It is not the same thing.
The Seagate runs the hybridisation on the drive.
Here there is software and motherboard chips involved.
Standalone hybrids are good, and they are agnostic.
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.
Seagate Hybrid 1TB HDD
- Thread starter Wicked1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is not the same thing.
The Seagate runs the hybridisation on the drive.
Here there is software and motherboard chips involved.
Standalone hybrids are good, and they are agnostic.
Mr MM
macrumors 65816
What does this have to do with the complexity, reliability, and system-independence of the solution?
Mr MM
macrumors 65816
talmy
macrumors 601
I've owned all three Seagate hybrid drives, the original 500GB, the more recent 750GB, and the latest 1TB, 5400RPM.
The original 500GB drive ran (I should say *runs* since it is still in use) just fine but did suffer from vibration.
The 750GB drive ran for just under a year before failing. I'm not happy about that. The new 1TB drive does not feel any slower than the 750GB but has the advantage of more capacity and lower cost. I guess it has a higher effective transfer rate even though it obviously has a greater rotational latency. Perhaps it's better drive algorithms?
The 750GB and 1TB drives are rated at lower power consumption than the original 750GB 5400RPM drive they replaced. I didn't check this with the 500GB model, which I use in another computer.
As far as I'm concerned I'd do it again. The performance improvement is noticeable and I can't go 100% SSD because of cost/capacity.
The original 500GB drive ran (I should say *runs* since it is still in use) just fine but did suffer from vibration.
The 750GB drive ran for just under a year before failing. I'm not happy about that. The new 1TB drive does not feel any slower than the 750GB but has the advantage of more capacity and lower cost. I guess it has a higher effective transfer rate even though it obviously has a greater rotational latency. Perhaps it's better drive algorithms?
The 750GB and 1TB drives are rated at lower power consumption than the original 750GB 5400RPM drive they replaced. I didn't check this with the 500GB model, which I use in another computer.
As far as I'm concerned I'd do it again. The performance improvement is noticeable and I can't go 100% SSD because of cost/capacity.
It is not even clear what you are asking for, and the storage model of the Seagate is indeed simpler, but that's not even the whole story, that is the point.
Mr MM
macrumors 65816
its a pretty direct question, how do get you data into a storage drive
you can start with how the File system works on different formats, i.e. HFS+, NTFS, FAT..., the impact of the OS...
Then you could start with how that is affected by the way that the controller of those drives work, i.e. how the magnetic disk drives work, how SSDs work
With that in hand you can see how a cache works and how SSDs are a computer on its own and how HDDs are almost the same
with the knowledge of cache in hands you can see the difference between the different propositions of cache being used on different drives
basically answering that question, would have taught you everything that was on this thread and what wasnt even touched
but to spoon feed, its simple, seagate uses a faulty firmware that acts as a read cache for the HDD, WD uses a more granular approach that you can use it for read and write, similar to SRT that enables that with a low level driver, however since the nand doesnt have a direct contact with the south bridge or the cpu, it needs a firmware to act as its own controller. Basically they are going to need to install a low level driver. The thing to be worried is how that would play for the 4 OSes that we have out there that are common, unix, windows, linux and BeOS
in the end the WD solution is theoretically tons better than what seagate did
The Seagate works as a hybrid even in an external enclosure.
The Seagate is file system agnostic, so simpler, and more general.
The latest Seagate reserves a small part of the flash as a write cache.
A standalone hybrid provides a better opportunity for handling sudden system stoppage.
The Seagate is file system agnostic, so simpler, and more general.
The latest Seagate reserves a small part of the flash as a write cache.
A standalone hybrid provides a better opportunity for handling sudden system stoppage.
Mr MM
macrumors 65816
it doesnt matter
the only thing that is complicated is to install the driver, I raised the point before more regarding OS then FS, the 2 main OS are going to be in all probability supported
no
no, its the presence of capacitor that dictates that
lets be truthful here, you dont want to enter the SSD world because you are scared, you are going to find more flaws in a hybrid, get a large HDD and when you want buy a SSD, hybrids are just stop gag solutions
also soon the protocol/connector will change
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6294/breaking-the-sata-barrier-sata-express-and-sff8639-connectors
Last edited:
It does matter. I paid for the whole drive.
I'm talking about the complexity of the solution, not of the installation.
A standalone hybrid drive supports all SATA subsystems and all filesystems there.
That is not what Seagate says. They also say this part is configured as SLC.
In a SRT-based solution, sudden stoppage handling would have to be done by the SRT chip, requiring validation in combination with all existing and future platforms.
In a standalone solution, sudden stoppage handling can be validated in a more general way.
What happens on a non-SRT system or one that is not using it?
We are not talking about SSDs now, we are talking about having a general, non-coupled, less brittle hybrid drive.
WD's solution:
- WD hard disk firmware
- SanDisk SSD firmware
- Intel SRT firmware and SRT chip
- WD or Intel driver
Seagate's solution:
- Seagate hybrid drive firmware
Momentus XT is SLC.
"SSHD" is MLC with the small write part configured as SLC.
It matters.