From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 16 00:06:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B0E37B401 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5BF43F93 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:06:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andreas@klemm.apsfilter.org) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by srv1.cosmo-project.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5G765hR081390 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:06:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from andreas@klemm.apsfilter.org) Received: (from uucp@localhost)h5G765hC081389; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:06:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from andreas@klemm.apsfilter.org) Received: from titan.klemm.apsfilter.org (localhost.klemm.apsfilter.org [127.0.0.1]) by klemm.apsfilter.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5G75mJK003809; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:05:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from andreas@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org) Received: (from andreas@localhost) by titan.klemm.apsfilter.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h5G75gur003808; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:05:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:05:41 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm To: soralx@cydem.org.ua Message-ID: <20030616070541.GG2974@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> References: <20030615201628.GA2120@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <200306160026.44056.soralx@cydem.org.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200306160026.44056.soralx@cydem.org.ua> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.1-RC X-Disclaimer: A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which 160-180 GB ATA disk is reliable and fast ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:06:58 -0000 On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:26:44AM -0600, soralx@cydem.org.ua wrote: > > > My current Seagate Disk has severe unrecoverable read errors. > > ad0: 76319MB [155061/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA66 > > This is exactly the same model as I have. What firmware revision does > your drive have? How long did it work? About half a year but would have to look it up. > There's some information that Seagate, Hitachi, and Maxtor call back some > of their drives, as the drives that were made in China have faulty controller > chip, AFAIK. oh ;-) then lets go IBM ??? ;-) > Some of IBM's HD also have (had, actually) problems (the famous DTLA > line). It is like playing a roulette when bying IBM hard drive - there > are very many people who reported that their drives die in about 2-6 > months, and few who reported that their drives work for over a year > flawlessly, and are very fast. Hehe or not .. oh dear ;-) > With Maxtor HD I had problems myself - it started to have bad sectors > on the place of Apache access log :), and then started to function > intermittently Well since I can't get real room for a new ATA controller I think I'll go with IBMs .... The dada density should be lower on their 180 GB drives, they have 6 heads instead of 4 on Seagate.... > > I'll connect the drive to my on-board ATA interface which is > > only capable of UDMA-66. > > This is not good. If you connect UDMA100 HD to UDMA66 interface, the > performance of the drive decreases signifacantly and non-proportionally > (I'm not sure exactly why it is so now) Well the Seagate UDMA100 on a UDMA 66 BUS was much quicker as the UDMA 66 disk that came with the machine.... They both were primary ..... So I can't second that .... Maybe its even faster when using a real UDMA 100 controller, but I couldn't notice such a degradation as you mention. Maybe only with certain drives ??? > If you want a hard drive that will work under heavy load and is reliable, > consider SCSI hard drives. I know about 5 ATA HDs that failed in 3-week > period, and I never seen bad real SCSI drive (I still have an old 200M > SCSI HD working). Is too loud and too expensive, not an option > > and performance is also a matter. > depend on your application - most of the modern HDs have minor > performance differences I do homerecording under XP and "make worlds" ;-) Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/