HD upgrade.

[Fantrace]

My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as part
of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a 40GB
Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of my
system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A few
questions, if I may, to help me decide:

What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
better than the rest or any to avoid?

Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?

Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
is going in a biggish desktop case.

Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?

The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as I
can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice. That's
about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option locally is a
Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several possibles inbetween.

 

[Tod]

How old is the motherboard, what is the date on its bios ?
Staying under 137GB would be safe

 

[GTS]

www.storagereview.com great source of info for HDD purchasers - the Hitachi
7K250 is top of their leaderboard at present for non-SATA drives.

 

[wieniuszka]

What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
better than the rest or any to avoid?

Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?

Definietely. I've just bought a Samsung drive based on fluid bearrings
(SP1614N) and I can hardly tell if it's on or off (as far as the noise is
concerned of course; it does his job well :> )

Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
is going in a biggish desktop case.

Generally 7200 rpm drives are said to generate much more heat than the 5400
ones. My samsung (after performing some large read/write operations and
with the fan switched off) has warms up to 41 C so the situation isn't
critical (normally I use the fan, and the temperature is generally below
28C)

Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?

Yes, without any doubts. I'd even say, that it's more important than the
difference in capacity (I mean it's better to buy 120G with 8MB cache than
160G with 2MB). It's the matter of comfort of everyday work.

The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as
I can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice.
That's about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option
locally is a Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several
possibles inbetween.

I think, that unless you're going to _really_ make use of such big
capacities, you should rather stick to things like bearrings and cache than
to the capacity (it really doesn't matter for normal user if he has 120 or
160G - it'll take much time before he suffers from lack of space).
Best regards and have a nice day

 

[Arno Wagner]

My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as part
of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a 40GB
Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of my
system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A few
questions, if I may, to help me decide:

What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
better than the rest or any to avoid?

Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?

Yes, massively. Not at first, but FDBs don't get lounder.

Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
is going in a biggish desktop case.

You should have airflow around the disk. If it is only this single
disk in the case and it is firmly attached to metal sides it may
be o.k. without airflow.

Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?

Depends on the OS. I see no improvement at all with Linux. But it
seems the "best" OS has substandard disk buffering/caching and
people see faster performance there. All kinds of strange
explanations around for that. None that make sense, except that
the people in Redmond did not get it right.

One other aspect is that if you buy Maxtor, you will get 3 years
warranty only if you get 8MB cache and a disk at least 120GB in size.
But since you get at least the 2 years EU standard warranty on any
drive, this is not so important.

The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as I
can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice. That's
about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option locally is a
Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several possibles inbetween.

I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not explained
the series of failed disks ("deathstar"). Until they do I do not
trust them one bit. And ball bearings will likely get lound.
If you care strongly about noise, get Samsung. Other than that
both Seagate and Maxtor should be fine. Both have their warrany
centers in the U.K., so no advantage there either.

Arno

 

[J. Clarke]

Yes, massively. Not at first, but FDBs don't get lounder.


You should have airflow around the disk. If it is only this single
disk in the case and it is firmly attached to metal sides it may
be o.k. without airflow.


Depends on the OS. I see no improvement at all with Linux. But it
seems the "best" OS has substandard disk buffering/caching and
people see faster performance there. All kinds of strange
explanations around for that. None that make sense, except that
the people in Redmond did not get it right.

One other aspect is that if you buy Maxtor, you will get 3 years
warranty only if you get 8MB cache and a disk at least 120GB in size.
But since you get at least the 2 years EU standard warranty on any
drive, this is not so important.


I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not explained
the series of failed disks ("deathstar").

Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have also not yet
convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me either that the law firm
hasn't come up with a case or they haven't gotten enough takers on their
class-action suit to make it worthwhile to go forward. Since the Fujitsu
suit that was initiated about the same time went to completion a couple of
years ago that seems pretty convincing evidence that there isn't any case
there.

Until they do I do not trust them one bit. And ball bearings will likely
get lound.

Which is why Hitachi hasn't used them in ages.

If you care strongly about noise, get Samsung. Other than that
both Seagate and Maxtor should be fine. Both have their warrany
centers in the U.K., so no advantage there either.

My Seagates make no more noise than my Samsungs. My Hitachis are just as
quiet except for a very soft kind of "catcall" they make when they
recalibrate, which happens maybe a couple of times a day.

