Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Hitachi's 500GB SATA-II Reviewed

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the big-and-fast dept.

Data Storage 309

Doggie Fizzle writes "The specifications for the Hitachi Desktstar 7K500 are impressive. 500 GB of disk space, 16 MB of cache memory, and 3.0 Gbps of transfer speeds are about as good as you are going to get in today's hard drives. The only category that might be rivaled is transfer speed, but that would require RAID or an Ultra320 SCSI drive to do so. This BigBruin review matches it up with some Seagate drives to show off its performance."

cancel ×

309 comments

Imagine.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150724)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those streaming naked and petrified Natalie Portman!

Re:Imagine.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150730)

YOUR A COMMIE!

Re:Imagine.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150935)

YES! Commies Love NATALIE!

Now, imagine a world where your company name is spelled corrctly on Slashdot's main page!!!

Re:Imagine.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150936)

Aggressively working towards deconstruction of Apples' fan base (if it happens one more time)

Why the hell use a format that does not run properly on the PC. It's a slap in the face

Doggie Fizzle (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150727)

I think I speak for everyone on Slashdot with a brain when I say please stop submitting stories [slashdot.org] . Thanks.

Re:Doggie Fizzle (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150765)

Yep, gotta love those Slashvertisements.

Re:Doggie Fizzle (3, Funny)

Linzer (753270) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150783)

I think I speak for everyone on Slashdot with a brain when I say please stop submitting stories. Thanks.
Everyone on /. with what ?

Re:Doggie Fizzle (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150876)

having one of those brain things is a leading cause of headaches and hangovers and frustrated libido. no thanks!

RPM ? (0, Offtopic)

Jeet81 (613099) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150732)

With 7K500, I believe that the RPM which is not the best compared to the 10k drives avaible today.

Re:RPM ? (3, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150803)

RPM isnt the only factor. Remember that this 500GB drive has much higher data density on the platters. This means that it runs over more data in 1 revolution then a 100 GB drive.

Re:RPM ? (-1, Troll)

rokzy (687636) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150827)

"7K500" ? are you trying to be annoying? plus what is the point of RPM except in helping with other stats like seek time and transfer speed? or do you just like your hard drives to make high-pitched tinitus-inducing whirs for the sake of it?

Re:RPM ? (1)

Jeet81 (613099) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150847)

I do a video editing and if you have ever done video editing you know even the smallest improvements in any factors saves a lot of time.

Re:RPM ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150892)

"7K500" ? are you trying to be annoying?

How on earth can writing the model number of the hard drive be considered 'annoying'?

Re:RPM ? (2, Insightful)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150899)

You obviously did not read the article, or even the summary, or you would have noticed that 7K500 is the model of hard drive. It is most likely 7200 RPM, not 7500 as you ignorantly replied against.

Re:RPM ? (2, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150870)

Still, you get a lot more storage space for the money than the higher RPM drives. The higher RPM drives have limited added utility, a home hobbyist really doesn't benefit enough from a higher RPM data drive. I don't think 10k drives are available at higher than 300MB, and those will cost a lot more than the 7K500.

$175 for a 75 GB SATA Raptor
$400 for a 7K500
$600 for a 300GB 10K Seagate SCSI

The 7200RPM drives are a much better balance for speed, capacity and cost. Part of the reason 10k drives are lower capacity is that the platters need to be smaller diameter, which is also part of the reason why the seek time rating is lower, because the average distance the head travels is smaller.

Those using the drives just to store and play downloaded files probably could get away with even slower RPMs to save on money, heat and maybe less noise.

3 gbps? (3, Interesting)

Bill Wong (583178) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150735)

3 gbps? Is that 375 MB/s? IDE/SATA doesn't support that! What's the point?

Re:3 gbps? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150755)

RTFA : SATA-II is 3.0gbps

Re:3 gbps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150861)

The FA is unavailable...
Slashdotted.

Re:3 gbps? (2, Informative)

voxel (70407) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150766)

It doesn't do 3.0gbs, SORRY. I don't even have to RTFA to know that.

*Most* super fast 7.5k RPM disks can do about 50 megabytes or 420 megabit per second max.

