Seagate Barracuda

[Rod Speed]

Why are some Seagate Barracuda's twice as expensive
per gigabyte than other similar models of Barracuda?

Likely just some runout/rebate effect.

Does it mean the more expensive ones are more robust and
built better, thereby being less susceptible to bad blocks?

Nope, just that some of the barras are obsolete and being runout.

For example one retailer sells a 160-Gig Seagate Barracuda hard
disk for half the price per Gig than another retailer (about 50 cents
per gig; --> total $85 for 160-Gig). The other retailer sells an
80-Gig Barracuda (half the size) for $1 per gig; --> total $80 for
80-Gigs.

Here are the model numbers:

7200.7 ST3160021A __160GB__ Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive
(160 gigs Selling for $85)

ST380013ARK Internal Barracuda 7200 RPM __80 GB__ Ultra ATA/100
Hard Drive (80 gigs Selling for $80.)

I'm thinking about buying the 80-gig even though it's
virtually the same price as the 160-gig, hoping that it's
better made since more expensive per gigabyte??

Dud assumption.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some ****wit pseudokraut claiming to be
Folkert Rienstra <[email protected]>
wrote just the pathetic excuse for a troll
that any 2 year old could leave for dead.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

What precisely do you mean by "it"? The old failed PSU - an Antec Truepower
380W less than 18 months old? The Motherboard which is now working
perfectly?

Obviously "that" what the "in _really_ bad shape" was referred to in an earlier
paragraph, the one re-introduced above, which you conveniently had to snip (no such
snipping in your original post) in order to be able to pretend not to understand.

I was obviously mocking the other John.

Whoa, you even went sofar as to remove J. Clarke from the attribution list.
Now who are you calling a troll, TROLL.

Contrary to your earlier assertion, I would say that it is clear
that YOU are the troll here.

If you feel that I called you a troll then maybe that is because deep down
inside even you yourself think that you are one, because I certainly didn't.
I do now.

 

[J. Clarke]

Why are some Seagate Barracuda's twice as expensive per
gigabyte than other similar models of Barracuda? Does it mean
the more expensive ones are more robust and built better, thereby
being less susceptible to bad blocks?

For example one retailer sells a 160-Gig Seagate Barracuda hard
disk for half the price per Gig than another retailer (about 50 cents
per gig; --> total $85 for 160-Gig). The other retailer sells an 80-Gig
Barracuda (half the size) for $1 per gig; --> total $80 for 80-Gigs.

Here are the model numbers:

7200.7 ST3160021A __160GB__ Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive
(160 gigs Selling for $85)

AND

ST380013ARK Internal Barracuda 7200 RPM __80 GB__ Ultra ATA/100 Hard
Drive (80 gigs Selling for $80.)

I'm thinking about buying the 80-gig even though it's virtually the
same price as the 160-gig, hoping that it's better made since more
expensive per gigabyte??

In the particular case you mention they are the same drive except that the
160 has 2 platters and the 80 has one. You'll see no difference in
performance, reliability, or build quality between them.

You'll find that drives drop out of the bottom of the market at around the
$90 price point--the actual cost of the additional parts to add the second
platter is negligible compared to the cost of screwing the thing together,
putting it in a box, and delivering it.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

''badblocks'' is a
relict from an earlier time when HDDs did not hide defect sectors
from the user. As much other Unix tools it is very old. Today it
rarely serves a purpose.

I disagree. Since it twiddles every bit of every byte of every sector
of the drive (by writing 0x55, 0xAA, 0xFF then 0x00), it provides a good
confidence/burn-in test before committing data to a new or used drive.

 

[J. Clarke]

I disagree. Since it twiddles every bit of every byte of every sector
of the drive (by writing 0x55, 0xAA, 0xFF then 0x00), it provides a good
confidence/burn-in test before committing data to a new or used drive.

Except that any drive today is going to be in _really_ bad shape before that
kind of test shows any errors. If badblocks finds errors then the drive
should be trashed immediately as its sparing is used up, but if it doesn't,
that doesn't mean that one should have "confidence" in the drive. As for
burn-in, the likelihood that a drive is going to fail in the time required
to write and read four patterns is pretty small even if it's slated for
infant mortality.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Except that any drive today is going to be in _really_ bad shape before that
kind of test shows any errors.

If badblocks finds errors then the drive should be trashed immediately
as its sparing is used up, but if it doesn't,

And there that stupid troll does it again.
He obviously does it on purpose now.

that doesn't mean that one should have "confidence" in the drive.

Right, better not use any at all.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Except that any drive today is going to be in _really_ bad shape before that
kind of test shows any errors.

Exactly. Today you run a long SMART self-test instead and interpret
the results manually.

Arno

If badblocks finds errors then the drive
should be trashed immediately as its sparing is used up, but if it doesn't,
that doesn't mean that one should have "confidence" in the drive. As for
burn-in, the likelihood that a drive is going to fail in the time required
to write and read four patterns is pretty small even if it's slated for
infant mortality.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

For that it is actually a relic.
There are other programs for that that do a better job.

Exactly.

Clueless. As the other John showed, a bad powersupply can show the same
symptoms and the drive is perfectly fine as soon as the powersupply issue is
taken care of.

Today you run a long SMART self-test

Which is just a surface scan.

instead and interpret the results manually.

And if you run the manufacturers test you don't even have to do that.

Arno

[snip]