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.
Time Capsule Not Using Server-Grade Hard Drive As Advertised?
- Thread starter IntrinsicMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"[Senior product manager Jai] Chulani clarified that the “server-grade” drives in a Time Capsule are the same 7200 rpm drives used for Apple’s Xserve servers, and that they have a higher mean time between failure (MTBF) rating than consumer drives."
--TidBITS
It's already been established that the Deskstar 7K1000 is of a higher grade than a standard consumer drive, with 50,000 start/stop cycles (same as the Barracuda ES), 1/1E15 error rate (better that Barracuda ES's 1/1E14), and recommendation for (and verified use in) server applications. Your requiring a specific claim of an arbitrary threshold simply doesn't make sense. There is no contrary indication that these drives are merely consumer grade.
There, the discussion is over. You can keep repeating the same bogus claims as long as you feel compelled, but I promise they'll be answered every time.
The 'fanboi' tag always signals the end of a rational argument. Where is Dell being held up as an example of high quality?
Well I'd imagine what's important is not what the reasonable person might assume but what the reasonable person would assume.
Would the reasonable person assume 'server grade' means 'one of the enterprise/server grade drives sold by various manufacturers'? I'm not so sure they would. In fact I'm pretty certain most reasonable people would think 'server grade' means 'a grade that is used in servers'.
Most reasonable people would assume that if Apple intended to use enterprise grade drives they would say they are using enterprise grade drives.
It's pretty hard to give up on something you've been arguing about for pages and pages... but surely you can admit it's not such a big deal.
It must escape me. But since your one of the misguided that thinks Apple did some wrong, you can find for me and everyone else the definition of server-grade from a computer engineering, IT, CIS, or any computer related text book, journal, etc. to prove how Apple and Hitachi used this term incorrectly.
Now, if Apple would just add that information to their Time Capsule pages....
Perhaps you should check your facts again, the ES is also 1/1E15.
http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_barracuda_es.pdf
Here:
No, rational arguments stopped about 340 posts ago - now it's just contradiction.
Not according to its website under technical specifications. If, however, we accept the conflict in your favor, it merely proves that the Deskstar is on par with the Barracuda ES, and still blunts your consumer drive argument.
I don't see anything about Dell products having "high quality" there. I see a claim about the grade of drives used in a popular line of server products.
Of course it is such a ‘big deal’ to some as they would not be able to write such a ‘yawn-inducing’ thesis on such a trivial topic if it wasn’t; while digging such a big mountain of a hole that they cannot climb out of.
Have a beer, go for a walk in the woods, soak in some rays and chew on a x6 pack of McNuggets dipped in barbe-sauce. ....breathe slowly, smile like an innocent child and begin to let it all go...
Yes, the website and the PDF data sheet do have different numbers.
Could you please explain this "consumer drive" argument that you insist that I'm making?
My argument is that Apple's use of the undefined statement "server grade" is causing confusion, and can reasonably make people expect the higher tier Ultrastar server drives in the Time Capsule.
I'm saying that Apple should add a footnote to define "server grade" as meaning "at least 10^6 hour MTBF", which would seem to cover the desktop Deskstar drives that Apple is using (although we only have the claim of an Apple talking head that the Deskstar is one million hour MTBF, Hitachi does not publish the number).
All these arguments seem to be against the thought that "Aiden says the Deskstars are junk", and I haven't been saying that at all. I've said "good" and "better" - and will anyone here argue that an Ultrastar is not a better, more reliable drive than the Deskstar?
That there are "only" two designations: "desktop" (whatever that means) and "server" (implying that only enterprise drives are suitable for servers of any kind).
The fact is that there are least three tiers of drives according to recommended use: consumer, high performance consumer/server, and enterprise.
Ultrastar drives are enterprise drives. The only confusion results from people like you who insist that all servers are enterprise servers.
It's not true of any other component, and it's not true of hard drives. A "server grade" hard drive does not imply an "enterprise grade" hard drive any more than an "Intel E7510" workstation/server chipset implies an E8500 enterprise chipset. Both are "better" than consumer chipsets. A mid-range server is not an enterprise server. Both are "better" than consumer PCs.
Ultrastars are desktop drives, too. Deskstars are made in four series, only one of which is consumer grade, and all others are "better" grades. One of them is enterprise grade as well.
I don't disagree that "server grade" isn't particularly meaningful, but it doesn't say anything about "enterprise grade" and unless all servers are enterprise servers, one does not imply the other, and the footnote is unnecessary.
That's the whole problem. "Good" and "better" based on "Aiden's" binary scale isn't reflective of the computer hardware market. A Deskstar 7K1000 is a "better" drive than a P7K, just as a Barracuda is "better" than a plain Seagate. A Barracuda ES is "better" than a Barracuda, but that doesn't push a Barracuda down into a "good" category.
Actually, that's his point, as far as I can tell: No way did the say the one that wasn't the "better" one, suddenly was crap.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Aiden.
How do you apply a binary scale to more than two products? A Deskstar 7K is "better". Anything with products below it is "better". A Deskstar 7K is "better" than a P7K. A Barracuda is "better" than a Seagate. A Caviar SE is "better" than a Caviar. Not a one of those is an enterprise-grade drive. That's why "good" and "better" is a bogus distinction.
Excellent, now all we have is "binary" in other words: Black or white, no greyscale at all
Seriously, you can have two good products both better than "ordinary" run-of-the-mill products. Yet, one of those good products, can _still_ be better than the other good one.
Who said it's crap, unless it's not the best of them all? "Binary" (monochrome) point of view my arse.
Absolutely! And "'ordinary' run-of-the-mill products" are consumer-grade.
Both of those two better products can be server-grade. One of those can even be enterprise-grade. The existence of an enterprise-grade product doesn't automatically make everything else "consumer-grade".
Exactly. There's more than consumer and enterprise drives. One such "grey" area is server-grade. That's exactly why server-grade doesn't imply enterprise-grade. I'm glad you've got it!
Not necessarily. It's not a law of nature that that is where the divider should be put. In fact, someone could argue that even a 2.5 inch 5400 could be used as server drive. Another might argue, that anything not fully enterprise is run-of-the-mill.
Besides, as far as I can tell (again), Aiden responded to the accusation where he supposedly called one of them crap, while just pointing out that one of them weren't up for it.
No. But on the hand, there's a reason people think of the 1TB-drive as consumer grade, even if it is in the top of that category (supposedly). Again, you don't have to continue that monochrome point of view.
Yes, as has been pointed out by several people, "server grade" is marketing fluff: An effort to sway the average consumer into thinking that the drive is more than it is: A good desktop drive.
As someone else mentioned: I wonder wonder why they didn't slap the label "iPod Grade" on the MBA. Could it be that that would actually _hurt_ their sales, just like this "server grade" makes people believe it's better than it is?
Anyway, my whole purpose was, that you guys cannot interpret Aiden's response as him saying that the "not the best"-drive suddenly has been given the description "crap" by him. It's a good drive. A good desktop drive. Unfortunately (or, rather: For apple it's great): People think of "server grade" as something a whole lot better than a good desktop drive. Now, if they didn't think that monicker would sell more Time Machines, then why use it at all? Obviously, they think of it as a selling point, why would they otherwise have had it next to the "802.11n" blue label as one of the main attractions?
This is entirely contradictory. If something is "better" than a consumer grade drive, how is it still a consumer grade drive? Wouldn't a better class of drive be a different class of drive?
There are 2.5" server-grade drives. Not all of them are, just like not all 3.5" drives are.
Well, that's a binary. You just decried them.
It's the "pointing out" that is flawed. How is the 7K1000 "not up" to server use? It has the same start/stop cycles, an equivalent or better non-recoverable failure rate (contradictory facts on Seagate's site), and is marketed for and used in commercial servers.
Which is?
An enterprise-grade drive is a good desktop drive.
Sure, they think of it as a drive sold for and used in servers. That's for the drive manufacturer to determine, and unsurprisingly, they have: they sell the 7K1000 for server use. They do not sell all of their drives for such use. They have enterprise drives, including the Deskstar E7K and the Ultrastar line. There's something between consumer-grade and enterprise-grade. That can certainly be called server-grade.
