FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


2011 Hard Drive slower than 2006





Tony The Tiger
In the fall of 2006, I bought a Seagate 750 GB external hard drive off of eBay. It has been extremely dependable. However as my system has grown (from one 40GB internal to my current dual internal HDs of 320 and 120 GB), I am only able to keep three full system backups (of about 190GBs each) at a time and I like to do full system backups once a month. This month I bought a Seagate Free Agent GoFlex 3TB external HD at my local Office Depot using a price match against a Best Buy sale price or $149.00. Today, I did my first full system backup on it and it took more than 2 times as long to write to the new hard drive. How can new technology be slower than 5 year old storage technology?

Original PN=9BJ648-560, New PN=9ZH9P9-RAA
snowboardalliance
Tony The Tiger wrote:
In the fall of 2006, I bought a Seagate 750 GB external hard drive off of eBay. It has been extremely dependable. However as my system has grown (from one 40GB internal to my current dual internal HDs of 320 and 120 GB), I am only able to keep three full system backups (of about 190GBs each) at a time and I like to do full system backups once a month. This month I bought a Seagate Free Agent GoFlex 3TB external HD at my local Office Depot using a price match against a Best Buy sale price or $149.00. Today, I did my first full system backup on it and it took more than 2 times as long to write to the new hard drive. How can new technology be slower than 5 year old storage technology?

Original PN=9BJ648-560, New PN=9ZH9P9-RAA


I'm sure the specs would tell you why. Possibly the old one was a higher end drive (better caching, lower latency?) Are they both the same RPM? Also, more disk space = more seek time in general. Just some thoughts without digging up the specs.
Tony The Tiger
snowboardalliance wrote:
Tony The Tiger wrote:
In the fall of 2006, I bought a Seagate 750 GB external hard drive off of eBay. It has been extremely dependable. However as my system has grown (from one 40GB internal to my current dual internal HDs of 320 and 120 GB), I am only able to keep three full system backups (of about 190GBs each) at a time and I like to do full system backups once a month. This month I bought a Seagate Free Agent GoFlex 3TB external HD at my local Office Depot using a price match against a Best Buy sale price or $149.00. Today, I did my first full system backup on it and it took more than 2 times as long to write to the new hard drive. How can new technology be slower than 5 year old storage technology?

Original PN=9BJ648-560, New PN=9ZH9P9-RAA


I'm sure the specs would tell you why. Possibly the old one was a higher end drive (better caching, lower latency?) Are they both the same RPM? Also, more disk space = more seek time in general. Just some thoughts without digging up the specs.


They are both 7200 RPM Seagate drives. I will call Seagate tomorrow. I don't know the buffer of both, but don't think buffer could cause a difference of this magnitude. Seek time is for reading not writing. I am talking about time to write a Norton Ghost Backup of my Laptop.
Tony The Tiger
Previously I stated Here is some more info: Original PN=9BJ648-560, New PN=9ZH9P9-RAA.

Both are Seagate products and I have been in contact with Seagate. I have learned that the new device has a dock with a separate model number and the actual PN for the hard drive is found when I disconnect the dock. The New PN is 9ZQ2N3-500 3 TB.

Seagate believed that the reason the first backup on the new HDD took 5.5 hours vs the normal 2.5 is other programs running during the backup. Since I did the first backup while I was awake (and likely playing online poker with the SQL based PokerTracker running) and usually backup when I am asleep, I agreed to rerun the Norton Ghost on the new HDD while it was the only operation on the computer.

P.S. They have confirmed that the new and the old are both 7200 RPM devices and that the new has a 32MB buffer vs. 16MB for the old. They believe the rate determining step should be the 2.0 USB transfer rate.
william
What program are you using to create your backups?

Also, if you want to test actual HDD performance, download HDTune and compare the results for both hard drives. If the results are significantly different, make sure there are no background processes accessing the hard drive. If you find nothing, then you might have an actual hardware issue, but I am doubting that.

Unless there is a problem with, say, the USB controller it's likely that external programs slowed it down, primarily virus scans.

Edit: Sorry, just read you were using Ghost.
Tony The Tiger
william wrote:
What program are you using to create your backups?

Also, if you want to test actual HDD performance, download HDTune and compare the results for both hard drives. If the results are significantly different, make sure there are no background processes accessing the hard drive. If you find nothing, then you might have an actual hardware issue, but I am doubting that.

Unless there is a problem with, say, the USB controller it's likely that external programs slowed it down, primarily virus scans.

Edit: Sorry, just read you were using Ghost.


I performed almost identical backups with no other programs open today. Results:

New model Dock PN=9ZH9P9-RAA Drive PN=9ZQ2N3-500 3 TB (7200 RPM 32 MB buffer)

Time 5:02 to create a 188GB Norton Ghost 15.0 backup of my laptop.


Old model PN=9BJ648-560 750GB (7200 RPM 16 MB buffer)

Time 3:13 to create a 189GB backup (larger because I had to delete space on the drive to create the backup and forgot to empty the recycle bin)

Both run from the right rear USB port on my HP Pavilion DV7, which uses windows 7.

I will be speaking with Seagate tomorrow about the difference in their 2011 and 2006 hardware.
Tony The Tiger
Tony The Tiger wrote:
william wrote:
What program are you using to create your backups?

Also, if you want to test actual HDD performance, download HDTune and compare the results for both hard drives. If the results are significantly different, make sure there are no background processes accessing the hard drive. If you find nothing, then you might have an actual hardware issue, but I am doubting that.

Unless there is a problem with, say, the USB controller it's likely that external programs slowed it down, primarily virus scans.

Edit: Sorry, just read you were using Ghost.


I performed almost identical backups with no other programs open today. Results:

New model Dock PN=9ZH9P9-RAA Drive PN=9ZQ2N3-500 3 TB (7200 RPM 32 MB buffer)

Time 5:02 to create a 188GB Norton Ghost 15.0 backup of my laptop.


Old model PN=9BJ648-560 750GB (7200 RPM 16 MB buffer)

Time 3:13 to create a 189GB backup (larger because I had to delete space on the drive to create the backup and forgot to empty the recycle bin)

Both run from the right rear USB port on my HP Pavilion DV7, which uses windows 7.

I will be speaking with Seagate tomorrow about the difference in their 2011 and 2006 hardware.


They have me using their Seatools diagnostics software. It seems to mostly be checking for bad sectors, which the old drive has and the new one (which probably just passed this test before shipping) does not.
ankur209
I don't think so...!!
As Far as technology is concerned,it's always on the progessive mode.. Laughing

Infact they uses 7200 rpm which i think was in earlier 2006 too...!!
Rolling Eyes
Tony The Tiger
Latest update:

I ran Seagate's Seatools and had no bad sectors on the new 3TB vs 43 bad sectors on the old 750GB. I called them and they said that they do not have any software to test the transfer speed of their drives (I call bull$#!t). They suggested I do a copy paste to test. I transferred 2.75 GB of .mp3 music files to both drives. It took 5 minutes and 10 seconds for the 3TB and 4 minutes and 37 seconds for the 750GB with 43 bad sectors. So now we have two speed measures. It took 56.5% longer to do a Norton Ghost 15.0 backup and 11.9% longer to do a windows explorer copy/paste transfer. He said he did not feel this was significant and that he did not feel the drive was defective. I insisted that the new drive has consistently exhibited inferior performance to the old one that has been shown to have 43 bad sectors. He gave me the feeling that a replacement would probably perform the same. Although I feel his response and his earlier claim that Seagate does not have software to test transfer rates means that they are aware of the problem, I asked if he could do a replacement. He gain said the drive was performing as designed. I had to really push. Then, he said he would connect me to the warranty department, but he disconnected me. I called back and made the numerical selections to get connected to the warranty department. They said I would have to return the old one first. I told them that I now have material on the 3TB that I need to transfer to a new 3TB. They asked about the possibility of me returning my drive to Office Depot. I put the warranty department person on hold and called Office Depot who confirmed a 14 day return policy and exchange only for open items. I got back on with Seagate and told them that since I purchased this on March 9, I was past the store return period. Eventually, they agreed to do an advance exchange. They are going to send a replacement and I have 25 days to return the original 3TB. I expect to experience equally slow performance though.
Ankhanu
Tony The Tiger wrote:
I expect to experience equally slow performance though.


