Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320G

[iakovl]

i would like to hear opinions on this HDD
good? quite?
it a second hand for a good price (my WD5000YS died and WD wouldn't replace it)

[fri2219]

I use 4 of them for my home business needs in a RAID 6 array. As the reviews and threads in this forum have repeatedly stated, they're nothing close to being silent.

Pros: seem to be as reliable as prior models. All SMART numbers still look good after slightly more than a year of use.

Cons: considerable low frequency seek noise and medium frequency whine.

Their speed is on par with all other 3GB/s SATA drives as far as I can tell, but the way I use them, they're network I/O bound anyway. I have them stuck in an Antec P180 Case with a fan cranked on them and have them stuck in the garage- if I had to listen to them in my home office, I'd lose my mind.

[rseiler]

I have basically the same thing -- STM3320620A -- the Maxtor-branded Seagate 320GB 7200.10 PATA model (AAE), made a couple months ago.

No whine, very quiet at idle, very quiet seeks, almost zero vibration. Go figure.

The seeks are so hard to hear that when I installed the WD5000AAKS alongside it (with its extra platter), I was horrified by the difference. I had to set the WD to AAM 128 for it to be as quiet.

[winguy]

Is that Maxtor AAM configurable? And is it hot like regular Seagate 7200.10s?

[nick705]

The seeks are so hard to hear that when I installed the WD5000AAKS alongside it (with its extra platter), I was horrified by the difference. I had to set the WD to AAM 128 for it to be as quiet.

IIRC Seagate's PATA drives have AAM preset to "quiet", whereas their SATA drives are set to "performance", hence louder seeks. The settings are hardcoded into the firmware and not user-configurable, due to some patent dispute the details of which escape me. I doubt if the Maxtor-branded Seagates are any different unless the dispute has been resolved.

I'm surprised you didn't notice any idle whine though - mine wailed like a banshee. It was one of the first 7200.10s however, maybe that's a good sign that things have improved with later samples.

[rseiler]

IIRC Seagate's PATA drives have AAM preset to "quiet", whereas their SATA drives are set to "performance", hence louder seeks. The settings are hardcoded into the firmware and not user-configurable, due to some patent dispute the details of which escape me. I doubt if the Maxtor-branded Seagates are any different unless the dispute has been resolved.

I'm surprised you didn't notice any idle whine though - mine wailed like a banshee. It was one of the first 7200.10s however, maybe that's a good sign that things have improved with later samples.

Well THAT would explain a lot! I was baffled by the wide divergence of opinion about this line, which I knew in this size was not at all what people were saying. I was guessing that Seagate radically improved it in the last few months, but your explanation makes more sense.

Was the one that whined for you a PATA? If so, I guess that's one area they improved (or there was something wrong with yours), because I've had two of these more recent PATAs (one I'm still using, one I put into an external enclosure and gave away) and it's a model citizen.

It's also cool (staying, with the WD, in the lower-to-mid 30's) and just as fast in HDD Scan (staying in the 70's MB/s for quite a distance).

This Maxtor-branded model also doesn't support AAM. I'd be quite peeved if I had the SATA model now and realized that I couldn't use AAM because of a patent dispute.

[nick705]

Was the one that whined for you a PATA? If so, I guess that's one area they improved (or there was something wrong with yours), because I've had two of these more recent PATAs (one I'm still using, one I put into an external enclosure and gave away) and it's a model citizen.

It's also cool (staying, with the WD, in the lower-to-mid 30's) and just as fast in HDD Scan (staying in the 70's MB/s for quite a distance).

It was a 320GB PATA drive (I passed it on to someone else a while ago). Maybe I did get a particularly bad one, although many people do seem to have had a similar experience, even with recent purchases. It was a decent performer though, as you say (a flat HDTach trace of over 70MB/s until around the 200GB mark).

I suppose you'd have to say user reports are "inconsistent" at best, so I'd still be inclined to get a WD or Samsung rather than risk it...