Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: IBM vs. WD(8mbcache) ??




  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    86

    Default

    I've seen something about this problem somewhere, just one moment ...

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    86

    Default

    On IBM's site there is a file named d120gxp_com.pdf that gives a compatibility summary of the deskstar 120. Look at the specific notes at the end of the summary, it may help you find the reason.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    13

    Default

    ata 133 gives no boost to performance at all
    the average burst is 85 so going from 100 to 133 does nothing for u in that respect the only thing 133 does for you is allow you to use the new generation of extremely large hard drives
    there is a reason that maxtor is the only HDD manufacturer to adopt the ata 133 standard


  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    777

    Default

    I think seagate has a 133 drive ready, but if your buying at the moment the WD 8MB buffer is still the best by far.
    Athlon XP 1600+ @ 1662Mhz | Volcano 7+ HSF | Soltek SL-75DRV5 | 256MB Corsair XMS-3000 DDR RAM | 44x44x24 Yamaha CDR-W F1 | 16x Liteon DVD | 40Gig 7200rpm Seagate Barracuda | 20Gig 5400rpm Seagate | GeForce2 MX-400 | SB Live! | RTL8139A NIC | RTL8139B NIC | 12 Fans | 1 x ss Blue cc | 2 x Red Neons | 450W Codgen PSU | Logitech Z-340 2.1 Sub and sats | 17" Osborune Monitor | Win XP Pro | M$ explorer rat and keyboard | Everglide Attack Optical

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,296

    Default

    I guess I've just been lucky. I've probably used close to a hundred hds over the years (built many boxes for friends, family, co-workers). I have used Toshiba, Fujuitsu, Samsung, Conner, Quantum, IBM, WD, Maxtor, Seagate, etc.. I have had only 4 drives die. 1 Maxtor, 1 WD, 1 Seagate (the only one under warranty), and 1 cheapo brand that was only around for a couple of years (it had letters for a name J-something I think). The newest, huge drives are going to be trouble for everybody for a while. I think that if you run a cool box, hooked up to a ups, any major brand has as much chance of surviving as any other.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    86

    Default

    I have had some 15% of the drives installed die within the first 3 years since they were installed. If they survived them they usually continued to work without any problems until disposed.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    777

    Default

    You also have to taking other factors like transport, workload and dust.
    If dust gets in though, it reflects on bad design.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    86

    Default

    The disks have an airtight seal. If it wears out humidity will usually destroy the disk. If dust enters that is a major flaw in design.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    37

    Default

    the size of your partitions could also have a factor with speed

    Although OS' support large partitions, 32 bit partitions have a default of 512 (can be made larger upon formatting) bytes per allocaton unit. when your disk writes a file to the HD it takes up a minimum of that 512 bytes of space. If the file is larger than that, it just goes on to the next allocation unit until that one is filled up..... and so on. Now if you have hundreds or thousands of files, some not large at all, taking up those little bits of empty, usable space, you sit and think "Hey thats my space i want to use it"
    then your OS or you modify a file, removing, or downsizing a file and that little amount of space now is too small for other new files to fit in, so youve got a bunch of wasted space.
    so you say, who cares thats basic disk fragmentation, whatever.
    well if you're partition is larger than (i think 10GB might be 20GB)
    logically the operating system would want to increase the allocation unit size (1024, 2048, 04 4096 bytes depending on the partition size) to be able to recognize that large of a space and use it without you banging your head against the monitor screaming for the computer to stop its 7 hour search of its super huge fragmented allocation table (allocation table: index of the allocated space used on your drive that your computer uses as a reference as to where files are located). But you can make the allocation units smaller manually if you so choose.
    That kind of puts fragmentation and allocation unit into words, but what the problem i would forsee for users like ourselves who like to use every little bit of space we possibly can, we are confronted with the question of whether we make partitions smaller, slow our drive (exponentially) with super huge allocation tables containing the location of those small allocation units (so save space). or go with what windows does by default and have one partition, and increase the allocation unit size... using your drive at closer to its optimum speed, but also wasting multitudes of valuable disk space. Sure defragging can help manage the erased allocation units and get around some of those things but when your are looking at 80, 100, even up to over 200GB of files, the wasted space could reach into several hundred Mb of lost space

    My advice, use partitions, they can be managed better, the operating system works better with them, and you can be sure that every penny you spent on that drive (possibly causing you several days of uncomfort from caffine withdrawl, tired feet from sudden empty gastank syndrome (SEGS), even onslauts of panic attacks arising from the change in desktop environment, (heh or when you forget to give the thing power and the computer doesnt think anything is there)

    Yah partitions are good! Use partitions!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Some may prefer a faster disk. If you compare the lost Mb to a faster disk it is cheaper to buy a larger disk and use larger partitions. Faster disks have less Mb per $ and that is the price you pay for the speed. Disk speed effects the overall performance of your system. But ... there are always the perfectionists ;)

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •