21 160GB drives tested

[The JoJo]

Over here:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/21hdd-160.html

For Tony, me and other Samsung users:
"Samsung’s devices can be characterized as “universal” – they don’t seem to have any obvious weaknesses."

 

[Bookmage]

So, among the reviewed devices, we recommend purchasing the Maxtor drives for work with streaming video/audio content, the Hitachi and Western Digital drives for work with common Windows applications. Samsung’s devices can be characterized as “universal” – they don’t seem to have any obvious weaknesses.

So for a storage server of either 120GB or 160GB, they say Hitachi and Samsung are good. Since the results from the 120GB and the 160GB were similar, Hitachi and Samsung would be the drives of choice for a storage/file server. While Maxtors would be good for capping video. So, one were to build a storage server to store video and mp3s, would Samsung or Hitachi be better?

 

[Mercutio]

I'd call the Samsung's warranty the tie-breaker, personally.

 

[Tannin]

I don't even ask the question about performance numbers anymore. Reliability (#1) and warranty (#2) count for so much more in the buying decision, and Samsung are so far in front of Seagate and Western Digital on both counts, that they could be the slowest and the most expensive and it just wouldn't matter. As for Maxtor and Hitachi, they may or may not approach Samsung reliability levels (I have no evidence either way) but they don't bother to provide a warranty cover sufficient to allow me to use them in systems.

The long and the short of it is that, while the performance numbers are interesting, they won't have any influence whatever on our buying decisions. First things first. A faulty drive has an average seek time measured in weeks or months.

 

[Santilli]

Quaxtor does offer the DiamondMax with a 5 year warranty.
So far, it's been a real bitch, not working on a 100 ATA Intel chipset channel, but, working on whorrers, an ATA133 Promise X2 or something like that, in my machine. Not fast, but, so far it hasn't failed, which is very important.

s

 

[sechs]

I'd say that those of us that value reliability are fairly rare in the enthusiast community. Most people are concerned about size and "speed" (whatever that may be).

 

[hala kahiki]

I have to agree with sechs.

Most people seem far more interested doing things that reduce reliability, not increase it.

 

[Tannin]

Most people seem far more interested doing things that reduce reliability, not increase it.

Quite right. A very fair statement.

(Tannin pauses to relight his pipe, pour another scotch, decides to skip going to the gym tonight.)

 

[Santilli]

Depends on your purpose. I HAVE to have reliable storage, for some data.
This means DVD backup, CD backup, the most reliable ide drive I could find, and, in the future, SCA drives for storage, and removeable, to further reduce their stress time.

Boot wise, reinstalling an OS is no big deal, and most of the data I have, or programs, are backed up, for easy reinstallation. Do I enjoy having a drive crash? No.
However, I've had excellent luck with Seagate's Cheetahs, and they have been beyond reliable, with great customer support.

I see no reason to not use them in Raid 0 as boot drives, since the reliability has been considerably better then any other drives I have used.

s

 

[Tannin]

Cheetahs are the only other drive I ever willingly use, Greg.

 

[Tea]

And what'z more, Cheetahs do have spotz.

 

[Grim]

And what'z more, Cheetahs do have spotz.

But Cheetahs still cannot change them.

 

[Santilli]

Tannin:
The only reason I bought the Quaxtor is we have Costco. If it fails, I return it to them, and they take care of it, without having to deal with Quaxtor. Great store, great prices.

s