Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 - 1 Terabyte - Perpendicular (Best Hard-Drive + Quietest)

silversurfer · 20 Mar 2007 at 21:50

What warranty period do they offer because I think Hitachi are pretty good and its no more likely to fail then you get burgled or any other unavoidable risk. Unless its life critical data, not worth avoiding in favour of two disks really ?

That said a 4 disk array of 4 x 500gig (or 250 if you like) would probably beat this at everything and maybe even be cheaper.
35dba sounds loud but I guess I dont often listen to my hdd at 5mm

Tarty · 21 Mar 2007 at 07:48

HighlandeR said:
Still seems to be 2x500giggers at 80-90 quid each provides a good cheap 1TB soloution.

As someone said u dont wanna have one die on ya and all ya infos lost literally

but 1TB 1 drive does also appeal big time especially for less noise and near raptor performance... dam dam now I want one

My external caddy is for one drive, repleaced a 250 maxtor in it, would have been more expencive to get a two drive caddy and 2x 500gb HD's running through esata that is

humax · 21 Mar 2007 at 08:06

want one now

jbloggs · 21 Mar 2007 at 12:19

The Average reads in HDTach are quite impressive, so all round an impressive HDD.

Messiah Khan · 21 Mar 2007 at 13:55

2 of these and a 500GB one would no me nicely.

NeilF · 21 Mar 2007 at 15:38

titaniumx3 said:
Nice scores, but I don't like the idea of storing 1TB worth of data on a single drive cos if it breaks, you are screwed big time.

Makes no odds really?

1TB stored over 4x250Gb means four times the number of drives to go wrong!

In reality what ever your storage is, you should (ideally) have the same amount in backup.

ie: 1TB storage - 1TB of backup... (Obviously dependant upon disposable data and compressable data)

So the answer is... Buy two of them

silversurfer · 21 Mar 2007 at 15:51

Yea thats true for raid 0, you can divide the MTBF by the number of drives in the raid.
MTBF doesnt seem realistic though, on the other hand if you only took the warranty period then that'd make a 4 disk array only good for 9 months

james.miller · 21 Mar 2007 at 15:53

NeilFawcett said:
Makes no odds really?

1TB stored over 4x250Gb means four times the number of drives to go wrong!

In reality what ever your storage is, you should (ideally) have the same amount in backup.

ie: 1TB storage - 1TB of backup... (Obviously dependant upon disposable data and compressable data)

So the answer is... Buy two of them

no but its about damage limitation. 1tb drive goes down, its all lost. 1 250gb drive goes down, you only loose a quarter of it.

NeilF · 21 Mar 2007 at 16:15

james.miller said:
no but its about damage limitation. 1tb drive goes down, its all lost. 1 250gb drive goes down, you only loose a quarter of it.

I know what you mean...

HOWEVER, if you assume the odds of the 1TB drive going down are the same as any other drive, it then makes no difference! And infact the more drives you have the MORE likely you are to lose something.

Let's say there's a 1 in 10 chance of your/any drive failing over a year:-

With the a 1tb = 1/10 chance of losing everything.

With 4x250Gb = 1/10 chance of losing your OS
&
With 4x250Gb = 4/10 chance of losing something.

Horses for courses really though

VeNT · 21 Mar 2007 at 21:12

james.miller said:
no but its about damage limitation. 1tb drive goes down, its all lost. 1 250gb drive goes down, you only loose a quarter of it.

one 250gb drive goes down and you just re-build the array!

NeilF · 21 Mar 2007 at 21:37

VeNT said:
one 250gb drive goes down and you just re-build the array!

Come on, compare like for like... ie: If you have say 900gb of data then you can store that on 4x250gb disks (for the sake of example), or ONE 1tb disk...

If we assume one disk is roughly as reliable as another, then infact it maybe that you'd have an easier life with the 1tb disk than four smaller ones...

ie: As I previously said, let's say there's a 1 in 10 chance of your/any drive failing over a year:-

With the a 1tb = 1/10 chance of losing everything.

