2.5" vs 3.5" HDD.

[Snurtur]

These days, are there any reasons to go with a 3.5" disk instead of a 2.5" for a quiet system?

I can see that the 2.5" disks are a bit more expensive (though not by much), and they don't offer as much space. But if you need, say 500GB of space, is there any reason to go 3.5" instead of 2.5"?

I'll be building a system with an SSD as a main drive, and a 500GB storage "slave" drive. For the slave drive, I considered an EcoGreen 500GB. But really, why not get a 2.5" HDD with a Scythe Quiet Box 2.5"->3.5"? Anyone?

Edit:

Perhaps I should elaborate. The issues I am concerned about is:

1. Is there anything bad about putting a 2.5" drive in a desktop case.
2. How's the durability in 2.5" vs 3.5" mechanical drives?
3. Is there a difference in expected lifetime?

I understand that a 2.5" is generally not as fast as its 3.5" equivalent, but that is a non-issue since this will be a slave drive only, for storage. Please comment.

[reddyuday]

I personally don't see any reason to use 3.5" disks any more. Even when people used 3.5" disks, they tried to cut down their usage to the 2.5" portion of their disks if they cared about the seek noise and performance. So why bother now?

I have Corsair X64 (2.5" solid state drive) and Seagate Momentus 7200.4 (2.5" hard disk drive) mounted in a single 3.5" bay using Scythe Twin Mounter. I use the SSD for all real usage and the HDD for backup and long-term storage like pictures and stuff. I have never been happier.

Uday

[KadazanPL]

1. Is there anything bad about putting a 2.5" drive in a desktop case.

I don't think so, no. Bear in mind though that most desktop cases have no mounting options for 2,5" drives. You'll have to figure out a suspension system or a sleigh converter 2,5" -> 3,5".

2. How's the durability in 2.5" vs 3.5" mechanical drives?

You're considering Samsung, right? They rate their 2,5" drives for MTBF 600000 hours and 3,5" drives are rated for 50000 start/stop cycles. Portable drives are more resistant to shock (it doesn't really matter - you don't usually move your desktop while it's on, right?)

3. Is there a difference in expected lifetime?

I'd say that 3,5" drives go further, but I can't find any technical paper that would confirm this at the moment. Perhaps somebody else can produce an evidence

Bottom line is: as you're clearly not concerned by the € to GB ratio and transfer rate, then I'd say - go ahead and buy a 2,5" drive. Western Digital offer models up to 1TB large
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=685

Impressive, isn't it?

[Snurtur]

You're considering Samsung, right? They rate their 2,5" drives for MTBF 600000 hours and 3,5" drives are rated for 50000 start/stop cycles. Portable drives are more resistant to shock (it doesn't really matter - you don't usually move your desktop while it's on, right?)

For the 2.5", no I'm considering a WD Scorpio Blue 500GB (WD5000BEVT). Does this seem like a good pick, or should I consider something else?

Thanks for the replies, guys!

[Catching]

WD Caviar Black 2 TB, SATA 3 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, 7200 RPM

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=733


check this...

[TBorgeaud]

There is one potential issue that crops up more often with 2.5" drivers than with 3.5". The smaller drives tend to be designed for low power usage and generally include more aggressive power saving features.

In some cases one might find that the more aggressive default settings, of power saving features, do not fit particularly well with typical desktop/workstation usage.

Essentially, is appears that drives designed for small lower powered devices are very much aimed at the typical usage patterns for a small low powered device, even if the drives would be quite suitable elsewhere.

I have had to disable the APM features on the two Western Digital Scorpio drives that I currently use in my typical mid tower desktop (to stop unnecessary head load/unload cycles).

However, I'll probably stick with smaller drives of one sort or another for various reasons including ease of suspension mounting and to reduce the physical size of the stack of spare (older but quite usuable) disks that I keep.

[CTT]

I have a 500 GB WD My Passport (external) which supposedly has a WD5000BEVT inside and I find it to be noticeably louder than Samsung F2 EcoGreen 500 GB and WD Caviar Green 1TB (2 platters); vibration wise it's even worse (although its lower mass means it shouldn't be that hard to dampen). Comparison is with all drives on a wooden table.

2.5' drives should have lower noise and vibration due to smaller platters, but at the same time they also have flimsier cases. Still, being smaller and lower power you might be able to isolate them better.

As far as price goes, you can usually get twice the capacity for a 3.5' drive for the same price point.

At a certain point I was also all set to go the 2.5' way but all things considered (including here the fact that I still have plenty of space) I've chosen to stick to low power 3.5' drives for the time being.

[frenchie]

Hi,
I have a 2.5" drive in an SQD for the OS and programs (can't hear it unless I stick my hear on the SQD) and a 3.5" drive for storage (also in an SQD, but seeks are still audible)).

[Snurtur]

There is one potential issue that crops up more often with 2.5" drivers than with 3.5". The smaller drives tend to be designed for low power usage and generally include more aggressive power saving features.

I don't mind aggressive power saving features. As I said, performance is not an issue (as long as I get more than, say 50MB/s to and from the disk), but noise is. The power savings are just a bonus.

In some cases one might find that the more aggressive default settings, of power saving features, do not fit particularly well with typical desktop/workstation usage.

This will be a slave drive, not a system drive. I will use it to store, say, music, videos, pictures, and the kind of data that is touched not so often, but in bigger chunks. Does this seem inappropriate for a 2.5" mechanical HDD?

Essentially, is appears that drives designed for small lower powered devices are very much aimed at the typical usage patterns for a small low powered device, even if the drives would be quite suitable elsewhere.

Again, how does this become a problem?

I have had to disable the APM features on the two Western Digital Scorpio drives that I currently use in my typical mid tower desktop (to stop unnecessary head load/unload cycles).

How do you use the drive? What's bad about the head load/unload cycles? Does it cause wear and tear? Does it make a lot of noise? Does it make the drive unsuitable as a slave storage drive in a desktop computer?

However, I'll probably stick with smaller drives of one sort or another for various reasons including ease of suspension mounting and to reduce the physical size of the stack of spare (older but quite usuable) disks that I keep.

[Snurtur]

I have a 500 GB WD My Passport (external) which supposedly has a WD5000BEVT inside and I find it to be noticeably louder than Samsung F2 EcoGreen 500 GB and WD Caviar Green 1TB (2 platters); vibration wise it's even worse (although its lower mass means it shouldn't be that hard to dampen). Comparison is with all drives on a wooden table.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but there is no way in hell a WD Scorpio Blue would cause more vibrational noise than a Samsung F2 EcoGreen unless the Scorpio is faulty.

2.5' drives should have lower noise and vibration due to smaller platters, but at the same time they also have flimsier cases. Still, being smaller and lower power you might be able to isolate them better.

You're not making a valid point here. Check the reviews on SPCR, all 2.5" HDDs get 7+ points for vibration (with 10 being "no vibration at all"), where as 3.5" HDDs are around 3-5. Again, your drive must be faulty.

As far as price goes, you can usually get twice the capacity for a 3.5' drive for the same price point.

I don't mind paying a little extra for a quieter computer. What I do mind though, is if there's a difference in quality, lifetime or such. Or if it would generally just be considered a bad idea. It might be true that many 2.5" HDDs are constructed for use in laptops and such, but is there any point to sticking a huge bulky 3.5" drive in a desktop PC? There really isn't. Causing more noise and such just because you have the room to do so, does not mean that it's the right thing to do.

At a certain point I was also all set to go the 2.5' way but all things considered (including here the fact that I still have plenty of space) I've chosen to stick to low power 3.5' drives for the time being.

What are the things considered? I don't know how much performance you need, but it's not an issue for me. Other than that and cost, why would you go with a 3.5" instead of a 2.5"? You seem to be basing your decision on theoretical assumptions rather than observations and experience.

[TBorgeaud]

There is one potential issue that crops up more often with 2.5" drivers than with 3.5". The smaller drives tend to be designed for low power usage and generally include more aggressive power saving features.

I don't mind aggressive power saving features. As I said, performance is not an issue (as long as I get more than, say 50MB/s to and from the disk), but noise is. The power savings are just a bonus.

In some cases one might find that the more aggressive default settings, of power saving features, do not fit particularly well with typical desktop/workstation usage.

This will be a slave drive, not a system drive. I will use it to store, say, music, videos, pictures, and the kind of data that is touched not so often, but in bigger chunks. Does this seem inappropriate for a 2.5" mechanical HDD?

Essentially, is appears that drives designed for small lower powered devices are very much aimed at the typical usage patterns for a small low powered device, even if the drives would be quite suitable elsewhere.

Again, how does this become a problem?

I have had to disable the APM features on the two Western Digital Scorpio drives that I currently use in my typical mid tower desktop (to stop unnecessary head load/unload cycles).

How do you use the drive? What's bad about the head load/unload cycles? Does it cause wear and tear? Does it make a lot of noise? Does it make the drive unsuitable as a slave storage drive in a desktop computer?

For the use that you intend, I wouldn't predict any problems due to aggressive APM features.

However, since any potential (minor) problems will be dependent upon exactly how the drives will be used, it's probably worth being aware about the APM features commonly found on smaller disks.

The head parking problem that I came across, and one that has been seen by others with other drives, is that drives park the heads, often with a very audible click, after quite a short period of inactivity.

If a drive is not accessed very frequently, this basically results in heads being unparked and then parked again on virtually very access.

This is unlikely to be a problem with a drive that is accessed very infrequently. However, it's quite easy, and often desirable, to have some form of access occur on a sem-regular basis with period short enough that any clicking becomes annoying and additional wear and tear may actually become a concern.


PS. Snurtur: Could you please adjust the attribution of quotes in your reply to CTT's message. Thanks.

[Snurtur]

For the use that you intend, I wouldn't predict any problems due to aggressive APM features.

However, since any potential (minor) problems will be dependent upon exactly how the drives will be used, it's probably worth being aware about the APM features commonly found on smaller disks.

The head parking problem that I came across, and one that has been seen by others with other drives, is that drives park the heads, often with a very audible click, after quite a short period of inactivity.

If a drive is not accessed very frequently, this basically results in heads being unparked and then parked again on virtually very access.

This is unlikely to be a problem with a drive that is accessed very infrequently. However, it's quite easy, and often desirable, to have some form of access occur on a sem-regular basis with period short enough that any clicking becomes annoying and additional wear and tear may actually become a concern.

Can the head parking be disabled?

PS. Snurtur: Could you please adjust the attribution of quotes in your reply to CTT's message. Thanks.

Sorry about that! Fixed.

[TBorgeaud]

The head parking problem that I came across, and one that has been seen by others with other drives, is that drives park the heads, often with a very audible click, after quite a short period of inactivity.

Can the head parking be disabled?

On some drives the parking can be disabled and/or the timer used for parking the heads adjusted. On other drives it is possible that an APM setting can be used that will result in such a feature being disabled. I have turned off APM (setting an APM value to 0) on Samsung and WD drives to accomplish this.

You'll generally need a generic or drive specific utility to play with APM and other drive features (I used a Linux/BSD tool known as ataidle to turn of APM on machines in which I have used 2.5" disks).

[Snurtur]

So it seems that head parking is an issue for many drives - even 3.5" ones. The EcoGreen doesn't have this, but I think a WD Scorpio Blue inside a Scythe Quiet Drive would be very quiet, or at least quiet enough.

What are your thoughts on this, TBorgeaud? Also, does the head parking cause much wear and tear?

[CTT]

I have a 500 GB WD My Passport (external) which supposedly has a WD5000BEVT inside and I find it to be noticeably louder than Samsung F2 EcoGreen 500 GB and WD Caviar Green 1TB (2 platters); vibration wise it's even worse (although its lower mass means it shouldn't be that hard to dampen). Comparison is with all drives on a wooden table.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but there is no way in hell a WD Scorpio Blue would cause more vibrational noise than a Samsung F2 EcoGreen unless the Scorpio is faulty.

2.5' drives should have lower noise and vibration due to smaller platters, but at the same time they also have flimsier cases. Still, being smaller and lower power you might be able to isolate them better.

You're not making a valid point here. Check the reviews on SPCR, all 2.5" HDDs get 7+ points for vibration (with 10 being "no vibration at all"), where as 3.5" HDDs are around 3-5. Again, your drive must be faulty.

Actually, if you check the SPCR reviews you'll realize that the F2 EcoGreen got an 8 for vibration while the Scorpio Blue only managed 7; noise-wise the F2 idles around 12 dB while the Scorpio Blue only goes down to 15 dB.
I agree there's always the chance of running into sample variance errors and subjective assessments, but in this particular case it seems it's not just me.

As far as price goes, you can usually get twice the capacity for a 3.5' drive for the same price point.

I don't mind paying a little extra for a quieter computer. What I do mind though, is if there's a difference in quality, lifetime or such. Or if it would generally just be considered a bad idea. It might be true that many 2.5" HDDs are constructed for use in laptops and such, but is there any point to sticking a huge bulky 3.5" drive in a desktop PC? There really isn't. Causing more noise and such just because you have the room to do so, does not mean that it's the right thing to do.

At a certain point I was also all set to go the 2.5' way but all things considered (including here the fact that I still have plenty of space) I've chosen to stick to low power 3.5' drives for the time being.

What are the things considered? I don't know how much performance you need, but it's not an issue for me. Other than that and cost, why would you go with a 3.5" instead of a 2.5"? You seem to be basing your decision on theoretical assumptions rather than observations and experience.

The criteria I was evaluating the drives were: noise, vibration, power consumption/heat, capacity, price, size and speed. The Scorpio Blue only won power consumption and size. Of course the importance of each criteria may (and will) vary from person to person.
Although I would prefer a smaller drive I don't mind having a "bulky" drive (in my desktop) if this brings benefits in other areas of higher importance to me.

I'm not trying to convince you to go either way, I was merely stating my opinion based on my experience. If that doesn't suit you, I'm sorry, there's not much I can do about it.


Regarding head parking, as TBorgeaud said, for some drives it can be disabled by setting the APM to 0 or delayed to such an extent that it wouldn't be a problem by setting APM to a very low value.
The annoying thing about APM is that it's not a permanent setting and each time you restart the drive will reset the APM value to its default.
In Windows I tried hdparm and CrystalDiskInfo (the former having a Linux version also) and both worked as expected on Samsung and WD Green Power / Scorpio Blue (Caviar Blue had no APM but no head-parking issue either).

For some time WD provided an utility (WDIDLE3) to change the timer for head parking (or disable it altogether) but it was pulled of their site, so it's a bit hard to come by (and WD warned that using it on an unsupported drive can have unexpected results).
At some point I was dead set on disabling IntelliPark on my soon-to-be-bought Caviar Green, but when I got it I realized it wasn't annoying for me (or I couldn't notice it with the drive suspended in the case) so I just let it alone.

[Snurtur]

Thanks for your reply CTT. I'm still undecided.

I'm concerned about noise and lifetime/stability. Deciding between a Saumsung F2 EcoGreen 500GB in a SQD 3.5" or a WD Scorpio Blue in a SQD 2.5". This is a tough decision.

[TBorgeaud]

So it seems that head parking is an issue for many drives - even 3.5" ones. The EcoGreen doesn't have this, but I think a WD Scorpio Blue inside a Scythe Quiet Drive would be very quiet, or at least quiet enough.

What are your thoughts on this, TBorgeaud? Also, does the head parking cause much wear and tear?

I've used 2.5" disks in fairly quiet computers. The disks are more or less inaudible (above the hum of the computer). The head parking was quiet, but obvious above the general hum.

It has been the fact that the small mechanical tick/click has occured when the computer is producing nothing more than a smooth hum that has made it obvious to me.

It may be that head parking noise won't escape from a Scythe Quiet Drive enclosure (I suspect that it would still be fairly audible).

Obviously, the head parking itself will only really be a problem when a drive is subject to fairly frequent accesses separated by long enough periods of inactivity. Typical desktop (MS Windows) usage probably won't result in anything but a few parks now and again and none at all in the periods of time in which a machine is idle.

There are, however, various uses that would result in regular accesses. In these situations, head parking (load/unload cycles) can rise towards and beyond recommended lifetime numbers.

For example, running a disk monitoring tool once every two minutes upon a disk that runs continuously (24hrs per day) may result in ~250k load/unload cycles in a year.

It seems advisable to try to avoid such very high load/unload cycles. However, it is not at all clear how high levels of load/unload cycles effect disk lifespan.

[Eunos]

I don't think anyone can comment on long-term reliability because these high-capacity drives are a new model. I've never managed to kill any 2.5" in spite of wrapping them in foam and using them for all OS and backup tasks year after year. All things being equal, I consider the smaller, more efficient 2.5" drive the more modern option (the majority of SSDs being 2.5" reinforces this point), and personally consider 3.5" drives well and truly dead. I don't have huge amounts of data however.

I'm sure you can't go wrong either way.

[Shamgar]

I'm concerned about noise and lifetime/stability. Deciding between a Saumsung F2 EcoGreen 500GB in a SQD 3.5" or a WD Scorpio Blue in a SQD 2.5". This is a tough decision.

It is a tough decision. But you need a drive. Just go with your heart's decision or gut feeling. Sounds corny, but it's the only way sometimes. If you've never used 2.5s and want to see how they fare, go ahead and try them out. For your storage needs, it will suffice. Yet you'll hardly go wrong with an EcoGreen either. As for lifetime stability and reliability, notebook drives are designed for tougher conditions than desktops (think of how people use notebooks: take them everywhere, chuck them around everywhere, use them at all kinds of angles etc) but if you're using them in a home computer then it really won't matter much. Most data sheets rate notebook drives to be able to handle 500,000-600,000 load/unload cycles. Whether you reach that in the life of your use is another matter. Then again, drives in notebooks that have sustained heavy usage and abuse through travel or disk activity will have a shorter lifespan than those that are more moderately used and handled with care. In a desktop computer, handled carefully and kept in good conditions, they should last you a long time. Keep in mind that the casing for a 2.5 HDD is quite fragile and the PCB is more exposed. Once it's in the SQD (if you go that route), you won't need to handle it as much, obviously.

All things being equal, I consider the smaller, more efficient 2.5" drive the more modern option (the majority of SSDs being 2.5" reinforces this point), and personally consider 3.5" drives well and truly dead. I don't have huge amounts of data however.

I do not think that 3.5 desktop drives are "well and truly dead", as you say. They will be around for quite some time -- that is, as long as desktops survive, -- and beyond that. Much of the industry is still ATX and desktop form factors focused. This isn't going to change overnight. When something ceases to be a "standard" or when manufacturers push their self interested ideas of standards onto consumers, it doesn't mean that it ceases to be used or useful. People (including myself) still have use for floppy drives and disks (it refuses to die with quiet resignation), legacy ports and devices, ancient operating systems like DOS and a whole host of outmoded products. I understand though that your statement may be just an expression of words to illustrate a point, not an statement in absolute terms.

