mumeichan, not statistically valid. Read the older posts on this page.
All About Harddisk Thread V2, Discussion for Good Harddisk
|
|
 Jan 3 2010, 09:55 PM
Return to original view | Post
#61
|
 
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008 
|
|
Quote|
|
|
|
|
Jan 16 2010, 12:17 AM
Return to original view | Post
#62
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
QUOTE(eimzic @ Jan 11 2010, 02:39 AM) currently, WD 1TB Black 5yrs warranty. Is the idea that in 2015 a failed 1TB Black will get you a replacement 1TB Black the attractive part about the warranty? Or is it the advanced technology that gives us the 5 year warranty that is now 2.5 years old? QUOTE(beloved @ Jan 13 2010, 11:02 AM) Hi Guys, just wanna to ask here. I own a mobo Intel 945 with Intel Pentium Core Duo 3.0 Ghz with ATI 9100 graphic card, 250 GB WD & 500 GB WD. Recently, I have a dilemma. 1. Could you give the manufacturer and model number of your mobo? I can't confirm, but it should be younger than my previous motherboard (Socket 939) that did supported 1TB capacities. I am not aware of any current issues with capacities below 2TB.Here are my questions:- 1. Does 1TB support under this motherboard? 2. I wanna to add extra 1TB harddisk but I'm afraid my PSU (come with casing but good one) is not enough to support. What if I replace one of my existing harddisk? 3. Can I power the 1TB harddisk under Intel Pentium III 500 Mhz with PCI Sata Card? Does PCI Sata card support 1TB without issue? 4. I'm looking forward to add additional harddisk in my PC NAS (power by Intel Pentium MMX 200 Mhz). Anybody use FreeNAS to power 640GB with PCI Sata card? Does anybody do such an extend at SOHO? Thanks. 2. Most HDDs consumes about or less than 10W. Newer ones tend to use less wattage. If you feel uncertain about your PSU stability, swap it with the 250GB. Any 1TB is a lot faster than that. 3. Again, I am not aware of any current issues with capacities below 2TB. But neither do I have any experience with PCI SATA cards. 4. No idea. This post has been edited by everling: Jan 16 2010, 12:19 AM |
|
|
Jan 18 2010, 05:17 PM
Return to original view | Post
#63
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
In most cases, you'll have to call up the shop to confirm.
|
|
|
Jan 19 2010, 10:19 AM
Return to original view | Post
#64
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
QUOTE(guestx @ Jan 19 2010, 04:26 AM) need some opinion For me, it also depends on what other drives you may have. If they're all slower than the 1 TB, then I would move the OS partition onto it.lets say i have 1TB hdd.. which 1 is the best way to use it, is't make only 1 partition for all or multiple partitions?&reason? |
|
|
Jan 30 2010, 09:39 PM
Return to original view | Post
#65
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
Everest's benchmark results is questionable. Compare the platter's random read with this benchmark.
 |
|
|
Feb 4 2010, 12:06 PM
Return to original view | Post
#66
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
8tvt, if you're right in that it's a 5.4K RPM drive, that's pretty interesting.
It's faster than WD's own Caviar Green 500 GB platters and the WD 1 TB Caviar Black. Sequential read speed: Samsung HD203WI (500 GB platter) > WD1001FALS (333 GB platter) > WD10EARS (500 GB platter) > WD10EADS (333 GB platter) Hoho! Is WD intentionally crippling its Green drives (with 500 GB platters) performance in order not to cannibalise its 1 TB Caviar Black? Shame on you WD! Edited for clarity. This post has been edited by everling: Feb 4 2010, 12:13 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 4 2010, 12:24 PM
Return to original view | Post
#67
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
Actually WD reserved the right to set the RPM to between 5400 to 7200 RPM in order to hit their stated Green goals. So having it at 5400 RPM is perfectly fine. And you can't call it a Green HDD if the wattage wasn't reduced.
 A proper and current review of all the 1 TB to 2 TB green drives would be welcomed. But I came across that the warranty for the HD203WI is only 2 years. Is that true? |
|
|
Feb 11 2010, 07:26 PM
Return to original view | Post
#68
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
Because platters are more likely to fail and possibly leaving you with 1 TB of lost data?
|
|
|
Feb 16 2010, 10:48 PM
Return to original view | Post
#69
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
It's not even at the testing phase. They only finished testing one component of the theoretical product. Actual delivery might be in a few years.
|
|
|
Feb 17 2010, 05:16 AM
Return to original view | Post
#70
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
By conventional improvements, there will be a price drop in the 3Q or 4Q of this year when Intel and Micron shrinks the process size from 34nm to 22nm. Otherwise, there isn't much prospect for causes of price drops.
|
|
|
Mar 6 2010, 03:03 PM
Return to original view | Post
#71
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
Hi all.
