Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(0) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]

Conclusion

First of all, we’d like to note the superb performance of the WD4000ABYS which was the winner or at least a leader across most of our tests. The older WD4000YS is slower: it feels at ease in most of the server tests but fails in FC-Test. On the whole, Western Digital’s server HDDs have proved that they are indeed better under typical server loads than their competitors almost irrespective of the RAID type.

The Hitachi T7K500 is also good in the server tests, especially under low loads. This is the only disk that challenged Western Digital’s team in this part of the tests. However, this HDD had difficulties working in a RAID5.

Seagate’s 7200.9 series and Samsung’s HDDs are not good in the server tests. The firmware of these drives seems to be oriented at workstation loads. They took last places in the Database pattern where the Seagate showed low efficiency of deferred writing while Samsung’s HDDs showed poor NCQ algorithms, but in some subtests from FC-Test they were as fast as the Western Digital WD4000ABYS.

The Samsung T166S passed our test in the quiet mode. This didn’t affect its performance much, though. This HDD was only much slower than the others under low server loads in the Database pattern. The T166S was about as fast as Samsung’s T133S drives through most of our tests, occasionally outperforming them even.

Now that we’ve done with the past, we are preparing new reviews dedicated to HDDs with larger capacities, higher areal density, and new firmware algorithms.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 0

Add your Comment




Latest materials in Storage section

Article Rating

Article Rating: 6.9231 out of 10
 
Rate this article:
Excellent
Average
Poor