Seagate vs. IBM

[Demon-Xanth]

Now just looking at speed, which drive would be faster:
IBM 34GXP, 20GB
Seagate ATA Barracuda IV, 60GB

Both running in UDMA-66 mode. Both are 7200 RPM, both will be camping out in my system (along with an old 2GB SCSI Barracuda) and I want to know if the swap file and possibly the system would be better off on the Seagate or the IBM.

Note: cost and size are irrelavent. Currently the Seagate is on order/on the way.

 

[CSFM]

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, President of DEC, World Future Society Convention, 1977

LOL... Really!!!! Could have fooled me.

Sorry mate I was slightly destracted by that comment.

I would stick with the Seagate drive... I am unsure of the speeds but I know that my Seagate drive is fast and reliable... only thing I don't like about my drive is that it is a little bit loud... So I just have to play music louder... So be it!

Plus the fact that I and many others in this forum have had problems with not just IBM's drives, but also IBM as a company replacing them when the go belly up. :disgust:

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The 34GXP drives were before they started having issues. It's been going strong for quite some time now.

 

[Lorne]

My opinion ofcourse, Go for the IBM, And though I am an advid SCSI user I would also recommend you dump the SCSI, 2 gigs is a waist of space and only causing you unwanted latencies.
Its alway better to pick one or the other IDE/SCSI, Though yes there are those out there who claim no problems with using both congrats to you, In general its just better.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Here's my current setup:
AHA-2940W>2GB Barracuda+Pioneer DVD-305S+Teac CD-R55S
Primary Channel>IBM 34GXP 20GB
Secondary Channel>Seagate Barracuda IV 60GB (to be added)
FDC>3.5" floppy drive

I use the SCSI HD for queing up CD-rs (a partition is almost exactly the size of a CD-r disk) and just storing random data that I've collected from odd places that I'll never find again.

The primary job of the 60GB is for working with large captured video. I have a TV tuner card w/ HW MPEG2 encoding on order.

The question is:
Would the system, or at least swap file, be better off on the 60GB Seagate HD instead of the 20GB IBM?


The only problem that the SCSI has added is that the old card doesn't like OCing.

 

[Klosters]

The Swap File works fastest when left right where it is by default. Or use 512 Mb(or more for Linux,BSD, Win2K or XP) of RAM and disable the Swap File.