Serial-ATA hard drive

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I've narrowed down my search for a SATA drive to the following:
(80GB, 7200rpm, 8MB cache serial-ATA)

Western Digital WD800JD
Samsung SP0812C
Seagate ST380023AS

Anyone recommend against a certain brand? I couldn't care about a 1%
performance increase/decrease, just reliability for my data. I've
heard that the Samsung drives have pretty good reliably for a relative
newcomer to the game too...

TIA everyone!
S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

<skydigger123> wrote in message
news:i11ue0djh7qga3hsp8gjii9go2235eh01q@4ax.com...
> I've narrowed down my search for a SATA drive to the following:
> (80GB, 7200rpm, 8MB cache serial-ATA)
>
> Western Digital WD800JD
> Samsung SP0812C
> Seagate ST380023AS

You missed the best one:
WDC Raptor
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=65

> Anyone recommend against a certain brand? I couldn't care about a 1%
> performance increase/decrease, just reliability for my data.

How about the 30% performance increase the Raptor will give over the others.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Not really concerneda bout performance... but if the Raptor seems to
be a reliable unit, then I'd buy based on that factor. I"m by no
means a power user at all, just a ... hmmm paranoid user!

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:03:32 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
><skydigger123> wrote in message
>news:i11ue0djh7qga3hsp8gjii9go2235eh01q@4ax.com...
>> I've narrowed down my search for a SATA drive to the following:
>> (80GB, 7200rpm, 8MB cache serial-ATA)
>>
>> Western Digital WD800JD
>> Samsung SP0812C
>> Seagate ST380023AS
>
>You missed the best one:
>WDC Raptor
>http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=65
>
>> Anyone recommend against a certain brand? I couldn't care about a 1%
>> performance increase/decrease, just reliability for my data.
>
>How about the 30% performance increase the Raptor will give over the others.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:47:20 -0700, skydigger123 wrote:

>I've narrowed down my search for a SATA drive to the following:
>(80GB, 7200rpm, 8MB cache serial-ATA)
>
>Western Digital WD800JD
>Samsung SP0812C
>Seagate ST380023AS

I'd steer clear of WD for now, there seems to be a few bad drives
lately and I've had major problem with their support when I tried to
get RMA for 200GB that died after only 3 months.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

skydigger123 wrote:

> I've narrowed down my search for a SATA drive to the following:
> (80GB, 7200rpm, 8MB cache serial-ATA)
>
> Western Digital WD800JD
> Samsung SP0812C
> Seagate ST380023AS
>
> Anyone recommend against a certain brand? I couldn't care about a 1%
> performance increase/decrease, just reliability for my data. I've
> heard that the Samsung drives have pretty good reliably for a relative
> newcomer to the game too...

If you want reliability then use a RAID and a backup strategy. The
difference in reliability between brands of drives is negligible compared
to the difference in reliability between a single drive and a redundant
array. And when you're talking about a single drive you may get the brand
and model that is statistically the most reliable on the planet and still
get a bad one.

> TIA everyone!
> S.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:8jmue098kjmgfjek3jj57c7cdmsb8seohm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:47:20 -0700, skydigger123 wrote:
>
> >I've narrowed down my search for a SATA drive to the following:
> >(80GB, 7200rpm, 8MB cache serial-ATA)
> >
> >Western Digital WD800JD
> >Samsung SP0812C
> >Seagate ST380023AS
>
> I'd steer clear of WD for now, there seems to be a few bad drives
> lately

Nonsense, cite a reference.

> and I've had major problem with their support when I tried to
> get RMA for 200GB that died after only 3 months.

Other aren't reporting such.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 04:07:04 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
<ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Nonsense, cite a reference.

My favorite message forum (about 100 regulars, most of them in
Michigan), 8 of them had bad things to say about WD 120/160/200/250 GB
drives. It may be a bad batch in MI but that seems rather high number
for a small group.

I do know their newer "quiet" drives (with the black top cover) are
actually very noisy when they spin up. But once it gets going, you
won't hear anything.

>Other aren't reporting such.

Maybe it's just me then or the support staff I got were in India and
can't understand the problem at all. The HD I had problem with, it
worked fine with the first 100GB but if I try to add more files, the
files starts getting corrupted and even caused the partition to be
lost. I have 2 other 200GB WD drives and they both work fine so it's
not my PC. WD basically told me if their diagnostic software doesn't
find problem, it's not a problem with the HD.

I think thgeir diagnostic software doesn't throughly test the drive,
only check for a few things. If I use scandisk, half of the disk
shows in bad sector. WD won't accept that and insisted my drive is OK
because their diagnostic software didn't find any problem.

When I repartitioned to 2x 100GB, the first partition works fine but
when I add files to the second partition, nothing survives in the
second partition *and* corrupts the first partition! Since then I
left the second one unpartitioned and unformatted.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Impmon <impmon@digi.mon> wrote:

>>Nonsense, cite a reference.
>
> My favorite message forum (about 100 regulars, most of them in
> Michigan), 8 of them had bad things to say about WD
> 120/160/200/250 GB drives. It may be a bad batch in MI but
> that seems rather high number for a small group.
>
> I do know their newer "quiet" drives (with the black top
> cover) are actually very noisy when they spin up. But once it
> gets going, you won't hear anything.

What is the temperature like of the Raptors?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Impmon wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 04:07:04 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
> <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Nonsense, cite a reference.
>
> My favorite message forum (about 100 regulars, most of them in
> Michigan), 8 of them had bad things to say about WD 120/160/200/250 GB
> drives. It may be a bad batch in MI but that seems rather high number
> for a small group.
>
> I do know their newer "quiet" drives (with the black top cover) are
> actually very noisy when they spin up. But once it gets going, you
> won't hear anything.
>
>>Other aren't reporting such.
>
> Maybe it's just me then or the support staff I got were in India and
> can't understand the problem at all. The HD I had problem with, it
> worked fine with the first 100GB but if I try to add more files, the
> files starts getting corrupted and even caused the partition to be
> lost. I have 2 other 200GB WD drives and they both work fine so it's
> not my PC. WD basically told me if their diagnostic software doesn't
> find problem, it's not a problem with the HD.
>
> I think thgeir diagnostic software doesn't throughly test the drive,
> only check for a few things. If I use scandisk, half of the disk
> shows in bad sector. WD won't accept that and insisted my drive is OK
> because their diagnostic software didn't find any problem.
>
> When I repartitioned to 2x 100GB, the first partition works fine but
> when I add files to the second partition, nothing survives in the
> second partition *and* corrupts the first partition! Since then I
> left the second one unpartitioned and unformatted.

Are all the drives on the same host adapter? This is a known problem with
the the Windows XP default ATAPI driver but may not be present with
third-party drivers.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:33:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Are all the drives on the same host adapter? This is a known problem with
>the the Windows XP default ATAPI driver but may not be present with
>third-party drivers.

I tried that bad drive as the only HD in the system, the problem still
persisted. So unless it's an issue with Win XP and one hard drive,
I'm pretty sure that's not it. :/ FWIW I'm not using default XP driver
because a few program are picky and refused to work with XP default
ATAPI driver anyway.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net