 

[OCZ Guy]

You meany FEED the kitty its hungry and a saucer of milk, iam getting
a kitty soon as well

A 120gig SATA kitty

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
better than the rest or any to avoid?

Western Digital is really bad.
I have three WD hard disks (40 GB, 120 GB, 250 GB), and each one of
them is far noisier than my Maxtor 120 GB.

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have also not yet
convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me either that the law firm
hasn't come up with a case or they haven't gotten enough takers on their
class-action suit to make it worthwhile to go forward.

Well, maybe IBM disks are reliable, maybe they're not, but there is a
doubt, and lots of other brands to choose instead.

 

[Mark: csiphs]

Well, maybe IBM disks are reliable, maybe they're not, but
there is a doubt, and lots of other brands to choose instead.

That sums it up nicely.

Personally I think the case against IBM is getting stronger.
http://www.sheller.com/PDF/2004.01.09_Maximum_P1.pdf

Furthermore, the very way IBM handles the tidal wave of complaints
about the Deskstar 75GXP (60GXP too?) was an example of
disrespecting consumers with a problem.

In addition IBM was most probably *knowingly* shipping duff
drives. http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/6292

 

[Mark: csiphs]

Yes, without any doubts. I'd even say, that it's more
important than the difference in capacity (I mean it's better
to buy 120G with 8MB cache than 160G with 2MB). It's the
matter of comfort of everyday work.

But if the drive was just used to store data which was used only
occassionally then the reverse choice might be better.

 

[Mike Walsh]

I have one of these drives and it is the quietest part of my system, but my other two drives are SCSI and I have two noisy fans to keep things cool.

Depends on the OS. I see no improvement at all with Linux. But it
seems the "best" OS has substandard disk buffering/caching and
people see faster performance there. All kinds of strange
explanations around for that. None that make sense, except that
the people in Redmond did not get it right.

The Microsoft people have decided that an OS should have a big read cache but no write cache. The advantage of having a larger cache on the disk controllers is that part of it is write cache.

--

When replying by Email include NewSGrouP (case sensitive) in Subject

Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

Personally I think the case against IBM is getting stronger.

And after all, IBM did get rid of their "hard disk" section.

 

[kony]

My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it, as part
of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing drive is a 40GB
Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the noisiest part of my
system so looking for one that is significantly quieter if possible. A few
questions, if I may, to help me decide:

What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
better than the rest or any to avoid?

All have decreased noise levels a lot. There are still some
older tech drives in the channels that have ball-bearings- avoid
them.

Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?
Exactly


Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking for? It
is going in a biggish desktop case.

With any drive you choose, make provisions for cooling it,
whether that be a group of holes or open area for passive intake
or an active fan pushing air though the drive bay. The amount of
airflow needed to cool rest of system exceeds what it is
necessary to cool the drive(s), providing they aren't stacked
directly atop each other, that there's at least (roughly) 10 mm
between them and airflow though that gap. With this cooling
strategy any drive will stay cool enough except in extreme high
ambient temp enviroments, where you'd have other component
cooling problems before the drives were a factor.

Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?

Yes, because that premium usually is a small difference, but the
performance gains are proven.

The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB / 8M
drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but as far as I
can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid bearing which,
depending on the answer to the above, may not be such a good choice. That's
about the top end of what I want to pay. The cheapest option locally is a
Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and there are several possibles inbetween.

Many people jump to conclusions of drive "quality" based on
failure(s) they had in past models. One thing we can be sure of
is that if a drive had a true flaw signficant enough to deviate
from typical failure rates, the company will be aware of it and
correct problem... if a different model had problems it is quite
unlikely to have a bearing on problems generations later. We
cannot predict reliability or lifespan relative to different
makes and models except in retrospect, long after those models
aren't current. Choose whichever seems to fit your needs based
on features offered, including warranty.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Arno Wagner wrote:
[...]

I would stay away from IBM.Hitachi. Tehy still have not explained
the series of failed disks ("deathstar").

Those claiming that there is a series of failed disks have also not yet
convinced a judge of the fact. That tells me either that the law firm
hasn't come up with a case or they haven't gotten enough takers on their
class-action suit to make it worthwhile to go forward. Since the Fujitsu
suit that was initiated about the same time went to completion a couple of
years ago that seems pretty convincing evidence that there isn't any case
there.

