Seagate Constellation ES.3 4TB Review Comment Thread
Seagate's new ES.3 series is their latest salvo in the enterprise hard drive market. With a capacity of up to 4TB, incredible performance, increased longevity over standard drives and a five year comprehensive warranty, it sets a new high water mark in this increasingly critical storage segment.
Read more here: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...ve-review.html
I would be interested to see how the Barracuda 4TB (ST4000DM000) fares in a benchmark. ES.3 is a little out of range for me but Barracuda 4TB is definitely something I can consider especially with the current price tag.
One is being shipped to me as we speak. ;)
Also expect a Seagate SSHD review very soon!
This "test" is misleading at best. You put 4 of the ES.3's in a RAID-0 and then compare it to a 2 drive Raptor RAID 0 setup. This just doesn't make sense.
The real world output of the ES.3s is 184 write and the Raptors 210. Its just a matter if simple math, 4 ES.3 in raid-0 net you around 736 -strip overhead and then
a whopping 2 Raptors net you 420 etc. You then cheer the ES.3s for being so great without giving the Raptors an even chance. It would have been correct to do 4 Raptors in a Raid-0 would have given you around 840 writes. Thus killing the ES.3s not including
the ES.3s lag is around 9-10ms where the Raptors are in the low 3s. Just saying cause I have close to this setup myself. Difference being 12 ES.3s in Raid-6 and 12 Raptors in Raid-6.
I tried both drives in a Raid-0 setup and frankly the hit from Raid-6 wasn't enough to bother me and surely not enough to risk data loss with Raid-0. I do get it though, you want to show what each drive is totally capable of with using Raid-0 but in the real world no one is going to chance data loss. On a side note, the ES.3s don't like raid-1 or even Raid-10. I suspect its a firmware issue and will be fixed once we are past 001.
First, its probably your RAID card not the drives with regards to RAID 1. Not all drives like all RAID cards in all RAID levels (especially consumer raid controllers). I agree it probably will be fixed in a firmware upgrade. Seagate are good about these things when it comes to Enterprise drives.
Second, four drive numbers were included to show how the drives SCALE. These are enterprise drives. No business uses only one or two. Four really is too small number but the most Seagate would send.
Third, WD only sends - at best - two and then only if its in their best interest. Notice how they would not send REDs to us for testing? WD were not interested in a head to head against the ES.3s. In fact, I had to source our the second WD drives myself.
Fourth, dont like 4 vs 2....use the 2vs 2 numbers. It clearly shows the information you are looking for.
Fifth, these drives are meant for storage not OS use (who uses 2 or 4 4TB drives as an OS? buy a SSD and call it a day). Thus random access...yeah its not important. Sequential and deep queue depth IO performance...yup that is important. I do all and include the numbers for all the tests because of the 'edge' users who will do such a thing.
6th, if you want you are more than willing to send me two additional raptor 1TB drives and I will update the charts to 4vs 4...and keep the drives. Same for any others you want seen in the charts. Testing takes about 80hrs per model....so yeah I will keep them as my time is not free.
7th, If that doesnt sound feasible. You are more than welcome to do a member review. All data points are welcome. :thumb:
8th, Right now the SAS version of the ES.3 / connies are some of the best drives in their class. I use these drives myself and recommend them on a regular basis.
9th, I am brand agnostic. I use and recommend only good quality products in a class and dont care who the mfg'er is. Its is either up to my standards or its not.
Hope that clarifies things for you.
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 PM.|