Where I live, 4 disk RAID0:
500GB = 400$
1TB = 800$
Why can't you understand this? Seems simple enough.
Loa
P.S. I also bought a Toyota instead of a Ferrari. Sorry if you cannot understand that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
RAID Experiment: striping the outsides of platters = speedup?
- Thread starter JPamplin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where I live, 4 disk RAID0:
500GB = 400$
1TB = 800$
Why can't you understand this? Seems simple enough.
Loa
P.S. I also bought a Toyota instead of a Ferrari. Sorry if you cannot understand that.
that is fair enough, you would/have had a constant line of work for the last however many years. i earn $100 a week (about $85US) and go to uni, it is a 2hr round trip at least each day, i have rego coming up (nearing $1000Aus), and everything else that a normal teenager has such as paying for fuel, credit, food for uni etc.
for my situation, all i want is a reasonably fast boot drive for my hackintosh - i have around 4TB of other backups at my disposal, there is already a 500GB drive in the hack and upgrading it to RAID0 costs $70Aus. a very cheap investment for a pretty nice increase in disk speed. of course i could spend the $642Aus to purchase 2x 2TB WD drives, but there goes most of my rego for a full year..
dont get me wrong, i would LOVE to be able to afford a very nice, fast, redundant RAID5/RAID10 system, but for me now it is not feasible at all...i hope you can understand
a 500GB WD drive will set me back $70Aus here, a 1TB drive is around $110Aus. are your prices US? i cant understand why it is double the price for double the space, as here it is roughly only 50% more..
how odd
i have a '97 lancer
a 500GB WD drive will set me back $70Aus here, a 1TB drive is around $110Aus. are your prices US? i cant understand why it is double the price for double the space, as here it is roughly only 50% more..
how odd
She just likes to break balls.
So she made up the prices.For here in Japan the real prices of SATA green ~ 7200 RPM drives are:
2.0TB = $210 ~ $300
1.5TB = $95 ~ $150
1.0TB = $75 ~ $200
750GB = $90 ~ $120
500GB = $60 ~ $100
USA seems to be about the same when I look it up.
Also 500GB ~ 750GB drives are inherently much slower than 1.0TB and above.
i have a '97 lancer
I have a motorized skateboard!
It's in CDN dollars, and last I checked (about 2 months ago), the 500GB RE drives where at 100$ and the 1TB RE drives were at 200$. And that was the best price I could find in the entire country!
I know I was paying a premium for the RE drives, but after reading a couple of articles showing that the Caviar Blacks had problems in a RAID, I decided to go the safe way.
Loa
She just likes to break balls.
I have a motorized skateboard!
haha! smartarse
ahh well that explains it then. (RE drives are enterprise right?) that would make sense, i am pricing on the crappy standard ones
as that is all i can afford (if that)She just likes to break balls.
http://www.shopbot.ca/pp-western-di...rial-ata-ii-western-digital-price-116205.html
http://www.shopbot.ca/pp-western-di...rial-ata-ii-western-digital-price-130419.html
Prices have gone slightly down since I ordered mine, but the 2 to 1 ratio is still there.
And plz don't mention imports... Customs can be hellish in here. They don't bother you for small things, but will for more expensive things.
Loa
500GB RE drive, costs $120 Aus here.. about $10-$15CN more then what it is over there.. lucky things eh.
goodnight all!
500GB drives do not mean RE3 drives. It means "500GB drives".
http://www.google.com/products?q=500GB+HDD&oe=UTF-8&scoring=p&sa=N&start=10
From about $60 with only one or two exceptions.
1TB drives mean 1TB drives, not RE3 drives.
http://www.google.com/products?q=1TB+HDD&scoring=p
From about $75 just like I said.
Ball-breaker!
http://www.google.com/products?q=500GB+HDD&oe=UTF-8&scoring=p&sa=N&start=10
From about $60 with only one or two exceptions.
1TB drives mean 1TB drives, not RE3 drives.
http://www.google.com/products?q=1TB+HDD&scoring=p
From about $75 just like I said.
Ball-breaker!
Just goes to show that things are a bit more complex than 500GB or 1TB. After reading around, it seemed clear that raid-edition drives would be better for a RAID. So looking at regular drives was not even an option.
I did not need insane space, nor insane performance.
And after it all, having a RAID does not help me with PS4 opening/saving files at all, as the bottleneck is the CPU. So until Adobe wakes up and gives us a 64bit version of PS, a regular 500GB drive or a 12 disk 2TB RAID0 = same performance.
When PS5 comes around, maybe I'll regret those 500GB disks, but I doubt it.
