From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-130370-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1RJTnb-00064T-V5
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:31:28 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E6E521C061;
	Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:31:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qw0-f53.google.com (mail-qw0-f53.google.com [209.85.216.53])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE0B21C04D
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:30:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qadc1 with SMTP id c1so4360745qad.40
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=VxPX+TCRiOy4eG8Rj1GpwbLtQMpvHrGZmkcK6acoMwA=;
        b=ACYUsg0tXRE4JMENehpwjm2dKARKsiSE1QvHgYJlnxwHxK9VTRCeXsQe2RcV13FGrW
         AcY5YLOcFdFh1M6EwUA6A6lg5Cep1mFECdgq0wQ8sw2cmN1DH6xQWPCJrEnYlHLrPrx7
         wY+gjRDWhcnsko1I1VZzpmBb1ERGbQrkZYEpc=
Received: by 10.224.31.132 with SMTP id y4mr30534551qac.12.1319736622419;
        Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-92-237.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.92.237])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fj8sm9225819qab.9.2011.10.27.10.30.19
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4EA9952A.4030909@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:30:18 -0500
From: Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111022 Firefox/7.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.4.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drive RPMs and data speed.
References: <4EA9130A.6070807@gmail.com> <j8bake$m62$1@dough.gmane.org> <2251997.4gxL5gE8u7@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <2251997.4gxL5gE8u7@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 
X-Archives-Hash: 7235de16abd5452ef49d38c83d22bf97

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 27 Oktober 2011, 13:09:17 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>> On 10/27/2011 11:15 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> I'm wanting to get a hard drive that is pretty good size. I'm looking
>>> for about 1 to 2TBs or so. Thing is, a lot of them seem to be 5900 or
>>> even 5400 rpm drives. I realize that the data on there is packed pretty
>>> tight so I want to ask a few people that may have one or more of these
>>> things a few questions. Are they as fast as a slower RPM drive?
>> I assume you meant to say "as fast as a faster RPM drive".  No, of
>> course not.  If we're speaking about the same capacity and amount of
>> platters, of course.  If we're not, then yes, they can be as fast
>> because of the higher data density.
>>
>>> Would
>>> they be fast enough to play HD videos and such? I have quite a few 1080
>>> HD videos. I don't want the drive to cause issues.
>> The transfer speed required for playing HD videos is virtually zero.
>> 1080p video compressed using an 8mbps rate require 2MB/s.  This can be
>> done even with the slowest drive from 10 years ago.  Today's slowest
>> drive are able to play about 40 or 50 of those HD video simultaneously.
>>    So the answer is yes.  They can play HD video :-)
>>
>> Most of those 5900/5400 disks are meant for pure data storage.  The
>> lower RPM is used to market them as "green and silent", meaning they
>> don't consume much power and aren't noisy.  Installing your OS on them
>> though isn't going to give you good speed.  They have good transfer
>> rates, but their access times usually suck.
>>
>>> Can someone that has one or more of these post their hdparm -Tt results?
>>> Different speeds would be great too. I'd like to compare what a 5400rpm
>>> drive would do compared to a 7200rpm drive.
>> Simply Google around for benchmarks of the drivers you're interested in.
>>    Note that is in area where it doesn't make any real difference that
>> the benches or reviews you find are performed under MS Windows.  The
>> results are applicable to every OS.
>>
>> As a rule of thumb when buying drives: if you want to install software
>> on it, buy an 7200RPM drive with good access times.  Of course they're
>> more expensive  If you just want to store all your downloaded HD porn
>> and music collection on it, a silent 5400RPM drive is a good choice.
>>
> indeed. Additionally they don't get really warm. Which reduces the overall
> thermal load in the case.
>
> One important thing:
>
> most if not all 2TB drives have 4K sectors, which means you have to be
> carefull while partitioning those beasts.


Looks like some good info.  I just need a GOOD sale and some extra money 
to spend.  Maybe in a couple weeks or so.  Hopefully. ;-)

As for heat in my case, I have a Cooler Master HAF-932 case.  It has 
those huge 230mm fans.  Heat is not a problem.

I just wonder how much data they will be able to pack into a 3.5" drive 
tho.  Hmmmmm.  Surely they will run out of room at some point.  I mean, 
the heads have got to have a little room to work with.

Dale

:-)  :-)