Seagate ST3320613AS vs ST3320620NS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)
  • Start date Start date
which one is better?
On the Seagate site, the "20" appears to have slightly better seek times
than the "13".
Click to expand...

Both of them using the one-platter for 320G design?

I am using two ST3250620AS in RAID 0 configuration. Wonder
whether they could make the case cooler... :)

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 19:14:01 up 4:54 0 users load average: 1.00 1.00 1.00
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
Both of them using the one-platter for 320G design?
Click to expand...
I am using two ST3250620AS in RAID 0 configuration. Wonder
whether they could make the case cooler... :)
Click to expand...

I think the way to make a RAID0 cooler is to move to a single disk ;-)

Arno
 
What about the transfer rate? Single disk faster?
Click to expand...

No. But unless you have mostly linear reads, and a well-tuned
system, RAID0 is not that much faster anyways.

Arno
 
Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k) said:
which one is better?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 15:02:01 up 42 min 0 users load average: 1.00 1.00 0.91
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
Click to expand...


They are both appalling drives, with shocking failure rates - as are
practically any new drives shipping from Seagate.

Rather choose Samsung or Hitachi - just about anything other than
Seagate.


Duncan
 
Previously Odiferous said:
They are both appalling drives, with shocking failure rates - as are
practically any new drives shipping from Seagate.
Click to expand...
Rather choose Samsung or Hitachi - just about anything other than
Seagate.
Click to expand...

So it is definitive by now. I have to say I am not surprised at
all.

Arno
 
No. But unless you have mostly linear reads, and a well-tuned
system, RAID0 is not that much faster anyways.
Click to expand...

Well-tuned in what sense? There are not much things you
could do with hard disks these days...Are you talking
about expensive real hardware RAID 0 cards?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 10:21:01 up 20:01 1 user load average: 2.69 2.64 3.08
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
Well-tuned in what sense? There are not much things you
could do with hard disks these days...Are you talking
about expensive real hardware RAID 0 cards?
Click to expand...

No. But two modern drisks can easily saturate PCI or slower
chipset-internal busses.

Arno
 
No. But two modern drisks can easily saturate PCI or slower
chipset-internal busses.
Click to expand...

You meant those RAID chipset offered by Intel and Nvidia
are using PCIe nus?

I am using a nForce 570 Ultra.

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 19:13:01 up 1 day 4:54 1 user load average: 3.61 3.46 3.42
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
You meant those RAID chipset offered by Intel and Nvidia
are using PCIe nus?
Click to expand...

PCIe would be ok.
I am using a nForce 570 Ultra.
Click to expand...

No idea what it does for RAID1. I am just saying that
throughput is overrated in many cases and that RAID0
is only a good choice in specific situations (lots of
large files with an access pattern that reads large chunks).
Also RAID0 doubles the failure probability of the individual
disks.

Arno
 
PCIe would be ok.

I don't know whether those cheap RAID circuit
is using the PCIe bus at maximum speed... :)
No idea what it does for RAID1. I am just saying that
throughput is overrated in many cases and that RAID0
is only a good choice in specific situations (lots of
large files with an access pattern that reads large chunks).
Click to expand...

Then I need to setup my stuff using a single disk
to find this out...
Also RAID0 doubles the failure probability of the individual
disks.
Click to expand...

Always back up your stuff. Fault-tolerance is a lie. ;)

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 19:36:01 up 1 day 5:17 1 user load average: 3.35 3.46 3.44
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
I don't know whether those cheap RAID circuit
is using the PCIe bus at maximum speed... :)
Click to expand...
Then I need to setup my stuff using a single disk
to find this out...
Click to expand...

Do that.
Always back up your stuff. Fault-tolerance is a lie. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, no. But it primarily reduces expected recovery time,
it does not protect gainst total failure.

Arno
 
Then I need to setup my stuff using a single disk
Do that.
Click to expand...

later... later... when there is a cheap
15k rpm 500G SATA disks...:)
Well, no. But it primarily reduces expected recovery time,
it does not protect gainst total failure.
Click to expand...

At server level, yes. At disk level.. um.... for the poor,
maybe.

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 20:05:01 up 1 day 5:46 1 user load average: 3.39 3.40 3.39
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
later... later... when there is a cheap
15k rpm 500G SATA disks...:)
;-)
Click to expand...
At server level, yes. At disk level.. um.... for the poor,
maybe.
Click to expand...

I went to RAID1 after I had to restore from backup for the
second time. Of course I did not have any disk failure since
then, so it obviously works! ;-)=)

Arno
 
Squeeze said:
Arno Wagner wrote in news:[email protected]


You mean, Odoriferous 180 degree turn on Seagate is now completed?
Click to expand...


What can you even pretend to know about this subject? From my
standpoint, it is clear you have no idea whatsoever.

Perhaps you should consider the power of thought before posting your
misinformed messages.



Duncan
 
I went to RAID1 after I had to restore from backup for the
second time. Of course I did not have any disk failure since
then, so it obviously works! ;-)=)
Click to expand...

Don't forget to back up the stuff periodically.

For, *NOT ONE* hard disk died before I replaced them
(since my first Seagate ST-251). Might be I am too
lucky. :)

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 14:16:01 up 1 day 23:57 1 user load average: 3.27 3.26 3.29
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
Back
Top