Quick, Quiet 160GB HDD?

antivenom · Post by **antivenom** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:13 am

I'd like to have a nice quiet 160GB HDD (or around that size) to store my OS and programs but even after looking at the recommended list, I'm none the wiser. I'd like it to be pretty fast (is there much latency between 7200 and 5400rpm's) and preferably pretty quiet because I'll simply be securing it in a standard bay with silicone washers to dampen noise a little.

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:49 pm

Sorry, 2009 you won't find a drive that small worth buying in traditional hard drives.

at 320GB you have the WD3200AAKS (WD Caviar Blue 16 MB Cache, 7200 RPM) if you are lucky you'll get a new one with 1 320GB platter instead of an old one with 2 160GB platters. The new one platter drive is quieter and faster.

at 640GB and not much more cost you have the WD6400AAKS same stats just two platters instead of one. No chance of getting an older drive so its a safer bet.

if you have more money and want speed the WD6401AALS has 32MB cache and maybe a different AAM setting but is otherwise the same drive as the WD6400AAKS.

if you have more money and want lower power usage and less heat you go WD6400AACS.

if you have tons of money you can get an SSD with about the space you need but that isn't cheap.

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:23 pm

Intel just released a 160gb SSD thats selling for around $800

OCZ is set to release the Vertex in a couple weeks that will have a 120gb for $500. Its got a new controller with 64mb of cache to sequence data, so it shouldnt suffer from the studdering of previous generation MLC drives.

The only major difference your really going to notice between a 7200 vs 5400rpm is when loading large files. Otherwise as long as you have plenty of system memory you'll likely never notice a difference, other than noise.

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:11 pm

How about a 160GB single platter 2.5" drive like a Seagate Momentus 5400.5?

It is pretty good in the performance/Watt department. Certainly slower and smaller than the WD6400AAKS, but it might be slightly cheaper.

I can also vouch for the single platter 320GB 3.5" Caviar SE WD3200AAJS--that should be the cheapest.

LodeHacker · Post by **LodeHacker** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:35 pm

antivenom it's good you are clever enough to ask for help here instead of just "get" a HDD form the store and swear the next few weeks about noise! The WD3200AAKS is a good idea but even SPCR have discovered troubling sample variance so to be on the safe side it's better to go with something else. Did no one read my review on the Samsung Spinpoint F1??? viewtopic.php?t=52354

It's a 320GB drive with a single platter and believe it is very silent with the only con being more vibration than I expected. I see you are going to mount it with silicone washers, that should get rid of most vibration so you are left with low idle noise and very soft seeks. Great drive!

By the way, I spent nearly a whole month to make research about 5400RPM vs 7200RPM. The problem is that some 5400RPM drives outperform 7200RPM drives and some 7200RPM drives are even quieter than some 5400RPM drives. So it gets cut down to which drive you are considering and willing to buy. WD Caviar Green Power seems like a good buy although I'd rather use it as external storage. An OS drive should always be fast and quick, most likely will you notice the difference when booting up the OS and load applications.

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:04 pm

The 250GB single platter Samsung S250 H250HJ is also good if you can still find it or any of the Hitachi P7K500s (also 250GB/platter). Those might be cheaper than the WD3200AAJS.

DragonMaster · Post by **DragonMaster** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:14 pm

Depending on your budget, the VelociRaptor with the cooler/noise maker removed (which was reviewed here) could make sense.

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:06 pm

Aris wrote:The only major difference your really going to notice between a 7200 vs 5400rpm is when loading large files.

RPM affects latency aka random access NOT throughput aka large files.

Platter density is what helps for large files.

DragonMaster · Post by **DragonMaster** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:34 pm

If the density is the same for a 5400 and 7200 RPM drive, the 7200 RPM drive still cover 33% more surface in the same time period with the faster rotational speed.

antivenom · Post by **antivenom** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:03 am

Thanks for the input guys

The WD3200AAKS sounds like a good choice seeing as I'm on a bit of a budget and the 320GBs, although pretty small, would provide some extra storage. I'd get the VelociRaptor seeing as that would fit my needs perfectly but it's a little pricey for me. And a substantial sized SSD is out of the question for me. I'll probably wait till next month to get my new drive.

Thanks again guys!

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:29 am

dhanson865 wrote:
Aris wrote:The only major difference your really going to notice between a 7200 vs 5400rpm is when loading large files.
RPM affects latency aka random access NOT throughput aka large files.

Platter density is what helps for large files.

You tell that to my 5400rpm drives that load large files into memory slower than my 7200rpm drives. Its not all just platter density.

DragonMaster wrote:If the density is the same for a 5400 and 7200 RPM drive, the 7200 RPM drive still cover 33% more surface in the same time period with the faster rotational speed.

Quote for Truth.

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:04 pm

Aris wrote:You tell that to my 5400rpm drives that load large files into memory slower than my 7200rpm drives. Its not all just platter density.

Of course it isn't all just platter density, just like large file transfers aren't the only thing you'd notice different between differing RPM drives.

What I should have said would be

correction wrote:RPM affects latency aka random access more than it affects throughput aka large files.

Platter density is more important than RPM for large files.

but I did say it wrong. That's what I get for opening my mouth when I'm tired.

Now let me quote something else for you to show you how committal that statement you made was

http://www.storagereview.com/guide/transSTR.html wrote: STR = (Number of surfaces * Sectors per track * 512) / ( 2 * Number of surfaces * Latency + (Number of surfaces - 1) * Head Switch Time + Cylinder Switch Time)

Sustained transfer rate is affected by just about every internal performance factor you can name. The number of platters influences it by changing the mix of head and cylinder switches; actuator design and controller circuitry affect the switch times; media issues and spindle speed influence the all-important underlying media transfer rates. There's probably no other performance specification that is affected by so many different design factors.

Oh and http://www.storagereview.com/guide/posLatency.html would be the page with the pretty table of RPMs.

So you said RPMs only noticeable/major effect other than noise would be large file transfers but large file transfers are effected by tons of factors and RPMs are more of a factor in random access than they are in STR.

Maybe you and I just have different ideas of what is noticeable and significant.

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:18 pm

dhanson865 wrote: So you said RPMs only noticeable/major effect other than noise would be large file transfers but large file transfers are effected by tons of factors and RPMs are more of a factor in random access than they are in STR.

Your quoted reference material is all well and good, but i speak from actual experience going from a 7200rpm drive to a 5400rpm drive with identical areal density platters, and the only noticable difference was load times of large files.

I'm sure you can show some synthetic benchies that show other things effected as well, but how that actually applies to the real world is another matter entirely.

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:09 am

Aris wrote:
dhanson865 wrote: So you said RPMs only noticeable/major effect other than noise would be large file transfers but large file transfers are effected by tons of factors and RPMs are more of a factor in random access than they are in STR.
Your quoted reference material is all well and good, but i speak from actual experience going from a 7200rpm drive to a 5400rpm drive with identical areal density platters, and the only noticeable difference was load times of large files.

English language as it applies to logic shows that:

1. The only major difference your really going to notice between a 7200 vs 5400rpm is when loading large files.

is not the same as

2. The only major difference your really going to notice between a 7200 vs 5400rpm is when loading large files (assuming the areal density of the platters is identical and no other significant design elements between the drive are different).

You made a broad statement that ignores cache sizes, interfaces, density, firmware changes, AAM settings, etcetera. I just wanted to make it clear that there are many other possible factors that could outweigh the RPM difference.

Your personal experience is a valid comparison worth mentioning but it requires a qualifying statement or it is misleading to those who have less technical knowledge than you and I.

The counter example is when I say I've upgraded from a WD2500AAKS to a WD6400AAKS and the RPMs are both 7200 but platter density and possibly other factors changed and the newer drive is much faster when loading large files.

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:14 am

@dhanson:

All i heard was "blah blah blah i agree with you but im going to argue with you anyhow because im a dick like that"

LodeHacker · Post by **LodeHacker** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:37 am

My texan friend I think you're high when reading these forums. Not only did you blast a good amount of wind in the SSD thread now you are saying a person to shut up even if that very person had a quality reply. You're the dick. Get back when you're grown up and understand what this is about. Oh yes forgot you work for the military! So tear apart your SSD and scratch those platters... and I know you're going to reply with something very stupid so that was a very stupid statement.

[/ANGRY]

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:29 am

He did not have a quality reply. He was nitpicking a true statement because i phrased it as absolute.

It would be like if i said the sky was blue, and he said i was wrong because sometimes its red.

Sure sometimes it is, but so that we dont all have to speak and write like lawyers drafting up a legal document every time we say something about anything, we allow the small variences of life to be overlooked for time and convenience sake.

Post by **Ralf Hutter** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:29 am

Enough of this crap.

If you guys don't have anything nice to say, don't say it here, or take it to PM.

gud4u · Post by **gud4u** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:59 pm

I recently bought a 250GB Seagate (ST3250410AS) that might do.

HDTune numbers:
- 15.4ms random access.
- 84.5 MB/s avg read.
- 180MB/s burst.

Those numbers beat my WD2500KS, except random access time is 13.3ms on the WD drive. It seems a bit quieter than the WD drive.

Hope this helps!

Plekto · Post by **Plekto** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:42 pm

I suggest the WD RE2 160GB. It's small and fairly quiet. But you need to run it as raid 1(recommended, actually) as they are raid-only drives meant for server rooms.

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=403

Something like $60 each last I checked. I run two in raid 1 mode and they are acceptably quiet.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 00&Tpk=RE2
Yep, $60. They also make the RE3 in 250GB - it's a tiny bit better.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6822136291
$70.

antivenom · Post by **antivenom** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:50 am

To be honest, I can't bothered to mess around with RAID and what not, never felt the need and that would cost twice as well. Thanks for the suggestion still

FartingBob · Post by **FartingBob** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:27 am

Plekto wrote:I suggest the WD RE2 160GB. It's small and fairly quiet. But you need to run it as raid 1(recommended, actually) as they are raid-only drives meant for server rooms.

Since when have RE2 drives been requiring RAID? They are slightly optimized for typical server usage, but it will run on its own in a desktop just fine. The main difference between the RE2 and the consumer drives is the extended warrenty.

Plekto · Post by **Plekto** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:27 pm

The problem is with drives that have TLER or similar technology.

The Wikipedia article on it explains how raid drives in Windows are generally dropped from a non-responding controller after 8 seconds, requiring a rebuild of the array.

Let's say you have a bad sector.

Under normal single drive operation, the thing grinds away for 15 seconds before windows gives up. This is normal operation. Obviously running a TLER drive like this would give you 7 seconds before you got a BSOD. Now, I've never seen a non dying drive actually take more than 2-3 seconds to respond... (either way is equally as bad though - hope the fat isn't munged and reboot)

RAID of course with 8 seconds... well, there's a problem if Widows lets the drive grind for 15 seconds. TLER sets this to 7 and tells the drive to ignore the error/mark that sector as bad.

You can disable/manually set it on the RE drives, though. They recommend 0/0 seconds(disabled manually) for running it as a normal drive. The non enterprise drives can't do TLER and should never be used for on-board raid.

Normally the manufacturers of the hard drives expect you to connect standard drives to a RAID controller card which has all of this built in - to keep drives from dropping if they stop responding for a second or two. On-board RAID, while it works, doesn't do this - at least the two main types in use don't. This is why so many people running RAID 0 with consumer type drives have problems. Wrong drives and cheap on-board RAID. Any minor glitch and the entire thing blows up.

I really recommend RAID 1 as well - it's simple mirroring/live backup, so in case one drive suffers a mechanical death, you can yank it and reboot. Compared to data recovery, it's a no-brainer choice for the money.

So:
TLER drives - use in raid array or download a utility and tweak the drive's settings to disable it for single drive use.

Non-TLER type drives - connect to a good dedicated RAID card or else only use as a single drive.