Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000: Terabyte Storage arrives on the Desktop
by Gary Key on March 19, 2007 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
iPeak Business Application Tests
Our iPeak Winstone benchmarks offer a glimpse into how well our hard disk drives will handle general office applications, media encoding, and graphics manipulation. While the business applications that are being tested tend to be more CPU bound at times, the performance of the hard drive can and will make a difference in the more disk intensive video and graphics applications where large media files are typically being edited.
AAs expected the WD Raptor drives finish at the top in our business application tests as their 10k rpm spindle speed and optimized cache play an important role in their ability to sustain high transfer rates, especially in the Content Creation benchmark where transfer block sizes are significantly larger and more random than in the Business application benchmark. We see our 7K1000 performing very well in these tests and finishing ahead of the other 7200rpm drives and even the older 8 MB cache equipped 74GB Raptor.
In fact, the 7K1000 is about 44% faster in the Business Winstone and 30% quicker in the Content Creation benchmarks than the Seagate 750GB drive. After reviewing the trace analysis files we determined that the 7K1000 handles small block sizes of data in non-sequential order significantly better than the Seagate drive. We did notice the drive slowed down slightly in the Business Winstone when it encountered large block sizes of data in non-sequential order. This surprised us slightly as we expected the increase in drive cache to 32 MB would have buffered this same issue we noticed on the Seagate 750GB drive. Overall, the drive offers a very balanced blend of performance across a wide variety of business and home applications.
iPeak General Task Tests
The iPeak based General Task benchmarks are designed to replicate utility based application tasks that typically are disk intensive and represent common programs utilized on the majority of personal computers. While the WinRAR program is very CPU intensive it will typically stress the storage system in short bursts. Our antivirus benchmark will stress the storage system with continual reads and sporadic write requests while the defragmentation process is split between continual read and write requests.
The 7K1000 performs extremely well in the Anti-Virus and Defragmentation test where its 32 MB cache benefits read operations with results that mirror the PCMark 2005 tests. This is especially true in the WinRAR tests where large cache sizes are very advantageous for improved times and we expected better performance from this drive. It did finish ahead of the other 7200rpm drives but simply could not keep up with the rotational and access speeds of the 16 MB cache equipped Raptors.
Our iPeak Winstone benchmarks offer a glimpse into how well our hard disk drives will handle general office applications, media encoding, and graphics manipulation. While the business applications that are being tested tend to be more CPU bound at times, the performance of the hard drive can and will make a difference in the more disk intensive video and graphics applications where large media files are typically being edited.
AAs expected the WD Raptor drives finish at the top in our business application tests as their 10k rpm spindle speed and optimized cache play an important role in their ability to sustain high transfer rates, especially in the Content Creation benchmark where transfer block sizes are significantly larger and more random than in the Business application benchmark. We see our 7K1000 performing very well in these tests and finishing ahead of the other 7200rpm drives and even the older 8 MB cache equipped 74GB Raptor.
In fact, the 7K1000 is about 44% faster in the Business Winstone and 30% quicker in the Content Creation benchmarks than the Seagate 750GB drive. After reviewing the trace analysis files we determined that the 7K1000 handles small block sizes of data in non-sequential order significantly better than the Seagate drive. We did notice the drive slowed down slightly in the Business Winstone when it encountered large block sizes of data in non-sequential order. This surprised us slightly as we expected the increase in drive cache to 32 MB would have buffered this same issue we noticed on the Seagate 750GB drive. Overall, the drive offers a very balanced blend of performance across a wide variety of business and home applications.
iPeak General Task Tests
The iPeak based General Task benchmarks are designed to replicate utility based application tasks that typically are disk intensive and represent common programs utilized on the majority of personal computers. While the WinRAR program is very CPU intensive it will typically stress the storage system in short bursts. Our antivirus benchmark will stress the storage system with continual reads and sporadic write requests while the defragmentation process is split between continual read and write requests.
The 7K1000 performs extremely well in the Anti-Virus and Defragmentation test where its 32 MB cache benefits read operations with results that mirror the PCMark 2005 tests. This is especially true in the WinRAR tests where large cache sizes are very advantageous for improved times and we expected better performance from this drive. It did finish ahead of the other 7200rpm drives but simply could not keep up with the rotational and access speeds of the 16 MB cache equipped Raptors.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
It has worked well for us to date. We also took readings with several other programs and a thermal probe. All readings were similar so we trust it at this time. I understand your concern as the sensors have not always been accurate.mkruer - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
I hate this decimal Byte rating they use. They say the capacity is 1 TeraByte meaning 1,000,000,000,000 Bytes, this actually translates into ~930GB or .93TB that the OS will see using the more commonly used (base 2) metric. This is the metric that people assume you are talking about. When will the drive manufactures get with the picture and list the standard Byte capacity?Spoelie - Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - link
I don't think it matters all that much, once you heard it you know it. There's not even a competitive marketing advantage or any scamming going on since ALL the drive manufacturers use it and in marketing material there's always a note somewhere explaining 1GB = blablabla bytes. So 160GB on one drive = 160GB on another drive. That it's not the formatted capacity has been made clear for years now, so I think most people who it matters for know.Zoomer - Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - link
IBM used to not do this. Their advertised 120GB drive was actually 123.xxGB, where the GB referred to the decimal giga. This made useable capacity a little over 120GB. :)JarredWalton - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
See above, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix">SI prefix overview and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix">binary prefix overview for details. It's telling that this came into being in 1998, at which time there was a class action lawsuit occurring I believe.Of course, you can blame the computer industry for just "approximating" way back when KB and MB were first introduced to be 1024 and 1048576 bytes. It probably would have been best if they had created new prefixes rather than cloning the SI prefixes and altering their meaning.
It's all academic at this point, and we just try to present the actual result for people so that they understand what is truly meant (i.e. the "Formatted Capacity").
Olaf van der Spek - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
The screenshot shows only 1 x 10 ^ 12 bytes. :(
And I'm wondering, do you know about any plans for 2.5" desktop drives (meaning, not more expensive than cheapest 3.5" drives and better access time)?
crimson117 - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
How many bytes does this drive actually hold? Is it 1,000,000,000,000 bytes or 1,099,511,627,776 bytes?It's interesting... it used to not seem like a huge difference, but now that we're approaching such high capacities, it's almost a 100 GB difference - more than most laptop hard disks!
crimson117 - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
I should learn to read: Operating System Stated Capacity: 931.5 GBJarredWalton - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
Of course, the standard people decided (AFTER the fact) that we should now use GiB and MiB and TiB for multiples of 1024 (2^10). Most of us grew up thinking 1KB = 1024B, 1MB = 1024KB, etc. I would say the redefinition was in a large part to prevent future class action lawsuits (i.e. I could see storage companies lobbying SI to create a "new" definition). Windows of course continues to use the older standard.Long story short, multiples of 1000 are used for referring to bandwidth and - according to the storage sector - storage capacity. Multiples of 1024 are used for memory capacity and - according to most software companies - storage capacity. SI sides with the storage people on the use of mibibytes, gibibytes, etc.
mino - Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - link
Ehm, ehm.GB was ALWAYS spelled Giga-Byte and Giga- with short "G" is a standard prefix for 10^9 since the 19th century(maybe longer).
The one who screwed up were the software guys whoe just ignored the fact 1024!=1000 and used the same prefix with different meaning.
SI for long ignored this stupidity.
Lately SI guys realized software guys are too careless to accept the reality that 1024 really does not equal 1000.
It is far better to have some standard way to define 1024-multiples and have many people use old wrong prefixes than to have no such definition at all.
I remember clearly how confused I was back in my 8th grade on Informatics class when teacher tried(and failed back then) to explain why everywhere SI prefixes mean 10^x but in computers they mean 2^10 aka 1024.
IT took me some 4 years until I was comfortable with power-of-something nubers enough so that it did not matter whether one said 512 or 2^9 to me.
This prefix issue is a mess SI did not create nor caused. They are just trying to clean it up in the single possible way.