Mac Pro Hard Drive Manufacturer

dannyraul · 14 Feb 2008 at 21:40

Hi guys,

Ordered a Mac Pro today and looking to get 3 additional drives in addition to the 500GB one thats coming with it.

Does anyone know what 500GB disks Apple are using in the Mac Pro, would be nice to get 3 matching drives to go in there when it arrives.

Cheers

Slogan · 14 Feb 2008 at 21:43

They use a whole load of different types as far as I know. I've heard of Seagates, Western Digitals and even Hitachi Deskstars being in there.

Go for three 500gb AAKS (Western Digital) would be my recommendation. Excellent drives.

dannyraul · 14 Feb 2008 at 21:57

I was thinking of getting the Seagate one with the 32mb cache, but im more interested in how quiet the drive is than the performance. Ive got the 250GB version of the WD AAKS in an external caddy and it seems quite loud.

Ive got 4 Hitachi SATA2 drives running in my current machine and they seem resonably quiet so maybe I might stick with Hitachi :confused:

WotDa · 14 Feb 2008 at 22:41

Only way to know for sure would to be whip it out when it comes and order accordingly.

I've always had WD drives myself though, my next 'machine' shall have a Hitachi drive though, heard and seen great things about them.

J1nxy · 14 Feb 2008 at 22:48

My Pro which turned up yesterday has the 320GB Western Digital drive and I'm just about to transfer over a 500GB AAKS and a 500GB YS WD drive. I've also got 2 160GB Hitachis and they are pretty good as well.

Ender · 16 Feb 2008 at 18:39

Always thought it was best to not go with matching drives (esp raid 0) , as in the case of a drive fault it could potentially effect all of them

J1nxy · 16 Feb 2008 at 21:54

Ender said:
Always thought it was best to not go with matching drives (esp raid 0) , as in the case of a drive fault it could potentially effect all of them

No its the exact opposite as you want matching drive characteristics to optimise performance. The MTBF of a hard drive is usually into the 100,000+ hours of use and on modern drives its rare to get a failure. And to be honest if you are concerened about data lose you should be running a good backup to another storage device (disk, tape, dvd, internet)

WotDa · 16 Feb 2008 at 21:55

I've not had a single disk failure. Ever.

Slogan · 16 Feb 2008 at 22:16

WotDa said:
I've not had a single disk failure. Ever.

You haven't lived young man.

WotDa · 16 Feb 2008 at 22:23

Slogan said:
You haven't lived young man.

My current one seems like it will die soon, so, all shall be well soon.

iSam · 16 Feb 2008 at 22:33

Western Digitals I think. But they will use whatever they can get the best deals on.

Slogan · 16 Feb 2008 at 22:53

WotDa said:
My current one seems like it will die soon, so, all shall be well soon.

If you have your hard drive backed up and it fails, it doesn't count.

WotDa · 16 Feb 2008 at 23:02

Slogan said:
If you have your hard drive backed up and it fails, it doesn't count.

It isn't currently backed up...

Not even SATA II, ancient drive, my other 80Gb drive isn't even 7200 RPM!

Slogan · 16 Feb 2008 at 23:03

You are one wild man.

I salute you. Now, raid0 that bad boy.

WotDa · 16 Feb 2008 at 23:06

Apparently it doesn't like opening Photoshop while checking for bad sectors...

Anyhow...

Poor fellow must be nearly 3 1/2 years old, at least.

Ender · 16 Feb 2008 at 23:18

J1nxy said:
No its the exact opposite as you want matching drive characteristics to optimise performance. The MTBF of a hard drive is usually into the 100,000+ hours of use and on modern drives its rare to get a failure. And to be honest if you are concerened about data lose you should be running a good backup to another storage device (disk, tape, dvd, internet)

Sorry meant raid 1 (mirroring)