2TB Western Digital 3.5-inch (WD20EADS) is QUIET?

Silencing hard drives, optical drives and other storage devices

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

SileX
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:57 am

2TB Western Digital 3.5-inch (WD20EADS) is QUIET?

Post by SileX » Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:46 am

Is the new and massive (2TB) Western Digital 3.5-inch (WD20EADS) a quiet disk? Any audio specs? Thanks.

http://www.cdr.cz/picture/44966/large

tehcrazybob
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:56 pm
Location: Council Bluffs, Iowa
Contact:

Post by tehcrazybob » Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:02 am

Nobody knows, because it's not available for purchase yet. However, if it's a 5400 RPM GreenPower drive, it's probably fairly quiet. If it's a standard desktop drive, it ought to be reasonable (most drives lately aren't completely ridiculous) but won't compete with the very best.

Aris
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Bellevue, Nebraska
Contact:

Post by Aris » Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:14 pm

it would likely be a better option over 2x 1TB GP drives. i suppose if you really need that much storage then its your best bet.

i still have yet to fill 100gb on any single computer i own. my current rig is only using 18gb.

what i'm really looking forward to is those new samsung 256gb SSD drives that are supposed to be faster than the intel drives. Even if i cant afford them they will likely drive down the price on that 80gb intel SSD.

JazzJackRabbit
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:53 pm

Post by JazzJackRabbit » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:27 am

Different strokes for different blokes. I'm using 1TB+ on my current fileserver, and I expect it to increase as I continue to move more stuff on it.

What I wonder is how many platters this drive has. I'm guessing it has to be 4 or 5 platters. Seagate currently holds platter density record at 375GB per platter. I can certainly see WD upping that limit to 400GB per platter, which could make it a 5 platter drive. There is a possibility that WD upped density to 500GB per platter making for a four platter drive, but that seems unlikely.

bgiddins
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:04 am
Location: Australia

Post by bgiddins » Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:51 pm

Bound to set a new GB/W density efficiency record though if it does come to market.
[size=75][b]Server:[/b] Antec 300|Corsair VX450|Intel Q9550 E0|Asus P5Q-VM|8GB Kingston DDR2-800|Xigmatek HDT-S1283|1xWD3000GLFS|4xWD10EADS[/size]

chancy
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:22 pm

Post by chancy » Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:09 pm

JazzJackRabbit wrote:What I wonder is how many platters this drive has. I'm guessing it has to be 4 or 5 platters. Seagate currently holds platter density record at 375GB per platter. I can certainly see WD upping that limit to 400GB per platter, which could make it a 5 platter drive.
Even with the assumption that Western Digital will leapfrog over 1.5TB and release a 2TB drive first, it is highly unlikely that it will be a 5-platter drive.

To my knowledge, neither Western Digital nor Seagate (including Quantum and Maxtor) has produced a 5-platter desktop-class drive for at least the last 10 years. Maybe never? This was IBM’s specialty back in the days of the infamous DeskStar 75GXP and earlier. Hitachi, which purchased IBM’s storage division, carried on the tradition in mid-2007 with its 1TB offering, at a time when Seagate was able to achieve the same capacity with four platters. Western Digital followed with its 4-platter 1TB drive by the end of the year, and both Seagate and WD have recently switched to 3-platter 1TB drives.
JazzJackRabbit wrote:There is a possibility that WD upped density to 500GB per platter making for a four platter drive, but that seems unlikely.
WD’s increase from 333GB to 500GB per platter is 50%, the same sort of percentage increase we’ve been getting with each new series from hard drive makers for the last 15 years when they have a few months to develop the technology, only these advances have slowed down somewhat in recent years. Seagate took about 15 months to go from 250GB to 375GB per platter with its 1.5TB drive, though they did release 320/333GB platter drives before that.

Even if this drive is announced tomorrow it may not be available for purchase for another 6 months, so 4-platter 2TB drives are completely in line with what I’d expect by that time. In fact, gazing into my crystal ball, I can see it now, it’ll be a repeat of mid-2007, with Hitachi using five platters. Double the capacity in 2 years... :( ... it used to take only one year.

Also consider that 500GB platters are far more useful for the manufacturers than 400GB platters, due to the current market-friendly capacities. No doubt they sell a whole lot more 250GB and 500GB drives than they do 750GB and above, and with 500GB platters they can make low cost 1-surface 1-head 250GB drives and, of course, single platter 500GB drives. Not to mention 2-platter 1TB drives.

How much time it takes for them to make full use of this though is another matter. Case in point, Seagate’s 375GB platters don’t seem to have found their way into 750GB drives yet, or there would be a ST375032xAS model, which still doesn’t seem to exist.

Now don’t get me started or I’ll be here all day :lol:

__Miguel_
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Location: Braga, Portugal

Post by __Miguel_ » Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:20 pm

chancy wrote:Even with the assumption that Western Digital will leapfrog over 1.5TB and release a 2TB drive first, it is highly unlikely that it will be a 5-platter drive.

To my knowledge, neither Western Digital nor Seagate (including Quantum and Maxtor) has produced a 5-platter desktop-class drive for at least the last 10 years.
Actually, this drive seems to be available for pre-ordering on an European e-tailer already (I followed a link from the Dailytech or TGDaily news, a couple of days ago). So it does seem WD will ditch 1.5TB for the moment, or at least launch the 2TB drive first.

