• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Diamond max 10 or hitachi t7k250??

J

jimgeagea

Member
hi guys, i am new to this forum,
i have DFI lan party ultra D nforce4, the new AMD 4000+(90 nm)(coming just after 2 weeks) , 1gb kingston hyperx khx3200ulk2, ati x850xt,

still missing the hdd's, i've been reading lot of reviews and i am into 2 choices:
2*Maxtor Diamond Max 10 300gb
or 3*Hitachi t7k250(and not 7k250)

i am seeking best overall result, mainly speed in accessing files, copying, doing bunch of stuff together, loading games....

and i am confused between what to get and which will be better..
what do u think guys?
 
hey, thanks,
well it's not the hitachi 7k250 that i am looking for, i am looking for the t7k250 and it is new satall hdd inerface from hitachi
 
The new SATAII interface only means that the SATA connector on the back of the HDD provide more secure mating to the SATA cable plug,

and unless the t7k250 has a higher platter density compared to the 7k250, their transfer rate should be very similar, along with their access times, etc.

 
well exactly, the t7k250 is with 125GB/platter
the 7k250 was only 80GB/platter data densities.

so there is a big difference
 
In that case, the t7k250 with 125GB/platter density may have a slightly higher transfer rate compared to the Maxtor Diamond Max10, which has 100GB/platter density,

while retaining most of the 7k250's other physical characteristics.
 
If I had to choose between these two, I'd definitely get the Hitachi - no Maxtors for me. I own 2x120gb 7K250s and am happy with their performance. However, if you left the choice to me, I'd probably choose a Seagate - it is widely acknowledged that they make the most reliable HDDs.
 
Originally posted by: jimgeagea
so? what do u think? should i get the t7k250 or go to buy dm10?
Click to expand...

Well, I'd probably choose the t7k250 in this instance,

and when it comes to reliability, both my Quantum LM (Quantum was bought by Maxtor),

and my IBM GXP (dubbed the "Deathstar" by some people) are still functioning reliably.

 
I would go with the T7K250. Of course I am biased as I have 3 sitting here next to me, waiting for a 6-port SATA raid card to arrive via UPS today. I have had excellent results with the Hitachi drives in the past, have an 80GB SATA as my OS drive in my server which runs 24x7x365. The 3x T7K250s will be for storage in Raid 5, replacing the current 2x WD 250GB SE's in Raid 1.

Here is a small review of the latest drives, including the T7K250: http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-277-1.htm
 
ok, i guess i'll go for the hitachi t7k250, i have DFI lan party ultra-D nforce 4, what is the best way to install them?? should i raid them? (if yes tell me how please and why, and if not tell me why)
thanks
 
There is no Raid 0 of 3 drives. That is called Raid 5 🙂

What are you looking to do with all the drives? I would suggest 2 drives, one for the OS, and a second for apps and files.
 
Hmm I read somewhere that in RAID 0, the maximum number of HDs are set by the controllers, the minimum of which is two.
 
can u give me an idea about RAIDing? how to do it? i know that there are 5 kinds or Raid, can u describe them? which one is better for performance and speed?.....
 
Originally posted by: Promethply
Hmm I read somewhere that in RAID 0, the maximum number of HDs are set by the controllers, the minimum of which is two.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you are correct. Problem is, the more drives you add to Raid 0, the more you risk losing data. If 1 drive crashes then all the data will be gone.

With Raid 5, there is a parity block that allows you to recover if one of the drives crash.
 
Originally posted by: mamisano
Originally posted by: Promethply
Hmm I read somewhere that in RAID 0, the maximum number of HDs are set by the controllers, the minimum of which is two.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you are correct. Problem is, the more drives you add to Raid 0, the more you risk losing data. If 1 drive crashes then all the data will be gone.

With Raid 5, there is a parity block that allows you to recover if one of the drives crash.
Click to expand...

You're right, RAID 5 is much more preferable to RAID 0, which does not allow for any redundancy 🙂
 
hmmmm, what about getting 3*DM10 250gb ??? so i can take advantage of the 16 mb buffer?
or do u think the t7k250 is faster??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top