1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

1.5TB Seagate Barracuda to Velociraptor mod....

Discussion in 'Storage' started by InnocentCriminal, Jul 16, 2009.

  1. InnocentCriminal

    InnocentCriminal Resident Grammar Amender

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,486 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    For those of you with a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31500341AS, the guys over at TechwareLabs have managed to unleash the potential of this driving bringing it on par and even outperforming the Velociraptor...

    ... check out the article if you have the drive, don't mind losing a little bit of the capacity to gain a bit more speed. Speed of capacity, what is more important!

    Enjoy!

    :rockout:
     
    tzitzibp says thanks.
  2. tzitzibp

    tzitzibp New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,225 (0.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Location:
    Larisa, Greece
    WTF!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

    Thanks for the link... i bought one of these toys, two days ago!
     
  3. InnocentCriminal

    InnocentCriminal Resident Grammar Amender

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,486 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    Smooth!

    I really recommend reading the article a couple of times so that you can decide if you want to do it or not. Doesn't seem difficult, no firmware flashing just you lose a little bit of the capacity of an already freaking hulk of a drive!
     
  4. tzitzibp

    tzitzibp New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,225 (0.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Location:
    Larisa, Greece
    i might just try it for benching it myself, and them restore it!

    thanks again for sharing the link... great find!
     
  5. InnocentCriminal

    InnocentCriminal Resident Grammar Amender

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,486 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    Not a problem, really glad someone can get something out of it.

    :rockout:
     
  6. MoonPig

    MoonPig

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,729 (2.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    886
    Location:
    Wakefield, UK
    I wonder if you can Raid 0 them after doing this mod... 1.5TB of extreme speed for near the cost of a 300GB Raptor?
     
  7. DarkEgo

    DarkEgo

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,393 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    226
    I wonder if you could do this to a 1 TB 7200.12. @300GB think of the speeds!
     
  8. InnocentCriminal

    InnocentCriminal Resident Grammar Amender

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,486 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    Well, you actually lose a little bit of the capacity in aid of the speed, but I honestly don't see why you wouldn't be able to RAID them at all!
     
  9. MoonPig

    MoonPig

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,729 (2.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    886
    Location:
    Wakefield, UK
    1 x 300GB Velociraptor = £175
    2 x 1.5TB Seagate = £180

    So, you get 1.2TB more space, faster speeds and longer life (guessing) for £5 more...
     
  10. InnocentCriminal

    InnocentCriminal Resident Grammar Amender

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,486 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    Makes even better financial sense!

    :rockout:
     
  11. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    There should be no reason that you cannot set two Seagates to 300GB or 819GB and put them in RAID0.
    The results should be even better, and still at about the same cost as a single VR.
     
  12. InnocentCriminal

    InnocentCriminal Resident Grammar Amender

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,486 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    :D

    That's what I thought.
     
  13. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,822 (3.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,481
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Not quite what it seems

    Oh darn you InnocentCriminal, I was just about to post about the same thing! :toast:

    The performance graphs are interesting, however, I don't see why you have to limit your hard drive's capacity like that. All the performance improvement comes from the higher areal density. This gives a double wammy speed increase by making the magnetic domains smaller and hence the disc needs to spin less far (smaller angle of turn) to read them and it puts that 300GB nearer the outermost edge of the platter where the data is read faster.

    Hence, the performance at any point on the platter is fixed, unless you can overspin it... ;)

    For example, take the graphs that show the throughput from start to finish. The first 300GB will always give the same results. The first 300GB range of the plot will simply be compressed to the start of the graph, that's all.

    Either the reviewer didn't know what he was talking about when reducing the capacity, or he just wanted to make an article. :slap:
     
  14. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,822 (3.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,481
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    In fact, I'll go with the reviewer didn't know what he was talking about, because of this paragraph:

    "Because all drives are structured like disks, the data located towards the end of the drive (towards the edges), is more separated than the data located near the center, hence it takes less time to locate, read and write information to and from the drive. Since the drive is 1500 GB in size, 300 GB ends up being 20%. By setting the size to 20 % of the max, the drive uses the inside 20% of the disc thus bringing superior performance."

    No, you get better performance at the outer edges, because the bit density (the areal density) is constant over the whole platter and the linear velocity gets higher the further out from the centre you go. This is standard physics.
     
  15. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,224 (11.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,526
    the entire time reading that, one thought kept occuring.


    why not partition it? The first 300GB will perform the same, with no loss of data capacity....
     
  16. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,822 (3.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,481
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Exactly. Dunno if you saw my previous two posts, but they explain this in detail.

    I haven't done detailed benchmarks, but my WD 750GB & WD 1TB drives both feel as quick as my old Raptor X 150GB. Benchmarks in reviews have confirmed that they trade benchmark wins with the Raptor, too. And heck, they do this without driving me insane from the noise! :laugh:
     
  17. kenkickr

    kenkickr

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,822 (1.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,444
    Crunching for Team TPU
  18. largon New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    432
    Location:
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    *facepalm* × n+1
    Shortstroking makes no sense whatsoever!

    Shortstroking will NOT make a disk any faster, the only effect you'll get is a capacity decrease. The so called "performance gain" is nothing but an illusion created by benchmarking programs as parts of the disk are not accessed.
     
  19. Tau

    Tau New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    821 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    92
    Shortstroking is a waste of time IMO.

    and velocilraptors are a waste of money.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page