For what I can tell, at least from the model number, it's a GP drive (also, if I remember correctly, that European website listed it as a GP drive), so it should be quiet enough, though my guess is it won't be able to beat the current WD10EADS on either power draw or noise. The WD10EADS is a 3-platter design (and with some luck, it's actually a 3-platter, 5-head design, meaning 400GB/platter is already among us, which would also explain the insanely low power requirements of the drive, compared to the older brother).

Btw, 5-platter desktop (and even laptop, for that matter) drives are not that rare. The first generation 7K1000 Hitachi 1TB drive has a 250GB/platter design. Check here. Also, most, if not all, "extra-height" 2.5'' drives (13mm, if memory serves me right) have 5 platters, too. So it's not a big deal.

[EDIT](Even before posting): Ok, I re-read what you said, and though I don't remember 4+ platter disks from anything but Hitachi, that doesn't mean other manufacturers won't try it on desktop drives... It would be nice to see a 500GB/platter this soon, though.[/EDIT].

So a 5-platter WD 2TB drive is not all that farfetched. Also, it does make sense. Since WD is currently at the 334GB/platter point, moving to 400GB/platter is not a big jump. Moving to 500GB/platter IS.

As far as HDD sizes go, 320GB and 640GB are rather recent, 640GB actually having started about the time Samsung launched the F1 series. 200GB and 400GB were once farely common, but they were replaced with 250GB and 500GB because of new platter densities.

My guess is, with 400GB/platter, we'll see 200GB becoming the "new" 160GB (one platter, one head), 400GB replacing the 320GB point, 600GB at 500GB prices (or a short-stroked 500GB 2-platter, 3-head version of it), and 800GB slowly replacing the 750GB mark. Which does make sense, at least to me.

Probably later, with 500GB or 600GB/platter, we'll see the return of now-common size points, but I don't think 400GB/platter is not "fit" for the market. If you can supply 600GB for the price of 500GB, and 1.2TB for the price of 1TB, the market will most likely say "heh, I was looking for something smaller, but I won't complain if it's a little bigger for the same price".

Cheers.

Miguel

tjoff
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:58 am
Contact:

Post by tjoff » Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:51 am

And everyone who has ever done RAID will hate them :p

Aside from 640 GB and 320 GB there are very few desktop drives that have adjusted the size due to platter-size, or? Also they weren't adjusted, they were added alongside the 'normal' 500 GB etc.

Doesn't really make sense to stur up the whole market just because they managed to get higher density. Think if all manufacturers would do that everytime they upped the density.

__Miguel_
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Location: Braga, Portugal

Post by __Miguel_ » Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:24 am

tjoff wrote:And everyone who has ever done RAID will hate them :p
Soooo true... lol

Not to mention you'd be in a very big pickle to begin with if you went anything but RAID1 with a pair of these... I mean, 2TB is the upper limit for regular partition schemes, and unless the Windows installer (or whatever OS you're planning on using) allows you to format directly into GPT mode, you'd be stuck with a smaller partition for the system drive. Not a 2TB partition on the start of a 4TB RAID0 array isn't OK, but sometimes you just "NEED" (lol) a full 4TB system drive... :lol: :lol: :lol:
tjoff wrote:Aside from 640 GB and 320 GB there are very few desktop drives that have adjusted the size due to platter-size, or? Also they weren't adjusted, they were added alongside the 'normal' 500 GB etc.

Doesn't really make sense to stur up the whole market just because they managed to get higher density. Think if all manufacturers would do that everytime they upped the density.
Well, the F1 Samsung series doesn't really have a 500GB variant. The 501LJ (and similar) are all "last-gen" drives, based on a 250GB/platter design (some say the F1 750GB drives are, too, based on performance numbers). That's why they appear alongside the 320GB and 640GB variants... On the other hand, 400GB (200GB/platter) is almost extinct, after being introduced back in the day.

The thing is, most manufacturers only don't stirr up the market every time they hit new areal densities because 1) there are some "fixed" size points (like 80GB, 160GB, 250GB and 500GB, the first two being much more prevalent and "definitive" than the other two) and 2) most areal densities allow for manufacturers to be able to maintain the market-friendly size points (which are plenty already, ranging from 80GB to 500GB with just about anything you want/need...). The first time in a rather long time I've seen the appearence of a new size point was when the 320GB and 640GB Samsung F1 drives were announced.

Let's see:

- Right now, 80GB are a dying breed, since only 160GB/platter designs (rather old) allow single-platter, single-head drives. Bigger areal densities allow bigger drives at about the same cost, so that doesn't make much market sense.

- 160GB are just about the lowest common denominator, with old tech (one-platter, two-head design, short-stroked or not) and last-gen (320GB/platter with only one head) make the smallest HDDs economically viable.

- 200GB are rare, though it's still possible to build a potentially faster drive still using only one platter, the same being said for 250GB, though these are more recent tech and more common than 200GB.

- 320GB is new, and so is 360GB (thank Seagate for this one... lol). My guess is these will be the next lowest common denominator (as well as 160GB and 640GB).

- 400GB already exists, but isn't used much, because 500GB is a rather popular size point. It's easier to just add another platter and either skip 500GB altogether or short-stroke bigger platters to make much more interesting drive in terms of speed. With 400GB/platter that could easilly change, though.

- 500GB is very popular, but 640GB is becoming increasingly popular (and at a negligible price increase, though it's not as "math-friendly" size point).

- 750GB is an "easy" size point: just about any platter size can be made to fit this one, and even short-stroking doesn't "steal" too much platter size in any of them. And that's what makes it so popular. This to me can be the single most important reason for 800GB not taking off, because even with 400GB/platter you could make a 750GB drive with a measly 25GB hit on each platter...

So you see, apart from the 800GB size point (1.2TB and 1.6TB, too, but those are just because nobody wanted to go that extra mile with 334GB/platter tech; probably 1.5TB will be the base point), just about any other of them is already available for manufacturers. They just need to make use of them...

Ok, but I digress...

I read over at XS that this "announcement" could very well be a fake. Can anyone confirm the WD20EADS will actually hit the shelves in a near future?

Cheers.

Miguel

whiic
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:48 pm
Location: Finland

Post by whiic » Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:46 pm

This is so NOT silent related that I'll put it in small font. :)

chancy: "Even with the assumption that Western Digital will leapfrog over 1.5TB and release a 2TB drive first, it is highly unlikely that it will be a 5-platter drive."

I agree it's unlikely. I don't think current GreenPower desing can take an extra platter. The older GP variant with 4 platter did have the top screw like 5-platter Hitachis do... but that doesn't mean there's enough room inside even if they used same spindle motor and bearings.

chancy: "To my knowledge, neither Western Digital nor Seagate (including Quantum and Maxtor) has produced a 5-platter desktop-class drive for at least the last 10 years. Maybe never? This was IBM’s specialty back in the days of the infamous DeskStar 75GXP and earlier. Hitachi, which purchased IBM’s storage division, carried on the tradition in mid-2007 with its 1TB offering, at a time when Seagate was able to achieve the same capacity with four platters."

Nope, Hitachi revived IBM's 5-platter design two generations before 7K1000. 7K1000 just happened to receive a lot of hype of "breaking 1TB barrier" (which really was no barrier at all). 137.4 GB (128 GiB) was a REAL barrier requiring 48-bit LBA. And 2.199 TB (2 TiB) will be the next real barrier. It won't be a barrier to 64-bit Vista but it will be a barrier to 32-bit OSes and 64-bit XP (as it uses some parts of 32-bit OS).

Back to the topic: before 7K1000, there was 7K500 and before that 7K400. 7K400 was a huge capacity leap as most manufacturers back then had 2- or 3-platter flagships in desktop category. Hitachi: 3-platter (250GB), Maxtor: 3-platter 7200rpm (250GB) or 4-platter 5400rpm (300GB), Seagate: 2-platter (200GB?), Samsung: 2-platter (160GB), WD: 3-platter (200 or 250GB)
7K400 was a huge leap back then even though it didn't improve at all in data density over Hitachi's old flagship 7K250. And 7K400 was the drive that caused the whole industry to offer higher capacity drives in form of more platters:
Seagate: 2 -> 4. Otherwise they couldn't have made a 400GB competitor against Hitachi.
Samsung: 2 -> 3. (They did this transition quite a bit later. They had one more P-series generation, P120, before going to T133.)

7K500 wasn't anything big in terms of capacity. It did change from bridged PATA->SATA solution to native SATA and as it did that, it also changed from TCQ (Tagged Command Queueing) to NCQ (Native CQ). Desktop performance increased noticeably with firmware tweaks.


__Miguel_: "Actually, this drive seems to be available for pre-ordering on an European e-tailer already"

And it may remain in pre-order for the next 6 months or even longer. F1 took an eternity to become available... it was pre-orderable for most of the time too!

__Miguel_: "it's a GP drive (...), so it should be quiet enough, though my guess is it won't be able to beat the current WD10EADS on either power draw or noise."

If it's not twice as power hungry or noisy, it's better than two WD10EAxS. Of course as a SPCR enthusiast, I want it to be at least equally quiet and cool as one WD10EAxS. Good is good but better is even better.

__Miguel_: "The WD10EADS is a 3-platter design (and with some luck, it's actually a 3-platter, 5-head design, meaning 400GB/platter is already among us, which would also explain the insanely low power requirements of the drive, compared to the older brother)."

Number of heads don't do much to reduce power consumption as only one head is active at a given time. Also, the small amount of reduced friction (removing platter has much more effect than removing a head) and the power savings can be easily out-measured by increased power draw cause by higher data density. Don't believe it? Then why is 2-platter 320GB WD Scorpio 5400rpm multitudes hotter than old-tech 2-platter laptop drives? That Scorpio uses pretty ridiculous amount amount of electricity according to some reviews. And my thumb agrees with them.

__Miguel_: "200GB and 400GB were once farely common, but they were replaced with 250GB and 500GB because of new platter densities."

Back then platter capacities were pretty chaotic. 200GB Seagate 2-platters, 250GB Hitachi 3-platters, 160GB Samsung 2-platter, 200GB WD 3(!)-platter, 250GB Maxtor 3-platter. Then came 7K400 using same 83GB platter to make 400GB 5-platter. Seagate user 4x 100GB. Chaotic.

Only second generation of 250-giggers made 250GB pretty much standard: 125 GB/platter capacity. Seagate, Samsung, Hitachi... well, WD still used 3-platters for a while before replacing it with WD2500AAxx. But it was back then when 250 became very common. And later same happened to 500 GB. And 320 GB, which was an odd capacity, was mostly created by WD's agressively priced model offering 20 GB extra practically for "free". (WD used three platters of 107 GB. Competitors that later followed 2x 160 GB.)

500 GB wasn't a good capacity point just because it happened to be 4x 125GB, but also because it's 5x 100GB (Hitachi only) and 3x 166GB. This makes 500-gigger probably one of those capacities that were very marketable and also very easy to manufacture with various designs and generations of magnetic media.

1TB is easily marketable as well. And it can be made with 200GB, 250GB, 333GB, 400GB or 500GB platters.

Non-bolded require 5-platter construction. Also, non-bolded are less common capacity points, wont make sexy one-platter variants with such magnetic media. This must place Hitachi's 5-platter construction in a not-too-good position. They already skipped 1.5TB (or have been delaying it for ages despite the fact that they should have an advantage). 2TB doesn't look perfect for 5-platter either. But waiting for 2.5TB isn't likely. 2.5TB is non-sexy and it's too far away from previous release.

Which is why I suspect Hitachi will bring a 2TB based on 400GB/platter even though downscales either have to be clipped or use different density platters. Easiest would probably be to ditch the 4-platter middle model and offer 5x400 and 3x500... instead of 4x375 or 3.5x430. Especially that clipped head variant does not sound sweet.

I would suspect 500GB/platter to become very popular. Sure, at 1 disk 1 head category, it doesn't much matter if it's 200 or 250GB (because the times when 250GB were HOT are long gone) but for 2 head variant, 500GB sound multitudes more sexy than 400GB. 400GB is totally dead by all standards. You can't even RAID them to make it a sexy amount. Using 2 of them don't make 750GB. Using 3 or 4 of them don't make 1.5TB. There's no synergy with current capacity points. I like my drives to be multitudes of each other's capacity to ease backing them up.

1.0TB is 2x 500GB.
1.5TB is 2x 750GB or 3x 500GB.
2.0TB is 2x 1.0TB or 4x 500GB.
They are also all multitudes of 250GB. 750GB is the least sexy, but even it is a multitude of 250GB.

This is just speculation of course. And not even speculation that has any factual backing.
[size=75]Antec 1200 | HX520W | Commando | Q6600 G0 @ 3.15GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 8GB of RAM | HD 4670 (passive)
7 TB of storage: 1x 1st gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 2nd gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 3rd gen GreenPower (2TB), 1x 7200rpm F1, 2x 5400rpm F2 EcoGreen[/size]

__Miguel_
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Location: Braga, Portugal

Post by __Miguel_ » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:45 pm

whiic wrote:__Miguel_: "Actually, this drive seems to be available for pre-ordering on an European e-tailer already"

And it may remain in pre-order for the next 6 months or even longer. F1 took an eternity to become available... it was pre-orderable for most of the time too!
Yeah, the F1s were a major pain. And even when they were finally available for retail, it took forever for them to become widely available (only a few here and there for the first couple of months...). And THEN you still had to wait forever for the 320GB and 640GB variants to become available... Hmpf.

I wish HDD manufacturers could grasp the concept of "hard launch". It's already a pain when ATI or NVIDIA (or Intel for that matter) throw multiple "paper launches" at consumers, HDD manufacturers are even worse... :?
whiic wrote:__Miguel_: "it's a GP drive (...), so it should be quiet enough, though my guess is it won't be able to beat the current WD10EADS on either power draw or noise."

If it's not twice as power hungry or noisy, it's better than two WD10EAxS. Of course as a SPCR enthusiast, I want it to be at least equally quiet and cool as one WD10EAxS. Good is good but better is even better.
Well, I was considering one drive at each capacity point, not two 1TB vs. one 2TB... Though that is a very good observation. Two WD10EADS are likely to be more power hungry and noisier than one 2TB drive, even if individually the 1TB drives are better... Good thinking!
whiic wrote:Number of heads don't do much to reduce power consumption as only one head is active at a given time. Also, the small amount of reduced friction (removing platter has much more effect than removing a head) and the power savings can be easily out-measured by increased power draw cause by higher data density. Don't believe it? Then why is 2-platter 320GB WD Scorpio 5400rpm multitudes hotter than old-tech 2-platter laptop drives? That Scorpio uses pretty ridiculous amount amount of electricity according to some reviews. And my thumb agrees with them.
Hmmm, another very good obseration. However, let me say that, AFAIK, the 320GB Scorpio is geared towards performance, not power efficiency. Which in itself can make a rather good drive a power hog...

