Seagate ST3320613AS vs ST3320620NS

which one is better?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 15:02:01 up 42 min 0 users load average: 1.00 1.00 0.91
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k) wrote:
>
> which one is better?
>

On the Seagate site, the "20" appears to have slightly better seek times
than the "13".

>> which one is better?
> On the Seagate site, the "20" appears to have slightly better seek times
> than the "13".

Both of them using the one-platter for 320G design?

I am using two ST3250620AS in RAID 0 configuration. Wonder
whether they could make the case cooler...

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 19:14:01 up 4:54 0 users load average: 1.00 1.00 1.00
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

Previously "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> which one is better?
>> On the Seagate site, the "20" appears to have slightly better seek times
>> than the "13".

> Both of them using the one-platter for 320G design?

> I am using two ST3250620AS in RAID 0 configuration. Wonder
> whether they could make the case cooler...

I think the way to make a RAID0 cooler is to move to a single disk ;-)

Arno

>
> I think the way to make a RAID0 cooler is to move to a single disk ;-)
>

What about the transfer rate? Single disk faster?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 21:42:01 up 7:22 0 users load average: 4.64 3.66 3.33
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

Previously "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think the way to make a RAID0 cooler is to move to a single disk ;-)
>>

> What about the transfer rate? Single disk faster?

No. But unless you have mostly linear reads, and a well-tuned
system, RAID0 is not that much faster anyways.

Arno

"Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" wrote:
>
> which one is better?
>
> --
> @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
> /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
> ^ ^ 15:02:01 up 42 min 0 users load average: 1.00 1.00 0.91
> ? ? (CSSA):
> http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/


They are both appalling drives, with shocking failure rates - as are
practically any new drives shipping from Seagate.

Rather choose Samsung or Hitachi - just about anything other than
Seagate.


Duncan
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts

Previously Odiferous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" wrote:
>>
>> which one is better?
>>
>> --
>> @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
>> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
>> /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
>> ^ ^ 15:02:01 up 42 min 0 users load average: 1.00 1.00 0.91
>> ? ? (CSSA):
>> http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/


> They are both appalling drives, with shocking failure rates - as are
> practically any new drives shipping from Seagate.

> Rather choose Samsung or Hitachi - just about anything other than
> Seagate.

So it is definitive by now. I have to say I am not surprised at
all.

Arno

Arno Wagner wrote in news:6aj1giF37q1ifU1@mid.individual.net
> Previously Odiferous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Man-wai Chang ToDie (33.6k)" wrote:
> > >
> > > which one is better?
> > >
>
>
> > They are both appalling drives, with shocking failure rates - as are
> > practically any new drives shipping from Seagate.
>
> > Rather choose Samsung or Hitachi - just about anything other than
> > Seagate.

> So it is definitive by now.

You mean, Odoriferous 180 degree turn on Seagate is now completed?

> I have to say

Yes, that is definately your ailment, Babblebot.
It's an obsessive-compulsive disorder, you should have it treated.

> I am not surprised at all.

Of course you're not.

>
> Arno

> No. But unless you have mostly linear reads, and a well-tuned
> system, RAID0 is not that much faster anyways.

Well-tuned in what sense? There are not much things you
could do with hard disks these days...Are you talking
about expensive real hardware RAID 0 cards?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04) Linux 2.6.25.4
^ ^ 10:21:01 up 20:01 1 user load average: 2.69 2.64 3.08
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/