First SATA drive - hesitations

[Mike]

Hi

I'm in a frantic panic to purchase a new HDD before christmas, when all the
shops around me seem to close for quite a while.

I have an Gigabyte K8NSC 939 Ultra mobo with ATA and SATA support.

I own a number of ATA drives in other PC's and have purchased a couple of
Seagate 7200.9's recently for their extremely quiet, and seemingly cool
operation.

I'm looking at purchasing a 200 to 300gb drive but could settle for a 160.

This machine is used for surfing, office app's and some gaming.

I'm concerned that these large hard drives may suffer lag or slower
performance than smaller or smaller/ata drives.

The weak SATA connectors are a little concerning, though I've heard of
'click connect' connectors?

I much prefer reliability over extreme performance and I'd like a cooler
drive overall.

Are SATA drives less reliable overall than ATA drives?

I've had WD's fail on me in the past in sitatuions of extreme heat, though
my room is now air-conditioned.

Any thoughts on a Seagate 7200.9 or .8 series 200 to 300gb drive? (I've
heard of a bad batch of 250's from one source.)

Ready but wary to spend.

Mikey

 

[Rod Speed]

I'm in a frantic panic to purchase a new HDD before christmas,
when all the shops around me seem to close for quite a while.

I have an Gigabyte K8NSC 939 Ultra mobo with ATA and SATA support.

I own a number of ATA drives in other PC's and have
purchased a couple of Seagate 7200.9's recently for
their extremely quiet, and seemingly cool operation.

Those are going thru a bad patch at the moment
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=1733836
and Samsung is both quieter and cooler too.

I'm looking at purchasing a 200 to 300gb drive but could settle for a 160.

This machine is used for surfing, office app's and some gaming.

I'm concerned that these large hard drives may suffer lag
or slower performance than smaller or smaller/ata drives.
Nope.

The weak SATA connectors are a little concerning,

Yeah, that stinks IMO. Not clear where that's
up to, which manufacturers have fixed that.

though I've heard of 'click connect' connectors?

I much prefer reliability over extreme performance

Yeah, me too, drive failure is a pain in the arse
even with full backups. Boot drive failure in spades.

and I'd like a cooler drive overall.

Yep, me too. And quiet too.

Are SATA drives less reliable overall than ATA drives?

Yes, particularly in that connector area.

I've had WD's fail on me in the past in sitatuions of
extreme heat, though my room is now air-conditioned.

Any thoughts on a Seagate 7200.9 or .8 series 200 to 300gb drive?
(I've heard of a bad batch of 250's from one source.)

Yeah, I'd avoid all the Seagates myself currently.

Ready but wary to spend.

I've gone with the Samsungs, no regrets. Can be a bit harder
to find tho. Complete yawn for me, I buy drives online.

 

[J. Clarke]

Hi

I'm in a frantic panic to purchase a new HDD before christmas, when all
the shops around me seem to close for quite a while.

I have an Gigabyte K8NSC 939 Ultra mobo with ATA and SATA support.

I own a number of ATA drives in other PC's and have purchased a couple of
Seagate 7200.9's recently for their extremely quiet, and seemingly cool
operation.

I'm looking at purchasing a 200 to 300gb drive but could settle for a 160.

This machine is used for surfing, office app's and some gaming.

I'm concerned that these large hard drives may suffer lag or slower
performance than smaller or smaller/ata drives.

Why would that be? Higher areal density all else being equal translates to
higher transfer rates. Latency and the rest will be unchanged, although
with narrower tracks the track-to-track seek time may be improved for
sequential transfers.

The weak SATA connectors are a little concerning, though I've heard of
'click connect' connectors?

They're a bad design not because they pull out but because they can't take
any side force to speak of--pieces come off. Once connected and with the
case closed they cause few problems.

I much prefer reliability over extreme performance and I'd like a cooler
drive overall.

Are SATA drives less reliable overall than ATA drives?

Mechanically they are the same for the most part, since it's the mechanicals
that usually fail the reliability is pretty much the same.

I've had WD's fail on me in the past in sitatuions of extreme heat, though
my room is now air-conditioned.

Any thoughts on a Seagate 7200.9 or .8 series 200 to 300gb drive? (I've
heard of a bad batch of 250's from one source.)

Everybody makes a bad disk now and then. Seagates have done fine for me.

 

[Curious George]

I'm concerned that these large hard drives may suffer lag or slower
performance than smaller or smaller/ata drives.

Just the opposite.

The weak SATA connectors are a little concerning, though I've heard of
'click connect' connectors?

Others will disagree but IMHO the standard SATA connectors are
perfectly fine unless you are a klutz or constant tinkerer.

I much prefer reliability over extreme performance and I'd like a cooler
drive overall.

Than interface is not a consideration

Are SATA drives less reliable overall than ATA drives?

No. The only consideration really is if you're an uncoordinated
tinkerer or have a rats net of cables in the case. Even then don't
write off SATA as a whole completely; If you were looking at hot-swap
caddies, for example - the standard cable connector's reliability
becomes basically a non issue.

I've had WD's fail on me in the past in sitatuions of extreme heat, though
my room is now air-conditioned.

Any thoughts on a Seagate 7200.9 or .8 series 200 to 300gb drive? (I've
heard of a bad batch of 250's from one source.)

No complaints from me (either interface) not even about the Seagate
SATA connectors.

Ready but wary to spend.

Just get whatever model's cheapest. Doesn't sound like any $$
premium, esp for SATA, will do anything for you. Check the
reliability survey @ storagereview.com if you want some anecdotal
numbers to chew on.

Mikey

Georgey

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Why would that be?

Higher areal density

No, sector density.

all else being equal translates to higher transfer rates.

Latency and the rest will be unchanged,

Nonsense.
Higher track density (not to confuse with sector density) results in slower seeks
since you can't seek as agressively as with wider tracks and track distances.

although with narrower tracks the track-to-track seek time may be improved for
sequential transfers.

Has nothing to do with that and doesn't make sense.
If that were the case then bigger drives would also seek faster than smaller drives.
The track difference and head settling time are compensated in the track skew.