If memory serves me right, Anandtech made some tests with the 640GB and 320GB WD drives, the only big differences between them being the firmware, and the lack of one platter and two heads on the 320GB version. They found it odd for the 320GB drive to be very good on power consumption (better than would otherwise be expected from a single-platter version of the 640GB drive), and not quite there where it should in terms of performance. WD later told them those differences were mostly due to the firmware: OEMs want cooler, more silent drives, so performance took a back seat on the 320GB version.

Still, I do agree with what you say about extra power requirements on higher densities (at least for the first generation of the higher density), so probably the new GP drives are exactly just that: 2nd-gen 334GB/platter designs, with low-power components and a power-optimized firmware.
whiic wrote:Back then platter capacities were pretty chaotic. 200GB Seagate 2-platters, 250GB Hitachi 3-platters, 160GB Samsung 2-platter, 200GB WD 3(!)-platter, 250GB Maxtor 3-platter. Then came 7K400 using same 83GB platter to make 400GB 5-platter. Seagate user 4x 100GB. Chaotic.

So true... lol

whiic wrote:Which is why I suspect Hitachi will bring a 2TB based on 400GB/platter even though downscales either have to be clipped or use different density platters. Easiest would probably be to ditch the 4-platter middle model and offer 5x400 and 3x500... instead of 4x375 or 3.5x430. Especially that clipped head variant does not sound sweet.

Hmmm, 400GB/platter does seem to be rather "yucky" in terms of downscaling... Especially on the popular 250GB, 500GB, 750GB and 1TB points...

250GB is simply attrocious, you'd be better off with last-gen platters (like Samsung did for the 750GB F1, it seems); same for 500GB and 750GB (though this one would only need a small short-stroke with a 3-platter design).

However, this seems a good time for other once-semi-popular points: 200GB and 400GB. 400GB/platter is just fine for a 160GB-priced 200GB drive and a 320GB-priced 400GB drive. Also, 600GB and 800GB could somewhat replace 500GB and 750GB, if the price were to be equal...

whiic wrote:I would suspect 500GB/platter to become very popular. Sure, at 1 disk 1 head category, it doesn't much matter if it's 200 or 250GB (because the times when 250GB were HOT are long gone) but for 2 head variant, 500GB sound multitudes more sexy than 400GB. 400GB is totally dead by all standards. You can't even RAID them to make it a sexy amount. Using 2 of them don't make 750GB. Using 3 or 4 of them don't make 1.5TB. There's no synergy with current capacity points. I like my drives to be multitudes of each other's capacity to ease backing them up.

1.0TB is 2x 500GB.
1.5TB is 2x 750GB or 3x 500GB.
2.0TB is 2x 1.0TB or 4x 500GB.
They are also all multitudes of 250GB. 750GB is the least sexy, but even it is a multitude of 250GB.

Yet another reason for 400GB/platter being a weird size point. So I have to agree with you on this one. 500GB/platter will be a very interesting size point.

And yes, there is something about 250 and multiples thereof that just sounds right... hehehe

But that can also be because we're so used to 250GB, 500GB, 750GB and 1TB... It has been this way for years. 320GB and 640GB are also odd, and yet they aren't that "unsexy"... Maybe 400GB can be the new 250GB... :lol:

Cheers.

Miguel

whiic
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:48 pm
Location: Finland

Post by whiic » Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:32 pm

__Miguel_: "Yet another reason for 400GB/platter being a weird size point. So I have to agree with you on this one. 500GB/platter will be a very interesting size point."

The biggest threat to 500-divisible system would be the big leap from 333GB. Some have done improvements to ~400 already... but for most, they're at 333.

It's obvious the 500-divisible cap points will remain and flourish. I just hope for the sake of best performance and lowest noise at each of these popular capacity points that they use 500GB platters fully populated instead of 400GB platters with clipped head or short-stroking.

If this 400GB-scenario gets real, the 400-divisible capacity point will give extra GBs for very little additional cost, the nearest lower 500-divisible capacity point to lose popularity and make manufacturers less interested in adopting 500GB/platters in favour of skipping it and going straight to 600+ GB/platter.

Since we can't have small increments in tech because industry need synergy and volume to keep costs down, we more or less have to skip 400 or 500 density platters. They are too close. I surely hope that aside from Seagates 375GB with 1.5TB drive, others would skip it in favour of keeping drive sizes simple and mathematically easy capacity points also technologically most feasible.

83GB platters were capable of making 250GB drives. Four could make up a terabyte. But... 83GB platters were also capable of making 160GB drives, which became very common downscale as they utilized 2 platters fully, both sides. It was only logical that in future this became a size that wanted to be made with a single, uncut platter. Also, 500-giggers needed to lose a platter (most manufacturers) or two (Hitachi). Ironically the breakthrough of 320GB point wasn't made as side-product of producing 160GB platters for 160GB and 500GB drives. It's completely ironic.

IF it was a sideproduct, it would have been delayed by quite a while and never would have become popular. And 640GB would never have born... 640GB is RIDICULOUS capacity point! Totally synthetic to make 2x 320. HDDs giving 640GB use 333GB platters, completely wasting 26GB. Or if done with 250GB platters, wasting 110GB, or with a clipped head if 256GB is fit to one platter. But even clipped head is mostly waste as there is not enough one-side-defective platters that can be half-used without unnecessary sacrifice. At least they save the cost of a head, slider, pre-amp...


