Seagate 1.5TB HDD Benchmarked at ****

[brentpresley]

http://www.extremecpu.com/GetDoc.aspx?doc=73&page=1

Seagate's newest offering is compared to the Samsung F1 1TB and the WD Velociraptor

 

[Rubycon]

Impressive transfers but the error rates on these drives are a bit scary.

 

[Dean7]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Impressive transfers but the error rates on these drives are a bit scary.

Error rates? Do tell!

 

[brentpresley]

What error rates?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: brentpresley
What error rates?

What I read was that Seagate spec's their drives to allow for a single bit error every 2E14 bits while most other drive mfg'ers spec their drives to allow for a single but error every 1E15 bits.

The difference is a factor of 5...that is the Seagate drive allows for 5 times more bit errors than the others while still remaining in spec per Seagate. That isn't to say there will be any errors, just says if there are errors then it is still considered OK provided the rate of errors doesn't exceed one in 2E14.

In all cases, 2E14 or 1E15, it is not likely to be a problem for us desktop users to which the drive is targeted.

I also read (sorry no links, being quick here) that the drive is rated for 6hr use per day, not 24x7 usage. Again it didn't raise any flags with me so I didn't bother committing the details to memory. It isn't an enterprise drive so why would they take on the liability of spec'ing it for 24x7 usage?

 

[taltamir]

In all cases, 2E14 or 1E15, it is not likely to be a problem for us desktop users to which the drive is targeted.

I am a desktop user and it a huge problem for me. Over the years i lost a few files to random errors like that. It took a mere 3 month for my ZFS raidz2 array to pay off by correcting one random error. (a silently corrupt file in any other filesystem).

It rather sucks to go through one of your many thousands of pictures or whatever and find a corrupted file that will not open.

I can't help but feel that the only reason why seagate will make such an error rate decision instead of matching the industry standard, is because they can NOT match the industry standard...
Alternatively, they might be the only ones honestly reporting it (lying on specs is a common COMMON thing in the computer industry)

 

[Dean7]

Originally posted by: taltamir

In all cases, 2E14 or 1E15, it is not likely to be a problem for us desktop users to which the drive is targeted.

I am a desktop user and it a huge problem for me. Over the years i lost a few files to random errors like that. It took a mere 3 month for my ZFS raidz2 array to pay off by correcting one random error. (a silently corrupt file in any other filesystem).

It rather sucks to go through one of your many thousands of pictures or whatever and find a corrupted file that will not open.

I can't help but feel that the only reason why seagate will make such an error rate decision instead of matching the industry standard, is because they can NOT match the industry standard...
Alternatively, they might be the only ones honestly reporting it (lying on specs is a common COMMON thing in the computer industry)

Yeah... like monitor manufacturers and their stated response times on LCD panels.

Anyway, I personally have had amazing luck w/ Seagate. I say "luck" because I know it's just that when it comes to HDD failure, but for whatever reason Seagate has been good to me. I haven't dealt with any file corruption with my Seagate drives I've owned in the past.

Are there any real-world tests that show that the specs on the Seagate drives really cause problems? FYI: I've been running the drive 24x7 with no problems so far. I'll keep you guys updated if it blows up on me or something.

Thanks,

-Dean

 

[taltamir]

most file corruption is REALLY easy to overlook. OS files we attribute to windows sucking and reinstall it. Games? reinstall. Programs? reinstall. video and audio? lossy compression, TYPICALLY not noticeable, occasionally will case a noticeable "skip".
The most noticeable single bit corruption that results in an actually corrupt file is when it occurs in compress archives which later fail CRC on extract.
Photos are also sensitive to it.

All drives, no matter the maker, have errors on write occasionally. All media experiences bit rot (physical media degradation over LONG periods of time of media causing data loss, a few years for optical media, about a decade for platters), and magnetic platters are susceptible to bit flip via cosmic rays.

your usage is such that you probably did not notice it in the past. or you just got really lucky. (and I don't mean by getting "better" drives from seagate, I just mean lucky in terms of random errors not happening on the same quality drive)

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: brentpresley
What error rates?

What I read was that Seagate spec's their drives to allow for a single bit error every 2E14 bits while most other drive mfg'ers spec their drives to allow for a single but error every 1E15 bits.

The difference is a factor of 5...that is the Seagate drive allows for 5 times more bit errors than the others while still remaining in spec per Seagate. That isn't to say there will be any errors, just says if there are errors then it is still considered OK provided the rate of errors doesn't exceed one in 2E14.

In all cases, 2E14 or 1E15, it is not likely to be a problem for us desktop users to which the drive is targeted.

I also read (sorry no links, being quick here) that the drive is rated for 6hr use per day, not 24x7 usage. Again it didn't raise any flags with me so I didn't bother committing the details to memory. It isn't an enterprise drive so why would they take on the liability of spec'ing it for 24x7 usage?

6 HOURS? Not for me.

 

[Dean7]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: brentpresley
What error rates?

What I read was that Seagate spec's their drives to allow for a single bit error every 2E14 bits while most other drive mfg'ers spec their drives to allow for a single but error every 1E15 bits.

The difference is a factor of 5...that is the Seagate drive allows for 5 times more bit errors than the others while still remaining in spec per Seagate. That isn't to say there will be any errors, just says if there are errors then it is still considered OK provided the rate of errors doesn't exceed one in 2E14.

In all cases, 2E14 or 1E15, it is not likely to be a problem for us desktop users to which the drive is targeted.

I also read (sorry no links, being quick here) that the drive is rated for 6hr use per day, not 24x7 usage. Again it didn't raise any flags with me so I didn't bother committing the details to memory. It isn't an enterprise drive so why would they take on the liability of spec'ing it for 24x7 usage?

6 HOURS? Not for me.

Well, like I said: I've been running the drive pretty much 24x7 since I got it, with 0 issues. I'll let you guys know if something happens to it.

Thanks,

-Dean