If they meant enterprise-grade, why didn't they say enterprise-grade? They said server-grade because they meant something better than consumer-grade. The Deskstar 7K1000 is such a drive. A Seagate Barracuda is better than consumer-grade Seagate drives (and recommended for use in servers), but not as good as a Barracuda ES (for enterprise servers). A WD Caviar SE16 is better than a WD Caviar (and recommended for servers), but not as good as an RE (for enterprise servers).
I don't know what is so difficult about looking at the applications section on a drive. There is at least one line from each major manufacturer not marketed for use in servers at all. That clearly means there is a floor to server-grade status. Anything above that is server-grade. There's also at least one line from each major manufacturer designated as enterprise-grade. That implies a ceiling. Between those two lines are several other lines, all of which can be legitimately termed server-grade.
Well, if you insist on misinterpreting on purpose
I was talking about two drives one being better than the other. I am not saying that both of those are non-consumer drives. As I state, ou could put the divider consumer/noncumser somewhere else. For instance in between the two.
Propably. But you do realise that was my point, right?
Er, yes. Did you not get the note: Just because I mention that someone might argue that anything not fully enterprise-grade is run of the mill, does not in any way, form or fashion mean I am that "someone". Please stop with the misinterpreting, all in an effort to twist my words.
If that's so, then perhaps you should begin arguing the flaws in the "Pointing out", instead.
Someone haven't been reading the thread
Propably, but that's not what I am saying. Quite the opposite, infact: That a desktop grade (no matter if it's a good one) doesn't necessarily make a good enterprise grade HDD.
Further, are you now claiming, that not only is the drive the TC "server grade" (the fluff-word), but that it has suddenly moved on, and are even better than that? That it has now morphed into being "enterprise grade"? I hope not.
Ah, yes. I guess one _might_ be able to mae that argument. However, you seem to forget that it's a fluff-word, and in no way have Apple said it's in between the two. Further, they do not even state anywhere on their site, what "server grade" means. Quite the opposite, in fact. Only a talking head has been out, trying to explain "what they mean". But most people I know (most of them non-geeks) are thinking that this thing must be "server grade" in the sense that it must be just as good as the servers the enterprise fraternity uses.
Because if they had said "enterprise grade", they would actually have to deliver instead of just mounting a "good desktop grade" hdd?
But, I'm glad you concede they used a nonsense fluff-term in order to make it look better. That they used a nonsense-term to sway non-geeks into buying it. Thank you.
Yet, at the same time, you have admitted that they're contradictory, depending on where to look. Now, if your argument should have any meaning, they shouldn't have to invent the term "server grade", they could just let people look the drive up on the manufacturer's website. But the reality is: That nonsense monicker "server grade" will push more of them out the door, than if it hadn't been there. You don't think that a lot of people wouldn't go somewhere else, if the MBA had the label "iPod Grade HDD" or "iPod Grade Battery"?
And the reason is, of course, that people don't look these things up. People on average aren't techno-geeks, you know.
On the contrary, you seem to be thoroughly confused. Introducing multiple possible arguments does not make Hitachi's assertion or Apple's use of it inaccurate. You do understand that if one place to draw the line is exactly how Apple has stated, that it's a valid advertising claim? Or are you so addle-minded that you think someone who doesn't know the difference would expect something s/he doesn't know exists?
What, if anything, is your point?
You've been waffling about for far too long. Are you claiming that the drives are not server-grade? Are you claiming that enterprise-grade is what was promised? Or are you just rambling?
I already have. Many, many times. But here you remain.
"Desktop grade" is meaningless. No one claimed that the drive is enterprise-grade. Again, you are forcing a binary while claiming you're not. Enterprise != server. It's not that complicated.
No. Hitachi, WD, Seagate, Fujitsu, Intel, Apple, Dell, HP, and IBM are claiming that there are multiple tiers of computer components. There's room for something between consumer-grade products and enterprise-grade products. Server-grade is one such thing.
If they don't know there are different kinds of servers, then they can't possibly expect enterprise-grade drives. Anyone who knows what an enterprise-grade drive is would know that there's more than one alternative to it.
