A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

O/T: Win7 m.2 2280 clone to hdd.



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old July 4th 18, 09:17 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default O/T: Win7 m.2 2280 clone to hdd.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Is there any way to tell whether a drive is a (firmware-based) one
of this type, so as to be able to avoid them?


Using "shingled" or "SMR" is for public relations
purposes a poisoned descriptor.

You're not likely to find an admission of which
ones are shingled.

[]
)-:

Is my "HGST HTS541010B7E610 (1000G)" (really 931 GiB of course), bought
over the counter a few months ago, of that type? Can I tell from any
part of that number?


Let's try a little experiment.

I think WDC owns HGST now. HGST used to be IBM Research.

This is your drive, with the 19 and 21 dbA acoustic properties.

https://www.hgst.com/sites/default/f..._datasheet.pdf

Compare to the middle column here.

https://www.wdc.com/content/dam/wdc/...879-771437.pdf

I think it's the same drive.

Notice that only the middle drive has a 128MB cache.
The others have 8MB and 16MB cache (likely older
controller boards).

Only the slimmest drive got the big cache.

Makes you wonder... Hmmm.

*******

The exercise requires a *lot* of supposition.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads...tters.2525313/

Even if the idiots told us how many platters, that would
help. They don't even give areal density with regularity.
There's just not enough data to work it out - my data
comparison method is no damn good, unless you can trace
down the release date on each drive on Page 2. A drive
design could have a really small cache, if it was released
ten years ago. More than a little weird, as modern memory
chips are huge, and you'd probably have to pay a premium
to get some crusty old 8MB chip. One of the consequences
of buying a small chip like that, is the bandwidth might
not be that high either.

Paul
Ads
  #17  
Old July 4th 18, 09:54 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default O/T: Win7 m.2 2280 clone to hdd. Now shingled versus ordinary drives.

In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Is there any way to tell whether a drive is a (firmware-based) one
of this type, so as to be able to avoid them?

[]
You're not likely to find an admission of which
ones are shingled.

[]
)-:
Is my "HGST HTS541010B7E610 (1000G)" (really 931 GiB of course),
bought over the counter a few months ago, of that type? Can I tell
from any part of that number?


Let's try a little experiment.

I think WDC owns HGST now. HGST used to be IBM Research.

This is your drive, with the 19 and 21 dbA acoustic properties.

https://www.hgst.com/sites/default/f..._datasheet.pdf


Thanks.

Compare to the middle column here.

https://www.wdc.com/content/dam/wdc/...ssets/eng/spec
_data_sheet/2879-771437.pdf

I think it's the same drive.


(Well, second-from right column now - the middle one's a 1.5T drive.)

Notice that only the middle drive has a 128MB cache.
The others have 8MB and 16MB cache (likely older

[]
The exercise requires a *lot* of supposition.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads...ives-have-smr-
platters.2525313/


That does say the bigger cache _might_ suggest SMR (as SMRs _need_
bigger caches).
[]
design could have a really small cache, if it was released
ten years ago. More than a little weird, as modern memory


The manufacture (as opposed to release) date on my drive is late last
year, if that's relevant.
[]
So, in short, it's hard to tell.

So far, the drive seems to be working fine (running almost continuously,
though not heavy use - Windows 7, and I don't do a _lot_ of
number-crunching).

Is there any failure symptom that shingled drives would exhibit that is
different to Pxx (I forget the letters) drives, that the ordinary user
could detect as being different? Or just general increased failure
probability?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath. - TV "Choices" listing,
RT 2017-5-27
  #18  
Old July 4th 18, 06:13 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default O/T: Win7 m.2 2280 clone to hdd. Now shingled versus ordinarydrives.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Is there any failure symptom that shingled drives would exhibit that is
different to Pxx (I forget the letters) drives, that the ordinary user
could detect as being different? Or just general increased failure
probability?


They're made from the same materials as a PMR drive.

Just the patterning on the platter is different, so
the servowriter job at the factory is harder.

In terms of flying height, head shape, I think they
rely on the low fringing of the PMR design, to make
the SMR pattern work.

It wouldn't be a failure symptom as such - it would
be the "flaky feeling" on writes that would annoy.
Normally, we get a flaky feeling from reallocated
sectors of disk. Added to that, would be the need
to write seven track chunks for the "SMR bonus".

With an SMR design, you might feel less in control
of what's going on. "Is my drive bad or is it having
one of those days?". It makes it harder to answer
the "why is my drive slow" question. I'm sure it'll
have a SMART reallocated parameter like other drives.

Just a guess.

Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.