If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
RVS, RAFF, dual stage actuator.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
"miso" wrote:
RVS, RAFF, dual stage actuator. Since you were including consumer-grade HDDs in your query, RVS is a non-issue. Are you really expecting to repeatedly smack your HDDs while they are spinning? Just how many HDDs are you putting inside the same cabinet? You didn't specify all your criteria; however, you *did* want a comparison to consumer-grade drives which apparently *was* a choice for you (i.e., they met your selection criteria) so such technologies, like RVS, are a non-issue in comparing enterprise to consumer HDDs. If RVS was a selection criteria then you already know that consumer HDDs aren't going to be among your choices. http://enterprise.media.seagate.com/...vs-enterprise/ http://www.hgst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/50d6c79f1e3f024b87256c470074569d/$file/wp_rvs_25march.pdf Written 5 years, or more, ago. I had mistakeningly assume that you wanted a comparison between enterprise and consumer HDDs because you actually had some consideration in purchasing consumer-grade HDDs. If you're going to mandate features of enterprise-grade HDDs then, well, there's no point in considering consumer-grade ones. You give no clue on how YOU will actually deploy the HDDs. For all we know, you're asking for use in your home desktop. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
On 10/9/2012 4:13 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
"miso" wrote: RVS, RAFF, dual stage actuator. Since you were including consumer-grade HDDs in your query, RVS is a non-issue. Are you really expecting to repeatedly smack your HDDs while they are spinning? Just how many HDDs are you putting inside the same cabinet? You didn't specify all your criteria; however, you *did* want a comparison to consumer-grade drives which apparently *was* a choice for you (i.e., they met your selection criteria) so such technologies, like RVS, are a non-issue in comparing enterprise to consumer HDDs. If RVS was a selection criteria then you already know that consumer HDDs aren't going to be among your choices. http://enterprise.media.seagate.com/...vs-enterprise/ http://www.hgst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/50d6c79f1e3f024b87256c470074569d/$file/wp_rvs_25march.pdf Written 5 years, or more, ago. I had mistakeningly assume that you wanted a comparison between enterprise and consumer HDDs because you actually had some consideration in purchasing consumer-grade HDDs. If you're going to mandate features of enterprise-grade HDDs then, well, there's no point in considering consumer-grade ones. You give no clue on how YOU will actually deploy the HDDs. For all we know, you're asking for use in your home desktop. I over build my PCs, then run them about 5 years. I don't go cheap, but I don't get stupid about this either. Thus I am determining what the marginal increase in money gets me in reliability. You must have missed this statement: "So is there any advantage to buying a Seagate Constellation versus a Baracuda? Or Ultrastar versus Deskstar?" Since I was referring to both consumer and enterprise drives, to those that can follow logic, it can be inferred that I was also considering consumer drives. QED |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
"miso" wrote:
On 10/9/2012 4:13 PM, VanguardLH wrote: "miso" wrote: RVS, RAFF, dual stage actuator. Since you were including consumer-grade HDDs in your query, RVS is a non-issue. Are you really expecting to repeatedly smack your HDDs while they are spinning? Just how many HDDs are you putting inside the same cabinet? You didn't specify all your criteria; however, you *did* want a comparison to consumer-grade drives which apparently *was* a choice for you (i.e., they met your selection criteria) so such technologies, like RVS, are a non-issue in comparing enterprise to consumer HDDs. If RVS was a selection criteria then you already know that consumer HDDs aren't going to be among your choices. http://enterprise.media.seagate.com/...vs-enterprise/ http://www.hgst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/50d6c79f1e3f024b87256c470074569d/$file/wp_rvs_25march.pdf Written 5 years, or more, ago. I had mistakeningly assume that you wanted a comparison between enterprise and consumer HDDs because you actually had some consideration in purchasing consumer-grade HDDs. If you're going to mandate features of enterprise-grade HDDs then, well, there's no point in considering consumer-grade ones. You give no clue on how YOU will actually deploy the HDDs. For all we know, you're asking for use in your home desktop. I over build my PCs, then run them about 5 years. I don't go cheap, but I don't get stupid about this either. Thus I am determining what the marginal increase in money gets me in reliability. Seagate Constellation versus a Baracuda? http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...5B3017%5D =on Nothing knocked me out of my chair looking at the benchmark comparison on those 2 models. Both of those are 7200 RPM drives. There are 15K RPM Barracuda drives but you never mention WHICH ones you were