Storage Solutions Need fastest internal HDD 1TB above

Status
Not open for further replies.
1

100khz

Contributor
Need fastest internal sata drive, preferably 1 TB.

I researched and found good options:

WD Caviar Black - Link

Samsung Spinpoint F3 - Link

purpose, music composition, using DAWs, will store sound libraries, will need to load audio samples to ram from HDD frequently, samples as big as 2 gb sometimes in 1 go.

I have a OCZ SSD for OS on my Hachintosh.

Please suggest, also a good online buying website link with your suggestion will be great help.
<


thanks..
 
Samsung F4 > WD Black >= Baracuda XT

Baracuda XT is too expensive, around 15k for 2TB. So get WD Black 2TB for around 10-12k or so.

However, I would like to tell you that the real world difference even in games/apps etc is not huge compared to Seagate 7200.12 7200rpm 32+mb cache drives which are far faster than other drives, within 10% of WD Black 64mb cache and cost barely half the price.

Going with anything other than 7200.12 makes sense only if you have money to burn. No real world app will be benefited enuf to justify the cost unless you also buy 3770k/3930k + 680/7970 + 16gb + other stuff typcially found in systems of 1.5L+
 
100khz said:
Need fastest internal sata drive, preferably 1 TB.

I researched and found good options:

WD Caviar Black - Link

Samsung Spinpoint F3 - Link

purpose, music composition, using DAWs, will store sound libraries, will need to load audio samples to ram from HDD frequently, samples as big as 2 gb sometimes in 1 go.
Click to expand...

The Samsung hard-drive division has been folded up and assimilated into Seagate's hard-drive division. So if the F3 gives up for any reason you will get a Seagate Barracuda 7200 / XT model as a replacement.

As for the rest part, I would suggest that you go for the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB, because --
  • more OR less the performance is similar to the Western Digital Caviar Black.
  • prices are high anyway, so instead of paying a price premium on the latter it is better to get the the Seagate drive.
  • the reliability of the Western Digital drives are under the scanner, especially the Green and the Black's.

Hope this helps, Cheers!!

Online links for the same --

flipkart.com

Delta IT

The IT Wares

Prime ABGB
 
ALPHA17 said:
The Samsung hard-drive division has been folded up and assimilated into Seagate's hard-drive division. So if the F3 gives up for any reason you will get a Seagate Barracuda 7200 / XT model as a replacement.

As for the rest part, I would suggest that you go for the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB, because --
  • more OR less the performance is similar to the Western Digital Caviar Black.
  • prices are high anyway, so instead of paying a price premium on the latter it is better to get the the Seagate drive.
  • the reliability of the Western Digital drives are under the scanner, especially the Green and the Black's.

Hope this helps, Cheers!!

Online links for the same --

flipkart.com

Delta IT

The IT Wares

Prime ABGB
Click to expand...

thanks.. you suggested me seagate 1 tb 7200.12 drive with 32 mb cache? I see the same drive with 64 mb cache on flipkart with almost same price?

so should i still get the 32mb cache drive..?
 
64MB cache model - ST1000DM003.

Its the newest 7200.14 series with 1TB platters. 7200.12 used 500GB platters.

Will be much faster. Should also be faster than the F4 and Black. Go for it.

A review of the drive in german - http://www.chip.de/artikel/Seagate-Barracuda-7200.14-ST3000DM001-Test_54541572.html

There are some boot issues with the drive, and the suggestion is to update the firmware ASAP - http://knowledge.seagate.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/223651en

rite said:
Going with anything other than 7200.12 makes sense only if you have money to burn. No real world app will be benefited enuf to justify the cost unless you also buy 3770k/3930k + 680/7970 + 16gb + other stuff typcially found in systems of 1.5L+
Click to expand...

A graphics card for music composition? How will it help?

Even the CPU is overkill for working with likely uncompressed audio.

Stop making incorrect suggestions based on what so called gamers buy.
 
100khz said:
thanks.. you suggested me seagate 1 tb 7200.12 drive with 32 mb cache? I see the same drive with 64 mb cache on flipkart with almost same price?

so should i still get the 32mb cache drive..?
Click to expand...

