1tb 7200-rpm Serial Ata Hard Drive

Right I took the back off and this is indeed a green drive. Nowhere does it have the spin speed on the drive itself, only on the packaging, but as the packaging is blue I think this is falsely advertised,as how do you check what the drive is unless you open the packaging? Which is sealed.

So, how do I contact WD to get a drive replacement? I want the 7200 rpm drive I thought I was buying.

IBM gets the credit for inventing the concept of the hard disk drive (HDD) more than 50 years ago. Back then, HDD technology included washing machine-sized monstrosities with platters up to 14 inches in diameter spinning at a mere 1200 revolutions per minute (RPM).

Download 🔥 https://byltly.com/2y1FmB 🔥

Since then, the industry has experienced dramatic innovation. The physical footprint of hard drives has continued to decrease while storage density and performance have dramatically increased. But even as hard drive technology has matured, the way of measuring the performance of new hard drive models has remained relatively consistent and closely related to two specifications:

The performance of a hard drive is most effectively measured by how fast data can be transferred from the spinning media (platters) through the read/write head and passed to a host computer. This is commonly referred to as data throughput and typically measured in gigabytes (or gigabits) per second. In either case, data throughput is directly related to how densely data is packed on the hard drive platters and how fast these platters spin.

For the areal density specification, we can measure data density on a hard drive in two ways: bits per inch (BPI) and tracks per inch (TPI). As tracks are placed closer together, TPI increases. Similarly, as data bits are placed closer and closer to each other along a track, BPI increases. Together, these represent areal density.

As a rule, when areal density increases on a hard drive, so does data throughput performance. This is because the data bits pass by the read/write head of the hard drive faster, which leads to faster data rates.

Given two identically designed hard drives with the same areal densities, a 7200 RPM drive will deliver data about 33% faster than the 5400 RPM drive. Consequently, this specification is important when evaluating the expected performance of a hard drive or when comparing different HDD models.

Sometimes, however, data will be requested that is not in the NAND flash, and only during these instances does the hard drive portion of the device become a bottleneck. Since the technology is so effective at identifying and storing frequently used data in the NAND area, SSHD technology is much more efficient in delivering data to a host computer quickly.

I have been reading and writing the same files on two external hard drives connected to the same computer, a 2011 MacBook Pro. I was expecting the 7200-rpm EHD to be faster than my 5400-rpm EHD, but that was not the case.

Now when all is said and done, this might give you a new tool to give you the same conclusion: One drive is slower than the other. The only thought I could have then would be the fact you have both of these drives connected to your Mac via USB enclosures. And the Plugable USB 3.0 SuperSpeed SATA III Lay-Flat Hard Drive Docking Station (ASMedia ASM1053E SATA III to USB Chipset, UASP and 6TB+ Drive Support) might not be correctly handling the 7200RPM drive. Meaning the drive is good, but the docking station is not the speed demon it claims to be. I have often seen different mixes of drives behave differently in the same USB enclosure; remember not all bridging circuitry is the same. And if the enclosure is USB 3.0 rated, perhaps the USB 2.0 speed is not great?

Another idea is checking how the USB enclosures are connected. Sometimes of they are on the same USB bus as USB 1.1 devices such as keyboards and mice that could throttle speed down. If there is any way to isolate the connection the USB drive is on that would be the best way to check again.

Just because the drive has better statistics does not mean it is faster. There are many things to consider. The biggest issue I see is that they are both hooked up to USB 2.0, thus making a lot of the speed advantages of the 7200rpm drive irrelevant. If the drive was hooked up internally to a SATA III bus then you would see a difference.

SATA II specifications provide backward compatibility to function on SATA I ports. SATA III specifications provide backward compatibility to function on SATA I and SATA II ports. However, the maximum speed of the drive will be slower due to the lower speed limitations of the port.

Regardless the maximum speed they can both transfer is 480mbps because of the USB 2.0 limitation. Then when you consider the drive is 4x bigger than the 5400 the seek time will be slightly longer, add fragmentation, cluster size, disk format, etc and you will locate the source of the slower speeds.