comparing. If you want to make an equal comparison between benchmarks for a 7200 RPM versus another 7200 RPM drive then your choice of Hitachi models (next) is flawed. You'd have to compare the Seagate Constellation 7200 RPM against their Cheetah 15K RPM models, like: Constellation: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...d%5B4056%5D=on Cheetah: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/e...d%5B2035%5D=on Alas, they don't use the same set of benchmarks for the enterprise drives so it's hard to tell what equates to what for benchmark type. Or [Hitachi] Ultrastar versus Deskstar?" Couldn't find a page where the benchmarks for both the Ultrastar and Desktar were listed together (so I could select them and do a side-by-side compare of benchmarks). You'll have to bounce between the two charts to compare benchmarks. I picked units with the same cache size (16MB) which is the largest listed in the chart at that time for the Ultrastar models; however, the Deskstar has more than twice the capacity (1TB versus 450GB). Ultrastar: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/e...d%5B2034%5D=on Deskstar: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...d%5B2358%5D=on A big reason the benchmarks are much better for the Ultrastar is you're comparing a 15K RPM drive to a 7200 RPM drive. It's not anything "enterprise" for which you're paying a price premium. It's a faster spinning platter (and noisier drive) that you're paying more for. If, like for Hitachi, you were to compare Seagate 7200 and 15K RPM, well, one spins more than twice as much in the same time so there is the wear factor to consider. A decade ago I built a PC for a 3-year lifespan because there was enough ongoing change to warrant a significant enough performance increase (at least double) to expect a decent replacement at that time. I've been disappointed with the slow technology changes since then and now [over]build with a 6-year lifespan in mind - except for mechanical storage (e.g., HDDs, optical). It's a waste of money. After 3 years, and regardless that the HDD is in perfect working order, you'll want more capacity or some tech gotcha will get you itching to get a newer HDD (like how SSDs are now starting to draw consumers). I might pay extra for higher performance (if willing to sacrifice on noise and longevity) but paying for enterprise features when NOT used in an enterprise scenario doesn't make sense. The problem with using bleeding edge technology components in your build is that you pay a hell of a lot more, get little or just a tiny incremental performance gain, and in a couple years your disappointed with your expense because prices have radically dropped or something far better came along. Even with enterprise-grade HDDs having a longer warranty period (maybe 5 years), do you really send in your in-warranty HDD for replacement? You've only got one that blew, not dozens or hundreds at some RAID-ed file server datacenter waiting for replacement. Are you really going to disable your host waiting for an in-warranty replacement? I never found it cost effective or wasn't willing to stall usability to get a warranty replacement of an HDD. I just went and got a new one. If you have the money to spend for an enterprise-grade HDD (just one for your home PC), are you really going to concern yourself about saving a little to get it replaced by warranty instead of buying a bigger, faster, or otherwise better HDD some years from now? The survivability of the HDD mechanicals, as mentioned in the articles, is not greater with enterprise-grade HDDs versus consumer-grade HDDs. They all appear to have the same infant mortality rate along with the 3-4 year peak in failure rate. Unless you can actually use the enterprise added features, I don't see why you'd waste the money on them. Rather spend the extra money on a faster HDD. Talk to the forums on whether they consider the 15K RPM drives as noisier or not. I can't see how a higher-energy 15K RPM drive is going to outlast, in general, a 7200 RPM drive considering there's twice as much wear for 15K RPM on the bearing and they run hotter. Also, consider if you want to spend more money on a 15K RPM drive which will open your programs faster (but doesn't have much affect thereafter) and copy files faster but is that the primary focus of your computer? You'll also end up having to sacrifice drive capacity for higher platter RPM: the faster spinning platters have more wind resistance so the size is reduced to lower turbulence while not having to increase motor torque hence why makers are considering using helium inside the drive. See: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...er-capacities/ You don't think they'll charge a price premium for helium-filled HDDs? Will you need it? Not unless you're trying to up the single-unit capacity of a 15K RPM drive because helium will let them increase platter size to up the drive's capacity. The rest of us will prefer a more economical pricing point in the dollar/byte curve and just add another "old" HDD in the case and for cheaper. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
When did I mention 15k RPM drives or even 10K? Nor did I mention helium.
