this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
357 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

59602 readers
4306 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Are they any louder than any HDD from the last 30 years?

If so, im actually curious why that is

Edit: fixed to say HDD not SSD

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Well I have no experience with these particular drives, but they do seem to have 11 platters. Which is beyond insane as far as I'm concerned. More platters means more moving parts, more friction more noise (all other things being equal).

[–] Ugurcan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Oops, yes. I definitely would expect these to be much louder than your 6 GB 1998 model HDD wrangling under stress of copying files at 30 MB/s.

[–] Onsotumenh@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Tell that to my IBM 10GB 10.000 RPM U2W SCSI from back then. To this day I have never witnessed a noisier harddrive... But that PC was pretty epic, including the biggest mf of a mainboard I ever had (the SCSI controller was onboard).

[–] varyingExpertise@feddit.org 3 points 1 month ago

Ah, the sound of turning on the SCSI storage tower.

KA-TSCHONK. WeeeeeeeeEEEEEIIIIIII... skrrrt, skrrrt, clack.

Either that or KA-TSCHONK, silence, if there were already too many boxes on that circuit at a lan party 😁

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Your everyday modern HDD does not much more than 60MB/s after the on-disk cache (a few GB) is full.

[–] DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

not sure what you're on about, i have some cheap 500GB USB 3 drives from like 2016 lying around and even those can happily deal with sustained writes over 130MB/s.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When the cache isn't full, yes, that's true. Copy a file that's significantly bigger than cache and performance will drop part way through.

[–] DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You've made me uncertain if I've somehow never noticed this before, so I gave it a shot. I've been dd-ing /dev/random onto one of those drives for the last 20 minutes and the transfer rate has only dropped by about 4MB/s since I started, which is about the kind of slowdown I would expect as the drive head gets closer to the center of the platter.

EDIT: I've now been doing 1.2GB/s onto an 8 drive RAID0 (8x 600GB 15k SAS Seagates) for over 10 minutes with no noticable slowdown. That comes out to 150MB/s per drive, and these drives are from 2014 or 2015. If you're only getting 60MB/s on a modern non-SMR HDD, especially something as dense as an 18TB drive, you've either configured something wrong or your hardware is broken.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

My NAS uses a pair of SAS drives, and they make noises at boot up that would be concerning in a desktop. They're quite obnoxious. But I keep them in part of the house where they don't bother me.