Are HDD manufacturers "sorting" drives by quality before chosingwhich is sold as which product?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel Smedegaard Buus
  • Start date Start date
I got one of those motherboards. At its mildest, the BIOS just changes
default boot drive when one of these external drives is attached. At its
worst, the computer refuses to boot up if the external drive is attached.

Yousuf Khan

Mine de-overclocks itself.
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.
 
Is 47831 Roddy?

Had a message up briefly, but cancelled it, asking if Daniel Buss was.
Not sharp of me.

Yup, 4783I and Oscar. Getting desperate to be heard.

He can change his name, but his personality can't be.

Yousuf Khan
 
More likely, WD had a shortage of Green drives for their USB enclosures because those 2TB Black drives cost more to make, having 4 platters instead of the 3.  I believe if WD wanted to get rid of lower quality HDs, instead of selling them as externals they'd use them as warranty replacements, especially for warranties that were about to expire.

Sounds reasonable. Though, wouldn't a replacement drive be subject to
the same kind of warranty as the one it's replacing? I know in
Denmark, there's a warranty on repairs, for instance, and this
warranty will keep renewing itself if the product fails again within
that period. Don't know how it is with replacements, though. Seems
fair that a new product should always carry with it the full warranty,
regardless of it being a replacement. But I guess it depends on how
it's defined in the first place - if you don't promise people to get
new drives if an old one fails within warranty, then I guess you could
worm your way around it :)
 Also when I've run MHDD, a program that reports slow sectors, the WD drives I tested showed no sectors slower than 50ms, while the Hitachi, Samsung, and Seagate drives had some sectors that took 50-150ms and, 1-10 that took 150-500ms.  Hitachi 1TB 7200RPM drives had none of the latter.  150ms is 13-18 rotations.  I don't know if the results were due to inferior heads or signal processing, more defects on the platters, or lower standards for screening out bad sectors.  MHDD is available at HDDguru.com, whichhas forums full of HD experts who may be able to tell you if external drives are built from inferior internals.

Thank you - I'll check it out. The program also, even though it'll
have to run on my gaming rig - that's the only Windows installation I
own. Btw, and sorry if I'm just being uneducated on the program there,
couldn't those numbers just be because the WD didn't have any bad
sectors that needed reallocation when you tested, while the other ones
did?
But at least those chip companies label their products according to speed, voltage, and maximum temperature.  OTOH memory modules sold on the retail market seem to vary widely in quality and are usually made from sub-prime or overclocked chips.  One example of this is shown in the following APHnetworks review of a G.Skill PC17000 Ripjaws module.  Once the heatsinkswere removed, Hynix PC10666 chips are revealed:

http://aphnetworks.com/reviews/g_skill_ripjaws_f3_12800cl7d_8gbrh_2x4...

G.Skill is hardly alone in this practice.  Module companies vary greatly in quality standards.  Some test using US $1M+ machines, while most usejust PC motherboards running at room temperature.  At least one company even thinks it's OK for its modules to show 2 bad bits during such testing. For these and other reasons, it's best to buy modules only if they haveno heatsinks (useless anyway) and contain chips clearly marked with the logo or part number of a real chip manufacturer.  About the only way to be guaranteed of such modules if you don't visit the store is to buy Samsung or no-heatsink Crucial modules.  Some people have reported that Samsung PC12800 modules can run faster than some heatsinked PC17000 modules.  BTW, 1.35V DDR3 is rated to work in 1.5V motherboards.

Very true. I seem to remember, when I bought my latest high-clocked
modules that I was kind of frustrated about not being able to run them
within regular voltages. If not activating overclocking and manually
going into the "unsafe" voltage range, they'd only run at a step or
two below their rated performance. When I inspected that, I found out
that pretty much 0 products in the high ranges aren't overclocked and
then "certified" for that speed. And seeing as the denominations
they're given aren't standard ones, e.g. PC17000 isn't a standardized
denomination, they can also tell you to over-volt your system to get
there. Guess that would be pruning for the best apples. And I don't
mind over-volting so long as it is within warranty. Or do I... Not
sure. If 1 year warranty suddenly means they'll burn to death at 1½
years due to overvolting, instead of after 10 years with a regular
volt setting, then of course I do mind.
 
Is 47831 Roddy?

Would seem so. Freshly created user, 1 post only which was the one he
put here (now a couple more). Also quickly scanned the message and
noticed the same kind of language, e.g. "cant" and "line wont fly".

Makes one thing how often people do something like that. It's a good
idea, in a way, you could always have an extra "buddy" who would back
you up ;)

LOL: Actually, he's doing that now! Check it out:
https://groups.google.com/group/uk....ddf384d7958/1b06b14ca03e5232#1b06b14ca03e5232

I don't know if it's cute, pathetic, or scary...
 
Thank you - I'll check it out. The program also, even though it'll
have to run on my gaming rig - that's the only Windows installation I
own. Btw, and sorry if I'm just being uneducated on the program there,
couldn't those numbers just be because the WD didn't have any bad
sectors that needed reallocation when you tested, while the other ones
did?

I don't know, but the results were consistent by drive brand and for each surface scan, even after erasure to reallocate bad sectors (at least the really bad sectors). Also a friend of mine knocked over a 400GB WD during operation, causing a lot of bad sectors, but after tried to reallocate the badsectors by erasing it, MHDD reported no slow sectors.
 
More likely, WD had a shortage of Green drives for their USB enclosures
because those 2TB Black drives cost more to make, having 4 platters
instead of the 3.

There was a thread at Tom's Hardware where a WD 500GB HDD appeared to
have been made from a short-stroked 750GB drive, so it appears that
HDD manufacturers do occasionally use more expensive drives to fulfil
their orders.

Here is a thread where a Seagate user measured significant differences
in the performance of his 2TB drives:
http://forums.seagate.com/t5/Barrac...-Seagate-seriously-cripled-through/m-p/161970

The difference was due to the slower drive having more platters, and
therefore a lower data density.

Here is the update matrix for a recent firmware update:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/HDD/GRCC4CD9.TXT

Notice that Seagate's ST2000DM001-9YN164 model can have 4, 5, or 6
heads, with corresponding differences in performance. The old model
numbering system indicated the number of platters in the
second-to-last numeric digit, but the new system obscures all these
physical details. If you wish to ensure that you are getting the
faster drive, then you will need to examine the 2nd and 3rd digits in
the serial number. The 3rd digit codes for the number of heads, while
the second digit indicates the platter type (I'm not certain about
this, though).

On a more general level, modern HDDs are tuned to extract the best
performance out of each head. Some heads have better frequency
characteristics, for example. HDD manufacturers take advantage of the
better heads using VBPI (Variable Bits Per Inch) and VTPI (Variable
Tracks Per Inch). These unique, drive specific "adaptive" data are
stored in flash memory on the PCB, which explains why a direct board
swap rarely succeeds.

This article has a good explanation:
http://hddscan.com/doc/HDD_Tracks_and_Zones.html

- Franc Zabkar
 
En el artículo <[email protected]
oups.com> said:
However, in my particular case, I bought 13 of those and stripped them
of their boxes immediately. They've been living happy lives ever since
in temps ranging betwen over 20 C and under 50 C.

50 is a bit on the warm side. I'd be looking to try and achieve a
constant temperature of around 30 - 35C. It's rapid changes in
temperature that hard drives don't like.
Anyway, back on topic :) — those drives I'm linking to most definitely
would be considered likely to get pretty warm, even if there are
"ventilation holes" in the cases. They *are* 7200 RPM, after all. But
still, so many reports of DOA and dead within *days* or weeks, just
doesn't seem to add up.

Have you got them stacked tightly together in 3.5" bays? If you have,
not good.

The secret is airflow. You don't have to have a hurricane blowing over
them - just a gentle airflow to carry the heat away. Fitting them in
adapter brackets in 5.25" bays is a good way of doing this as there's
plenty of airspace around them then.

One other thing that occurs to me since you say you have multiple
failures - look for the common factor. How confident are you of the
power supply?
Just makes me think that hours or days in an external case with
ventilation holes, while not ideal for a 7200 RPM SATA drive,
shouldn't be able kill it off completely.

It shouldn't. The external box makers cheap out by not fitting a fan.
Ventilation holes alone (and a metal case) should be enough to keep the
drive within acceptable temperatures in occasional use, but heavy-duty
access will cause it to warm up. A lot depends on ambient temperature,
of course, and environment (does it have a load of papers dumped on top
of it, for example?)
 
En el artículo <[email protected]
oups.com> said:
Makes one thing how often people do something like that.

Rod does it very often to try and evade killfiles (filters).
It's a good
idea, in a way, you could always have an extra "buddy" who would back
you up ;)

It's known as a "sockpuppet", often shortened to "sock".
LOL: Actually, he's doing that now! Check it out:
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-i-y/browse_thread/thread/85d26ddf384d7958/1
b06b14ca03e5232#1b06b14ca03e5232

Rod Speed FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

http://www.sensationbot.com/jschat.php?db=rodspeed
I don't know if it's cute, pathetic, or scary...

Pathetic. Very pathetic. A sad man with serious self-esteem issues.
 
Back
Top