I use both 2.5 and 3.5 in my system. I like the low power of the notebook drives, the smaller size and the ability to incorporate it in many places inside a case or as an external backup without a power supply. But the parking of heads annoys me as well as the decreased performance compared to my desktop drives. Comparing power between the two, there isn't really that much in it. A typical 2.5 at 5400RPM will run at 1W idle and the best of the 3.5s will run at 3-5W. A 2-4W saving is nothing to be proud of unless one is running hundreds of them at once or is that way inclined as a hobby (power savings fanatic).

I'm sure eventually all mainstream storage drives will be 2.5 or smaller. However, people said that a few years ago and the good old "bricks" are still with us. If anything, advancements in desktop drives in the last couple years especially has brought the price of notebook drives down and increased competition all around. Let's hope the market of SSDs will follow a similar trend.

[Snurtur]

....

Thanks a ton for your input. As of now, the only thing I am worried about is the head parking issue. This seems relevant both as a noise factor and as a stability/durability factor.

I would rather not have to use special tools to disable APM or such on each boot. I will tell you how I plan on using the disk, and perhaps you can give me more specific advices.

The system will have an SSD 80GB for it's main drive. As a slave drive, for storage, I will use another HDD, a mechanical one. On this disk, I intend to put things such as photos, videos, perhaps a few text documents, "random" files, songs and such. I have a server set up in my home, so that is where I keep most of the data. But sometimes, or for some data, I want to keep it readily available on the local computer.

Possible usage scenarios include:

1. Searching through images for a particular one. Or just browsing through images, looking at memories I guess.

2. Listening to music. Let's say I have a few mp3 files - I might play them from the mechanical HDD. I understand that this also depends on the software used - some media players might read in chunks and cache, in which case it would read data perhaps every 30-45 seconds. Most likely I will just be using Windows Media Player - not sure how caching works there.

3. Looking up old documents. Perhaps contracts, receipts or such. This will be more rarely though.

4. "Dead" storage for big ol' files that I just want to keep for a while. Though I can't imagine this to be a problem in any way.

I know it's hard to say from what information I've provided, but would there be an issue, do you think, with head parking?

I'm mainly worried about wear and tear; not as worried about the noise from the head parking, but I guess that could be an issue too. Thoughts on this?

[Ksanderash]

Snurtur
Having dead silent PC (about 25W DC in idle) I vote for EcoGreen2. It is very nice 3.5" drive (forget abt head parking) for different ways of use, the most safe 3.5" choice, I think. If you aren't pleased with it, then WD 2.5". Again complaints? WD is clunking? Then SSD

[cmthomson]

All but a few 2.5" drives are designed for laptops, and have limited lifetimes in desktop/server environments (due to head parking or bearing lifetime issues). There are some exceptions, but they are very expensive, since they are aimed at the server blade market.

On the flip side, new 3.5" drives such as the Samsung F2 (especially the 500GB) disks are actually quieter than most 2.5" drives, and are designed for 24/7 use.

[TBorgeaud]

....

Thanks a ton for your input. As of now, the only thing I am worried about is the head parking issue. This seems relevant both as a noise factor and as a stability/durability factor.

I would rather not have to use special tools to disable APM or such on each boot. I will tell you how I plan on using the disk, and perhaps you can give me more specific advices.
data. But sometimes, or for some data, I want to keep it readily available on the local computer.

...

I know it's hard to say from what information I've provided, but would there be an issue, do you think, with head parking?

I think that it's very unlikely that you would experience any trouble with excessive head parking. In fact, for the usage that you describe, it is more likely that aggressive APM features will be of benefit and lead to lower wear and tear on your drive.

I would guess that using the standard power saving option of spinning down idle disks will mean that any drive used for extra storage (over and above the system drive) will actually spend most of its time spun down.

Wear and tear in such scenarios should not really be of any concern at all and, unless you don't back up precious data, there's probably not a lot to be gained by finding disks that might be any more reliable that any consumer oriented laptop/desktop drive.