Loa
P.S. As for regular drives in Canada, it's 60$ Vs 100$. Not quite 2:1 ratio, but not that far off either.
P.P.S. Why do you assume I'm a girl?
It almost doesn't matter at all. There's very little difference. So you're allergic to generic specs such as drive sizes?
For $15 ~ $20 more you get both.
Strawman alert. 90% untrue statement. There's displaying, loading, saving, copying, sorting, browsing, etc. etc. all of which will benefit from faster. And since bigger is faster... etc.
The name Loa sounds like a girls name and also I assumed you were based on the way you use logic and how you structure your sentences. Are you not a girl?
Sort of. They're based off the same basic design (systems eng.), but there's other differences besides the firmware. The RE3's add in some additional sensors. As a result, it's a bit more stable (things like fly height adjustment and vibration sensors). It also slows the enterprise variants down a bit.
Just make a comparison between the consumer models and enterprise models of multiple manufacturers. The 7200.11 vs. ES.2's & Blacks vs. RE3's should do.
In both cases, the consumer models do give slightly faster throughputs, but it's not as reliable (safety for data). Things like heads crashing into the platters when things go awry.Just compare the exact P/N's of your existing drives and the ones you're looking at. Also look for independent reviews, as they will sometimes tell you the platter density (drive literature/datasheets may not tell you the platter count to calculate it).they are identical AFAIK - i will check the version numbers once i get home to clarify that they have the same platter sizes, if they are different i will put off doing it until i can afford purchasing the same sized ones.
I'm sticking with WD for reliability reasons as well. Seagate's had some issues fairly recently (too much so for my taste), and it was more than just the 7200.11 @1.5TB models. It affected the ES.2 line, as well as the other consumer models as well, to varying degrees. "Boot of Death" on an enterprise drive = Beyond Bad.
What kept those numbers seemingly low would be the fact the systems weren't restarted often (24/7 operation).As for the Hitachi's, you may be recalling the comments I've made previously. It was when I was dealing with CalDigit's HDElement enclosure. They were using Deskstars (consumer models), and they were highly unstable. It needed firmware (recovery timings weren't working with the card), and it was pass the buck between CalDigit and Hitachi. Hitachi's attitude was, "we don't support firmware. Contact the RAID vendor." Pissed me off. Ultimately, it was CalDigit's fault for picking the wrong drives to be cheap b@stards, but they should have been willing to give better customer service than that. It's been a little better on the enterprise side, but again, no where near what it should be IMO.
Looking around, their failure rates are high, but so are some other manufacturer's offerings as well. Greater than 10% with multiple makers/models lately, which is appalling.
Easy mistake. How dare you! Evil person you.
Depends on capacity needs I guess. Single platter drives do have their uses.
Paper weights, door stops, and backup (i.e. AoE, NAS,... DIY'd out out of an old system). Or in the case of RAID, quite a few partitioned properly with low capacity needs, will give some nice results for short stroke setups. Well that's your opinion/experience. Not the one I've read on the web at large or from Nano.
Well, again I remind you that I'm not in Japan right now, and that the prices are not the same. For me, using the cheapest drives I can find, it's a 60$->100$ difference. Times 4 you get a significant amount of cash.
So for four 1TB drives that would cost me 400$ I would have 4TB that I couldn't possibly being to fill, and slightly more performance that I cannot even begin to use until PS is updated. Or for 400$ I can have 2TB of RE drives that are slightly more reliable.
Look, I've tried. I did it. Both in the objective before-and-after tests I ran for many operations and in the subjective feeling of the speed/snappiness of the app: there are not significant difference between my old 640GB drive and my new 4 disk RAID0.
I guess I fell in the 10% that breaks your balls.
I probably structure my sentences like someone that uses french as his/her first language. As for logic, it's a very interesting comment: I was always top of all my logic classes throughout my education. So I don't really know what you mean.
Lastly, saying that all girls use logic differently than guys is quite similar to saying that all Japanese men think that women are somewhat inferior to men. It's either wrong, sexism/racist, insulting... or, in the end, ridiculous?
Loa
Actually I got Nano to agree on several occasions.
Doesn't matter tho. The numbers speak for themselves.
No you're not using proper logic here at all (again). To say men and women mostly think differently is not the same thing as saying that men or women think something specific based on culture or sex as you're implying. This is yet another strawman on your part.
If I've followed this correctly, it's heart is the differences between consumer and enterprise drives. Both have their markets, and depending on specifics, one may be a better fit than the other.