I have two 75gb 10,000 Raptor SATA drives that together raid-0 get about 110megabytes/s.. but those are 10k RPM disks (spare me the lecture about drive density = higher speed, I know this). Thats about 1 gb/s.. but no where near 3gb per second and this is using 2 raid-0 disks.

Slashdot editors need get a clue.

Re:3 gbps? 3 gbps? Is that 375 MB/s? IDE/SATA does (5, Informative)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150784)

3 gbps? Is that 375 MB/s? IDE/SATA doesn't support that! What's the point?

SATA-II indeed supports that. So does the disk. From cache.. No way it reaches more than 50MiB/sec from the platters, which is what counts. So I think it should be dead easy to rival speed with raid. My 6 year old IBM 18.2GB UltraStar drives read 25MiB/sec, so 3 of them would outperform in read/write. But would not take that much data...

So, indeed, it is a large disk, but it is not extraordinarily fast. Of course, bigger disks means more data per second, since the platter size is the same. Then data has to be packed more densily, and more data passes under head per second. So the disk can read more, in a sequential read.

Re:3 gbps? 3 gbps? Is that 375 MB/s? IDE/SATA does (2)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150910)

3 gbps? Is that 375 MB/s? IDE/SATA doesn't support that! What's the point?
SATA-II indeed supports that. So does the disk. From cache.. No way it reaches more than 50MiB/sec from the platters, which is what counts.


So true. I'm not really understanding the point of having such a large on-drive cache. I think the money is better spent on adding RAM to the main computer because the OS does a lot of caching too. A multi-tasking OS on hardware that has DMA capabilities seems to make large on-drive caching unnecessary. It seems like the testing I've seen of real-world programs on the drives with different size caches confirm this train of thought.

Oftentimes adding huge caches to CPUs nets almost no speed difference as well, and CPUs are far faster than hard drives.

Re:3 gbps? 3 gbps? Is that 375 MB/s? IDE/SATA does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150968)

Oftentimes adding huge caches to CPUs nets almost no speed difference as well, and CPUs are far faster than hard drives.

I must disagree strongly here. An old, but still valid example is the difference in performance between the AMD K6-2 and K6-3 processors. The former has 16 KB of L1 cache; the latter has 16 KB L1 and 256 KB L2. All cache runs at the processor frequency.

In general floating-point number-crunching applications, I have observed a 2x to 2.5x improvement in performance with the K6-3 at the same processor speed. Sure, results may depend on your application, but don't dismiss processor cache as useless. There's a reason you pay more for it.

Re:3 gbps? 3 gbps? Is that 375 MB/s? IDE/SATA does (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151027)

You misunderstand me. I did NOT dismiss the processor cache as useless. Just that after a certain point, there is no point in increasing it.

That is an old and invalid example, the invalidity isn't necessarily because it is old.

K6-II / K6-III doesn't apply because the basic cache arcitecture is different. for II, the cache was expected to be on the main board, outside the FSB, for III, the cache was put on-die, inside the FSB.

For more relevant comparisons, see the comparison between 512MB and 1MB cache Athlon64s, or the Pentium M with 2MB cache against the same clock Celeraon M with 1MB cache.

Re:3 gbps? 3 gbps? Is that 375 MB/s? IDE/SATA does (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151044)

OK, I mispelled Celeron.

Do the differences matter for "most people" (3, Insightful)

Mochatsubo (201289) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150742)

For %95 of the population, do the specs of the latest and greatest matter?

Yes, yes, I know we are the 5%.

-m

The Benefit is Lower Prices (1)

rwade (131726) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150886)

If these drives allow companies to do business more efficiently, consumers may realize a benefit if these cost savings enable competition to lower prices.

Hitach's? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150746)

How can you trust a 500GB drive from this dubious "Hitach" newcomer who is obviously just typosquatting Hitachi's reputation?

Re:Hitach's? (2, Insightful)

C64 (130005) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151073)

I'd trust "Hitach" before I'd trust Hitachi. I've been burned by Hitachi / IBM drives far too often to trust my data to the brand again.

There's a difference. (5, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151074)

Hitachi makes Deskstars. Hitach, as one can clearly read above, makes Desktstars.

It's not SATA II (5, Informative)

QX-Mat (460729) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150748)

They dont like you calling it that. There's not SATA 2 standard as yet.

It's instead, SATA 3Gb/s. Most motherboard manufacturers jumped the gun however and invented their version.

Matt

Re:It's not SATA II (4, Informative)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150801)

AnandTech has a nice little article [anandtech.com] about SATA(-II), that clears those details. It is reccomended reading. In fact, SATA-II is renamed SATA-IO, but it is a official standard.

Re:It's not SATA II (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151003)

It is reccomended reading. In fact, SATA-II is renamed SATA-IO, but it is a official standard.

Why? SATA-II is an obvious successor name. SATA-IO doesn't communicate that fact, or anything else, IMO. I expect another batch of confusion like extended RAM/expanded RAM, PCI-express/ PCI-eXtended and so on

Deskstar? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150749)

Anyone know what the reliability on this line of drives is? After my experiences with the IBM line, I'm hesitant to buy anything with Deskstar on it. Just recently I replaced my ATA Deathstar (AGAIN!) and Hitachi sent me what looks to be a rebranded IBM. Same model, could be the same drive for all I know.

I'm guessing the newer Hitachi line of SATA drives no longer carries the IBM Deathstar plague, but I'd like some assurance before plunking down cash on it. In the meantime, I'll tolerate the performance losses of a Seagate if it means there's a better chance of keeping my data.

Old news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150750)

I read this several days ago !
Are there any news on this planet ?

Deathstar and IBM customer satisfaction (4, Informative)

Yay Frogs (886038) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150758)

My friend Ben had one of the infamous Deathstars; he had to pay shipping to IBM after it died, and the replacement died within one month, and the next replacement within two months, and the next replacement within two months, and he had to pay shipping and go without a hard disk each time. I think his fourth or fifth Deathstar finally lasted him a decent little while, or he got another disk.

Anyway, if IBM thinks that's acceptable, I won't ever be buying one of its disks.

Re:Deathstar and IBM customer satisfaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150797)

I, for one, have multiple IBM disks broadly from the DeathStar era, and also few new Hitachi hdds, and I am quite satisfied.

I've been told it depended on where the drives from the series were manufactured.

Re:Deathstar and IBM customer satisfaction (0)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150806)


That was just one limited series of bad drives from IBM. Thats nothing in the long run if you compare all the way back to 1.0G and smaller drives. Maxtor has by far had the most troubled drives of the big players, but Seagate and WD have both had their share of bad runs of drives. Don't even get started on Samsung, Fujitsu, Conner(bought by Seagate), Quantum(bought by Maxtor), Toshiba, NEC, etc. Overall, I wouldn't buy anything but Hitachi and maybe Seagate drives, unless I didn't value my data.

Re:Deathstar and IBM customer satisfaction (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150872)

Quantum made amazing drives, if you open a desktop machine that's been running for 10+ years it's probably a quantum.

Maxtor bought them so now I buy Maxtor.

Lumping ANYONE in with Fujitsu who make the worst drives in the universe by orders of magnitude really stings.

DON'T BUY FUJITSU HARD DRIVES.

Re:Deathstar and IBM customer satisfaction (1)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150889)

The "bigfoot" drives I saw go bad quite often. Not only that, but they were 5.25" and loud!
Honestly, I worked in a local computer repair shop part time when I was in college, and recently, no drives fail like Maxtors. Yes other drives fail and people brought them back for replacement, but not nearly in the volumes that the Maxtors did. Even the kid who bought 4 Maxtor drives and a Promise RAID controller for RAID 0+1 had 3 of those drives fail within a 2 month timespan.

Re:Deathstar and IBM customer satisfaction (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150932)

if you open a desktop machine that's been running for 10+ years it's probably a quantum

On the other hand, if the machine was ever powered down and back up and the disk started spinning again, it probably wasn't Quantum.

Re:Deathstar and IBM customer satisfaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13151021)

I've bought a 120 GB hitachi drive last year... well, it lasted 6 months before it stopped spinning.

I've never had a defective Maxtor (talking about 20+ drives).

Regards.

- Fred

Re:Deathstar and IBM customer satisfaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13151067)


What, do you work for Maxtor or something? With 20 Maxtor drives, there is no way they are actually being used and powered on, or at least 5 of them would be bad already.

Re:Deathstar and IBM customer satisfaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150884)

I've had a 60 GB Deskstar GXP (a.k.a. DLTA-307060) since 2001. No problems yet.

Of course, when the damn thing fails in 2012 or whenever, I won't hesitate to complain on slashdot, ranting and raving about those poor quality IBM drives!

How long would it take? (0, Offtopic)

elgee (308600) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150759)

How long would it take the average slashdotter to fill that puppy with pr0n?

Re:How long would it take? (2, Funny)

zenneth (767572) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150802)

How long would it take the average slashdotter to fill that puppy with pr0n?

This is easily one of the most overused jokes on slashdot, and quite frankly, I'd like to meet the person whose requirement for porn is wholely limited by the size of his disk.


I said disk size. Get your mind outta the gutter.

Re:How long would it take? (1)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151037)

About 16.2 days with a 3Mbit connection that would be, calculating real GBs ofcourse.

Re:How long would it take? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150830)

Well, the average /.er downloads porn at a rate of 0.02 Libraries of Congress per Volkswagon mile per hour for an average of 42 hours a week, and saves 80% of it to their hard drive. You do the math.

Re:How long would it take? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150848)

Well, it depends mostly on the transfer medium(s) involved.

It can transfer at 3Gb/sec (375MB/sec), which would work out to 1,333 seconds / 22 minutes and 13 seconds.

But, as I mentioned earlier, it depends entirely on the medium, the "weakest link" as it is, because it's not just the recieving speed, but sending as well.

Now I can lose even more data... (2, Insightful)

ReNeGaDe75 (585630) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150762)

when my Deskstar drive crashes after only a week of use.

Deathstar (3, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150764)

I still can't get past the stigma of these drives.

Its like hearing about a new form management tool from Claria.

Hitatchi Deathstar (4, Funny)

john_is_war (310751) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150774)

Alright, so I'll lose 500GB of crap when the deathstar craps out

Re:Hitatchi Deathstar (5, Informative)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150843)

Deathstar disks was a problematic series. It was the DeskStar 75GXP, the 75GB disks from IBM. They was using 5 platters, instead of the normal 4, in the same height. This meant denser packed plates, which ment less space for heads. This crashed. But other disks from IBM was entirely fine.

Here [ufl.edu] is a page with more info on the DeathStars. And Yes, I've been using many IBM/Hitachi disks, and never had problems with the 4-platter versions. It was just that 5 platters was kinda exprimental...

Re:Hitatchi Deathstar (0, Offtopic)

neumayr (819083) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150994)

I haven't read your linked article yet, but I gotta say I've seen many 40GB DeathStars fail. I don't know what they were called exactly though..

Re:Hitatchi Deathstar (1)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151040)

I haven't read your linked article yet, but I gotta say I've seen many 40GB DeathStars fail. I don't know what they were called exactly though..

Might be. I recall there was a 60GiB, and a 120GiB version that was also 5-platter. Might be a 40 too, but I'm not sure of that. The best advice is to check how many platters there is.

Re:Hitatchi Deathstar (1)

aanantha (186040) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151051)

There were 45GB drives in the 75GXP series. All of mine died.

Re:Hitatchi Deathstar (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151047)

Deathstar disks was a problematic series. It was the DeskStar 75GXP, the 75GB disks from IBM.

No, it wasn't just the 75GB disks, it was the entire series of disks using 15GB platters. They were notoriously unstable, one day you'd boot to the "click of death". If you look at the class action here [ibmdesksta...gation.com] IBM has agreed to settle. Make your claim by August 29, 2005. I lost a 45GB drive to this shit, but I'm not in the US so I don't qualify... I got mine replaced under my own country's consumer protection laws.

