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 :-) :-)