Which 160-180 GB ATA disk is reliable and fast ?

[Andreas Klemm]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:26:44AM -0600, soralx at cydem.org.ua wrote:
> 
> > My current Seagate Disk has severe unrecoverable read errors.
> > ad0: 76319MB <ST380021A> [155061/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA66
> 
> This is exactly the same model as I have. What firmware revision does
> your drive have? How long did it work?

About half a year but would have to look it up.

> There's some information that Seagate, Hitachi, and Maxtor call back some
> of their drives, as the drives that were made in China have faulty controller
> chip, AFAIK.

oh ;-) then lets go IBM ??? ;-)

> Some of IBM's HD also have (had, actually) problems (the famous DTLA
> line). It is like playing a roulette when bying IBM hard drive - there
> are very many people who reported that their drives die in about 2-6
> months, and few who reported that their drives work for over a year
> flawlessly, and are very fast.

Hehe or not .. oh dear ;-)

> With Maxtor HD I had problems myself - it started to have bad sectors
> on the place of Apache access log :), and then started to function
> intermittently

Well since I can't get real room for a new ATA controller
I think I'll go with IBMs ....

The dada density should be lower on their 180 GB drives,
they have 6 heads instead of 4 on Seagate....

> > I'll connect the drive to my on-board ATA interface which is
> > only capable of UDMA-66.
> 
> This is not good. If you connect UDMA100 HD to UDMA66 interface, the
> performance of the drive decreases signifacantly and non-proportionally
> (I'm not sure exactly why it is so now)

Well the Seagate UDMA100 on a UDMA 66 BUS was much quicker as 
the UDMA 66 disk that came with the machine....
They both were primary .....
So I can't second that .... Maybe its even faster when using
a real UDMA 100 controller, but I couldn't notice such a 
degradation as you mention.

Maybe only with certain drives ???


> If you want a hard drive that will work under heavy load and is reliable,
> consider SCSI hard drives. I know about 5 ATA HDs that failed in 3-week
> period, and I never seen bad real SCSI drive (I still have an old 200M
> SCSI HD working).

Is too loud and too expensive, not an option

> > and performance is also a matter.
> depend on your application - most of the modern HDs have minor
> performance differences

I do homerecording under XP and "make worlds" ;-)

	Andreas ///

-- 
Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE
Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/