 trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2
 ·Time Warner Cable
| reply to koitsu
Re: Has HDD seek times increased? Granted, that WD2002FAEX is a Western Digital Caviar Black Edition drive. That drives performs well for a traditional HDD.
The other drivers are a different story. They seem to be drives that are the standard run of the mill consumer drives that people buy just because they need an HDD. Yeah... the low end drives.
OK, so we know that HDDs, at least from the desktop benchmarks, that some HDDs can perform very well but you're going to pay for that performance. I get that. The question is... are they doing something special in the Caviar Black drives to make them run better or are the manufacturers purposely gimping their low end drives to make people buy the high end drives?
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | AOKP (The Android Open Kang Project) |
|
 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:19
1 edit | said by trparky:The question is... are they doing something special in the Caviar Black drives to make them run better or are the manufacturers purposely gimping their low end drives to make people buy the high end drives? It's not that simple. Trying to make some generalised statement about the state of mechanical/magnetic storage isn't the right way to go about this, mate.
As I said, the question should be "Why do my ST31000528AS and HTS725050A9A364 perform so significantly worse compared to other MHDDs?"
There are an almost infinite number of reasons that can explain what's going on, but the important part to take away is that every situation is unique/different and must be treated as such. I can't stress this enough. Otherwise you end up with generalised statements like this which amount to absolutely nothing.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. |
|
koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:19 | reply to trparky
{deleted -- I don't know why the forum took a good 120 seconds for my previous reply to show up. Grrr...} |
|
