dubious, since even in two years, 300 GB should still be big enough to save it from the scrap heap. Even if guarantees of several years are reserved for the top 7,200 rpm models, a two-year warranty would at least reduce the vendor's risk of having to honor a guarantee of two years. Ultimately, equipment purchases should not only be a question of numbers, but should involve a fair degree of trust, too.

However, it is curretly part of a promotion, which means that if you go for the kit now, the card will be included.

Wow, now i can run Oracle on my pc! (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202143)

No longer with the worlds largest bloatware not fit on a single drive!

(Anyone who manages a financials 11i applications knows what i'm talking about)

BTW, anyone know what this is useable formatted ext2 or ntfs?

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202233)

BTW, anyone know what this is useable formatted ext2 or ntfs?

Please put your question in the form of a question...

Who cares if it performs? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202147)

I want to perform! How can I perform? I want to perform something that MEN have performed since day one - FUCK A REAL FEMALE!. 200 years ago men were running after bare naked women in the fucking forest and fucking in the bushes!!! I WANT TO BE A MAN TOO! Biology has made me a man - I want to do what MAN IS SUPPOSED TO DO and that is fucking a real woman!

Where can I get a real woman???? That is a much more important question than asking how some fucking stupid hard disk performs!!

Re:Who cares if it performs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202221)

Where can I get a real woman????

The answer is simple. Just overthrow current society and resurrect the institution of slavery, then buy one. Frankly, it's your only hope. Let me know when you accomplish your goal... 'cause it's my only hope, too.

Working URL (1)

Mipmap (569611) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202154)

Here's a working URL [tomshardware.com] , maybe because it's load balanced.

Here's the conclusion: Large, fast, quiet-if only the guarantee were longer Even if the DiamondMax Plus 300 GB isn't nimble enough to take on the faster-spinning flagships from Western Digital and Maxtor, its overall performance is respectable for a 5,400 rpm drive. Above all, the excellent data transfer rates are certainly welcome. Only the longer seek times resulting from the low turn rate and the lower I/O performance mean this disk makes little sense for demanding users running it under permanent load or as a system drive. That said, the hard drive is not designed to do this. After all, anyone able to cough up the princely sum of around $411 will no doubt have their own operating system hard drive that also spins quicker. A 7,200 rpm 80 GB hard drive with 8 MB of cache will currently set you back little more than $106. In view of its large storage capacity, the guarantee of just one year is dubious, since even in two years, 300 GB should still be big enough to save it from the scrap heap. Even if guarantees of several years are reserved for the top 7,200 rpm models, a two-year warranty would at least reduce the vendor's risk of having to honor a guarantee of two years. Ultimately, equipment purchases should not only be a question of numbers, but should involve a fair degree of trust, too. However, it is curretly part of a promotion, which means that if you go for the kit now, the card will be included.

The article (1)

mrmike37 (673587) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202156)

Opinions differ wildly in the hard-drive business. While Seagate supplies hard drives with 160 GB of capacity in the ATA area, Hitachi and Western Digital already have 250 GB disks. They all pale, however, compared to Maxtor's monster, which has a full 300 GB of write space. If you're one of those people for whom "big" isn't big enough, this is the one for you.

However, criticism of manufacturers with smaller maximum capacities is inappropriate since the focus of many of these vendors' attention lies elsewhere. As one of the quietest drives spinning at 7,200 rpm, a Barracuda ATA 7200.7 is designed most of all along ergonomic lines and to deliver a good price/performance ratio. Hitachi, Maxtor and Western Digital join the running for highest performance at regular intervals. The result is larger, faster and correspondingly expensive hard drives.

With the 4A300J0, Maxtor is traveling a different route: its aim is to provide as much storage capacity as possible at an acceptable price. The recipe it has chosen consists of 5,400 rpm instead of the favored - because it's quicker - 7,200 rpm and only 2 MB in place of the 8 MB cache usual in top models. Since SATA still costs more, it uses an UltraATA/133 interface. This is ample for the coming months, as transfer rates on the fastest ATA disks are still below 70 MB/s max.

We took a closer look at how the 300 GB monster shapes up against the established major-leaguers from Hitachi, Maxtor and Western Digital.

Technical Data
Capacity 300 GB
Geometry 4 Platter, 80 GB pro Platter
Rotation speed 5,400
Cache 2 MB
Access time 12.6 ms
Interface UltraATA/133
Warranty 1 Year

The technical details leave no room for criticism. This largest DiamondMax is based on platters of approx. 80 GB. Four of them are used, raising capacity to around 320 GB. However, "only" 300 GB is used - the remainder is probably reserved for error correction.

Summary:
With a behemoth capacity of 300 GB, the DiamondMax is the biggest hard drive so far. Can the 5,400 rpm drive with just 2 MB of cache also deliver the performance for our times?

4A300J0 a.k.a. Diamond Max Plus: Technical Details

Technical Data
Capacity 300 GB
Geometry 4 Platter, 80 GB pro Platter
Rotation speed 5,400
Cache 2 MB
Access time 12.6 ms
Interface UltraATA/133
Warranty 1 Year

The technical details leave no room for criticism. This largest DiamondMax is based on platters of approx. 80 GB. Four of them are used, raising capacity to around 320 GB. However, "only" 300 GB is used - the remainder is probably reserved for error correction.

With four platters, Maxtor is aiming pretty high. Several years ago, IBM put up to five platters per drive in its DTLA series. That offers the advantage of being able to construct very large drives. However, the increased friction causes more heat loss so that hard drives with four platters require cooling sooner than models with only one or two. Large SCSI drives are usually based on multi-platter configurations.

An UltraATA/133 controller was also included in delivery of the retail kit. Although it's labeled as a Maxtor, it in fact originates from Promise. The Maxtor website, meanwhile, contains the information that this controller is not standard in the retail kit but has to be purchased extra.

The DiamondMax Plus is scarcely audible, produces only minimal vibrations and at 39C stays comfortably cool. Active cooling can be safely dispensed with; for permanent operation, however, we still recommend it. In this context, the short guarantee period of one year should be noted. You should consider this very carefully if you're planning to operate the product continuously. We would have liked to have seen a longer guarantee period for a drive of this caliber.

Test Setup

Test System
Processor Intel Pentium 4, 2.0 GHz
256 KB L2-Cache (Willamette)
Motherboard Intel D845EBT, Intel 845E chipset
RAM 256 MB DDR/PC2100, CL2, Infineon
Controller i845E UltraDMA/100 controller (ICH4)
Silicon Image Sil3112, Serial ATA
Display Adapter NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 400
Network Card 3COM 905TX PCI 100 MBit
Operating System Windows XP Pro 5.10.2600 Service Pack 1
Benchmarks and Tests
Office Applications ZD WinBench 99 - Business Disk Winmark 2.0 c't h2benchw
High-End Applications ZD WinBench 99 - High-End Disk Winmark 2.0
Performance Measurements HD Tach 2.61, c't h2benchw
I/O performance Intel I/O meter
Drivers and Settings
Graphics Driver NVIDIA reference driver 29.42
Drivers Intel Application Accelerator 2.3
DirectX Version 9.0
Resolution 1024x768, 16-bit, 85 Hz refresh

Benchmarks (Omitted)

Conclusion: Large, fast, quiet-if only the guarantee were longer

Even if the DiamondMax Plus 300 GB isn't nimble enough to take on the faster-spinning flagships from Western Digital and Maxtor, its overall performance is respectable for a 5,400 rpm drive. Above all, the excellent data transfer rates are certainly welcome.

Only the longer seek times resulting from the low turn rate and the lower I/O performance mean this disk makes little sense for demanding users running it under permanent load or as a system drive. That said, the hard drive is not designed to do this. After all, anyone able to cough up the princely sum of around $411 will no doubt have their own operating system hard drive that also spins quicker. A 7,200 rpm 80 GB hard drive with 8 MB of cache will currently set you back little more than $106.

In view of its large storage capacity, the guarantee of just one year is dubious, since even in two years, 300 GB should still be big enough to save it from the scrap heap. Even if guarantees of several years are reserved for the top 7,200 rpm models, a two-year warranty would at least reduce the vendor's risk of having to honor a guarantee of two years. Ultimately, equipment purchases should not only be a question of numbers, but should involve a fair degree of trust, too.

However, it is curretly part of a promotion, which means that if you go for the kit now, the card will be included.
--

moron's pateNTdead eyecon0meter reviewed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202164)

it's still working, on more than 3 dimensions.

it is very useful for filtering out phonIE ?pr? ?firm? hypenosys, as well as detecting fraudulent corepirate nazi talknicians.

the kode remains readily available to all. you know where to look/who to trust? see you there.

me want... (1)

suhit (171059) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202165)

To say that I want this is an understatement ;-). However, 5400 RPM seems a bit slow, especially if the price tag is a heft $285.

I mean, with that much space, I would also like faster seeks times. Additionally, the 2MB cache seems awfully small. I guess we have to wait for the special edition like in the Western Digitals, where only the special edition drives have the 8MB caches. DesignTechnica [designtechnica.com] has a bit of information [designtechnica.com] on this drive (family). Go here while Toms Hardware is un-slashdotted :-).