With 4x250Gb = 1/10 chance of losing your OS.
&
With 4x250Gb = 4/10 chance of losing something.

silversurfer · 21 Mar 2007 at 23:32

How easy is a raid 0 array to rebuild, with 4 and 1 lost it would not survive still would it ?

I was reading about raid 2, that sounded pretty amazing for performance and rebuilding the array easily with no loss. However its completely obsolete?

lay-z-boy · 21 Mar 2007 at 23:34

silversurfer said:
How easy is a raid 0 array to rebuild, with 4 and 1 lost it would not survive still would it ?

I was reading about raid 2, that sounded pretty amazing for performance and rebuilding the array easily with no loss. However its completely obsolete?

You cant rebuild a raid 0 array, one drive goes, thats it, everything gone.

silversurfer · 21 Mar 2007 at 23:39

I heard repairing or recovering files as a possibility? I guess this is unlikely as the file would be striped at least partly across the lost drive.

I dont find drives fail completey usually. They tend to flake out, drop files and develop bad sectors all of a sudden so how well a raid level / os could cope with partial corruption is of more interest to me.

mosfet · 23 Mar 2007 at 13:12

silversurfer said:
I heard repairing or recovering files as a possibility? I guess this is unlikely as the file would be striped at least partly across the lost drive.

I dont find drives fail completey usually. They tend to flake out, drop files and develop bad sectors all of a sudden so how well a raid level / os could cope with partial corruption is of more interest to me.

RAID 0 spreads data out evenly over both drives. There is no parity information to allow the recovery of data.

Regardless of how you've lost drives in the past, they're still capable of simply dying. If that happens in RAID 0 you've lost everything

themistry · 23 Mar 2007 at 20:04

silversurfer said:
I heard repairing or recovering files as a possibility? I guess this is unlikely as the file would be striped at least partly across the lost drive.

I dont find drives fail completey usually. They tend to flake out, drop files and develop bad sectors all of a sudden so how well a raid level / os could cope with partial corruption is of more interest to me.

You are thinking of Raid 5, of which you need a minimum of 3 discs and you get the capacity of 2. With 4 discs you get the capacity of 3. if one drive dies, full integrity can be regained by adding a new disc and rebuilding.

TM

sunama · 24 Mar 2007 at 12:47

Good to see that we are finally breaking the 1TB barrier.

This drive was announced some time ago, but obviously it was a paper launch. Seagate also announced it around the same time, but Hitachi seem to be the ones who are getting their product to the market first.

I suspect that the internet price for this drive will initially be around the £300 mark. Expect to see prices of 750GB drives to be driven down though.

Our thirst for big hard disks will increase, especially in the multimedia arena, where HD files are taking up huge chunks of hard disk space.

james.miller · 24 Mar 2007 at 12:48

sunama said:
Good to see that we are finally breaking the 1TB barrier.

This drive was announced some time ago, but obviously it was a paper launch. Seagate also announced it around the same time, but Hitachi seem to be the ones who are getting their product to the market first.

I suspect that the internet price for this drive will initially be around the £300 mark. Expect to see prices of 750GB drives to be driven down though.

Our thirst for big hard disks will increase, especially in the multimedia arena, where HD files are taking up huge chunks of hard disk space.

indeed. 30gb for a movie soon eats up that space.

matja · 26 Mar 2007 at 01:51

Just reminded me of a Bill G quote:

"... well, we're not all gonna get, you know, terabyte-type disks, er, connected up to our PCs and have all these bits just flowing around, just in case we're interested... <audience-laughs> ..."

clip as mp3

From his presentation at the University of Waterloo CS club in 1989. Source

NeilF · 26 Mar 2007 at 10:30

matja said:
Just reminded me of a Bill G quote:

"... well, we're not all gonna get, you know, terabyte-type disks, er, connected up to our PCs and have all these bits just flowing around, just in case we're interested... <audience-laughs> ..."

clip as mp3

From his presentation at the University of Waterloo CS club in 1989. Source

And of course he was responsible the that 640K nonsense on older PCs... As he basically said you'd never need more that 640K of memory to run a PC application! :rolleyes:

He denies it though - http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.computers/msg/99ce4b0555bf35f4