__Miguel_: "Well, I was considering one drive at each capacity point, not two 1TB vs. one 2TB... Though that is a very good observation."

Surely the hunt for absolute best is always one objective of SPCR ...that will be achieved by SSDs. And for those who need moderate capacity with reasonable price, even though it's theoretically possible that 2TB GP will beat 1st and 2nd gen 1TB GP, with very high likelyhood, we can still recommend that if performance is no concern and extreme capacity is not needed, they can buy a 1st gen 500GB variant of WD GP... because it has 2 platters, low rpm and because it's the cheapest of them all. Whether 2TB GP will be quiet or not, it's not going to compere for the position of quietest desktop sized HDD ever. No chance. It will have 4 or 5 platters, meaning competing with 4 or 3 platter 1TB GPs is already pretty tough.

And, hopefully well soon also have 1TB downscales using 2 platters. Those can actually compete with 500GB GPs of first generation. :)

I'm going for the EXTREME though. I need capacity and 2TB is just sweet as it's the highest drive size that can be fully used in XP (regardless whether it's 32 or 64 bit). I will skip Vista and go straight to Windows 7 when it is released... maybe half a decade later. Until then, I'll stack 2TB drives to my tower case. And also continue to use my 1TB drives as well (I have four). I hope 2TB drives arrive in first half of 2009 as I intend not to buy a single 1-terabyter more. I want my number of terabytes to be divisable by two. To ease backing up. Again.

If I buy two 2TB drives, I can use my four to back them up. Then in year 201x or 202x, I would buy one 8TB drive to back-up ALL EVERYTHING. (Or maybe it will be A.D. 2101 when Windows 7 is being finally released. If that being so, I will set them up the bomb. HA HA HA HA! It will get them signal.)
[/b]
[size=75]Antec 1200 | HX520W | Commando | Q6600 G0 @ 3.15GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 8GB of RAM | HD 4670 (passive)
7 TB of storage: 1x 1st gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 2nd gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 3rd gen GreenPower (2TB), 1x 7200rpm F1, 2x 5400rpm F2 EcoGreen[/size]

Tamas
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:53 pm
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Post by Tamas » Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:06 am

JazzJackRabbit wrote:What I wonder is how many platters this drive has. I'm guessing it has to be 4 or 5 platters. Seagate currently holds platter density record at 375GB per platter. I can certainly see WD upping that limit to 400GB per platter, which could make it a 5 platter drive. There is a possibility that WD upped density to 500GB per platter making for a four platter drive, but that seems unlikely.
Hitachi 7K1000.B 750GB also just has 2 platters. (375GB per platter)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... /ref=nosim
Asrock ConRoe865PE, Core 2 Duo E5800, Thermalright XP-90, Noctua NF-B9, ATI All-In-Wonder X800XT AGP,Accelero S2 + Noctua NF-S12B ULN, 2*1GB Corsair DDR400 CL2, Intel X-25MG2 80GB SSD SATA ,Hitachi P7K500 500GB PATA, WD GP 2TB SATA, Pioneer 111, SB Audigy1, Ati TV Wonder PRO, Seasonic S12 430W;

whiic
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:48 pm
Location: Finland

Post by whiic » Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:28 am

This link was provided in StorageReview's WD20EADS thread:
hdwd6400aacs.pdf

Despite it's name, it's about GreenPower family with capacity points of 500 GB, 640 GB, 750 GB, 1 TB, 1.5 TB and 2 TB listed.

It mentions:
"StableTrac™ — The motor shaft is secured at both ends to reduce
system-induced vibration and stabilize platters for accurate
tracking, during read and write operations. (2 TB models only)"

Basically this is the thing we saw in 1st gen 4-platter GreenPower 1 TB. Newer 3-platter doesn't have the top screw. And because 1.5 TB doesn't have 4-platter, it must use 500 GB/platter, and thus it's likely 2.0 TB variant also uses 500 GB/platter, thus it doesn't have 5 platters. But this is already what some of us speculated, that WD wouldn't rework it's design to accomodate an extra platter.

What remains total mystery to buyers is that (eventually) all will move to 500 GB/pl but when does it happen and how can you tell the difference. 500 GB and 1000 GB are already offered by 2 and 3 platter models. They could change to 1 and 2 platter models (respectively) but for a while, they might remain older tech to save costs on new tech media.
[size=75]Antec 1200 | HX520W | Commando | Q6600 G0 @ 3.15GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 8GB of RAM | HD 4670 (passive)
7 TB of storage: 1x 1st gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 2nd gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 3rd gen GreenPower (2TB), 1x 7200rpm F1, 2x 5400rpm F2 EcoGreen[/size]

johno4566
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:47 pm
Location: melbourne

Post by johno4566 » Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:49 pm

hi dose any one here know when the 2 TB hdd are getting released thanks

power420
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:18 am
Location: Europe

Post by power420 » Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:55 pm

johno4566 wrote:hi dose any one here know when the 2 TB hdd are getting released thanks
.
:?:

bgiddins
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:04 am
Location: Australia