Suhit

mIRC Exploit? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202168)

Does anyone have the dcc exploit to crash mIRC?

geez.... (1)

xao gypsie (641755) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202169)

300Gb? man, that could hold a lot of pr0n. but seriously , why have that much space. i mean that sure is a lot of....oh....i see...

xao

300G is not new, it's late (1)

PenguinOpus (556138) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202171)

I saw the article on Tom's Hardware a couple of days ago and couldn't understand why they were making a big deal about it. The 300Gbyte drive has been out since (at least) July. Fry's has already had a sale where it was $249 with another $50 off in rebate, making it $199 (That sale is over). I've bought and used several of these and they work great (performance isn't critical for my app).

Last year in August (?), Maxtor announced the 240G and 320G drives (4 platters @ 80G), but apparently had problems and never shipped them. 11 months later, they finally ship 300G. OTOH, its the biggest thing out there, so they're doing something right.

5400rpm? WTF?! (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202175)

ummm..... Why so slow? My maxtor drie I have now is 7200rpm, the same speed as my other IBM drive too. Why did they go so much slower? It seems with the continual "faster=better" idea we should start seeing IDE drives reaching the speeds of 10,000rpm soon (if there aren't a few already)

What a let down.

What file system? (1)

dlosey (688472) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202177)

What filesystem can support 300GB? I know that if you used a FAT16 partition, you would have to divide it into like 15 drives. The newer file systems have more, but eventually wont we hit their address limits as well? I usually dont worry about it with ext2 and such, but it could become a concern as drives get to be such large storage devices

Backup (4, Insightful)

rf0 (159958) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202194)

OK performace might not be that hot but if it can fill a 100Mb ethernet connection then its going to work fine as a small office backup/storage system with RAID 1. Sometimes big and slow is better than fast and small.

Rus

raid 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202209)

My company bought two of these and a raid 1 enclosure for data that we need to backup and have instant access to. Works great and feels secure. Sure, it's not as secure as offsite tape backups, but that's not the point. Performance? Who cares, it's WAY faster than tape.

Other than this situation, I really can't think of any other reason to have one though.

Tax in Canada (1)

Psx29 (538840) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202213)

I wonder what it comes out to? (you know that tax that goes to the recording industry for all storage devices or some other such crap)

Error Correction (1)

rf0 (159958) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202217)

"Four of them are used, raising capacity to around 320 GB. However, "only" 300 GB is used - the remainder is probably reserved for error correction. "

Am I the only one who finds this worrying. 6% of the disk is for error correction. Thats quite a high figure I feel for something that is meant to be reliable

Rus

HD segmentation? (1)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202220)

There seems an obvious need to segment the HD market into two main slices:

- ultrafast drives with less space
- ultralarge drives with less speed

The first for paging and applications, the second for backups.

Formatting... (1)

Yawgm8th (702908) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202223)

Windows Xp on my computer could only see 128 GB of my 160 GB drive because nobody told me it needed to be formatted into smaller partitions. 300 GB would be a lot of partitions... Unless i'm a big doofy idiot, feel free to comment to this if there is a better way.

No thanks... (1)

tony1c (610261) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202224)

Screw that. Give me a 50 GB hard drive that doesn't drop dead after 6 months and I'll pay a small fortune. Hell, I might even be willing throw in my left nut as a bonus.

Will it perform? Well, try reading the article... (1)

neile (139369) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202226)

The question is - will the drive perform despite having only 2mb of cache, and running at 5400 rpm?

Well, you could always try reading page 4 [tomshardware.com] of the article where they give the benchmark results. Actually, that's pretty much the meat of the article. Or, if you're too lazy to read page 4 and look at the pretty charts, you could just read the conclusion:

Even if the DiamondMax Plus 300 GB isn't nimble enough to take on the faster-spinning flagships from Western Digital and Maxtor, its overall performance is respectable for a 5,400 rpm drive. Above all, the excellent data transfer rates are certainly welcome.

Run! (1)

nih (411096) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202234)

THAR BE MAAAANSTARS!

5400rpm and standard IDE is good for some... (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 10 years ago | (#7202255)

That'd work great in my Tivo, for example.

Just because its not the latest and greatest doesn't mean its specs aren't very useful for current applications.

A lot of music.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7202257)

If I've done my math right that's a third of a year of playing Ogg files @~q7 24x7 without having to listen to any track twice.. :o)

I've got 376 CD's (all paid for thanks) encoded into 30G. 300G.. I'd *only* need to buy another 3300 or so CD's to fill it.

You could run a number of Classical, Jazz, Rock, Pop, etc, etc radio stations off a drive like this..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?