Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:26:44 -0600 From: <soralx@cydem.org.ua> To: andreas@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which 160-180 GB ATA disk is reliable and fast ? Message-ID: <200306160026.44056.soralx@cydem.org.ua> In-Reply-To: <20030615201628.GA2120@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> References: <20030615201628.GA2120@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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? 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. My drive seems to be made in Singapore, and works excellent for almost a year. I even ran complete `dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/dev/null bs=32768` test few times. :) The new version of this model has lower seek time, and is also availble in serial ATA (as well as in parallel ATA) version. If you will use it in your desktop, note that it is also very quiet. I never had any problem with Seagate. I even have their ST-4038 drive in working condition 8) > Before using this Seagate Drive I had severe problems with > 40GB IBM and Maxtor drives. > They all worked for about 1/2-1 year and then failed quickly :-/ 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. 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 > 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) > The drive should be in the 1st place reliable (don't want to replace > my drives on a 6-12 month cycle anymore) 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). > and performance is also a matter. depend on your application - most of the modern HDs have minor performance differences 16.06.2003; 00:12:49 [SorAlx] http://cydem.org.ua/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200306160026.44056.soralx>