Who's got a Seagate 7200.10..?

Virdi

Virdi

Virdi

Soldato
Joined
11 Jun 2004
Posts
4,210
Location
Middlesex, London
Hi all,

I was considering to buy one of these hard disks - As I understand that 'perpendicular' hard drives have better performance?

...So I'd like to know if this is true in reality..? and what your overall opinion is..?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
The 7200.10s are quick, faster than just about any 7200rpm drive out there (the new WD AAKS drives are as fast as the Seagates). The fact that they use perpendicular recording doesn't in itself make them quick, what it does allow though is a very high data density on the platters and it's the high density which provides the speed.

I'm running 2*320Gb in RAID0 and I'm very happy with the speed, they're a lot faster than the Hitatchi 7K250s they replaced.
 
I believe there are two different motors used for the 7200.10 series, one is supposed to be notably more noisy than the other, rpstewart will almost certainly remember the way to tell which is which. For whatever it is worth I've got a 250gb 7200.10 and it isn't noisy at all and it seems very quick although I've yet to bother benchmarking. :)
 
I have 2 x 320GB SATA 7200.10s, both of mine have the "white glue" (supposedly the noisy ones) however BOTH are quiet and fast (faster than my 74GB Raptors (8MB cache) in Average read - HDTach). :)
 
Only drives I've ever used have been seagate's and not one has failed (in a measly 5 years). Got 2x 320gb, 7200.10's in RAID 0 at the minute and it's fast and silent. If it is making noise, I sure as hell can't hear it over case fans! :D

Couldn't reccommend them more (the RAID edges out my mates Raptor in a lot of game loading times and have 4x as much storage :D)
 
I've got 2 x 320GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 and 1 x 74GB (8mb cache) Raptor. When I installed Vista on one of my Seagate 320GB 7200.10 Barracuda's it scores on the windows performance index thingy 5.7 (giving me 5.7 overall) on the HDD.

When I installed Vista on the Raptor it scored only 5.5? WTF? :eek:

How is this possible as I would have thought the Raptor would be quicker than than the Barracuda?
 
Scoobie Dave said:
How is this possible as I would have thought the Raptor would be quicker than than the Barracuda?
Click to expand...
The Raptor isn't any quicker. Its 10krpm spindle speed gives it a better average seek time than the Seagate but the data density of the Raptor is poor (37Gb per platter) compared to the Seagate's 187Gb per platter :eek:

This huge data density means that despite the slower spindle speed the Seagate can get data off the disks slightly faster than the Raptor.
 
Scoobie Dave said:
I've got 2 x 320GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 and 1 x 74GB (8mb cache) Raptor. When I installed Vista on one of my Seagate 320GB 7200.10 Barracuda's it scores on the windows performance index thingy 5.7 (giving me 5.7 overall) on the HDD.

When I installed Vista on the Raptor it scored only 5.5? WTF? :eek:

How is this possible as I would have thought the Raptor would be quicker than than the Barracuda?
Click to expand...

as mentioned by rpstewart, the Raptor has a better seek time but due to the lower platter density, the sustained transfer rate is poorer than 7200.10
 
i have 4 in raid 10 4 x 320 gb and the noise is a noticible more than 1 but thats to be expected..........

hd tach scores around a ultra scsi 160....but dont forget raid 10 gets around 2000 points less than raid 0 alone
 
rpstewart said:
The Raptor isn't any quicker. Its 10krpm spindle speed gives it a better average seek time than the Seagate but the data density of the Raptor is poor (37Gb per platter) compared to the Seagate's 187Gb per platter :eek:

This huge data density means that despite the slower spindle speed the Seagate can get data off the disks slightly faster than the Raptor.
Click to expand...

Cheers for clearing that one up then. Well its got me thinking now, I have never used the raid option before but as I have already 2x320 Seagate's I want to run them in raid now buts whats the best raid configuration?

Im gonna sell my Raptor and get another Seagate and use that as storage.
 
:( Around November time last year I bought 2 x Seagate 320MB 7200.10's, the spindles both had the White glue & made a high pitch whine, both from OcUK.

Good News!
Just bought 2 x Seagate 500MB 7200.10's, the spindles both have the PINK glue & they are very quiet! recieved from OcUK today! I'm Happy! :) :) :)
 
Scoobie Dave said:
Cheers for clearing that one up then. Well its got me thinking now, I have never used the raid option before but as I have already 2x320 Seagate's I want to run them in raid now buts whats the best raid configuration?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you want to do. RAID0 will give you improved transfer rates and the full capacity of both disks at the expense of redundancy (one drive fails or hiccups and all the data is lost). RAID1 will give you redundancy by mirroring the data across the 2 disks but there's no improvement in read speed, write speed is usually lower than a single disk and you only get half the total capacity.

Another point to note is that to move to a RAID configuration will require you to backup all the data on the drives prior to creating the array because the creation process will wipe the drives.
 
rpstewart said:
RAID1 will give you redundancy by mirroring the data across the 2 disks but there's no improvement in read speed,
Click to expand...

I thought that at first but was informed since the data is the same on both drives it does improve the read speed since the controller can access the drives independently. It could be the person was talking mince of course. :)
 
I have heard that there are controllers out there which can do this but everytime I've tried it and benchmarked it RAID1 isn't any quicker than a single drive.
 
rpstewart said:
It depends on what you want to do. RAID0 will give you improved transfer rates and the full capacity of both disks at the expense of redundancy (one drive fails or hiccups and all the data is lost). RAID1 will give you redundancy by mirroring the data across the 2 disks but there's no improvement in read speed, write speed is usually lower than a single disk and you only get half the total capacity.

Another point to note is that to move to a RAID configuration will require you to backup all the data on the drives prior to creating the array because the creation process will wipe the drives.
Click to expand...

RAID0 it is then. ;)

Just have to work out how to set it up now. . .
 
ive never done one before and its just a case of setting it up in the bios, creating the array with the raid controller bios which boots after the first one.....Then install windows and when it asks about raid controller push S and use the disk raid driver supplied with the mainboard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom