/wsr/ - Worksafe Requests » Thread #1426802

[20 / 6 / 12]

576KiB, 3000x1918, Seagate_Barracuda_IMG_7901.jpg

Best non SSD for system drive. - suggestions?

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 01:03:11 No.1426802 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1426809 >>1426813 >>1426818 >>1426837 >>1426908 >>1426925 >>1427320 >>1427777 >>1428470

I am (finally) upgrading my OS.
I currently am running it of a Western Digital RED.
I have a bunch of files on the drive (it's actually got a system and a 2nd partition but only have 125 gbs free.) I am considering switching to either a WD 4tb Black or a 4tb Seagate Ironwolf.
Which one is better?
Playing games is secondary but I suspect no matter what moving up from a RED drive will also speed things up.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 371-3912867405.jpg, 85KiB, 630x630

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 01:07:00 No.1426809 Report

Quoted By: >>1427777 >>1428469

>>1426802
>non SSD for system drive

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 01:11:03 No.1426813 Report

Quoted By:

>>1426802
>I am (finally) upgrading my OS
If you're going to W10 or 11 you're not gonna have a fun time if it's on a 7200RPM HDD. I speak from experience.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 01:18:00 No.1426818 Report

Quoted By: >>1426834

>>1426802
>but I suspect no matter what moving up from a RED drive will also speed things up.
I've honestly never noticed a real world change back when I flipped between 5400RPM and 7200RPM HDDs. Not that I've used them with a current OS, though I can't imagine a reason you would in current year, (outdated) SSDs are cheap as fuck and blow HDDs out of the water

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 02:00:36 No.1426834 Report

Quoted By:

>>1426818
>I've honestly never noticed a real world change back when I flipped between 5400RPM and 7200RPM HDDs
It's an absolute meme: 72/54 = 1.333

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 02:04:53 No.1426837 Report

Quoted By: >>1426847 >>1428469

>>1426802
>I am considering switching to either a WD 4tb Black or a 4tb Seagate Ironwolf.
>Which one is better?
Neither, get a SSD you retard, ideally NVMe.
If you absolutely must have a 4TB 3.5" disk because of stubbornness/autism, at least get a ST4000DX001 so your performance won't be as far down the toilet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 03:32:24 No.1426847 Report

Quoted By: >>1426849

>>1426837

How does the ST4000DX001
compare to the
Seagate Barracuda ST4000DM000

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 03:37:06 No.1426849 Report

Quoted By:

>>1426847
>ST4000DM000
Slaughters it, because it has 8GB of NAND cache, and the ST4000DM000 does not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 09:21:21 No.1426908 Report

Quoted By: >>1428469

>>1426802
You are masochist, arent you? For the system disk an SSD is a must, the comprison to 5400/7200 drive difference is not good, because any ssd vs a mechanical drive is dozens of times more responsive, and modern SO and programs kinda expect you to have one, so if you dont, it is very bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 14 Dec 2023 13:02:40 No.1426925 Report

Quoted By:

>>1426802
Keep in mind the disk's cache. I'd probably go for a barracuda

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Hard Drive.jpg, 186KiB, 700x1016

Anonymous Fri 15 Dec 2023 19:32:51 No.1427320 Report

Quoted By: >>1427347

>>1426802
>I currently am running it of a Western Digital RED.
RED networking drives are good with regards to churning whereas SSD are not. I've worn out various SSD brands simply because of a large number of torrents seeding or downloading at the same time. I seed a lot of diverse files, so a lot of different files are loaded (and unloaded) all the time. The churn is immense and that wears the SSD out in a year or two. The SSD gets slower and slower as it runs out of non-worn-out memory cells to balance the load to. So if you notice the SSD speed is slowly decreasing, then it is time to plan an eventual replacement.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 0E343AB7-6AD4-4942-8AF8-35932D22 (...).jpg, 84KiB, 403x443

Anonymous Fri 15 Dec 2023 21:25:14 No.1427347 Report

Quoted By: >>1428469

>>1427320
>I seed a lot of diverse files, so a lot of different files are loaded (and unloaded) all the time. The churn is immense and that wears the SSD out in a year or two.
Nonsense, reads don't damage SSDs. You must be doing something else pathological, like unaligned writes or partial writes of erase blocks/sectors.

