more 2tb drives?

[DReborn]

i've outgrown my 1tb drive in my computer and was thinking about upgrading to a 1.5tb or a 2tb but the current 2tb are pretty slow (i have the WD 2tb in my NAS and it's fine for backing up but not as a main data storage drive in a main desktop, IMHO).

I'd hate to snap up a 1.5tb seagate that's been out for what seems like forever if a new 2tb is coming down the pike. anybody know?

thanks

[astrallite]

Why is the 2TB slow as a storage drive? Even if you transfer 4-5GB files routinely that can't take more than 2 minutes to transfer and you probably have better things to do than stare at the data transfer screen.

[thebeephaha]

I don't have any speed issues with the WD 2TB, access time is a little meh but sustained transfers are fine.

[DougLite]

Even at 5400RPM, a 2TB drive will saturate Gigabit Ethernet. I know you're asking about a drive for installation within your system, but the current WD 2TB gives plenty of throughput for disk-to-disk backup applications. It will falter in random access performance, but you'd choose a 7200RPM drive there anyway.

Seagate has a 5900RPM 2TB drive from the 'Cuda LP series. Hitachi still tops out at 1TB, and Samsung peaks at 1.5TB. If I had to guess, I'd say that Hitachi is the next to make a move to 2TB. It has been some time since a new Kurofune 5 platter drive has launched.

[DReborn]

i use my current 1tb drive as my downloads and media drive so i access it fairly frequently. small, medium, big files...everything. I might just have to leave my current 1tb drive in for mydocuments/music/photos and get a current 1.5tb drive just for the movies. unfortunately that's only about 500gb of more usable space than a 2tb...just rather have less drives in my system.

i;ll need to get an internal raid card for more sata ports.

[extide]

2TB drive should be FASTER than a 1TB drive. Higher data density = faster... (Sequential read/write, seek times should be very similar)


Why do people have this weird misconception that bigger drives are slow?

[Ockie]

i've outgrown my 1tb drive in my computer and was thinking about upgrading to a 1.5tb or a 2tb but the current 2tb are pretty slow (i have the WD 2tb in my NAS and it's fine for backing up but not as a main data storage drive in a main desktop, IMHO).

I'd hate to snap up a 1.5tb seagate that's been out for what seems like forever if a new 2tb is coming down the pike. anybody know?

thanks

I'm thinking it's your NAS that is slow, not the drives.

[Jospeh]

2TB drive should be FASTER than a 1TB drive. Higher data density = faster... (Sequential read/write, seek times should be very similar)


Why do people have this weird misconception that bigger drives are slow?

more data= harder to look through logic?

[aggiestudd07]

2TB drive should be FASTER than a 1TB drive. Higher data density = faster... (Sequential read/write, seek times should be very similar)


Why do people have this weird misconception that bigger drives are slow?

although i agree that higher density==faster performance, there is a current max density, its the number of platters they have been increasing recently. more platters doesnt necessarily make a faster drive since the seeker head can only be in one place at any given moment.

[XS Janus]

more data= harder to look through logic?

LOL:p:D
That logic only applies to your messy desk drawer:D:D

[DReborn]

well first off my NAS, the Thecus N3200 Pro, is pretty darn speedy being in pretty much the top 10 in speed tests (http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_nas/Itemid,190/) and my point was obviously that some drives are faster than others. My 150gb raptor is faster than a 5900rpm green 2tb drive in probably every single valuable test.

The one thing about the green drives is that they like to go to sleep so it takes a few seconds to wake them up, that's pretty annoying if you're trying to open up a music file or photo instantly.

it's more the random access speed that scares me off the current 2tb drives...im sure they are all fine for archiving/storage purposes but for a drive that gets accesses 100% i am using the computer, i personally don't think it's a good fit.

but of course, i'd love to be shown wrong...id rather have the 2tb drive than a 1tb and a 1.5tb

[Megalomaniac]

i wonder, has anyone short stroked a 2TB drive to say 500GB and see how fast it performs?
I wonder where will the scores start dropping.