What do you guys think about the RM 999 Kingston SSDNow V+ 128 GB SSD? Its ringgit/GB is pretty attractive (better than Intel or OCZ) and the benchmarks on Anandtech looks pretty decent except for the random write. I also have only Windows XP - Windows 7 wouldn't work with some of the stuff I need at this time. Do you think it is worth for me to buy and should I try to set XP up with 4k sectors on it? Thanks guys. |
|
|
Mar 7 2010, 02:24 PM
Return to original view | Post
#72
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
QUOTE(limhongwoon @ Mar 6 2010, 07:02 PM) actually is worth to buy , because the intel 80Gb also RM 800 ++ , or u can wait until the price of ssd is drop Unfortunately it turned out that particular SSD at RM 999 is using the old flawed JMicron controller. We shouldn't buy it.  I didn't know that Kingston had also produced a 128GB 'V' using that controller and thought it was the V+ that used Toshiba's controller. Useful resource: SSD Decoder Ring - an SSD comparison guide (Rev 2.3) This post has been edited by everling: Mar 7 2010, 02:33 PM |
|
|
Mar 7 2010, 10:26 PM
Return to original view | Post
#73
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
QUOTE(limhongwoon @ Mar 7 2010, 08:19 PM) The V+ series is RM 1300 http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1233924 , u can top up RM 300 to get it than the V series with RM 900 Thanks a lot for the link but that price is past my budget comfort level.  QUOTE(acap_20 @ Mar 7 2010, 08:26 PM) Asking for opinion. Is this standard speed for raid 0 or it should be faster? It really depends on the hard disks you used. I assume they were 80 GB ones? If so, seems okay because the 80 GB ones have poor performance when compared to the large hard disks we have now due to areal density. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 8 2010, 02:20 PM
Return to original view | Post
#74
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
I never bother with installing software for these things. I would just plug in my externals and my digital camera in and they just work.
|
|
|
Mar 9 2010, 10:02 AM
Return to original view | Post
#75
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
It isn't, but data recovery is very expensive, serious and time consuming business. If they had to do data recovery on every non-functioning hard disk, you're practically guaranteed that everybody will be charged hundreds of USD for the RMA service and it will take months before they get their replacement hard disk with their (possibly incomplete) data back.
|
|
|
Mar 9 2010, 01:17 PM
Return to original view | Post
#76
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
CDs and DVDs loses data due to age. Most ten year old writable CDs and DVDs are unreadable.
|
|
|
Mar 11 2010, 01:57 AM
Return to original view | Post
#77
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
QUOTE(enriquelee @ Mar 10 2010, 03:10 PM) If the data is really important, i believe some people is willing to pay. There are some data recovery companies that can try to recover the data.QUOTE(enriquelee @ Mar 10 2010, 03:10 PM) How many backup can we do, the 1st hdd can fail, the 2nd also can fail, even the 3rd might fail as well. Probably the chance will become mnimal, but there is still chance to fail all, right? The ultimate backup method is to put it on the public Internet. If it's interesting enough, nobody can remove it from the Internet. Maybe i am over worry. QUOTE(wildwestgoh @ Mar 10 2010, 04:24 PM) Tape backup? LOL super expensive, HDD backup still rox. And then a lightning strike or a fire destroys them all, pwned!A dozen HDD in RAID1, 0wNz! QUOTE(wildwestgoh @ Mar 10 2010, 04:24 PM) Data recovery will depends on how much your data worth, if your data gonna worth millions, it's that feasible to spend that thousands to get the data recovered. Downloading Anime, pirated... LOL recovery? Get sued instead. xD" You might want to share your data with your friends. Recovery then could be as easy as asking them for help.  QUOTE(zorbyss. @ Mar 10 2010, 09:02 PM) any good performance HDD suggestion? does brand make differences? how come 1 brand comes with different naming? what do they vary of? does size affects the performance or anything? If your external casing only supports USB 2.0, any cheap or super expensive hard disk you put inside will perform nearly the same: about 30 MB/s read/write. |
|
|
Mar 20 2010, 12:31 PM
Return to original view | Post
#78
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
But 2TB is more for long term storage than for performance. RAID-0 isn't safe for that as the probability of losing a hard disk is a little higher.
|
|
|
Mar 20 2010, 10:53 PM
Return to original view | Post
#79
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
Yes. Intel G1 and G2 SSDs are notorious for their slow sequential write. This is the reason why SSDs with the Indilinx controllers can perform quite well on overall and application benchmarks despite Intel's random write being more superior.
|
|
|
Mar 21 2010, 03:14 AM
Return to original view | Post
#80
|
|
Senior Member
3,591 posts Joined: Feb 2008
|
Actually, if you're going by probability, RAID-0 has more chance of dying than a single disk.
QUOTE That is, reliability (as measured by mean time to failure (MTTF) or mean time between failures (MTBF) is roughly inversely proportional to the number of members – so a set of two disks is roughly half as reliable as a single disk. If there were a probability of 5% that the disk would fail within three years, in a two disk array, that probability would be upped to  .The reason for this is that the file system is distributed across all disks. When a drive fails the file system cannot cope with such a large loss of data and coherency since the data is "striped" across all drives (the data cannot be recovered without the missing disk). Data can be recovered using special tools, however, this data will be incomplete and most likely corrupt, and data recovery is typically very costly and not guaranteed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID-0#RAID_0_failure_rate Using the same formula and 5% failure rate, any triple drive system (RAIDed or not) has a 14.2625% chance of losing a drive in three years. This post has been edited by everling: Mar 21 2010, 04:05 AM |
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: |  0.0454sec
 0.70
 7 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 2nd December 2025 - 03:33 PM |
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025 IPS, Inc.