Barracuda 7200.12

[Ruger22C]

Does anyone have one? May I see your HD Tune performance, please!? I want to compare it to my new AALS.
Specifically, the single-platter 500 barracuda.

Thank you!

 

[Rubycon]

Yeah I have one - just got it unboxed and it's thin as a rail.

Lemme see if I can get a screen shot in a bit.

 

[Ruger22C]

That's cool.
My black came in today.
It only gave me 8mB average over my old drive, a 32mb PR 500gB (two platter I imagine.). 🙁

 

[Ruger22C]

http://www.itjustworksbetter.c...te-720012-500gb-drive/

Found one.
This makes me Very angry.
I didn't know a single 500 existed... and it was cheaper.

**edit**

Guess the F3 1TB is even faster! around 112mB ....
*tears*

 

[Quiksilver]

Just which "AALS" drive did you buy?

500GB = 2x 250GB
640GB = 2x 320GB
750GB = 3x250GB...

Edit:

Also the drive that article you linked is deactivated on newegg. Here's the most recent revision:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822148395

Review of that drive:
http://www.au-ja.de/review-seagate-st3500418as-1.phtml

(Click the language flags in the upper-right to translate it)

Another Edit:
Here's the 500GB Samsung F3 drive that single platter...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16822152181

HD Tune results for the samsung drive:
http://dyski.cdrinfo.pl/benchmark/Samsung-HD502HJ-1008/

use google translate as its polish...

 

[Blazer7]

Which one would be better for a 2 disk raid 0 setup? 7200.12 or WD black? So far the AALS is my primary choice because of warranty and access time.

 

[Ruger22C]

Quik, I have the 640.

 

[Ruger22C]

Blazer, it depends if you want to move amounts of data quickly, i.e. starting a game / opening large videos, starting windows etc.

Or, if you are concerned about how smooth a game plays once it's already loaded, get AALS - and in today's games/computers, I'm not sure that makes any difference, since we often have more RAM than is the total size of the game's install.

I'd get the 7200.12 over the AALS, and I'd get the F3 over the 7200.12.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Ruger22C
Blazer, it depends if you want to move amounts of data quickly, i.e. starting a game / opening large videos, starting windows etc.

Or, if you are concerned about how smooth a game plays once it's already loaded, get AALS - and in today's games/computers, I'm not sure that makes any difference, since we often have more RAM than is the total size of the game's install.

I'd get the 7200.12 over the AALS, and I'd get the F3 over the 7200.12.

I got 2 spinpont F3s the last they were on sale at the egg ($44.99), I am banging my head for not getting more... It it noticeably faster than my Desktar 7K1000.b, and the deskstar was by itself noticeably faster than the WD AAKS (500 GB blue) Add the fact that is very quiet and cool ruuning, and you got a winner. :thumbsup:

 

[Russwinters]

The brand new AAKS 500GB blue drives are single platter, two heads, and are surprisingly fast.

Had a few in the office for some QA testing, etc and they are pulling 150mb/s sequential

pretty impressive



note: not all the 5000AAKS blue drives are single platter yet, there is likely still some of the double platter in stock, i will try to get the suffix code for you guys

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: Blazer7
Which one would be better for a 2 disk raid 0 setup? 7200.12 or WD black? So far the AALS is my primary choice because of warranty and access time.

RAID 0 approximately doubles throughput, but does nothing for access time. Performance scales best on drives with good access time since throughput will already be quite good on RAID 0.

 

[Blazer7]

Thanks for the input guys. The F3 is now officially on my contender list.

So far I didn't had much luck finding any trustworthy performance numbers for any of these drives in raid 0, so, if anyone has any performance numbers please post.

Any and all help will be greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by: Concillian

Originally posted by: Blazer7
Which one would be better for a 2 disk raid 0 setup? 7200.12 or WD black? So far the AALS is my primary choice because of warranty and access time.

RAID 0 approximately doubles throughput, but does nothing for access time. Performance scales best on drives with good access time since throughput will already be quite good on RAID 0.

Throughput is not doubled but it is greatly improved and this is for a 2 disk array only. The more disks you use in a raid 0 array, performance scaling in general gets worse. It's true that latencies and seek times of a raid 0 array surpass those of a single drive by a good margin and arrays consisting of many or slow disks, suffer a bigger penalty but in my case overall access time is not the only factor to watch for.

I'm looking to build a 2 disk array that will be used for storing some very big databases and most of them consist of pretty big files. That means that I'll be using a bigger than normal stripe size which also means that the overall latencies/seek times won't play such a big role.

So far the AALS has an advantage over the 7200.12 and the F3 and that's because of its bigger cache which is just another factor to watch for.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: Blazer7


Throughput is not doubled but it is greatly improved and this is for a 2 disk array only.

Hence the word approximately placed before the word doubles. I'm surprised this is considered an imprecise enough explanation that it warrants a backhanded comment from someone asking assistance. :disgust:

 

[Blazer7]

Originally posted by: Concillian

Originally posted by: Blazer7


Throughput is not doubled but it is greatly improved and this is for a 2 disk array only.

Hence the word approximately placed before the word doubles. I'm surprised this is considered an imprecise enough explanation that it warrants a backhanded comment from someone asking assistance. :disgust:

Sorry that you saw it this way. I was only agreeing with you and pointing to the fact that the more disks you use performance scaling gets worse. I guess I could have expressed myself better.