Post by bgiddins » Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:09 pm

whiic wrote:This link was provided in StorageReview's WD20EADS thread:
hdwd6400aacs.pdf
Well that appears to be the first official confirmation that the 2TB drive is not vaporware!

edit - just did a Google search - that PDF only appears in one search result listing and it's not on the WD website. Where did it come from before Storage Review?
[size=75][b]Server:[/b] Antec 300|Corsair VX450|Intel Q9550 E0|Asus P5Q-VM|8GB Kingston DDR2-800|Xigmatek HDT-S1283|1xWD3000GLFS|4xWD10EADS[/size]

dhanson865
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Location: TN, USA

Post by dhanson865 » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:34 pm

The known real document to compare vs is http://www.wdc.com/en/library/sata/2879-701229.pdf done in Framemaker 8.0 / distiller 7.0.5

The fake? document is done in CS2 4.0.5 / PDF library 7.0.

In addition the real doc has numerous comments and is 8.5 x 11. The questionable document has no comments and is 8.27 x 11.69.

Who knows, it could be real but it sure isn't from the same source.
.
Please put a country in your profile if you haven't already.
This site is international but I'll assume you are in the US if you don't tell me otherwise.
RAID levels thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=388987

chancy
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:22 pm

Post by chancy » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:12 am

dhanson865 wrote:The known real document to compare vs is http://www.wdc.com/en/library/sata/2879-701229.pdf done in Framemaker 8.0 / distiller 7.0.5

The fake? document is done in CS2 4.0.5 / PDF library 7.0.

In addition the real doc has numerous comments and is 8.5 x 11. The questionable document has no comments and is 8.27 x 11.69.

Who knows, it could be real but it sure isn't from the same source.
Well spotted, however, the WD document you are making the comparison with is the “Drive/Disti Specification Sheetâ€

hyousetsu
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:44 am
Location: Malaysia

Confirmed by WD

Post by hyousetsu » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:46 am

The official WD CaviarGP page now lists 2 TB in its descriptions, exactly like in the pamphlet.
Massive capacity - Capacities up to 2 TB offer the most available capacity for storage-intensive programs and space-hungry operating systems, like Window Vista®, with plenty of room left over for photos, music, and video.
StableTracâ„¢ - The motor shaft is secured at both ends to reduce system-induced vibration and stabilize platters for accurate tracking, during read and write operations. (2 TB models only)
Seems that its official and the pamphlet wasn't a fake after all~

Image

chancy
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:22 pm

Re: Confirmed by WD

Post by chancy » Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:17 am

hyousetsu wrote:The official WD CaviarGP page now lists 2 TB in its descriptions, exactly like in the pamphlet.
Massive capacity - Capacities up to 2 TB offer the most available capacity for storage-intensive programs and space-hungry operating systems, like Window Vista®, with plenty of room left over for photos, music, and video.
StableTracâ„¢ - The motor shaft is secured at both ends to reduce system-induced vibration and stabilize platters for accurate tracking, during read and write operations. (2 TB models only)
Seems that its official and the pamphlet wasn't a fake after all~

Image

Well, 4 days later they’ve reverted the changes – it’s back to 1 TB again. Only now, they’re supposedly claiming that StableTrac exists on “1 TB models onlyâ€

__Miguel_
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:54 am
Location: Braga, Portugal

Post by __Miguel_ » Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:52 am

Even bigger mess on the Portuguese website... Same non-functioning WD10EACS-to-EADS link, but the WD7500AACS-to-WD10EADS link works.

Odd thing is, the StableTrac information still referrs to the 2TB model... :? Check here:
Western Digital wrote:StableTrac™ - O eixo do motor é preso nas duas extremidades para reduzir as vibrações do sistema e estabilizar os discos de modo a oferecer mais precisão de controle durante as operações de leitura e gravação. (Somente modelos de 2 TB)
"Somente modelos de 2 TB" translates to "Only 2 TB models" :? Weird...

So, when will WD announce this thing?

Cheers.

Miguel

SileX
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:57 am

Post by SileX » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:45 pm

Here it comes THIS week:

WD's mammoth 2TB drive to launch this week
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio ... 3&Itemid=1

chancy
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:22 pm

Post by chancy » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:49 pm

Just a quick update about StableTrac, the reference has now been removed from the WD10EADS page.
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=559

Sidrack Marinho
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:12 am
Location: Earth

Post by Sidrack Marinho » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:14 am

Beware these very large drives. The incident with the 1.5 TB (only) HDD from Seagate was not isolated, since the 1 TB HDD from Samsung was reviewed as the best 1 TB from the market, but guess what?

See Newegg and other reviews on the internet and you will find out many defective units. Of course, nothing compared to the 1.5 TB, but still MANY PEOPLE HAVE COMPLAINED! And the 1 TB Samsung was the best model when compared to all others.

I am looking foward for this drive, and I expect they can keep up the 1.5 TB bargain - US$ 120-130 for 1.396 GB = 0.085 cents per GB. Which means the 2 TB (1.862 GB per drive) should be priced no more than US$ 170-180 each. Beyond that, it’s very expensive and not worth it. Don’t forget to use a good SATA controller card (PCI-E) in order to use more HDDs than offered by your motherboard.