Hello, marketing. I'd like you to meet Tosser.
Of course they are. My god. It is truly not that complicated. If it's a valid claim under at least one definition, it's a valid claim.
Server-grade implies better than not-server grade. You've already admitted this drive is better than some. It does not automatically mean that it's enterprise-grade, no matter how hard you torture the language.
Yeah, and they'd buy this, thinking it's a drive used in servers. It absolutely is. The only people who could possibly expect enterprise-grade drives would be people who know the difference (your "techno-geeks"), and those people would not be content to rest on an advertising claim in the first place.
There's no question that the 7K1000 is better than your basic consumer drive. Claim satisfied.
Am I the onloy one who is worried by the fact that Apple uses desktop-HD's in their servers? Obviously that's where Apple got their "server-grade" claim from, but fact remains that Deskstar is a consumer-HD. SJ even went as far as specificly mentioning "server-grade" HD during the keynote, and that claim is repeated in the website. Why say something like that when they are in reality using regular Joe Sixpack-HD?
It's been said, but needs to be restated...
It doesn't matter what Apple calls "Server-Grade".
What matters is that since it implies a higher grade product, Apple must define how it arrives at it. That's all.
They could say, "it's server-grade because we use it in our servers." That's cute, and it works, but doesn't hold a whole lot of sway.
They could say, "it's server-grade because its MTBF is a million hours." That would be a tactical definition, and would lend a LOT of weight on their marketing.
Without question, though, when you stand up and call out a feature as "deluxe", you must say why it's "deluxe". It might be stupid as sin, but you are required by truth-in-advertising to at least plainly define it.
It doesn't matter what Apple calls "Server-Grade".
What matters is that since it implies a higher grade product, Apple must define how it arrives at it. That's all.
They could say, "it's server-grade because we use it in our servers." That's cute, and it works, but doesn't hold a whole lot of sway.
They could say, "it's server-grade because its MTBF is a million hours." That would be a tactical definition, and would lend a LOT of weight on their marketing.
Without question, though, when you stand up and call out a feature as "deluxe", you must say why it's "deluxe". It might be stupid as sin, but you are required by truth-in-advertising to at least plainly define it.
Excuse me, but there is no confusion here. I am not merely "introducing multiple arguments", I am showing you, by way of examples, that your definition is not cut in stone, but is based on speculation as to what apple means, and why they invented the term "server grade". In other words, you're trying to make believe Apple is not just trying to oversell their product.
Apple haven't "stated" anything, except by a talking head. They do not explain anywhere what _they_ mean by "server grade".
Excuse me, but fluff marketing words have that exact purpose. And any marketing department will tell you this. It has nothing to do with being "addle-minded".
Exactly what I say: That you should stop making believe I'm saying something I'm not. It's really not that difficult to understand.
Ah, yes, the fluff-term. The term they had to have a tlaking head explain. The term they actually removed from the front page, so it doesn't say it next to the "802.11N"-label anymore.
Neither. I am saying that even though they might get a freebie on a technicality, they are inventing fluff-words in order to mislead the non-geek customer into thinking that the product is better than it is. That Apple is counting on the non-geek to get "pro" associations from that invented term.
Weird, because I see you defending misleading fluff-marketing, stating that "server grade" is a precise term, claiming that "server grade" means that there is a noche in between consumer and "enterprise", and that that niche should be called "server grade". But that's not all. Besides your feeble attempt at revisionism, you also don't even mind twisting my words, making strawman arguments. Yes, I can certianly see how you focus on the "pointing out" …
Weird. You have no problem with "enterprise grade", "consumer grade", and even the recently invented term "server grade", but boy, "desktop grade" all of a sudden is meaningless!? Haha,
Can you make up your mind? I asked you whether you actually meant that server grade meant enterprise grade, since it looked like that from your argument. And now you're saying that flat out?? Before you claimed that "server grade" was in-between "consumer grade" and "enterprise grade", and that that was the reason Apple used it.
Now, it's "server grade is the same as enterprise", all the while arguing that noone would think "server grade" actually means something to the level of enterprise?
Further, there's nothing "binary" (monochrome) in the statement you quoted. Get real.