In the specific case of software RAID, it's handled by the board's SATA ports and other system resources, with the operation/functionality directed by the OS (driver). So consumer drives can suffice here. Enterprise models can allow for improved reliability though, and would be a better choice for critical data. My take is simple. It's far cheaper than drive recovery services.
And if there's a planned switch to hardware based RAID before the drives reach their replacement cycle, then they can save money as the drives can be transfered to the card without the hassle/aggravation of an unstable array that may occur by using consumer models (and certainly will with SAS gear in my experience). That's not to say there isn't aggravation involved (over time required), as the data on the drives would be lost during the initialization process. So it would have to be backed up properly first, the array constructed, then restored from the backup media. Rather time consuming.Prices differ, especially from country to country it seems.
Sad fact of life (economics to be specific), and in some cases, taxes make a substantial difference. But there's no need for tempers over it. Searches (prices) usually turn up country/currency centered results anyway (stupid cookies).I know I have to make an effort to locate pricing in other currencies, or in some cases locate a vendor that will ship internationally to help members having a hard time locating something specific.
Please don't think this as an attack directed at anyone. Just an observation.
A straw man sophism is when someone attacks a position or an argument that is similar (but easier to attack) than the real position or argument. Get your semantics right.
I was not doing that for PS4 + RAID performance, nor was I doing that when I was comparing your sexist comment with a made-up racist comment.
Of course it's not. That's not what I said at all. Nor was that what I was implying. Take your time and read properly.
And strangely enough, while a true racist comment would get anyone banned on a decent forum like this one, your sexist comment passes without a problem.
Sadly this attempt to clear things up will probably get this thread locked... Or worse.
Loa
P.S. Thanks Nano for your heads up. Your take that paying for RE drives is a question of reliability (also backed-up by tests I've seen elsewhere) is what convinced me to pay a premium. Simple as that.
No. you need to get it straight. A strawman argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It can also be when you base the proof of your argument on a falsehood or mistaken data/belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
You're holding up a false untrue representation (thus the term straw man - IOW a fake doll) of something someone said or did and attacking that instead of the correct/real statement/deed that was made.
That's exactly what you said. Here's your sentence: "Lastly, saying that all girls use logic differently than guys is quite similar to saying that all Japanese men think that women are somewhat inferior to men."
Using logic is thinking.
So you just said that a general truth like "Men think differently than woman" is akin to men thinking something sinister and specific (ie. "women are somewhat inferior to men") based on culture and ethnicity as you implied "Japanese".
What gives? First you say something and then when called on it you say you didn't say that - even though it's right there unchanged for all to see that you actually did. You're a little confusing to converse with.
Because you misunderstood it and made a strawman out of it. All I said was that men and women think differently. I didn't say worse, or better, inferior, or superior - just different. And they do. You made it into a sexist thing all on your own. And a racial thing too with your Japanese remark. Or at least you tried to lay that on me. I'm sorry for you if your thinking automatically goes in that direction. Mine doesn't so don't lay that crap on me! You asked me why I assumed you were a girl and I said because of the way you use logic. Meaning the way you seem to think. It's very much like a girls. Take that as an insult if you like or as a compliment - as it was actually intended. The choice is yours. But whatever you do don't hold up a misrepresentation of something I said and then make accusations based on that falsehood. That's a strawman and it's intellectually dishonest.
I doubt it. I don't see any tempers flaring. It's still on a discussion level - off-topic as it is...
Look, I give up. You win.
I give you a definition of the straw man sophism that is exactly the same as the reference you chose yourself. You then personally decide to add something to the definition that allows you to say I got it wrong.
You make a discriminatory statement (a sexism) and can't understand its similarity to another form of discrimination (a made-up example of racism).
You seem to reduce "thinking" to logic. It's not the same thing; not by a long shot. Look up "thinking" in your reference website: logic is a single part of that much larger "thinking" whole.
There are no "different" ways to use logic; logic is like maths: you have it right, or your have it wrong. It can't go "differently". So saying that someone's logic is different from the correct one is another way of saying that it's wrong.
I enjoyed some of your insights on RAIDs on this forum, so thank you for that.
Loa
I give you a definition of the straw man sophism that is exactly the same as the reference you chose yourself. You then personally decide to add something to the definition that allows you to say I got it wrong.
You make a discriminatory statement (a sexism) and can't understand its similarity to another form of discrimination (a made-up example of racism).
You seem to reduce "thinking" to logic. It's not the same thing; not by a long shot. Look up "thinking" in your reference website: logic is a single part of that much larger "thinking" whole.
There are no "different" ways to use logic; logic is like maths: you have it right, or your have it wrong. It can't go "differently". So saying that someone's logic is different from the correct one is another way of saying that it's wrong.