Why look at 1Tbyte drives? If anything, I would consider examining a Ultrastar 3T versus a deskstar 3T. The 4T drive prices are not at the sweet spot. The ultrastar has a 2e6 MTBF, and yes that isn't the same as AFR, but it is indicative of something. Regarding noise, the deskstar and ultrastar drives are the same. Not so for WD RE versus red. In fact, the WD RE is one of the noisier drives. I've had 10krpm cheetah drives in the past. I'm not going that route. I'm going to SSD the OS and then use magnetic media for file storage. The C216 mobos have two sata3 and 4 Sata 2. It is not a particularly generous mobo in that respect. If you mirror the drive, that means the mobo will support one SSD for OS, and two "drives" for user data. I may look at getting two smaller SSDs and stripe them. I'm not a fan of striped raid per se (no redundancy), but the SSD array would be so small that I could easily ghost it often. I'd have to determine if there is any speed advantage to striped SSD. It just might end up choking the system further down the lane. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
"miso" wrote:
When did I mention 15k RPM drives or even 10K? Hitachi Ultrastar. That's a brand and a family line, not a particular model in that family line. So, for example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822145330 Yep, it qualifies as an Ultrastar. You didn't mention specific models so all models in a family are up for consideration. Nor did I mention helium. Did I say YOU mentioned helium? *I* mentioned it. That's because it will allow larger platters to spin faster (so teh 15K RPM drives could have larger platters to up their capacity). It will have a cost premium. Will YOU pay for it just because it exists or get something cheaper that does the job for you? This was mentioned because it follows the same [il]logic from having to pay for enterprise features that you won't use. Why look at 1Tbyte drives? Because, again, you never bothered to mention specifics, like size, so all sizes are eligible. Regarding noise, the deskstar and ultrastar drives are the same. For the same RPM models, that is. I'm going to SSD the OS and then use magnetic media for file storage. As long as you realize that SSDs are fast for reads but slower for writes; however, writes on SSDs are still much faster than for HDDs. Just be aware that writing is slower than reading on an SSD so consider how you will use the SSD. For example, consider if your host is used primarily as a read-based web server or a write-heavy database server. Apps that do sequential reads benefit less from SSDs than apps that do random writes. Under heavy write volume, the SSD will slow even further due to the overhead of the wear levelling mechanism. Over time, the SSD slows more due to the remapping needed to compensate for oxide stress that causes cell failure and why SSDs are rated by maximum write cycles. Flash memory cells wear out; quicker for MLC than for SLC, so SLC is more durable but far more expensive. When the reserve (remap) space gets consumed, the device catastrophically fails. For SLC-based (enterprise-grade, very pricey) SSDs, you can figure a lifespan of about 5 years on a write-heavy setup; see http://tinyurl.com/c9aevxk. Most SSD makers like to claim their SSD should be usable for a 10 year lifespan because they're targeting home PC users with their statement since those users are not stressing their PC all hours of every day and typically incur a very light load when they do use their PC. The makers are hoping users don't realize that [the rest of] the 10-year old PC may very well continue to be very usable after 5 or 10 years. Once an HDD survives past its infact mortality and 3-year humps in failure rates, they last a long time but typically users replace them long before they fail because they want more capacity or a faster HDD. The device didn't fail but users later change their requirements or wants. Same for SSDs. While they may have a 5 or 10 year lifespan depending on how they are used and what type (MLC vs SLC), it's likely most users will replace the SSD long before it fails because they want more capacity or a faster SSD. Consumers typically don't wait for [a hint of] failure before buying something newer, better, bigger, or improved. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
miso wrote:
[...] So is there any advantage to buying a Seagate Constellation versus a Baracuda? Or Ultrastar versus Deskstar? No. Unless you have a hard limit to only use one drive. "Enterprise" drives are a bit better in reliability, but RAID1 is so massively better that enterprise drives are laughable. The only place these pay of (somewhat) is if drive replacement is expensive, e.g. because somebody has dro drive to the datacenter. There, even a small imporivement in reliability can justify a larger price increase. [...] Given that the OS with be on SSD and the magnetic media is on RAID 0, would it still make sense to go with enterprise grade drives, presuming they are more reliable that the consumer grade? If you use RAID0, your data is basically doomed anyways, unless you have good backup. If you have good backup, no need to go for enterprise drives. RAID0 is basically always a bad choice except for cache and buffer applications that need high throughput, such as video-capture and editing. But RAID0 should never be used as actual longer-term storage. Arno -- Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F ---- Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
