Anyon have one of those Hybrid HDD/SSD drives?

[MmmBacon]

Seagate purchased Maxtor in 2006. Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure of owning a Maxtor branded hard drive. But i am in disbelief that a company you had issues with, which no longer exists you still say that the company who bought them have unreliable drives.

Now the question is with the acquisition of Samsung, which neither you are I have any issues with create reliable drives at Seagate?

[Alshain]

Originally Posted by MmmBacon

Seagate purchased Maxtor in 2006. Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure of owning a Maxtor branded hard drive. But i am in disbelief that a company you had issues with, which no longer exists you still say that the company who bought them have unreliable drives.

Now the question is with the acquisition of Samsung, which neither you are I have any issues with create reliable drives at Seagate?

I don't know the exact cause, I just know the empirical evidence I have experienced. My assumption is that it has to do with workmanship and design. When they merged in the Maxtor with Seagate, anything made at the former Maxtor factories, still had Maxtor quality. The problem is, you can't tell what is made where. As for the Samsung, I don't know if they will get bad. To be honest, I'd rather not risk it, so I won't buy them. I've pretty much given all my future business to WD unless I have a problem there. Given the track record, It's likely it won't before the death of this technology.

Eventually NAND will get cheap enough to obsolete it and both Seagate and WD will die since they don't seem to be adapting to the trend. Samsung was actually smart to get out now.

[MmmBacon]

You had one drive after the acquisition fail. That really is not enough evidence. Regardless, Seagate would not let their plants churn out Maxtor hard drives especially for 5-6 years.

As for the death of the technology, there are companies out there still using tape backups. Seagate as mentioned in this thread has hybrid hard drive. Seagate would be projected the most to "adapt" to the NAND trend.

[Versteken]

Originally Posted by MmmBacon

As for the death of the technology, there are companies out there still using tape backups. Seagate as mentioned in this thread has hybrid hard drive. Seagate would be projected the most to "adapt" to the NAND trend.

Tape is EXTREMELY popular in the Enterprise.

The thing is though, when you say "tape" most people think of something like This. A single lowly tape drive

When reality, when you talk about Tape in the Enterprise, what we're really talking about is something more like this

In terms of pure mass storage, you just cannot beat Tape Libraries (and those SL8500's you see in the above are fully expanded. Just one section reaches from the front to just about the 2nd pillar)

To put the capacity difference into perspective, my Company's biggest Disk Array can hold up to 24 2TB drives, for a total storage of 48TB.

The SMALLEST SL8500 configuration has tape capacities of anywhere between 20MB to 5TB, and will have 64 tape drives, and holds around 1,500 tapes. assuming 1TB tapes, that's 1.5 PETABYTES of total storage capability with 64TB able to be loaded and ready at any time.

Disks are of course, faster, but tape is much faster than you might think it is too.People like to think of tape as being an archaic outdated technology. It is a very old tech, that's for sure, but it's also extremely mature. Modern Libraries are incredibly sophisticated and reliable.

[Alshain]

Originally Posted by MmmBacon

You had one drive after the acquisition fail. That really is not enough evidence.

Well that's all subjective, isn't it? Maybe not enough for you, it was enough for me.

Originally Posted by MmmBacon

As for the death of the technology, there are companies out there still using tape backups. Seagate as mentioned in this thread has hybrid hard drive. Seagate would be projected the most to "adapt" to the NAND trend.

Yeah, they have offerings. So does Western Digital. But they are getting beat out of the market by OCZ and Crucial and other memory companies and the bulk of their product is Hard Drives. They still have time to adapt, the HDD market is not going to disappear tomorrow. But I suspect the technology is on it's way out as other technologies replace it.

[Versteken]

Originally Posted by Alshain

Well that's all subjective, isn't it? Maybe not enough for you, it was enough for me

With tolerance that low, you must be used to disappointment

[Alshain]

Originally Posted by Versteken

With tolerance that low, you must be used to disappointment

See there, I was nice and removed you from my ignore list hoping you had gotten over yourself... and now your going right back on it. I should a known better, you just can not carry on an intelligent conversation without insulting people can you?