For the 5400rpm disk to find any data it has only has to seek thru 1TB worth of space. For the 7200rpm it has to seek through 4TB. There are simply more sectors to seek though to find anything on the 4TB drive than on the 1TB. (Not that it does seek the whole drive but the point is more space = more possibilities of address).

ExFAT is optimized for flash drives, so even though the disk drives are different (USB 2.0 mostly shades this), the bigger issue here is that ExFAT is simply a slow file system to use in a magnetic drive. You are not the first one to notice it: Why is exFAT so slow on Mac?

having that said, the usefulness of platter hard disks as long term storage media is rather questinable, and they'll be replaced for performance reasons long before the end of their expected lifespan anyway.

It's very difficult to tell. The most important indicator in order to get to a possible answer is to get the MTBF rating (Mean Time Between Failure) from the makers. However this is a statistical average projected over time. No maker puts a drive running for 5 years in order to estimate its lifetime. It would be obsolete before they got the results.

Of course, one way of looking at it (especially with laptops) is typically 5400RPM are standard, and everyone would buy laptops with them and use them in the evenings and then turn off - where as it takes an enthusiast / someone who knows what they are doing to want a 7200rpm drive - the sort of person who would leave their pc on at nights and/or hours at a time, and even play games for hours at a time...

In the example above and what I tend to see in real life is that all hard drives seem to have a time limit and it is the ones that are on the most / get a heavy use are the ones that usually go first.

It all depends on the quality of the drive. There are 15K RPM server hard drives that are built to outlast 7.2k RPM drives. The spindle speed has no direct correlation to lifetime if the drive is of good quality

Heat is not the issue that people make it out to be. Google did their own study that came to the conclusion that HDDs are far more resilient to heat than people first thought. Most decent brands will handle 50+ C for the lifetime of the drive.

Also you need to consider which 5400rpm drives you are talking about... If you are on about olde IDE/SAT drives, then they are almost certainly inferior to modern 7200rpm drives, given the year-on-year improvements that are made.

If you are consider the new 'green' 5400rpm drives like the Samsung EcoGreen series, they are lowered powered - hence they are considered 'green' - but they are no more reliable. Same MTBF, same warranty.

Although 7200 RPM hard drives are faster than 5400 RPM drives, 5400 RPM drives offer an average of 100 MB/s read and write speeds, while 7200 RPM drives deliver an average of 120 MB/s read and write speeds. If you are trying to choose, consider that both drives are virtually identical, but with the difference that a 7200 RPM drive is around 20 percent faster than a 5400 RPM drive.

This guide is focused on traditional rotating platter hard drives as the focus here is on drives to store a large amount of data. Of course, hybrid drives and Solid State Drives (SSD) offer better performance, but they do not provide as much capacity and are still quite expensive.

I've got a small favor to ask. This is an independent site, and producing content takes a lot of hard work. Although more people are reading Pureinfotech, many use adblocker. Thus advertising revenue is falling fast. And unlike many other sites, there is no paywall blocking readers here. So you can see why your help is needed. If everyone who finds this website useful and helps to support it, the future would be much more secure. Thank you.

Many vendors sell 4GB SATA and Nearline SAS drives which spin at 7200RPM. The vendors will advertise a 6 Gbit/s interface with no mention of actual data transfer speed. I've had conversations with vendors, sysadmins, customers and technical managers who assume that 6 Gbit/s is the actual transfer speed of the disk.

Is it possible for a 7200RPM drive to fully utilize this 6 Gbit/s connection? If not, then does this inflated transfer speed offer any benefit to 7200RPM drive? Would a 6 Gbit/s interface offer any performance improvements compared to a 3 Gbit/s interface? Would this transfer speed be beneficial in a RAID array?

I've read that a typical 7200RPM drives will fully utilize the "buffer-to-computer" interface under ideal conditions. Performance features such as a large disk cache can only offer modest improvements to this speed.

A 7200RPM drive can load the cache and then burst the contents at the max bus rate, so yes, it is possible for a 7200RPM drive with a 128MB cache to fully utilize a SATA III link... for a whole 0.15 seconds. After that, sustained disk I/O will cause a bottleneck as the cache will need to be repopulated and you're waiting on the platters to catch up. be457b7860