No I suggest that you go for the 64MB cache model --> Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 as #[member='Jarod'] suggested, due to the fact that it uses just one platter and a modestly expanded cache memory, you will benefit as follows --
  • prices are almost same and performance [almost negligible] and reliability will go up.
  • reliability will improve because instead of using 2x 500GB platters + 4 drive access heads, a single 1TB platter is used with ~2 access heads.
  • Due to lesser heads running around, lesser heat [lowered power consumption] is generated and lower noise / vibrations.
  • Same-same --> 7200 RPM, 64MB cache.

Also yes please flash the firmware of the drive, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 drives were the last that faced the issue of being bricked accidentally with the default firmware.

Hope this helps, Cheers!!

In fact the newer Seagate drive is cheaper, grab it while it lasts from here.
 
Jarod said:
64MB cache model - ST1000DM003.

Its the newest 7200.14 series with 1TB platters. 7200.12 used 500GB platters.

Will be much faster. Should also be faster than the F4 and Black. Go for it.

A review of the drive in german - http://www.chip.de/a...t_54541572.html

There are some boot issues with the drive, and the suggestion is to update the firmware ASAP - http://knowledge.sea...US/FAQ/223651en

A graphics card for music composition? How will it help?

Even the CPU is overkill for working with likely uncompressed audio.

Stop making incorrect suggestions based on what so called gamers buy.
Click to expand...

ALPHA17 said:
No I suggest that you go for the 64MB cache model --> Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 as #[member='Jarod'] suggested, due to the fact that it uses just one platter and a modestly expanded cache memory, you will benefit as follows --
  • prices are almost same and performance [almost negligible] and reliability will go up.
  • reliability will improve because instead of using 2x 500GB platters + 4 drive access heads, a single 1TB platter is used with ~2 access heads.
  • Due to lesser heads running around, lesser heat [lowered power consumption] is generated and lower noise / vibrations.
  • Same-same --> 7200 RPM, 64MB cache.

Also yes please flash the firmware of the drive, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 drives were the last that faced the issue of being bricked accidentally with the default firmware.

Hope this helps, Cheers!!

In fact the newer Seagate drive is cheaper, grab it while it lasts from here.
Click to expand...

ok.. after having 3 out of 5 seagate drives i have purchased in last 10 years going bad, i will buy 1 more..
happy55.gif


Just so, that during music composition process, I have to load audio sample units like 15 times in an hour sometimes. These samples are big in size and needs to load in ram from HDD. I normally have to wait a lot while they are loading from my external seagate goflex 2 tb hdd.. Sometimes, the gui hangs if the sample is not loaded or has some rendering issue with HDD.

If at all i can get a faster performance from my gofllex drive which is currently running in Lion OS, which does not support usb 3.0, I do not need to purchase another internal drive.

But, like other apps, which load once or twice during their usage, DAWs have to constantly keep loading and unloading big sound samples and also we bounce audio output back to hdd and from hdd to the DAW in order to make CPU work light..

Considering the above, i assume you guys have suggested seagate 1 tb 64 Mb cache drive. So i'll go for it..
happy55.gif


My specs:

i7 2600k

corsair 16 gb (4X4) RAM

gigabyte z68xp-ud3

ocz 120 GB agility

gigabyte GTX 560 ti

seasonic 650 w
 
USB 2.0 is obviously your bottleneck.

You can only get faster speeds from your goflex drive by opening it and connecting it directly to a SATA port. Your warranty will be void of course.

Hard disk reliability is like looking at a magic crystal ball! Nobody can recommend either WD or Seagate and say that its more reliable.

If reliability is important to you, you should be running a SMART monitoring tool. It wont stop your drive from failing, but it will warn you if your drive is failing so you can backup and get a new drive before it fails.
 
Jarod said:
USB 2.0 is obviously your bottleneck.

You can only get faster speeds from your goflex drive by opening it and connecting it directly to a SATA port. Your warranty will be void of course.

Hard disk reliability is like looking at a magic crystal ball! Nobody can recommend either WD or Seagate and say that its more reliable.

If reliability is important to you, you should be running a SMART monitoring tool. It wont stop your drive from failing, but it will warn you if your drive is failing so you can backup and get a new drive before it fails.
Click to expand...

If i do open my goflex drive for instance.. what kind of tentative speed increase i may notice.. any idea?

I am anyways buying the internal HDD..
 
100khz said:
So just last advice before i order the 1 TB seagate HDD.. I also spotted these 2 drives on flipkart..

what would you say about them..

Seagate 2 TB 5900 RPM

Seagate 3 TB 7200 RPM
Click to expand...