Well, yes. But since I ever had 5 hdds fail in 20 years of computing
and all three of the three "deathstars" I owned among them, I feel
rather entitled to this opinion. Of course it is just that: An opinion.

Which is why Hitachi hasn't used them in ages.

My Seagates make no more noise than my Samsungs. My Hitachis are just as
quiet except for a very soft kind of "catcall" they make when they
recalibrate, which happens maybe a couple of times a day.

My seagates are a bit louder. But they are also a bit older.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

Arno Wagner wrote: [...]

Depends on the OS. I see no improvement at all with Linux. But it
seems the "best" OS has substandard disk buffering/caching and
people see faster performance there. All kinds of strange
explanations around for that. None that make sense, except that
the people in Redmond did not get it right.

The Microsoft people have decided that an OS should have a big read
cache but no write cache. The advantage of having a larger cache on
the disk controllers is that part of it is write cache.

That would explain it. Linux (being a server OS) sees this differently
and does extensive write-buffering. For protection against data loss
on power failure it uses journalling or an UPS. For a server OS
this makes eminently sense. For a desktop OS it depends. Of course
having 8 MB write buffer in the disk gives you a mixed solution
on MS, that neither has the full speed increase of OS write buffering
nor the added safety of no write buffering. Hmmm.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

That sums it up nicely.

Yes , it does. And I admit freely that I am still pissed
at IBM for not admitting anything while I had to do
emergency moves of my installation to other disks.

Personally I think the case against IBM is getting stronger.
http://www.sheller.com/PDF/2004.01.09_Maximum_P1.pdf

Furthermore, the very way IBM handles the tidal wave of complaints
about the Deskstar 75GXP (60GXP too?)

Yes. 2 dead 75GPX, one deas 60GXP here. 100% out of 100%.

was an example of disrespecting consumers with a problem.

In addition IBM was most probably *knowingly* shipping duff
drives. http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/6292

I think it was a relatively small engineering failure that
met with a huge management failure. If they had admitted
the problem and told me how they fixed it, I would still
buy IBM disks. I rather liked them until the problem.

Arno

 

[CJT]

Yes , it does. And I admit freely that I am still pissed
at IBM for not admitting anything while I had to do
emergency moves of my installation to other disks.




Yes. 2 dead 75GPX, one deas 60GXP here. 100% out of 100%.




I think it was a relatively small engineering failure that
met with a huge management failure. If they had admitted
the problem and told me how they fixed it, I would still
buy IBM disks. I rather liked them until the problem.

Arno

I still believe there was a problem with them, and I know
that a failure of one caused me problems. Until then I was
buying them regularly and recommending them to others;
no more.

 

[S.Heenan]

My HD is very nearly full, so looking for a 120G-160G to replace it,
as part of a general upgrade of my desktop machine. The existing
drive is a 40GB Maxtor 5400rpm, about 3 years old and is easily the
noisiest part of my system so looking for one that is significantly
quieter if possible. A few questions, if I may, to help me decide:

What are currently available drives like for noise - any manufacturers
better than the rest or any to avoid?

Are these newish fluid bearings drives an improvement in this regard?

Is heat likely to be a problem with the sort of drive I am looking
for? It is going in a biggish desktop case.

Is it worth paying the premium for an 8M cache rather than 2M?

The best apparent value from my local vendor is an IBM/Hitachi 160GB
/ 8M drive which is the same price (£62) as a Seagate 120GB / 8M, but
as far as I can find out, the IBM is has a ball rather than fluid
bearing which, depending on the answer to the above, may not be such
a good choice. That's about the top end of what I want to pay. The
cheapest option locally is a Maxtor 120GB / 2M for about £50 and
there are several possibles inbetween.

Seagate is known for quiet, cool, hard drives, both IDE and SCSI.
http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/hardware/storage/productView.htm?quicklinx=2FZV

The WD 1200JB, not BB or AB, would be my second choice, given your criteria.
http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/hardware/storage/productView.htm?quicklinx=18HF

Sticking with a 120GB HDD will save any hurdles if your motherboard does not
support 48-bit LBA.

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

Sticking with a 120GB HDD will save any hurdles if your motherboard does not
support 48-bit LBA.

However, 120 GB is not much, and a IDE controller (like the Promise
Ultra133 TX2) is rather cheap.
Note that it's highly advised to break a more-than-120GB hard disk
into several less-than-120GB partitions.