[Versteken]

Originally Posted by Alshain

See there, I was nice and removed you from my ignore list hoping you had gotten over yourself... and now your going right back on it. I should a known better, you just can not carry on an intelligent conversation without insulting people can you?

It's not an insult, it's commentary. ONE bad drive puts you off the brand entirely?

I don't really give a crap if you ignore me.

[MmmBacon]

On the other hand, you want to blast an entire company on a few claims. I'll still buy WD drives when I can, and I'll still use hybrid ssd technology (since it does work wonders). However, it is a poor recommendation to suggest that one product from a company warrants all if their products bad as well.

[Alshain]

Your welcome to that opinion. I've had a 100% success rate from WD and a 66% success rate from Seagate. Which would you spend money on?

It's all relative. In a world where WD didn't exist, Seagate would probably be the best option. But as long as WD keeps outperforming them, Seagate is nothing more than second best and if I'm going to spend the same amount on equal drive, I'm going with the best.

We can continue to argue this back and forth forever, but a forum discussion is not going to convince me to buy Seagate or promote their products. So I'm gonna end it now.

[MmmBacon]

Actually, it wasn't convince you to buy Seagate drives but to counter your argument that Seagate drives and Hybrid SSDs are not worth it. Not everyone has money to throw away on 512 GB SSD.

[Alshain]

Originally Posted by MmmBacon

Actually, it wasn't convince you to buy Seagate drives but to counter your argument that Seagate drives and Hybrid SSDs are not worth it. Not everyone has money to throw away on 512 GB SSD.

Well since we are shifting topic back to the original then... you don't need a 512 GB SSD, you need a 64GB SSD and a 0.5 to 1 TB standard hard drive which doesn't even have to be the latest technology, it can be an old one.

The only thing that really benefits from the SSD is the OS which takes only 20GB (of course the drives that small aren't cost effective).

Your personal files aren't going to create a noticeable effect because they don't accessed as often as you think.

Program files probably won't either. Some games might reduce loading screens, but really nothing else.

The OS is all you need on the SSD, and you can get a drive for $100 and it will be way faster than the Hybrid drive.

[MmmBacon]

Originally Posted by Alshain

The only thing that really benefits from the SSD is the OS

Man those people who bought large SSDs for their games are going being mad.

[Alshain]

Originally Posted by MmmBacon

Man those people who bought large SSDs for their games are going being mad.

I guess so. Honestly though if they bought one without researching the tech it's their own fault and the OS-only SSD is what most people do because of the cost, so it's not really all that new of an idea.

But if they did load screens will probably go faster, so if they are super annoyed by those, it will help a little.

[joemtnbike]

Originally Posted by spartan0078

I was thinking about getting one half HDD half SSD drives since we're still being affected by the inflation prices of HDDs and the hybrid is only a little extra cash for a 500GB one. Does anyone have one and notice if there is a noticeable speed difference?

Item in question

Yesterday I installed that exact drive in one of my secondary workstations at work.
I'm going to try and use it a little more for a few days and see if its noticeably faster.

Originally Posted by Alshain

...
Sata 3 and the Revo are very close in speeds, so there isn't a large bottleneck there anymore.
...

I have a 240GB RevoDrive3 x2 in my primary workstation and it far exceeds the throughput of a SATA III (6Gb/s) port.

You would be lucky to see much over 600MB/s Transfer rates on a SATAIII port.

Here are the real results of a CrystalDiskMark run.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 962.438 MB/s
Sequential Write : 952.818 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 667.482 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 859.175 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 33.275 MB/s [ 8123.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 75.289 MB/s [ 18381.1 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 299.089 MB/s [ 73019.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 293.774 MB/s [ 71722.2 IOPS]