GP/low-power drive wattages & specs for each manuf

[LYL]Homer;1036317797 said:
Aposium -

What size do you propose? 500gb and up? I presume large capacity SSD's are beyond the scope of this.

(WD does have the 1tb Scorpio BLue and Samsung has the HM100UI that are both 12.5mm in height instead of the standard 9.5mm size. I would break out the 12.5mm drives from the 9.5mm ones.)
Click to expand...

i wouldn't see a problem with the drive height, as most server users wouldn't care about the height.

For example, my OS drive is a seagate constellation. the height didn't matter; bought an adapter for a supermicro CSE-M35 tray, job done!

another suggestion for the list, add a column for watts per TB for each drive. some of us are lazy and don't want to have to work it out. ;)
 
Asposium said:
i wouldn't see a problem with the drive height, as most server users wouldn't care about the height.

For example, my OS drive is a seagate constellation. the height didn't matter; bought an adapter for a supermicro CSE-M35 tray, job done!

another suggestion for the list, add a column for watts per TB for each drive. some of us are lazy and don't want to have to work it out. ;)
Click to expand...

I like the watts/tb idea, I'll see if I can squeeze it in but the forum code is a set width.

I think I'd still separate out the heights, why not, I'll be pulling up all the data anyway and someone looking for a notebook or a 9.5mm backplane setup would pull their hair out if they weren't aware of the 12.5mm issue.

Jaylst - I googled those too, but they are just announcements and forum discussion, not reviews. The WD spec sheet just seems to be the initial release of the WD20EARS (based on the weight specified) and they haven't changed any of the specs with updated data sheets. This is pretty typical among sub-types of drives with platter changes.
 
watts/tb for idle? I'm leaning towards idle instead of read since the majority of the time this is what these will be doing.

edit: modified the first few WD drives to show this.
 
Last edited:
Updated:
  • W/TB (idle)
  • added more 2.5" drives for each manuf.
  • Updated specs on a couple of 2tb drives
  • slight reorganization of list, moved Maxtor to the bottom
 
[QUOTE='[LYL]
jalyst said:
Not sure what two specific models you're referring to....
But there's definitely about 3 iterations of 2TB EARS floating around
http://vr-zone.com/articles/667gb-p...l-caviar-green-2tb-wd20ears-00mvwb0/9335.html
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?p=12142994#post12142994
http://forums.techarena.in/hardware-peripherals/1362012.htm

-00MVWB0 was the latest/greatest platter density until the Green 2.5 & 3TB were recently announced :(
And it would have performance/power advances over the earlier 2TB EARS.
Click to expand...

Jaylst - I googled those too, but they are just announcements and forum discussion, not reviews. The WD spec sheet just seems to be the initial release of the WD20EARS (based on the weight specified) and they haven't changed any of the specs with updated data sheets. This is pretty typical among sub-types of drives with platter changes.[/QUOTE]

My 2nd link is to a thread where I list other sources I found....
There's no proper reviews about*, but some commentary shows all the necessary performance data (not sure about power).
None of it's in English**, but graphs are universal, alas none compare it to the older revisions for perspective etc.

It's really lame that WD and other OEM's deceive customers like this...
There'd be real-world differences in perf. & power, especially between the oldest rev. & the latest 677GB platter one.
They should clearly list all the subtle revisions of each model they're still selling.
And highlight what power/perf/platter differences -if any- exist between them.

*N.B. I haven't searched extensively for many months....
**Except this storage-review thread, someone was eventually kind enough to post some performance no's.
 
Last edited:
Updated:
  • Added MB/s column to give relative performance

MB/s figures are taken from Storagereview.com's Benchmark database: "Maximum Transfer Rate (Read). The sequential transfer rate attained by the outermost zones in the hard disk. The figure typically represents the highest sustained transfer rate a drive delivers" in white; and Tomshardware.com's "h2benchw 3.12: Max Read Throughput Read Transfer Rates ([MB/s, sorted by average])" in cyan. (If you know of a more complete database please let me know.)
Click to expand...

I hoped to use all one site's benchmarks but I ended up including Tom's as well since they had a large number of the drives I was providing info on. The benchmarks - white vs. cyan - aren't quite apples to apples but the closest I could figure.
 
Just to save you some time, how useful is MB/s? A "green" drive typically has wildly varying transfer speeds between the inner and outer tracks and the inner tracks and averages. Plus, you are talking 150MB/s max for spindle disks. It is already the case that performance wise SSDs are so far superior to spindle disks that spindle disks are basically mass storage options. If they can somewhat reliably do 90+ MB/s that is enough to saturate a lot of GigE links for network transfer purposes. In the next few months the next-gen SSDs, we know, will have better performance and capacity/ price so this schism will only become more pronounced.

Just a thought so you don't have to spend too much time on this.
 
I just got a couple Samsung 2tb F4EG drives and was curious myself as to the relative performance to the mish-mash of other drives I have in my WHS box. I look at it more as a third or fourth concern when looking at this type of drive, but higher density platters can be seen to offer more performance at similar W/TB.

Like my 2tb F4EG's have ~40% performance increase over my 1.5tb Barracuda LP's while using only 2/3's the W/TB.

It's meant for this sort of casual comparison. And yes, the max transfer rate doesn't equal average or real-world transfer speeds.
 
jalyst said:
My 2nd link is to a thread where I list other sources I found....
There's no proper reviews about*, but some commentary shows all the necessary performance data (not sure about power).
None of it's in English**, but graphs are universal, alas none compare it to the older revisions for perspective etc.

It's really lame that WD and other OEM's deceive customers like this...
There'd be real-world differences in perf. & power, especially between the oldest rev. & the latest 677GB platter one.
They should clearly list all the subtle revisions of each model they're still selling.
And highlight what power/perf/platter differences -if any- exist between them.

*N.B. I haven't searched extensively for many months....
**Except this storage-review thread, someone was eventually kind enough to post some performance no's.
Click to expand...

Homer you get this?

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top