A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 18th 16, 12:32 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Lars Bonnesen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033

For at 4 TB drive sitting internally in a SuperMicro server as an
ESX-test-/develserver, would you prefer the newer Seagate ST4000NM0035 over
ST4000NM0033?

I can see that the newer one are having a slightly faster theoretically
internal speed, but otherwise they look quite the same. Are the newer ones
worth the price difference?

Regards, Lars.

  #2  
Old December 18th 16, 01:40 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,112
Default ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033

Lars Bonnesen wrote:
For at 4 TB drive sitting internally in a SuperMicro server as an
ESX-test-/develserver, would you prefer the newer Seagate ST4000NM0035
over ST4000NM0033?

I can see that the newer one are having a slightly faster theoretically
internal speed, but otherwise they look quite the same. Are the newer
ones worth the price difference?

Regards, Lars.


ST4000NM0033 is 5 platter, 10 head. 175MB/sec OD
ST4000NM0035 is 4 platter, 7 head. 205MB/sec OD --- higher areal density

http://www.seagate.com/www-content/p...100671511f.pdf
http://www.seagate.com/www-content/p...100793636c.pdf

The '35 is 1 inch high.
The '33 is 1 inch high.

Both are 512n.

The 7 head drive will have 8 heads, but one head
will be ignored. Having two heads on each platter
balances the forces on the spindle (to support all
compass points as mounting options).

StorageReview has pictures of the 33, but nothing on 35 that I could find.

http://www.storagereview.com/seagate...n_e s3_review

'33 has some failures. One here at 3 months.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822178307

'35 has no reviews yet by customers.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...1Z4-002P-00141

The newer one should actually be cheaper, if all that
mattered was platter and head count. But you know there is
more to it than that. Both drives mysteriously weigh the
same amount. So the '35 has more metal in the chassis... or
something.

Paul
  #3  
Old December 18th 16, 05:04 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Lars Bonnesen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033

Yeah - the density is higher, so the internal speed is therefor also higher.

1 platter less, lighter and cheaper, but maybe it has better bearings

Actually I would imagine that one platter less should make it slower...

Maybe I should stick to the older one?

Regards, Lars.

"Paul" wrote in message news
Lars Bonnesen wrote:
For at 4 TB drive sitting internally in a SuperMicro server as an
ESX-test-/develserver, would you prefer the newer Seagate ST4000NM0035
over ST4000NM0033?

I can see that the newer one are having a slightly faster theoretically
internal speed, but otherwise they look quite the same. Are the newer ones
worth the price difference?

Regards, Lars.


ST4000NM0033 is 5 platter, 10 head. 175MB/sec OD
ST4000NM0035 is 4 platter, 7 head. 205MB/sec OD --- higher areal
density

http://www.seagate.com/www-content/p...100671511f.pdf
http://www.seagate.com/www-content/p...100793636c.pdf

The '35 is 1 inch high.
The '33 is 1 inch high.

Both are 512n.

The 7 head drive will have 8 heads, but one head
will be ignored. Having two heads on each platter
balances the forces on the spindle (to support all
compass points as mounting options).

StorageReview has pictures of the 33, but nothing on 35 that I could find.

http://www.storagereview.com/seagate...n_e s3_review

'33 has some failures. One here at 3 months.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822178307

'35 has no reviews yet by customers.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...1Z4-002P-00141

The newer one should actually be cheaper, if all that
mattered was platter and head count. But you know there is
more to it than that. Both drives mysteriously weigh the
same amount. So the '35 has more metal in the chassis... or
something.

Paul

  #4  
Old December 18th 16, 05:06 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Lars Bonnesen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033

Reliabillity is supposed to be better on the newer one:

https://www.span.com/compare/ST4000N...33/58710-39360

Regards, Lars.

  #5  
Old December 18th 16, 06:07 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,112
Default ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033

Lars Bonnesen wrote:
Reliabillity is supposed to be better on the newer one:

https://www.span.com/compare/ST4000N...33/58710-39360

Regards, Lars.


Roughly the ratio of five platters to four platters,
heads etc. And those are MTBF calculations, not actual
field data. If Seagate gave us actual field data collected
from previous models, I think you would be shocked at the
correlation between MTBF and actual.

Paul
  #6  
Old December 19th 16, 06:28 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Lars Bonnesen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033

But with a better MTBF, I guess Seagate expect the newer ones to be more
reliable than the older ones.

Regards, Lars.

"Paul" wrote in message news
Lars Bonnesen wrote:
Reliabillity is supposed to be better on the newer one:

https://www.span.com/compare/ST4000N...33/58710-39360

Regards, Lars.


Roughly the ratio of five platters to four platters,
heads etc. And those are MTBF calculations, not actual
field data. If Seagate gave us actual field data collected
from previous models, I think you would be shocked at the
correlation between MTBF and actual.

Paul

  #7  
Old December 19th 16, 07:51 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,112
Default ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033

Lars Bonnesen wrote:
But with a better MTBF, I guess Seagate expect the newer ones to be more
reliable than the older ones.

Regards, Lars.


That's what the measure is intended to communicate.

Normally, you would use the MTBF as a prediction of
how many spares to stock in your stock room. I doubt
the companies running large server farms rely on
that manufacturer number, instead looking at how many failed
Seagates or WDCs they had when using the previous
model.

MTBF is more of a ceremonial dance, than a useful metric.
The manufacturer does have the information necessary to
make the number realistic. However, if they did that,
the marketing department would have the individuals
killed :-) So instead, the calculation is done in
"a standard way", devoid of the most recent field
data. That's why I object to it. There is really nothing
forcing them to be completely honest.

As long as the numbers stay in a small range, nobody
will suspect anything is wrong with the numbers.

As an example, power supplies at work, the bigger
ones are rated at 3000 FITs. And then a lab prototype
of a smaller converter, had a rating of 100 FITS. And
when someone calculates a value like that, you immediately
start grilling them with questions. But if you showed me
one unit is 3000, another 2500, then my suspicions are
not aroused. Like you, I might expect (magically)
that somehow the 2500 FIT one is better. (FIT equals
failure in 10^9 hours). When there is an extreme change
in these reliability numbers is when you become suspicious.

To give another example of dishonesty, you will notice that
some Helium drives have entered the market. And I was hoping
that the environmental spec would take a radical shift.
Instead, the specs are almost verbatim copied from
existing drives. And you know when that happens,
the marketing department said "don't scare the customers,
don't arouse suspicions". The max altitude on a sealed
Helium drive should be higher than the previous drives.
Or at least, the number should be different, not
exactly the same by chance.

I'm patiently waiting for some failure rate data
to come back from the Helium drives. By being
sealed, they should not be subject to external
moisture effects on the platters. Now, I wonder
what the MTBF figures say... Would they reflect
a difference ? Or not ?

Paul
  #8  
Old March 13th 19, 02:02 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033

On Sunday, 18 December 2016 18:02:41 UTC+5:30, Lars Bonnesen wrote:
For at 4 TB drive sitting internally in a SuperMicro server as an
ESX-test-/develserver, would you prefer the newer Seagate ST4000NM0035 over
ST4000NM0033?

I can see that the newer one are having a slightly faster theoretically
internal speed, but otherwise they look quite the same. Are the newer ones
worth the price difference?

Regards, Lars.


Can we use both ST4000NM0033 and ST4000NM0035 in a RAID6, i.e for example can we use 2 nos. ST4000NM0033 and 2 nos ST4000NM0035 ??
  #9  
Old March 13th 19, 05:18 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,112
Default ST4000NM0035 vs ST4000NM0033

wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 18:02:41 UTC+5:30, Lars Bonnesen wrote:
For at 4 TB drive sitting internally in a SuperMicro server as an
ESX-test-/develserver, would you prefer the newer Seagate ST4000NM0035 over
ST4000NM0033?

I can see that the newer one are having a slightly faster theoretically
internal speed, but otherwise they look quite the same. Are the newer ones
worth the price difference?

Regards, Lars.


Can we use both ST4000NM0033 and ST4000NM0035 in a RAID6, i.e
for example can we use 2 nos. ST4000NM0033 and 2 nos ST4000NM0035 ??


For RAID, it's preferable to have drives with TLER (time limited error recovery).
That helps prevent unnecessary array rebuilds due to the reallocation of
sectors.

TLER/CCTL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_recovery_control

Other than that, you could likely mix those two drives in RAID,
as the slowest characteristic determines the overall performance.
If one drive does 200MB/sec and the second drive does 210MB/sec,
the 200MB/sec drive defines the response. If one has a seek
time of 12ms and another drive has a seek time of 13ms, the
13ms drive determines the response of the array (for anything
which cannot be hidden by that particular RAID array type).

You also select drives rated for the vibration characteristic
of the application. If the disks are going in a rack mount
with a lot of other drives, an Enterprise drive might be
better for that than a Consumer drive. An Enterprise drive
with a piezo actuator at the head for fine positioning,
is supposed to track better when the drive receives vibration
from the drives next to it.

Those are all considerations when selecting drives for RAID.

Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.