Kjella

Re:Hitatchi Deathstar (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150905)

Alright, so I'll lose 500GB of crap when the deathstar craps out

If find your lack of faith is disturbing...

Wooo (4, Funny)

Francis85 (875901) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150788)

Does this thing gets perpendicular? :-p

Re:Wooo (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150942)

I know at least one thing that a 500MB drive *will* get perpendicular!

Argh! (0, Troll)

Stephanie_Klugg (902291) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150789)

Please stop posting these blatent advertisements, I was recently given a free tester of this product, and even though they usually send testers products that are BETTER than the ones in retail to get higher marks, this one didn't perform ANYWHERE close to the specifications.

Stephanie Klugg
www.hardwaregirl.com

Re:Argh! (1)

Mongo222 (612547) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150833)

Lame recently registered site that goes directly to a add hosting service.

Re:Argh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13151023)

True

If you dont produce videos or game a lot - (0, Redundant)

Michael_Munks (869444) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150790)

How will you use that much space? Oh, oh , I know...

Hmm (0, Offtopic)

vivekg (795441) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150795)

Hmm More pr0n - first think popus in my mind :D

Caveat Emptor! loud screeching noises (3, Informative)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150798)

I have the 160GB deskstar.

Little did I know when I bought it that every 15 minutes it would make a loud screeching noise as it performs a self-check.

There's no way to turn this off and it's über annoying. It's a lovely drive in all other respects, but I won't buy another unless I know for a *fact* it doesn't behave in this way.

--
Toby

Re:Caveat Emptor! loud screeching noises (1)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150849)

I have lots of various IBM/Hitachi drives in my systems including 160GB, 120GB, 80GB, 45GB, and 40GB, as well as some 9GB Seagate drives. None of the Hitachi drives make any significant noise at all. They are incredibly quiet. The 9GB Seagates on the other hand hum very loundly, but none of my drives make any sort of screeching noise.

Re:Caveat Emptor! loud screeching noises (2, Informative)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150853)

Try smartctl.

smartctl --offlineauto=off /dev/hda should do that (yes, even in Windows).

Re:Caveat Emptor! loud screeching noises (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150930)

Same here, even though i know it's for the best if it does that.

For the record, i've recently purchased a 80gb 7200rpm Hitachi Deskstar after a faulty psu burned my old trusty Seagate. I needed the drive in a hurry, and was a little bit uneasy with the Hitachi drives (you know, ex-IBM...), but after 6 months of non-stop server use i have to say they're excellent. Fast, reliable, and very quiet - not as much as the Seagate Barracudas, which you couldn't tell if they were running or not, but close.

Seagate is still my #1 drive brand, but from my own experiences and what i've heard from them, Hitachi is a close second choice.

Don't worry, be happy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150999)

If I recall correctly, that's the firmware fix for the old "will head-crash on inactivity"-bug that hit the rest of us on the older models :-\

Re:Caveat Emptor! loud screeching noises (1)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151007)

Don't worry, you'll be having a forced upgrade soon unless you're lucky.

Or fancy spending £70 on the DHL shipping to Netherlands :-/

Reliability? (2, Insightful)

Ailure (853833) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150805)

Isn't that one of the more important thing with HD's nowdays? Sure, speed is nice but it wouldn't matter much if the HD crashed after two years. Having a HD that is only three years old, but "already" started to report SMART warnings. It makes me wonder how reliable the HD's are of today. I heard alot of people having HD's crash on them, and most of the time it's HD's from the last three years. Have they become more unreliable? (And yes, i'm going to replace the HD on this computer soon. I start to notice a few oddities with it.) At least this HD have three years warrenty, which is nice. Then, my HD started to act funky just when the warrenty went out...

Re:Reliability? (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150977)

I bought two Deskstar SATA drives and then a friend of mine told me that they were unreliable. Sure enough, four months later, and I've got a drive reporting errors. I've been a happy Seagate/Western Digital customer, and with Seagate's five year warranty then it's hard to go wrong. Sure it's a couple more bucks, but what is your time worth? (Not to mention shipping costs to return faulty equipment)

I wouldn't take one of these drives if you gave it to me.