"Arno" wrote:
miso wrote: Given that the OS with be on SSD and the magnetic media is on RAID 0, would it still make sense to go with enterprise grade drives, presuming they are more reliable that the consumer grade? If you use RAID0, your data is basically doomed anyways, unless you have good backup. If you have good backup, no need to go for enterprise drives. RAID0 is basically always a bad choice except for cache and buffer applications that need high throughput, such as video-capture and editing. But RAID0 should never be used as actual longer-term storage. Another problem with stripping (RAID-0) is that MTBF goes down as you add more drives. As the drive count goes up, MTBF goes down. The minimum RAID-0 config uses 2 HDDs which means your MTBF is half of the whichever HDD has the lowest MTBF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...0_failure_rate If you can afford 2 HDDs for RAID-0, and especially after choosing NOT to waste money on "enterprise" HDDs for a personal-use host, you can probably afford 3 HDDs even if they are smaller but result in an equal or increase in total capacity compared to the 2 HDDs. Then you could put them in a RAID-5 configuration. It makes no sense to be spending money on enterprise-grade HDDs for features you won't use but then go cheap on the RAID config. Forget the "enterprise" lure and go with a better RAID config. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
On 13/10/12 08:27, VanguardLH wrote:
"Arno" wrote: miso wrote: Given that the OS with be on SSD and the magnetic media is on RAID 0, would it still make sense to go with enterprise grade drives, presuming they are more reliable that the consumer grade? If you use RAID0, your data is basically doomed anyways, unless you have good backup. If you have good backup, no need to go for enterprise drives. RAID0 is basically always a bad choice except for cache and buffer applications that need high throughput, such as video-capture and editing. But RAID0 should never be used as actual longer-term storage. It's okay to use RAID0 on top of other raids - such as a RAID0 stripe of RAID1 pairs. But RAID0 on its own is seldom a good idea. Another problem with stripping (RAID-0) is that MTBF goes down as you add more drives. As the drive count goes up, MTBF goes down. The minimum RAID-0 config uses 2 HDDs which means your MTBF is half of the whichever HDD has the lowest MTBF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...0_failure_rate If you can afford 2 HDDs for RAID-0, and especially after choosing NOT to waste money on "enterprise" HDDs for a personal-use host, you can probably afford 3 HDDs even if they are smaller but result in an equal or increase in total capacity compared to the 2 HDDs. Then you could put them in a RAID-5 configuration. If you are using Linux, you can use its RAID10 modes to get RAID1 safety and better than RAID0 performance from hard disks. It makes no sense to be spending money on enterprise-grade HDDs for features you won't use but then go cheap on the RAID config. Forget the "enterprise" lure and go with a better RAID config. Absolutely. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Enterprise versus "consumer" grade drives
On 10/12/2012 9:58 PM, Arno wrote:
miso wrote: [...] So is there any advantage to buying a Seagate Constellation versus a Baracuda? Or Ultrastar versus Deskstar? No. Unless you have a hard limit to only use one drive. "Enterprise" drives are a bit better in reliability, but RAID1 is so massively better that enterprise drives are laughable. The only place these pay of (somewhat) is if drive replacement is expensive, e.g. because somebody has dro drive to the datacenter. There, even a small imporivement in reliability can justify a larger price increase. [...] Given that the OS with be on SSD and the magnetic media is on RAID 0, would it still make sense to go with enterprise grade drives, presuming they are more reliable that the consumer grade? If you use RAID0, your data is basically doomed anyways, unless you have good backup. If you have good backup, no need to go for enterprise drives. RAID0 is basically always a bad choice except for cache and buffer applications that need high throughput, such as video-capture and editing. But RAID0 should never be used as actual longer-term storage. Arno I meant mirror, i.e. raid 1, for the hard drives. I'll consider RAID5. I've done that before. Not with the greatest results though. When the mobo died, I was able to put the RAID 10 array in another PC and all the data was still there. The RAID5 array couldn't be recovered. I had a pretty good backup. Raid 5 at least buys you something in the way of more storage with just as good security, well provided the mobo doesn't get Chinese cap disease. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DABS "Warranty Repaired" B-Grade return. | js.b1 | UK Computer Vendors | 2 | July 12th 09 12:56 PM |
"true life" vs. "anti-glare" of Vostro 1500: What are the brightness & contrast ratios??? | Thomas G. Marshall | Dell Computers | 1 | April 11th 08 10:47 PM |
"desktop quality" (or better) drives in 2.5" laptop form factor? | phreak | Storage (alternative) | 0 | December 26th 06 09:07 PM |
Downside of changing "Max frames to render ahead"/"Prerender Limit" to 1/0? | Jeremy Reaban | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | March 31st 06 04:24 AM |
ASUS A8V & ATI AIW 9600 "inf" "thunk.exe" error message? | ByTor | AMD x86-64 Processors | 5 | January 13th 06 06:50 PM |