Please make up your mind. You just said it was the exact same just above.
No, not necessarily. Just like people knowing there's a difference between an automatic and a manual gearbox, doesn't necessarily know about the details and variances within those two segments.
Yes. But the reality is, you're trying to claim this is more than marketing fluff.
LOL, no it's not. That's not how logic and argumentation works.
Give me a break. Of course server grade implies something better than non-server grade. You have to do better than spewing banalities.
What "server grade" also implies is that this is better than the external drive you have at home. Therefore it is fluff.
Further, you have just stated, that "server grade" is "enterprise grade", but still you seem to wooble between which argument to choose. Please make up your mind.
Not at all. To most people (i.e. "normal" people"), there are only what you and I call "enterprise grade" and then there's the rest - "average consumer drives". Other than that, all they look at is size (and a few are looking at RPM's as well).
"My" definition is that server-grade implies more than consumer-grade and less than enterprise-grade. This is born out by every major manufacturer of hard drives. It is born out by manufacturers of computers and computer chipsets.
Nonsense. Marketing terms don't make people expect something they don't know exists. You can't expect something you're not aware of.
How, exactly, does it fail to live up to the claim?
And they do. 50,000 start/stop cycles, 1/1E15 non-recoverable error rate, explicit recommendation for use in servers. Check.
Compare to a typical consumer drive: 30,000 start/stop cycles or not listed, no listed error rate, and no recommendation for use in servers.
Compare to an enterprise drive: 50,000 start/stop cycles, 1/1E15 error rate, MTBF figure, explicit recommendation for use in enterprise servers.
Is the 7K better than a consumer drive? Yes.
No. I stated that it is one possible term to describe something between consumer and enterprise products. It could also be called "premium", "high performance", "workstation", or any other equally ambiguous term. What is clear is that it is something better than a consumer drive and something not as good as an enterprise drive.
I don't know what a "noche" is, but there is absolutely a space there, and some people call it server-grade, including Intel and Dell.
Yeah, because "desktop" isn't a quality. It's a format. Enterprise-grade drives are also "desktop" drives.
Server grade IS NOT the same as enterprise. Jesus Christ. I've never said that it is.
I don't think I'll respond to a claim on "logic" from someone who doesn't know the '!=' operator. In order for something to be false advertising, it must be unsupportable. If there is a valid claim, as there is here, even if it is ambiguous or "fluff", it's legally valid.
Never.
Back to binaries. What a joke. There is more than "enterprise" and "not enterprise", and "server" does not mean "enterprise server".
Server != enterprise. Figure it out.
Yet you're not the average computer user. None of us are, frankly.
I asked if you would stop posting banalities. This time you not only do that, you also make yet another strawman.
Of course people won't be lead to think of something they do not know exist. Hence I said they will think of it as the same quality as what we call "enterprise grade" – namely that "server grade" means "the same as the big boys use in their server setup". You really should stop with your twisting of words.
See above as well as my posts where I mention that they might get off the hook on a technicality.
Hmm, I'd say it's one of the better consumer drives.
So, without that invented term it would just be "high-end", "high-performance", or "premium" consumer drive. Good.
Of course I meant "niche", not "noche". It's called "a typographical error" or "typo" for short.
Anyway, that's a nifty way of getting around the argument without actually considering it.
And then you post this one, in response to my ""desktop grade all of a sudden is meaningless":
I couldn't stop laughing from that. You're kidding, right? "desktop" isn't a quality, but "server" is! Excellent!
Then it all makes sense. You get to choose which is a "quality" and which isn't. And because you choose to exclude one, but not the other, this is suddenly fact.
Further, since you claim it's not so, and by extension "server grade" can't be either, I wonder why Apple uses the term … I assume you will try to ignore the essense of this, so let me ask out right: What's the difference between "server" and "desktop" ( or laptop, ipod etc)?
You cannot simply choose which ones are a quality as well.
Really? I even quoted you saying it.
Well, if you don't want to talk advice, I can't force you. However, saying that if a claim works in one place (other areas of argumentation/other products), it (automatically) must be valid in other places is idiotic. A classic way of telling if a seemingly valid argument is indeed valid is to use the same argument in a different place. If it doesn't hold water there, or can be used to explain/defend/argue against everything and anything, then the argument is invalid.
You're really intent of trying to claim my posts are binary. They're not. I am merely telling you, that because people aren't geeks, they have no clue as to what constitutes (what we call) "enterprise". All they know is, that there's a threshold as to when one would be calling it "server". It's really not that difficult.
Next, you'll be saying that people who divide, say, audio apps into "consumer" and "pro-sumer" (the next step being "pro") are binary. Stating that people do that is not binary at all. It's common sense. It doesn't mean that they're not aware (and that I am not aware) that there are differences within these categories. It's simply a matter of thresholds.
Get better at checking the validity of arguments.
I'm off.
The "big boys" do use these drives in their servers:
"Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (Hitachi GST) today announced that SoftJoys – a provider of computing server equipment and services in Russia – is using Hitachi GST’s one terabyte* hard drives in its high-capacity data storage servers. The Hitachi Deskstar™ 7K1000 hard drive will be used by SoftJoys to develop and launch data storage servers with a total capacity of 24 terabytes. The data storage servers are intended for data streaming applications."
If they're off the hook for false advertising, it means the claim is supportable and therefore valid. "Technicalities" are the whole ball game.
I did consider it--in the very same sentence, no less. I said that there is a space between consumer and enterprise, and that server-grade was one possible and perfectly reasonable way to describe it.
That's not a "technicality". It's the same term Dell and HP use to differentiate the machines between their workstations and their enterprise servers. It's the same term Intel uses between its consumer chipsets and its enterprise chipsets.
You quoted me as saying "Server != enterprise". That doesn't mean what you think it means.
Indeed. "Server-grade" doesn't mean "enterprise-grade" anywhere else, and it doesn't in hard drives either.
I'll even throw in another one: Windows Vista, Windows Server, and Windows Enterprise Server (there's even Datacenter Edition, which is even "better" than Enterprise).
No, because that implies at least three classifications. It may well be a ternary, and I'm perfectly content with the separation of 3.5" desktop hard drives into a ternary.
We don't have a situation in which there are your basic consumer drives, your top-of-the-line enterprise drives, and nothing in the middle. The "thing" in the middle needs a term. Since it includes most servers on the planet with the exception of enterprise-duty servers, I'm perfectly content calling it "server-grade". The point is that it is clearly neither consumer nor enterprise, and so the marketing term accomplishes its goal. They were very careful to avoid "enterprise-grade" for the precise reason that they weren't referring to enterprise drives, or they would have just said so. Everyone else on the planet calls enterprise-grade products "enterprise-grade" products. Intel's chipsets distinguish server and enterprise server, Microsoft's products distinguish server and enterprise server, HP and Dell's servers distinguish between servers and enterprise servers, and so hard drive makers doing the same isn't unreasonable or even unique to the time capsule. They clearly cut out drives they don't recommend for servers.
Sayonara.
I've just ordered a 500GB Time Capsule?
I've just ordered and paid for a new MBP and a 500GB TC... Reading these posts I am not the wiser as to should I have ordered a TC? Have I ordered 'bad' product? I don't want to lose my 5000 digital photographs... Could one of you 'experts' pls advise...
I've just ordered and paid for a new MBP and a 500GB TC... Reading these posts I am not the wiser as to should I have ordered a TC? Have I ordered 'bad' product? I don't want to lose my 5000 digital photographs... Could one of you 'experts' pls advise...
I've just ordered and paid for a new MBP and a 500GB TC... Reading these posts I am not the wiser as to should I have ordered a TC? Have I ordered 'bad' product? I don't want to lose my 5000 digital photographs... Could one of you 'experts' pls advise...
No, you haven't. Neither the 500GB or the 1TB are "bad" products. And since you bought the 500GB, you're lucky – that drive is better than the TB-one. You actually bought the best of the two. A good one.
Even if they were the same, it would still not be "bad products". This discussion is all about marketing fluff and whether Apple's marketing department has gone too far. It's a discussion on degrees. Noone is claiming it's a crap product. Don't worry.