• 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.

Is it better to have more platters on a hard drive?

D

DfiDude

Senior member
I see different number of platters and diff gb's per platter. Im wondering if its better to have more platters or less, and if its better to have more gb's per platter. Im trying to decide between the Hitachi T7K250, and the Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS. I dont think 16 mb of cache verses 16 mb's makes a diff right? Well if you guys could comment back and give me some answers that would be great! Thanks!
 
typically, more platters means more can go wrong so you run a slightly higher risk of drive failure and data loss. I don't think there is a significant performance difference between them, but I could very well be wrong on that.
 
Which one from those 2 hard drives do you guys think will last me the longest and will have the least trouble with?
 
Originally posted by: DfiDude
Which one from those 2 hard drives do you guys think will last me the longest and will have the least trouble with?
Click to expand...

You're going to get a ton of differing opinions on that matter. There is really no "best" drive manufacturer; everyone has had good and bad luck with each.

Ultimately, I'd say pick whichever is cheaper. I like both Hitachi and WD, and I know some Hitachi drives have bested WD's in performance tests. Really though, you can't go wrong with either.
 
those are desktop drives, right?

check storagereview.com and see if both have been reviewed.

in general more gb/platter is better, though according to storagereview the 7200.8 isn't very fast, though it has a 1/3 increase in density than its competitors. i'd really like to see it with NCQ and a truly multitasked benchmark. actually, i guess a multiuser file server benchmark would be sufficient.
 
Originally posted by: TankGuys
Originally posted by: DfiDude
Which one from those 2 hard drives do you guys think will last me the longest and will have the least trouble with?
Click to expand...

You're going to get a ton of differing opinions on that matter. There is really no "best" drive manufacturer; everyone has had good and bad luck with each.

Ultimately, I'd say pick whichever is cheaper. I like both Hitachi and WD, and I know some Hitachi drives have bested WD's in performance tests. Really though, you can't go wrong with either.
Click to expand...

He is completely correct.

usually though, I would go WD because their drives have never failed me yet. hitachi is usually better performing than most drives. If you do get a WD, get a oem one because the oems have 3yr warrenty and the retail have 1.

 
how so? i have always read more platters and density is good.
Click to expand...

As a dba I always want more platters as i get better read times with smaller bits of data if it's spread across as many platters as possible. But I'm working with 7 and 14 disk arrays. For a home pc, the number of platters will have a marginal effect at best.
 
I dont want a seagate, i have one myself, the Seagate 7200.7 200 gb ultra dma. Its good and quiet and cool. But i want to try a different hard drive. I have decided to go with the Western Digital SE16 WD2500KS. Thanks for all your replies 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top