Seagate 750 GB $309.99

[crossrode]

$309.99 looks to be a great deal offered by Fry's.

Seagate Barracuda 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s

Great priceSeagate 750 GB Seagate 16 MB transfer

Compare price

 

[cubby1223]

Compare with:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148134

Above, you are comparing two distinctly different products.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Anyone else wishing they had thier christmas bonus now after noticing the "Limit 4"!

 

[Nobody Else]

For some reason, I was able to order it yesterday for $299.99 (free shipping). The newspaper ad had it for $309.99, but I searched the SKU (4924331) on their web site and it came up with the lower price.

sorry I didn't mention it earlier.

 

[oRdchaos]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Compare with:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148134

Above, you are comparing two distinctly different products.

And you're comparing to an OEM drive, whereas Fry's online and in stores is selling a Retail boxed drive.

 

[FlasHBurN]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Compare with:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148134

Above, you are comparing two distinctly different products.

What is the difference between the two?

 

[Tegeril]

Originally posted by: FlasHBurN

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Compare with:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148134

Above, you are comparing two distinctly different products.

What is the difference between the two?

Retail box comes with a manual, nicer packaging, a sata cable, um...something like that.

 

[markrb38]

It comes up at $299.99 for me.
Great price+ no money=jr a sad boy.

Mark

 

[GrammatonJP]

The original link was a barracuda es, enterprise storage, last longer than a regular barracuda 750

read http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2859

The difference in reliability between typical SATA and real enterprise disks has been proven in a recent test by Seagate. Seagate exposed three groups of 300 desktop drives to high-duty-cycle sequential and random workloads. Enterprise disks list a slightly higher or similar failure rate than desktop drives, but that does not mean they are the same. Enterprise disks are tested for heavy duty highly random workloads and desktop drives are tested with desktop workloads. Seagate's tests revealed that desktop drives failed twice as often in the sequential server tests than with normal desktop use. When running random server or transactional workloads, SATA drives failed four times as often![²] In other words, it is not wise to use SATA drives for transactional database environments; you need real SCSI/SAS enterprise disks which are made to be used for the demanding server loads.

Even the so called "Nearline" (Seagate) or "Raid Edition" (RE, Western Digital) SATA drives which are made to operate in enterprise storage racks, and which are more reliable than desktop disks, are not made for the mission critical, random transactional applications. Their MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) is still at least 20% lower than typical enterprise disks, and they will show the similar failure rates when used with highly random server workloads as desktop drives.

Also, the current SATA drives on average experience an Unrecoverable Error every 12.5 terabytes written or read (EUR of 1 in 1014 bits). Thanks to the sophisticated drive electronics, SAS/SCSI disks experience these kinds of errors 100 (!) times less. It would seem that EUR numbers are so small that they are completely negligible, but consider the situation where one of your hard drives fails in a RAID-5 or 6 configuration. Rebuilding a RAID-5 array with five 200 GB SATA drives results in reading 0.8 terabytes and writing 0.2 terabytes, in total 1 terabytes. So you have 1/12.5 or 8% chance of getting an EUR on this SATA array. If we look at a similar SCSI enterprise array, we would get a 0.08% chance on one unrecoverable error. It is clear an 8% chance of getting data loss is a pretty bad gamble for a mission critical application.

Another good point that Seagate made in the same study concerns vibration. When a lot of disk spindles and actuators are performing a lot of very random I/O operations in a big storage rack, quite a bit of rotational vibration is the result. In the best case the actuator will have to take a bit more time to get to the right sector (higher seek time) but in the worst case the read operation has to be retried. This can only be detected by the software driver, which means that the performance of the disk will be very low. Enterprise disks can take about 50% more vibration than SATA desktop drives before 50% higher seek times kill the random disk performance.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Thanks for the link GrammatonJP.

I think most people here would be using the disk for personal server storage and not mission critical large buisness roles.

Yes some small buisnesses may be using them as mission critical storage. However they probably aren't put under the same stress load.

I think the end result of the article however was clear that "nearline" or "enterprise" version of SATA drives are just fine for non-database disk arrays. But a mission critial database at a medium to large organization. You want to stick with the added reliability and lower latency of SCSI or SAS drives.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Compare with:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148134

Above, you are comparing two distinctly different products.

And you are comparing an OEM to a retail.

 

[oRdchaos]

The Barracuda ES drives also have some firmware that keeps the drives from returning errors prematurely, to keep RAID arrays from dropping the drives on recoverable errors. (Something like this at least...) As such, Seagate doesn't recommend you use the ES drives unless you're throwing them in a RAID array of some sort.