In the market for a new hard drive.
My PC is running a 120GB SSD and alongside that a 1TB samsung disc, which has.. unfortunatly.. become riddled with bad sectors taking out a chunk of my data with it.. POS!
So do i replace it with another 1TB disc or go for a 2TB.. which seems £/GB the cheaper option.. are they slow in comparison?
Looking at seagate or WD on ebuyer.. is there a better brand?
http://www.tekforums.net/computing-technology-web-communication/what's-currently-'the-shizz'-in-hard-drives/ (http://www.tekforums.net/computing-technology-web-communication/what's-currently-'the-shizz'-in-hard-drives/)
Check this thread...
In theory larger is faster due to closer sectors, also increased platters are better.
http://www.ebuyer.com/319640-seagate-3tb-barracuda-internal-hard-drive-st3000dm001
1 year warranty sucks though
3TB crosses the magic line in my mind that screams too expensive
its 1 or 2 this time
http://www.ebuyer.com/264274-wd-2tb-green-desktop-drive-wd20earx#product-description
Thinking about that one.. last WD i had was the loudest thing i had ever heard so im struggling to believe the "offer best-in-class acoustics"
Green ones tend to have a noisy spin up but are quiet in operation I've found, however they aren't so good if you plan on hammering them, they are better for a data store (who uses a 3TB for anything other than data store anyway?)
I'm in a real dilemma, with my UnRAID box I'm gonna have to upgrade the parity drive to 2tb before I upgrade a storage drive. Glad to see the prices are still dropping from the highs of late last year though.
Lets hope the trend of dropping prices in these and ssds carry on so I can nab a few decent offers in the near future.
I'm going for it, since the SSD does all the work its rarely hammered.
oooooooo and i got Acronis True Image Personal free with it..
I'd still much rather have a few 1tb than 1x 2tb or 3tb, just so that if it dies, I don't lose everything :D
If you have something like unRaid then the redundancy is built into the system. So if a single drive fails you shouldn't lose anything. With that you can have 3tb or whatever and it'll mostly be ok. You do end up with a parity drive that can't be used for storage though.
It's a matter of weighing up the pros and cons of it all I suppose.
Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on August 30, 2012, 22:28:31 PM
Green ones tend to have a noisy spin up but are quiet in operation I've found
I can vouch for this, I have 2 'green' drives upstairs in an arcade cabinet acting as a NAS, when you wake even one up you can hear the ZERRRRRRRRRRRP from downstairs!
Quote from: zpyder on August 30, 2012, 23:36:20 PM
I'd still much rather have a few 1tb than 1x 2tb or 3tb, just so that if it dies, I don't lose everything :D
Physical space is my issue with this but also 4x 2TB drives in Raid5 = 6TB of usable space and redundancy where as you would need 6x 1TB drives for the same usable space and you could still lose 1TB of data.
Quote from: Adrock on August 31, 2012, 13:29:19 PM
If you have something like unRaid then the redundancy is built into the system. So if a single drive fails you shouldn't lose anything. With that you can have 3tb or whatever and it'll mostly be ok. You do end up with a parity drive that can't be used for storage though.
It's a matter of weighing up the pros and cons of it all I suppose.
Yeah, it all boils down to your potential expansion plans and capacity requirements - if you've never filled a 1TB drive it's pointless getting a 3TB i'd imagine, might as well get 2 1TBs and have a backup. The downside with unRAID is having to upgrade the parity drive first before you can upgrade the others, but it makes sense I suppose long term.