You're likely right.
Bondings
Normally the bigger drive should be faster, at least for copying bigger files.

What I can think of that might explain a different result:

1) USB transfer rate, but that should be the same for both drives, so that's probably not the problem. Although did you try to connect the drives to the same usb port? Maybe the one for the newer hard drive has a problem or is slower (I'm not sure if that is possible, but you can never be sure).

2) The number of hard disk platters. The number of platters may differ and maybe the old hard drive had a lot more platters, causing a better data rate. This might explain it a bit.

3) Other programs that are running.

4) Some newer drives like the "green" ones of WD switch to a lower RPM (or completely off) to save power. Maybe you need to change some settings or it doesn't switch back to the highest RPM due to a problem.

5) File system and file system fragmentation differences. Also your OS might be the cause of these things. What about trying it in Linux?

Finally, what is weird is that you only seem to reach 10MB/s for big files. Normally I would expect at least 20MB/s for a new hard drive. So yes, there might be an issue. Again, testing it with a different OS like Linux might be a good idea. And indeed you are likely right about the equally slow performance of the new drive.
QrafTee
Seriously if you're not using USB 3.0 or eSATA, you're not "really" taking advantage of newer technology. You're just using old technology, but its more densely packed. Also make sure to disable power saver mode; those things cripple external hard drive performance.
Tony The Tiger
QrafTee wrote:
Seriously if you're not using USB 3.0 or eSATA, you're not "really" taking advantage of newer technology. You're just using old technology, but its more densely packed. Also make sure to disable power saver mode; those things cripple external hard drive performance.


Did not disable power saver mode and do not know which one was in power saver mode for more of the time in test 3.

Test 1; copy paste 2.75 GB of mp3 files.

Old 750 GB 4:37
Original 3TB 5:10
Replacement 4:49

Test 2 Backup 2003 Dell Inspiron 8200 with Windows XP and Norton Save & Restore 2.0 using OEM USB 1.0 and a USB 2.0 conversion card 15.1 GB content producing a 9.1 GB backup file
Old 750 GB 12 minutes according to date created and date modified times in windows explorer (12:31 according to software)
Original 3TB 28 minutes
Replacement 20 minutes (20:55)

Test 3 Backup 2010 Hewlett Packard Pavilion DV7 with Windows 7 and Norton Ghost 15.0 with 221 GB content producing 194 GB backup file
Original 3TB {5:04:54)
Replacement (5:06:00)
esmith92000
The overriding factor in disk access is arm movement. All other factors, including average rotational delay, which is caused by speed, and data transfer rate, which is caused mostly by the interface (either USB 2 or USB 3) are minor. If one disk is much slower than another, that means the arm has to move more. This means more cylinders to cross, which means fewer platters. The more platters, the more read/write heads, which used to be one of the main costs. When purchasing a disk, the key first question to ask is how many heads there are. Try asking Seagate that one.
mathiaus
esmith92000 wrote:
The overriding factor in disk access is arm movement. All other factors, including average rotational delay, which is caused by speed, and data transfer rate, which is caused mostly by the interface (either USB 2 or USB 3) are minor. If one disk is much slower than another, that means the arm has to move more. This means more cylinders to cross, which means fewer platters. The more platters, the more read/write heads, which used to be one of the main costs. When purchasing a disk, the key first question to ask is how many heads there are. Try asking Seagate that one.

While this and some of the other suggestions above are true, it wouldn't affect the speed as much as TtT is suffering from.