The 2TB drive is worth considering but, I pose a quandary. If anything goes wrong will you have requisite storage space to back-up all the data you have dumped on that particular drive?

Also it is a slightly slower drive, so it is essentially meant to be used as 'dump-drive' rather than as a actual performance drive that you are on the lookout for.

3TB is just pushing your luck too much Sire, due to the higher number of heads and platters skating around to access data --
  • higher power consumption [has to be due to no. of platters spinning] and noise levels coupled with more heat being dissipated.
  • lowered reliability due to the added no. of variables that can lead to a failure being increased.
  • finally, the same dilemma as the 2TB drive, where will you dump all this data when the situation turns FUBAR.

Hope this helps, Cheers!!
 
Thanks for the heads up @6pack.

But how did Seagate manage to keep the number of platters the same? I pose this query in the light of the fact that using all improvements in their storage inventory the maximum they can have is 1TB per platter OR has their been another increment in the platter technology allowing higher density storage per platter.

Regards,
ALPHA17
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ALPHA17 said:
The 2TB drive is worth considering but, I pose a quandary. If anything goes wrong will you have requisite storage space to back-up all the data you have dumped on that particular drive?

Also it is a slightly slower drive, so it is essentially meant to be used as 'dump-drive' rather than as a actual performance drive that you are on the lookout for.

3TB is just pushing your luck too much Sire, due to the higher number of heads and platters skating around to access data --
  • higher power consumption [has to be due to no. of platters spinning] and noise levels coupled with more heat being dissipated.
  • lowered reliability due to the added no. of variables that can lead to a failure being increased.
  • finally, the same dilemma as the 2TB drive, where will you dump all this data when the situation turns FUBAR.

Hope this helps, Cheers!!
Click to expand...

ok.. then back to the 1 TB seagate.. So, i am ordering..
 
@ALPHA17, The link i gave above has an interesting fact. The areal density has increased per platter for one drive only - ST33000651AS from 347 to 488. The other drives (both 2 &3 TB) have an areal density of 347.
Maybe the ST330005N1A1AS-RK 3TB drive must be having one extra platter since it has same no.of density.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
100khz said:
I also spotted these 2 drives on flipkart.. Seagate 2 TB 5900 RPM Seagate 3 TB 7200 RPM
Click to expand...
2TB Seagate Barracuda Green - ST2000DL003 - 5900RPM - 667GB platter density. 3TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 - ST3000DM001 - 7200 RPM - 1TB platter density. 3TB version of the same 1TB drive we recommended earlier. For performance go with the 1TB 7200.14 drive. Same performance but more space, 3TB 7200.14 drive. If you are willing to sacrifice performance for space, 2TB Green. Yes the probability of 3TB drive failing is more due to more platters, but use a good SMART monitoring tool and you will be prepared.
6pack said:
According to Seagate's specssheet, there's not much difference in power consumption. Also The 3TB drive and the 2TB drive have same no.of heads per disk/platter - 2. Mean time between failure is same for both too.
Click to expand...
These datasheets are for the older models. Look for ST1000DM003 and ST3000DM001. Modern disks have 2 heads per platter. MTBF is not a very helpful parameter.
ALPHA17 said:
But how did Seagate manage to keep the number of platters the same?
Click to expand...
Why the confusion? 4 x 500GB platters for 2TB ST32000641AS drive and 5 x 667GB for 3TB. Capacity is short stroked to 600GB i think.
 
Thanks for clearing up the cobwebs @6pack and @Jarod.

Jarod said:

Appending correction. 4 x 500GB platter for 2TB ST32000641AS drive.
Click to expand...

See Sire that is why I waited. Cheerio!!

P.S. -- What is with your signature about rite? It is hilarious though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
axeman said:
Just single drive may not be good enough, if you are looking to peak your read speeds: you need RAID 1 Standard RAID levels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Sire, you mean RAID 0; Striping, not RAID 1; Mirroring.

The process of Mirroring [RAID 1] is to mirror the data on one drive on another drive for 'data redundancies' sake, whilst in RAID 0 Striping the data is split across the discs in RAID for faster access times [at the cost of reliability].

RAID 0 is normally used to increase performance, although it can also be used as a way to create a large logical disks out of a two or more physical ones.
Click to expand...

A RAID 1 creates an exact copy (or mirror) of a set of data on two disks. This is useful when read performance or reliability is more important than data storage capacity.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom