320GB: Deskstar T7K500 or Caviar SE16 ?

J

Joe S

I hear that the Barracuda's could be better and that the Samsung T133
models are nothing like as good as models from their previous range.

OTOH Deskstar T7K500 and WD SE16s seem better thought of.

Some people have said that the Western Digital's are usually unreliable
but the SE16's seem to be though of as quite reliable by many people.
Also quieter and cooler than expected.

Similarly, I can remember the IBM DeathStar fiasco and have stayed away
from them even if they are now owned by Hitachi. But a lot of people
are saying the Deskstar T7K500 range is very good even if it is a bit
old now.

So which of the two is the better 320GB drive to get for a home desktop
PC?

Hitachi Deskstar T7K500
http://tinyurl.com/po7k2

Western Digital Caviar SE16
http://www.wdcaviar.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=196
 
T

Trev

Joe S said:
I hear that the Barracuda's could be better and that the Samsung T133
models are nothing like as good as models from their previous range.

OTOH Deskstar T7K500 and WD SE16s seem better thought of.

Some people have said that the Western Digital's are usually unreliable
but the SE16's seem to be though of as quite reliable by many people.
Also quieter and cooler than expected.

Similarly, I can remember the IBM DeathStar fiasco and have stayed away
from them even if they are now owned by Hitachi. But a lot of people
are saying the Deskstar T7K500 range is very good even if it is a bit
old now.

So they changed there name Hitach Deskstar,
 
R

Rod Speed

Joe S said:
I hear that the Barracuda's could be better and that the Samsung T133
models are nothing like as good as models from their previous range.

You need to get your hearing tested.
OTOH Deskstar T7K500 and WD SE16s seem better thought of.

Wrong with the WDs.
Some people have said that the Western Digital's are usually unreliable
but the SE16's seem to be though of as quite reliable by many people.

What they 'think' is completely irrelevant, what
matters is what the basis for those thoughts are.
Also quieter and cooler than expected.

Still noiser and hotter than the Samsungs.
Similarly, I can remember the IBM DeathStar fiasco and have stayed
away from them even if they are now owned by Hitachi. But a lot of
people are saying the Deskstar T7K500 range is very good even if it
is a bit old now.
So which of the two is the better 320GB drive to get for a home desktop PC?

The Samsung.
 
J

John Doe

Mike Tomlinson said:
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

How come bunny's ears are lopsided?

Shouldn't they look something like this?

(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Inquiring minds need to know.
 
A

Arno Wagner

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Joe S said:
I hear that the Barracuda's could be better and that the Samsung T133
models are nothing like as good as models from their previous range.

Huh? Are you perhaps confusing ''good'' and ''fast''?
OTOH Deskstar T7K500 and WD SE16s seem better thought of.
Some people have said that the Western Digital's are usually unreliable
but the SE16's seem to be though of as quite reliable by many people.
Also quieter and cooler than expected.
Similarly, I can remember the IBM DeathStar fiasco and have stayed away
from them even if they are now owned by Hitachi. But a lot of people
are saying the Deskstar T7K500 range is very good even if it is a bit
old now.
So which of the two is the better 320GB drive to get for a home desktop
PC?

Samsung. Quiet and cool running.

Arno
 
M

Mike Tomlinson

Arno Wagner said:
Pretty convincing. Were they running hot?

Warm, but not hot. They were in an HP NAS device (rackmounted) with
lots of air flow, in a room air-conditioned to 19C. The same device,
which takes 4 drives, had previously had 250GB Maxtor drives in it.
 
A

Arno Wagner

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Mike Tomlinson said:
Warm, but not hot. They were in an HP NAS device (rackmounted) with
lots of air flow, in a room air-conditioned to 19C. The same device,
which takes 4 drives, had previously had 250GB Maxtor drives in it.

Hmm. A bad sign then. Maxtors are reliable when cool, but unreliable
when hot.

So this indicates the DeskStars are still pretty problematic.

Arno
 
M

Mike Tomlinson

Fred said:
What was the failure mode?

All developed excessive bad sectors in normal use. They continued
working with the exception of one which became unusable and was rejected
by the RAID controller. Fortunately, because I had configured them in
RAID5, even with the loss of one member, I was able to recover data from
the array.

They all, with the exception of one, failed Hitachi's DFT tests and
could not be recovered with the "low level format" (writing zeros)
option.
 
A

Arno Wagner

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Mike Tomlinson said:
All developed excessive bad sectors in normal use. They continued
working with the exception of one which became unusable and was rejected
by the RAID controller. Fortunately, because I had configured them in
RAID5, even with the loss of one member, I was able to recover data from
the array.
They all, with the exception of one, failed Hitachi's DFT tests and
could not be recovered with the "low level format" (writing zeros)
option.

That seounds very much like the failure mode of the old death-stars....

Arno
 
F

Folkert Rienstra

That seounds very much like the failure mode of the old death-stars....

Nope, either they died completely or they were recoverable by LLF
(but kept developing new "bad" sectors).
 
F

Fred

All developed excessive bad sectors in normal use.

That could be due to an underpowered PS. The T7K500 have
the maximum number of platters possible in a 1" height drive.
They continued working with the exception of one which became unusable
and was rejected by the RAID controller. Fortunately, because I had
configured them in RAID5, even with the loss of one member, I was able
to recover data from the array.
They all, with the exception of one, failed Hitachi's DFT tests

Strange how all data was intact but the drives were toast.
could not be recovered with the "low level format" (writing zeros) option.

Again, what was the failure mode?
 
M

Mike Tomlinson

That could be due to an underpowered PS. The T7K500 have
the maximum number of platters possible in a 1" height drive.

Try again, Folkert. They were in an HP NAS device with a 400W PSU.
Strange how all data was intact but the drives were toast.

Isn't it just. By the way, you may care to get your eyes tested. I was
careful not to say _all_ data.
Again, what was the failure mode?

I've already told you. ****wit.
 
C

CBFalconer

Mike said:
.... snip ...


I've already told you. ****wit.

Way to get help. Did you never consider that your answer may have
been lost? Usenet does not guarantee delivery of articles.

F'ups set to eliminate excessive crossposting.
 
R

Rob

Arno Wagner said:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Mike Tomlinson said:
Hmm. A bad sign then. Maxtors are reliable when cool, but unreliable
when hot.

So this indicates the DeskStars are still pretty problematic.

In his case, it seems.
I have 2.5TB of them and have never lost a byte.
 
A

Arno Wagner

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Rob said:
In his case, it seems.
I have 2.5TB of them and have never lost a byte.

Probably they still have bad batches (problem with the original
DeatStars) or have better and worse manufacturing sites...

I have about 4TBs of older Maxtors (around 40) running ansd never
lost a byte, except on some that were dropped in shipping. But
they are all in a climatized server room and all have a fan
before them...

Arno
 
Top