I presume that the data is distributed equally on all platters if you short stroke it like that. so a quarter of the platter will be used, on all platters.

[extide]

although i agree that higher density==faster performance, there is a current max density, its the number of platters they have been increasing recently. more platters doesnt necessarily make a faster drive since the seeker head can only be in one place at any given moment.



More platters = higher density. Think of the total amount of data passing under all the heads on one rotation. With two platters that's twice as much data as a single platter, all else being the same.

Also, imagine a platter with twice as much data density as another, this is the same thing, twice as much data passes under the heads on one revolution than a platter with half the density of the first one.

Sequential speeds go up, seek times stay about the same.

**The only thing is right now I believe that the only 2TB drive out is the WD Caviar Green edition, which obviously would be slower than a 1TB black edition.
***EDIT: Actually Seagate has one too, but it appears to be 5900 rpm (weird number?) so it would also be slower than a 7200rpm drive.


I presume that the data is distributed equally on all platters if you short stroke it like that. so a quarter of the platter will be used, on all platters.

This is true

[pgjensen]

i got 1000MB/sec read from 14 2tb drives in raid0. i think they're fine :)

[Distro]

more data= harder to look through logic?

Dude, I spilled my milk..http://flatheadsearch.com/imgs/signature_distory.jpg

Thanks for the lol

[DReborn]

i got 1000MB/sec read from 14 2tb drives in raid0. i think they're fine :)

well in that case... =)

[veritas7]

IIRC there's also an enterprise version of (RE4) of WD's 2 TB drive. I don't know if it's commercially released yet.

Most hard drive mfg's will be 2 TB by the end of the year, trust me ;)

[Megalomaniac]

trust me ;)

sure, as soon as you tell us what happened to veritas 1-6
:eek:

[DReborn]

basically it's charts (down at the end) like this that somewhat concern me: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/western_digital_caviar_green_2tb

clearly the 1.5tb seagate is faster. will that be noticeable in every day tasks? or only in benchmarks?

i wish i could just wait but I am running out of room!

[DougLite]

If you're looking for desktop random access performance (bootup, loading programs, installing stuff, loading games, etc) either the 1.5TB Seagate or a 1TB 7200RPM drive is a better choice. If all you'll be doing is shoveling large files back and forth, pick up the WD 2TB and don't worry about it.

[Syntax Error]

i got 1000MB/sec read from 14 2tb drives in raid0. i think they're fine :)

You'll be :( when one of the disks in that array inevitably fails. :)

I'm sure it's just a test setup, what RAID controller are you using? Areca with 2GB of cache?

[jonnyjl]

IIRC there's also an enterprise version of (RE4) of WD's 2 TB drive. I don't know if it's commercially released yet.

Most hard drive mfg's will be 2 TB by the end of the year, trust me ;)I'd like to know if RE4s are commercially available too. It seems as though it was but I don't see any in the channel. One of the bigger distributors/resellers said back in the middle of May that I could get them in a week, and two weeks later still nothing.

As far as I can see, no reseller has the drives in stock.

[pgjensen]

I'd like to know if RE4s are commercially available too. It seems as though it was but I don't see any in the channel. One of the bigger distributors/resellers said back in the middle of May that I could get them in a week, and two weeks later still nothing.

As far as I can see, no reseller has the drives in stock.Areca is testing them now, so WD must have sent them 24 or so. I assume they're spreading now slowly.




You'll be when one of the disks in that array inevitably fails.

I'm sure it's just a test setup, what RAID controller are you using? Areca with 2GB of cache?just a test setup to ensure the drives worked with that card.

areca 1680ix-24 with 2gb cache.

i'll have 16 drives in raid6 setup tomorrow and 20 within a couple weeks - waiting to find more at $170 like i did. may have a hot spare, though i haven't decided yet.

[Rubycon]

Why do people have this weird misconception that bigger drives are slow?

Two words: Quantum Bigfoot. :D