I enjoyed some of your insights on RAIDs on this forum, so thank you for that.
Loa
No, there's nothing about "similar" or "easier to attack" in the definition. At all. And it has nothing to do with that. It's about it being a false representation. Just like a straw man is a false representation of a real man. See?
BTW, "Sophism" needs for it to be deliberate and for the purpose of deception. A strawman can be used unintentionally. I sometimes use strawmen without realizing it until someone points out the the falseness of my presuppositions.
So if I say girls are different in any way at all it's sexist? Even my dictionary says for it to be "sexism" it "typically" has to be "against women". - (source: dictionary.com) Maybe part of the problem is that you don't know English well enough? So far the source of conflicts here seem to all be your lack or word skills and perhaps a reluctance or inability to use a dictionary.
Even you did this on your own when you said "girls use logic" + "is quite similar to" + "men think". Even you yourself interchanged the two words "think" and "logic". Here's a sentence from wiki's page on logic: "This ancient motivation is still alive, although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic; typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking, a compulsory course at many universities."
The subject was logic meaning powers/style of reason, so you can just assume I meant the same thing by "think" or "thinking". OK?
That's about the third time you've said this after being combative or trying to cause a fight. I don't understand what it's supposed to imply.
At a minimum
, as when you get into hardware controllers, it's even more so due to stability issues (drop outs). If that controller happens to be SAS, it's effectively mandatory, as the drop out rates are so high, they can go online/disappear rapidly. The likes of which might make you think about breaking something.
great thinking! its never too hard to find out the platter density of drives.
sounds very nasty, you would think by now that they would have been developing HDs for long enough to get rid of these problems - especially with enterprise drives! WD ftw - it seems...I'm sticking with WD for reliability reasons as well. Seagate's had some issues fairly recently (too much so for my taste), and it was more than just the 7200.11 @1.5TB models. It affected the ES.2 line, as well as the other consumer models as well, to varying degrees. "Boot of Death" on an enterprise drive = Beyond Bad.
i do recall a conversation about that, rather un-impressed with the way Hitachi handled it all.. very unprofessional. i prefer the "old" Hitachi from a decade ago, i had several laptop & desktop drives (two which still work to this day and are well over a decade old). unfortunately the throw-away society we lived in has been applied to the computer industry - an industry that REALLY does not need it..
that is really bad! what sort of time frame are we talking for the failures?.....Greater than 10% with multiple makers/models lately, which is appalling.
*casually ignores OT discussion* haha
FTR AFAIK:: logic is different to thinking.
OK, time for a reality check...
Folks,
I have to admit - I was wrong. I've done a LOT of tearing down, rebuilding arrays, reinstalling, and testing lately, and the speedups I was claiming left out one crucial detail - THE HARD DISKS WERE CHANGED OUT.
These 1TB 7200.12s are just plain faster. Period. So I wanted to compare the 750s (original RAID - full partitions) to the 750s (20GB partitions as recommended), and the 1TBs (full) to the 1TBs (150GB parts).
Results: not as great as I thought. But still better.
3-1TB - full partitions
Results 172.87
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.8 (9L30)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model MacPro1,1
Drive Type Mac
Disk Test 172.87
Sequential 272.65
Uncached Write 421.24 258.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 536.20 303.38 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 112.24 32.85 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 656.89 330.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 126.56
Uncached Write 42.96 4.55 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 408.82 130.88 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 321.82 2.28 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 360.49 66.89 MB/sec [256K blocks]
3 1TB - 150GB partitions
Disk Test 199.76
Sequential 252.34
Uncached Write 439.41 269.79 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 574.47 325.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 96.73 28.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 668.15 335.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 165.31
Uncached Write 60.01 6.35 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 574.76 184.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 350.17 2.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 340.33 63.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
3 750GB RAID0 - full partitions
Disk Test 108.30
Sequential 170.16
Uncached Write 186.97 114.80 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 292.35 165.41 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 80.90 23.67 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 420.85 211.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 79.43
Uncached Write 32.75 3.47 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 194.28 62.20 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 116.87 0.83 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 163.38 30.32 MB/sec [256K blocks]
3 750GB RAID0 - 20GB partitions
Disk Test 113.96
Sequential 185.68
Uncached Write 310.12 190.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 297.25 168.18 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 78.77 23.05 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 442.73 222.51 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 82.20
Uncached Write 34.73 3.68 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 211.04 67.56 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 113.95 0.81 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 157.42 29.21 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Sorry I blew sunshine up everyone's behinds. However, it's still preferable to place your most speed-sensitive data on the outside partitions and then stripe those. The difference is not 100% - it's more like 10-20%.