And one more thing about the price - in the very first month of release, the 1.5 TB drives were sold by Amazon and Newegg and they have lowered the prices from US$ 200 (US$ 215/Amazon) (start) to US$ 120-130 (last months). It was a very interesting competition, each single day one of them were fighting to lower the prices more than the other.

So don’t bother to purchase any 2 TB drive when they arrive, wait for the prices to drop and you might save a lot of money (unless they are priced no more than US$ 170-180 as I said). 8)

nutball
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Location: en.gb.uk

Post by nutball » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:51 am

Sidrack Marinho wrote:Beware these very large drives. The incident with the 1.5 TB (only) HDD from Seagate was not isolated, since the 1 TB HDD from Samsung was reviewed as the best 1 TB from the market, but guess what?

See Newegg and other reviews on the internet and you will find out many defective units. Of course, nothing compared to the 1.5 TB, but still MANY PEOPLE HAVE COMPLAINED! And the 1 TB Samsung was the best model when compared to all others.
Newsflash. Hard drives fail. Backups exist for a reason. People complain about failed hard drives. People don't complain about working hard drives. Some drives sell more than others, so some drives you'll see more failures even if the fraction failing is the same. Newegg is a useless source to judge reliability of drives because you're missing half the information you need.

These "very large drives" are no different from any other drive since the dawn of time. The Seagate screw-up notwithstanding, drives are going to fail and folks will lose what's on them. The contents are no more and no less valuable than the contents of my 20MB drive was back when I bought that 20MB, 2TB, makes no difference(*). Sure, being an early adopter exposes you to the risk of beta-testing the drive firmware, but that's not related to the size of the drive.

(*) Arguably of course most of the content on the 1TB+ drives can readily be *cough* downloaded from the Internet again, so it may be less irreplaceable than the contents of smaller drives historically.

Wibla
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 779
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Norway

Post by Wibla » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:56 am

Well, we've (some friends and I) probably bought close to 80 Samsung F1 drives, and so far the failure rate has been more than acceptable, but not all raid cards will play nice with them. the 10^15 URE rate is better than 10^14 seagate specs their drives to, for one.

However, the 7200.11 series from Seagate has real problems, its not just the 1.5TB drives that have issues, alot of the drives fail over time... I cannot recommend them.

SileX
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:57 am

Post by SileX » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:59 pm

Wibla wrote:Well, we've (some friends and I) probably bought close to 80 Samsung F1 drives, and so far the failure rate has been more than acceptable, but not all raid cards will play nice with them. the 10^15 URE rate is better than 10^14 seagate specs their drives to, for one.

However, the 7200.11 series from Seagate has real problems, its not just the 1.5TB drives that have issues, alot of the drives fail over time... I cannot recommend them.
Our experience at the University with the Seagate drives has been HORRIBLE. They fail without previous notice. No more Seagate for us for ever!

whiic
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:48 pm
Location: Finland

Post by whiic » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:30 am

Sidrack Marinbo would probably qualify as a fanboy or hired propagandist: Seagate failures -> failures caused by high capacity alone and present in all manufacturers flagships. I'm pretty sure that if 1TB Hitachis were falling the same way as Seagates do, SidMar (and thousands of other Seagate-fanboys) all around the world would cry "Deathstar" without a second of hesitation.

I hope Seagate reputation would get a hit from this 7200.11 issue. While some data will be lost in the process (though Seagate has promised firmware updates for drives not yet dead, and free data recovery for drives already dead), it would make most Seagate-fanboys to accept the reality that no brand can be always superior to others and that Seagate is no exception. Seagate has not been superior with the 7200.10 or 7200.9 either... people just assume they were.

Bursting the Seagate reliability bubble which is fed by closed-loop feedback within Seagate fandom and the 5-year-warranty (which Seagate has given up for consumer grade drives!) is definitely a good thing. Getting rid of the superiority illusion will give other manufacturers a good chance at competing the supergiant of HDD manufacturers. And with the good products from all the competitors have made recently, they actually deserve their chance to get some more customers. Monopoly and guaranteed sales aren't good motivators for evolving so even Seagate customers would likely benefit from the issues on a longer time period (just skipping the 7200.11 until issues have been solved with certainty).

But, due to Seagate-fanboyism, these issues will most likely be swept under the rug. This 7200.11 will not be enough to make the bubble to break, unfortunately. But that's just my prediction of what's going to happen / not going to happen. This issue falls quite a bit short from Deathstar disaster... the biggest difference being that IBM never admitted the disaster while Seagate eventually did (after a period of censorship and denial).
[size=75]Antec 1200 | HX520W | Commando | Q6600 G0 @ 3.15GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 8GB of RAM | HD 4670 (passive)
7 TB of storage: 1x 1st gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 2nd gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 3rd gen GreenPower (2TB), 1x 7200rpm F1, 2x 5400rpm F2 EcoGreen[/size]

valnar
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:19 am
Location: OH, USA

Post by valnar » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:54 am

My two USB external drive enclosures for backups have 750GB drives now. I stayed away from 1TB and 1.5TB because of all the failures. But now they are getting full, and a 2TB in a single enclosure would be awesome! The fact they are slow wouldn't matter to me at all. I look forward to them.

Post Reply