320GB: Deskstar T7K500 or Caviar SE16 ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe S
  • Start date Start date
J

Joe S

I hear that the Barracuda's could be better and that the Samsung T133
models are nothing like as good as models from their previous range.

OTOH Deskstar T7K500 and WD SE16s seem better thought of.

Some people have said that the Western Digital's are usually unreliable
but the SE16's seem to be though of as quite reliable by many people.
Also quieter and cooler than expected.

Similarly, I can remember the IBM DeathStar fiasco and have stayed away
from them even if they are now owned by Hitachi. But a lot of people
are saying the Deskstar T7K500 range is very good even if it is a bit
old now.

So which of the two is the better 320GB drive to get for a home desktop
PC?

Hitachi Deskstar T7K500
http://tinyurl.com/po7k2

Western Digital Caviar SE16
http://www.wdcaviar.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=196
 
Joe S said:
I hear that the Barracuda's could be better and that the Samsung T133
models are nothing like as good as models from their previous range.

OTOH Deskstar T7K500 and WD SE16s seem better thought of.

Some people have said that the Western Digital's are usually unreliable
but the SE16's seem to be though of as quite reliable by many people.
Also quieter and cooler than expected.

Similarly, I can remember the IBM DeathStar fiasco and have stayed away
from them even if they are now owned by Hitachi. But a lot of people
are saying the Deskstar T7K500 range is very good even if it is a bit
old now.
Click to expand...

So they changed there name Hitach Deskstar,
 
Joe S said:
I hear that the Barracuda's could be better and that the Samsung T133
models are nothing like as good as models from their previous range.
Click to expand...

You need to get your hearing tested.
OTOH Deskstar T7K500 and WD SE16s seem better thought of.
Click to expand...

Wrong with the WDs.
Some people have said that the Western Digital's are usually unreliable
but the SE16's seem to be though of as quite reliable by many people.
Click to expand...

What they 'think' is completely irrelevant, what
matters is what the basis for those thoughts are.
Also quieter and cooler than expected.
Click to expand...

Still noiser and hotter than the Samsungs.
Similarly, I can remember the IBM DeathStar fiasco and have stayed
away from them even if they are now owned by Hitachi. But a lot of
people are saying the Deskstar T7K500 range is very good even if it
is a bit old now.
Click to expand...
So which of the two is the better 320GB drive to get for a home desktop PC?
Click to expand...

The Samsung.
 
Mike Tomlinson said:
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Click to expand...

How come bunny's ears are lopsided?

Shouldn't they look something like this?

(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Inquiring minds need to know.
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Joe S said:
I hear that the Barracuda's could be better and that the Samsung T133
models are nothing like as good as models from their previous range.
Click to expand...

Huh? Are you perhaps confusing ''good'' and ''fast''?
OTOH Deskstar T7K500 and WD SE16s seem better thought of.
Click to expand...
Some people have said that the Western Digital's are usually unreliable
but the SE16's seem to be though of as quite reliable by many people.
Also quieter and cooler than expected.
Click to expand...
Similarly, I can remember the IBM DeathStar fiasco and have stayed away
from them even if they are now owned by Hitachi. But a lot of people
are saying the Deskstar T7K500 range is very good even if it is a bit
old now.
Click to expand...
So which of the two is the better 320GB drive to get for a home desktop
PC?
Click to expand...
Hitachi Deskstar T7K500
http://tinyurl.com/po7k2
Click to expand...
Western Digital Caviar SE16
http://www.wdcaviar.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=196
Click to expand...

Samsung. Quiet and cool running.

Arno
 
Arno Wagner said:
Pretty convincing. Were they running hot?
Click to expand...

Warm, but not hot. They were in an HP NAS device (rackmounted) with
lots of air flow, in a room air-conditioned to 19C. The same device,
which takes 4 drives, had previously had 250GB Maxtor drives in it.
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Mike Tomlinson said:
Warm, but not hot. They were in an HP NAS device (rackmounted) with
lots of air flow, in a room air-conditioned to 19C. The same device,
which takes 4 drives, had previously had 250GB Maxtor drives in it.
Click to expand...

Hmm. A bad sign then. Maxtors are reliable when cool, but unreliable
when hot.

So this indicates the DeskStars are still pretty problematic.

Arno
Click to expand...
 
Fred said:
What was the failure mode?
Click to expand...

All developed excessive bad sectors in normal use. They continued
working with the exception of one which became unusable and was rejected
by the RAID controller. Fortunately, because I had configured them in
RAID5, even with the loss of one member, I was able to recover data from
the array.

They all, with the exception of one, failed Hitachi's DFT tests and
could not be recovered with the "low level format" (writing zeros)
option.
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Mike Tomlinson said:
All developed excessive bad sectors in normal use. They continued
working with the exception of one which became unusable and was rejected
by the RAID controller. Fortunately, because I had configured them in
RAID5, even with the loss of one member, I was able to recover data from
the array.
Click to expand...
They all, with the exception of one, failed Hitachi's DFT tests and
could not be recovered with the "low level format" (writing zeros)
option.
Click to expand...

That seounds very much like the failure mode of the old death-stars....

Arno
Click to expand...
 
That seounds very much like the failure mode of the old death-stars....
Click to expand...

Nope, either they died completely or they were recoverable by LLF
(but kept developing new "bad" sectors).
 
All developed excessive bad sectors in normal use.
Click to expand...

That could be due to an underpowered PS. The T7K500 have
the maximum number of platters possible in a 1" height drive.
They continued working with the exception of one which became unusable
and was rejected by the RAID controller. Fortunately, because I had
configured them in RAID5, even with the loss of one member, I was able
to recover data from the array.
Click to expand...
They all, with the exception of one, failed Hitachi's DFT tests
Click to expand...

Strange how all data was intact but the drives were toast.
and
Click to expand...
could not be recovered with the "low level format" (writing zeros) option.
Click to expand...

Again, what was the failure mode?
 
That could be due to an underpowered PS. The T7K500 have
the maximum number of platters possible in a 1" height drive.
Click to expand...

Try again, Folkert. They were in an HP NAS device with a 400W PSU.
Strange how all data was intact but the drives were toast.
Click to expand...

Isn't it just. By the way, you may care to get your eyes tested. I was
careful not to say _all_ data.
Again, what was the failure mode?
Click to expand...

I've already told you. ****wit.
 
Mike said:
.... snip ...


I've already told you. ****wit.
Click to expand...

Way to get help. Did you never consider that your answer may have
been lost? Usenet does not guarantee delivery of articles.

F'ups set to eliminate excessive crossposting.
 
Arno Wagner said:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Mike Tomlinson said:
Hmm. A bad sign then. Maxtors are reliable when cool, but unreliable
when hot.

So this indicates the DeskStars are still pretty problematic.
Click to expand...

In his case, it seems.
I have 2.5TB of them and have never lost a byte.
Click to expand...
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Rob said:
In his case, it seems.
I have 2.5TB of them and have never lost a byte.
Click to expand...

Probably they still have bad batches (problem with the original
DeatStars) or have better and worse manufacturing sites...

I have about 4TBs of older Maxtors (around 40) running ansd never
lost a byte, except on some that were dropped in shipping. But
they are all in a climatized server room and all have a fan
before them...

Arno
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top