[3398] in linux-scsi channel archive
Re: IBM or Seagate?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Harvey Fishman)
Tue Feb 24 16:42:23 1998
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:43:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Harvey Fishman <fishman@panix.com>
To: yuri mironoff <yuri@buster.rgti.com>
cc: linux-scsi@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.95.980224093700.129156A-100000@bdmg30.rgti.com>
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, yuri mironoff wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Has anyone benchmarked the IBM Ultrastar 2ES against the new Seagate
> Hawk 4XL? I know statwise the IBM has faster seek times while the
> Seagate has faster rotational speed. Arial density is about the same. What
> kind of performance difference does that translate to in real life?
> What about reliability and compatibility (ie flaky bios)?
I recently bought a 4.3 GB Ultrastar 2 ES for use as a second drive under
NT. By feel, it seems faster than my first NT drive which is a Seagate
ST-1550N (Barracuda). Very unscientific measurement though. I have been
running Linux with a 2.16 GB Ultrastar 2 ES for a bit over a year
(replacing a Quantum drive that started acting funny), and it has run quite
well. That was a major part of the reason for selecting the IBM drive for
NT. All three drives are connected to an older Adaptec AHA-2940 in the box
that dual boots between NT and Linux.
Harvey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Fishman |
fishman@panix.com | A little heresy is good for the soul.
718-258-7276 |