Unfortunate name (0, Redundant)

Racal Vadic (744826) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150807)

If they turn out to have a premature failure bug, they'll become known as the Hitachi DeathStar. (The last disk I had with some designed-in irony like that was the Quantum Fireball.)

Re:Unfortunate name (2, Funny)

zenneth (767572) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150834)

The last disk I had with some designed-in irony like that was the Quantum Fireball

Oh, you have got to tell us the story on that one...

Re:Unfortunate name (1)

Rosonowski (250492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150928)

Already been done to death when it was IBM making them. Look into the 60/75GXP series.

Good (0, Offtopic)

tmilam (825889) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150817)

(obligatory)

more room for pr0n!!!!

LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY (4, Interesting)

latencylatencylatenc (902299) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150836)

LATENCTY LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY LATENCTY LATENCY LATENCY.

LATENCY is what is causing the slow performance of hard drives, who cares what the MB/s is (its good enough) its the latency that kills you more than anything RAID will not increase LATENCY. RAID can only make things more complex and make it worse (no system can be 100% efficient). RAID can increase MB/s but as I've allready said that isn't a big deal. What we need is lower latency Hard drives. We have enough storage. I don't need 500GB I want good latency.

Re:LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150875)

Buy a Western Digital Raptor SATA Drive. Under 5ms latency. Sure a 30g version costs as much as your average 200g SATA drive, but you really notice it when you run your OS of this drive.

Re:LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150903)

Invent yourself a new high speed magnetic drum storage device. Latency counts for nothing (aside from rotational latency, but the type people usually worry about is seek latency) if you've got fixed heads over every track on the disk. Might run you a few (hundred) thousand though.

There is a reason they stopped making magnetic drum storage, even though they performed better than their contemporaries from the disk drive world.

-ShadowRanger

Re:LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY (-1, Troll)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150904)

Friggin Troll let me tell you r a story about NCQ better yet let me not...

Now die in a hole... or under a bridge or something.

Re:LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY (1, Troll)

latencylatencylatenc (902299) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150952)

NCQ does decrease latency I have a Seagate drive that supports it. Alot of drives do not support NCQ though. I fail to see how I am a troll.

Re:LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150907)

fucking jews

Re:LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150919)

Huh?

Re:LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY (1)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150962)

RAID can increase MB/s but as I've allready said that isn't a big deal. What we need is lower latency Hard drives. We have enough storage. I don't need 500GB I want good latency.

Mirroring two (or having identical content on many disks will decrease latency, since the disk with the heads closest to the content can hand it out. Besides, those shiny new 147GiB 15KRPM drives have 3.5ms average seek time, around 35% of that of a normal 7.2KRPM disk. This is a huge difference. If you have two of those in mirror, you have 1.75ms seektime, which is quite good.

Re:LATENCY LATENCY LATENCY (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151014)

If you have two of those in mirror, you have 1.75ms seektime, which is quite good.

Unless, of course, you ever write data. If you do, then the heads on both disks will be in the same place and so take the same amount of time to seek.

Queuing (2, Interesting)

confusion (14388) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150840)

At one point, the IBM/Hitachi ATA drives had command tag queuing that allowed for performance that was more in-line with SCSI. The link is /.ed - does this line of drives bring the command queuing back? I've been looking for some new drives for servers, and these sound mighty nice, even if they are "deathstar's".

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]

500GB finally? (2, Interesting)

toddestan (632714) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150890)

Is it me, or have advancements in harddrives been slowing down? 400GB has been king for a over a year, and only two manufacturers seem to even have a 400GB offering. Just a few years ago, it seemed that everytime I turned around bigger drives were coming out. Have we finally hit some kind of limit for magnetic storage?

Yes, we have hit a limit (1)

voxel (70407) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150998)

Yes, we have hit a limit. The magnetic bits are too small now to continue without a change in technology.

100 gigabytes per 3.5" platter is about the max we seem to be able to do.