Oh well. Thought I had something there. At least I tried - everyone else try to come up with free performance increases of that magnitude - I welcome the suggestions.
By the way, Leopard installed on the new 3x1TB array in less than 15 minutes. Not bad for an "old" 2006 Pro.
JP
Folks,
I have to admit - I was wrong. I've done a LOT of tearing down, rebuilding arrays, reinstalling, and testing lately, and the speedups I was claiming left out one crucial detail - THE HARD DISKS WERE CHANGED OUT.
These 1TB 7200.12s are just plain faster. Period. So I wanted to compare the 750s (original RAID - full partitions) to the 750s (20GB partitions as recommended), and the 1TBs (full) to the 1TBs (150GB parts).
Results: not as great as I thought. But still better.
3-1TB - full partitions
Results 172.87
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.8 (9L30)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model MacPro1,1
Drive Type Mac
Disk Test 172.87
Sequential 272.65
Uncached Write 421.24 258.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 536.20 303.38 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 112.24 32.85 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 656.89 330.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 126.56
Uncached Write 42.96 4.55 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 408.82 130.88 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 321.82 2.28 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 360.49 66.89 MB/sec [256K blocks]
3 1TB - 150GB partitions
Disk Test 199.76
Sequential 252.34
Uncached Write 439.41 269.79 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 574.47 325.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 96.73 28.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 668.15 335.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 165.31
Uncached Write 60.01 6.35 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 574.76 184.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 350.17 2.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 340.33 63.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
3 750GB RAID0 - full partitions
Disk Test 108.30
Sequential 170.16
Uncached Write 186.97 114.80 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 292.35 165.41 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 80.90 23.67 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 420.85 211.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 79.43
Uncached Write 32.75 3.47 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 194.28 62.20 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 116.87 0.83 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 163.38 30.32 MB/sec [256K blocks]
3 750GB RAID0 - 20GB partitions
Disk Test 113.96
Sequential 185.68
Uncached Write 310.12 190.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 297.25 168.18 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 78.77 23.05 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 442.73 222.51 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 82.20
Uncached Write 34.73 3.68 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 211.04 67.56 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 113.95 0.81 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 157.42 29.21 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Sorry I blew sunshine up everyone's behinds. However, it's still preferable to place your most speed-sensitive data on the outside partitions and then stripe those. The difference is not 100% - it's more like 10-20%.
Oh well. Thought I had something there. At least I tried - everyone else try to come up with free performance increases of that magnitude - I welcome the suggestions.
By the way, Leopard installed on the new 3x1TB array in less than 15 minutes. Not bad for an "old" 2006 Pro.
JP
care to explain what 'changed out' means?
it makes logical sense that the larger sized drive will have faster performance on the outside partitions and etc.
thanks for the reviews, very interesting stuff
Changed out means I started with 3 7200.11 Seagate 750s and replaced them with 3 7200.12 Seagate 1TB drives. I really thought the 750s would be very close to the 1TBs, but they aren't. I tried to upgrade the firmware on all the 750s to ".AEK" - may have not been the best choice.
JP
JP
ahhh makes sense..
the difference is massive! some write speeds are twice as fast
! that is incredible! just goes to show how the technology can advance..Nice experiment, and good of you to realize the issue and clarify the data.
Each new design (not just a small revision to an existing line) has to sort out the same issues, so it's always possible a bug can slip by. Unfortunately, the goal of reduced costs are being pushed in directions that are affecting product quality/reliablility, and all of them are guilty of it.
A lot's changed since then, particularly in the recording technology. Push the platter density, and problems are bound to occur. But it's being magnified by the push for short development times (inadequate testing/bug chasing), lower parts quality (electronic components that get used), and poor quality control IMO.
Most seems to occur between the first few days to say 3 months or so. Definitley under 6 months. Then you may get another spike just after the warranty expires. That data only comes in time though, and essentially impossible to predict prior to those failures. I don't trust the manufacturer data at face value any longer. It's being manipulated. I.e. toss out the worst 10% as outliers, and only publish the best 90%. Though I dont' exactly like it, it's acceptible for consumer drives, but not on enterprise models. That's a raw deal IMO.that is really bad! what sort of time frame are we talking for the failures?
*casually ignores OT discussion* haha
FTR AFAIK:: logic is different to thinking.
The initial results were a combination of the location on the platters and differences in platter density between the two series (7200.12's = 500GB platters).
I've not followed the firmware revisions on these drives. Can you elaborate?