AntiVirus - Are you able with your application to configure exclusions? Some will allow you to exclude specific drives from scheduled scans and live scanning. If currently configure, could be scanning as you copy?
Have you tried another USB port, specifically the one the original drive was plugged into?
Can you afford to purchase a new USB 3.0 adapter? This would be a good upgrade anyway. Cards should cost around 30 (approx $45)
Have you got a firewire port to test it on?

I have looked up your drive and found a worryingly high number of negative user reviews. You always get some but it seems many have had a variety of issues, not even just speed related but also with the whole drive disappearing and having to unplug it and then plug it back in.

I suspect the HDD itself is fine, but the chassis has issues. Maybe buy another chassis or if you can get a refund, send it back and buy another product, maybe a NAS? Razz
Tony The Tiger
mathiaus wrote:
esmith92000 wrote:
The overriding factor in disk access is arm movement. All other factors, including average rotational delay, which is caused by speed, and data transfer rate, which is caused mostly by the interface (either USB 2 or USB 3) are minor. If one disk is much slower than another, that means the arm has to move more. This means more cylinders to cross, which means fewer platters. The more platters, the more read/write heads, which used to be one of the main costs. When purchasing a disk, the key first question to ask is how many heads there are. Try asking Seagate that one.

While this and some of the other suggestions above are true, it wouldn't affect the speed as much as TtT is suffering from.

AntiVirus - Are you able with your application to configure exclusions? Some will allow you to exclude specific drives from scheduled scans and live scanning. If currently configure, could be scanning as you copy?
Have you tried another USB port, specifically the one the original drive was plugged into?
Can you afford to purchase a new USB 3.0 adapter? This would be a good upgrade anyway. Cards should cost around 30 (approx $45)
Have you got a firewire port to test it on?

I have looked up your drive and found a worryingly high number of negative user reviews. You always get some but it seems many have had a variety of issues, not even just speed related but also with the whole drive disappearing and having to unplug it and then plug it back in.

I suspect the HDD itself is fine, but the chassis has issues. Maybe buy another chassis or if you can get a refund, send it back and buy another product, maybe a NAS? Razz


It is a bit late to send it back now for a refund. I have been using the new 3TB drive and it is reliable in the sense that the data is there to be found. The drive appears in windows explorer when I plug it into the USB port. It never disappears. Sometimes it does not shut down correctly when unplugged, but it always starts up correctly when plugged in, although sometimes it takes a few minutes and always a lot longer than my old 750GB machine.

I have not tried to look for a 3.0 adaptor. I mostly use the drive to to semi-monthly backups. I can do these while I am sleeping so it does not matter much whether it takes 6 hours or 2 hours.

I am not worried about the complaint records for this model. I have a good company standing behind the product.
ankur209
I din't noticed something like that ! Why would they reduce the speed when the technology is getting higher to a next level everyday Surprised

I would suggest you to get a checkup of your hard drive.There could be something wrong in it ! Rolling Eyes
Tony The Tiger
ankur209 wrote:
I din't noticed something like that ! Why would they reduce the speed when the technology is getting higher to a next level everyday Surprised

I would suggest you to get a checkup of your hard drive.There could be something wrong in it ! Rolling Eyes

That was my thinking when I first bought it, but I guess when a drive is 4 times bigger it may not be as fast. I have no other explanation. I have been on the phone with Seagate for hours and have exchanged my drive already.
Related topics
Have you ever overloaded your hard drive?
Problems with hard drive
System Crash = Proccessor Destruction
How can I make a linux partition just using Disk Managment.
Seagate announces first 12GB 1-inch hard drive
hard drive help
1.2 Petabyte Hard Drive
IDE Hard Drive Controller not recognizing my Drives
GDrive; Google's Virtual Hard Drive
good deal on hard drive
Slow Boot up due to second hard drive (?)
SSD or hard drive ?
Vista will not recognize my new SATA 2 hard drive
External Hard drive connection
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Hardware and Electronics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.