If seeding truly is all you're doing, try getting more RAM and disabling write cache buffer flushing. Obviously use the device only for data that's independently verified, like torrents or doesn't matter, like steam downloads.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO d.png, 3MiB, 654x643

Anonymous Sun 17 Dec 2023 14:36:19 No.1427777 Report

Quoted By: >>1427779 >>1427781

>>1426802
wd reds are great for things where your constantly reading and writing. things like security camera HDRs WD Black is a fine choice for Desktop users.

what I like about WD products is their sensor integration, and fail safes. When I get A WD hd in for data recovery, im 100% certain I can recover the data.

Seagate was the 3rd shittiest mfg of HDs until they bought out their low end competitors, like quantum.
a Seagate hd will continue to run long after it should fail, and make data recover exponentially more difficult.
theyre cheaper sure, but if you use the thing regularly it costs you in time.

>>1426809
ssd theoretical data storage integrity over time at low / no power is worse for ssd devices. 7-8 years
magnetic mechanical disks 10-15 years
tape storage is good for 20 years.
you trade integrity for performance.
those are theoretical estimations. practically speaking, no one ever stores data in a cool. humidity controlled place.

if youre using the disks, as opposed to using them for long term storage powered off, go with performance disk specs. 10Krpm, 64MB+ cache

SSDs perform faster, at lower power, but fail harder.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Dec 2023 14:44:22 No.1427779 Report

Quoted By:

>>1427777
>64MB+ cache
The OS already has >8GB of cache

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Dec 2023 14:50:22 No.1427781 Report

Quoted By: >>1427964

>>1427777
>if you use the thing regularly it costs you in time
Backup is free:
- to set up automated backup, you need to buy a disk to put the backup on
- if you get the data recovered, you pay some bumhole an assload of money that they surprise you with once you're already captured, PLUS YOU STILL HAVE TO BUY A DISK to replace the failed disk and put the data on

All these people with their $1,000 GPUs, but they can't fit $200 in the budget for a cheap shitty hard disk

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Dec 2023 22:41:41 No.1427964 Report

Quoted By: >>1427970 >>1427974

>>1427781
But that's what I mean.
The SSD still concerns me regarding data recovery if things do go south.

(OP by the way) I get the "blazing speed" of an ssd but I'm not doing a lot now in that department. I'm generally playing stuff like left 4 dead or whatever multiplayer wise and dont have a BLAZING PIPE of fiber either.
I just don't know exactly why I would need the speed difference. At this point a faster Black with enough extra storage for the increase in OS makes more sense cost-wise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Dec 2023 23:02:14 No.1427970 Report

Quoted By: >>1428469

>>1427964
>The SSD still concerns me regarding data recovery
You will never need data recovery because you did the correct thing and bought twice as much storage as the data you intended to store, and turned on the realtime backup solution that comes with your OS. You're not a grasshopper, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Dec 2023 23:12:57 No.1427974 Report

Quoted By:

>>1427964
>I just don't know exactly why I would need the speed difference
It's not a throughput difference, it's a latency/IOpS difference. A modern disk and a modern SSD can both max out SATA III*, the difference is that the SSD doesn't lose 95% of its throughput if the reads aren't a single uninterrupted start-to-finish read of one single large file. Hard disk performance falls off a cliff when there's more than one thing to read, and this happens all the time: booting, installing, updating, launching a game, loading a level.

Anyways, here's some videos showing the difference side-by-side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aBMffrpxQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQZD382GOUM

* though NVMe SSDs have far higher throughput

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1702991126202.png, 944KiB, 1600x838

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2023 13:06:28 No.1428469 Report

Quoted By:

>>1426809
>>1426837
>>1426908
>>1427347
>>1427970

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Dec 2023 13:07:41 No.1428470 Report

Quoted By:

>>1426802
Seagate or Toshiba

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Best non SSD for system drive. - suggestions?