The answer? Get perpendicular!!!

http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_h ead/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html [hitachigst.com]

Re:500GB finally? (1)

william_w_bush (817571) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151068)

storage is driven by need. Especially with sata raid controllers becoming the norm, and 2tb arrays cheap and easy to handle the drive for huge disks has slowed down. Also the fact that raid5 means you can lose disks without losing data helps, why have 2 500 when you can have 5 200 for less price and more reliability and speed?

Drive sizes will go up again, but not until mainstream users discover divx or its next counterpart.

Honestly I think we only have 200-250Gb disks now because of MP3, when you buy a drive the box has the size measured in number of songs stored.

For us, yes its been slow, but hard drives are marketing more to joe average nowadays, with the bleeding edge going to us. The revenue on the high-volume tivo, xbox and basic mce or dell system is much higher than a few raptors sold to gamers.

3 Gbps? Sheesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150898)

That means it will take at least 22 minutes to backup all my pr0^H^H^Hfiles. I don't have that kind of time!

The reviews elsewhere (2, Insightful)

jpc (33615) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150914)

suggested that this drive get very hot indeed, as it is 4 platters not 3. Didnt really seem worthwhile to me, as heat is a major cause of HD failure.

Re:The reviews elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13151022)

That's what killed the hard drive on my laptop - the hard drive overheated while the screen was folded down. At this time it was making a weird grinding noise. Fortunately, it was possible to recover the data using the freezer and quick flick tricks.

Now I back up everything onto an external hard drive, rather than constantly burning through CD-ROM's.

Re:The reviews elsewhere (1)

chrispolarized (881712) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151072)

Actually, this drive is a 5 platter design (see here [hitachigst.com] and here [tomshardware.com] ), as they are using 100 GB platters. Seagate has announced a 500 GB drive [seagate.com] coming in Q3 with 4 platters, which will use (at least) 133 GB platters. (133 GB platters has been used by Seagate for its 7200.8 series of drives. Their 250 GB drive just has two platters!)

Reducing the number of platters have a number of advantages -- including, as you say, reduced heat, reduced power consumption due to a smaller motor, enabling a low-profile instead of a usual 1 inch form factor, and reducing the cramming of platters and heads inside the drive. A disadvantage is naturally that data will be more crammed on to the platters, but all disks with 133 GB platters have worked well for me. Thus, I think I'll wait for the next Seagate drives instead of buying this one.

another (shorter) review of the same drive (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13150956)

Price per GB... (2, Informative)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150958)

You get (more than) 3 7k250 250GB drives for the price of one of those 7k500 drives, so they are not very attractive for building a very large archive.

Max bus speed != drive speed (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13150987)

It is pretty annoying how, to this day, so many people get so excited about max theoretical bus speeds and confuse it for actual performance. The only time you will get anywhere near 3Gbps is during a transfer from the drive's cache. Otherwise, you are limited by the media rate and head seek time of the drive. These are the primary factors in real world performance. The bus speed is rarely a bottleneck for hard drives except in situations like SCSI where you would be putting many drives on a single bus. I bet this new Hitachi drive would perform nearly identically on a SATA 1.

-matthew

Re:Max bus speed != drive speed (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151049)

Not to mention the fact that anything in the drive's cache is probably in your OS cache, which will be an order of magnitude bigger and an order of magnitude faster. If you want disk performance to increase, stick in an extra GB or two of RAM (that's why you bought a 64-bit system, after all), and let your OS leave everything you're working on in main memory (oh, and buy a UPS - if you've got that much data in volatile storage then you can lose a lot with a power outage).

cheap big ramdisks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13151008)

HITACH SUNFLOWER now this and 8 gigabyte ram disk cards, a passive backplane, a 3ware sata raid controller, tyan thunder, no more latency, lots of cache orders of magnitude faster than disk i/o, not only that, but now you need to build another one and cluster them. geez lois what are they going to think up next?

Bah (1)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 8 years ago | (#13151032)

[brag]My quad WD 10k RPM Raptor array pwns this thing.[/brag]

-Very steady- around 80MB/s sustained throughput from the beginning of the array to the end. Peaks of 104MB/s. Troughs of like 72MB/s.

According to this review [hi-techreviews.com] this 500GB Hitachi starts out at 65MB/s and trails off to a pathetic 35MB/s.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...