View Full Version : Quantum Atlas 10K II vs. Seagate Cheetah
I've been a long time Seagate user (Barracuda/Cheetah), purchasing my last one two years ago.
However, it looks like Quantum has pulled ahead now in most tests, except
which seems like a reasonable real world test (where Seagate pulls ahead when more than a dozen IO requests exist at the same time.)
Is the Quantum Atlas 10K II still king of the mountain, or is Seagate pulling ahead again?
[This message has been edited by Jeff (edited 11-23-00@9:35 pm)]
OK, the choice is now between a Quantum Atlas 10K II (with 8 MB cache) and the (more expensive) Seagate Cheetah 15K (with 4 MB cache).
"IOMeter paints a much different picture than WinBench 99. Here, in Workstation usage, rather than folding to the Atlas 10k II, the X15 destroys it! Under a heavy load, the X15 cruises past the Atlas 10k by a margin of 33%. Figures under some lighter loads are even more impressive. Examine, for example, the difference between the two drives when it comes to light loads. In such cases we have the Seagate leading the Quantum by an amazing 45%! Similar margins apply to the two competitors in File Server scenarios- the X15 leads by large margins."
11-24-2000, 02:16 AM
My main HD is a Seagate Cheetah 9.1gb and I have been using it for over a year now and I have to say I have never had any problems with it. It is very fast and reliable.
But I think for a personal home computer a normal SCSI disk is more than enough. I have had to buy and install 2 BIG fans that are aimed directly on the Cheetah disk to keep it from "boiling". But the real problem is the noise of both the fans and the drive.
I would definitely recomend this drive to people that want top speed and quality and have no problem with the loud noise.
Yes, I have the Cheetah 9.1 right now too!
In the past, I've had really, really good luck with Seagate, except that my last Cheetah went bad after 1 year.[nbsp][nbsp]I had one of those 3-fan hard drive coolers, but it was noisy and caused a little vibration itself.[nbsp][nbsp]I'm running the replacement Seagate with no cooler, but in a 3 bay space all by itself.[nbsp][nbsp]It doesn't get too hot (about the same as an IDE Maxtor DiamondMax, which is very slow in comparison BTW), but the Seagate is somewhat noisy.
When I say failure, I should say that the drive didn't actually lose any data, but it did start making a grinding sound while running. To its credit, it ran without problem long enough to transfer everything over.[nbsp][nbsp]But it did get me looking at other brands.
I never thought about Quantum's until I believe I read that FQ used them... that has to be a good recommendation!
[This message has been edited by Jeff (edited 11-24-00@02:28 am)]
11-24-2000, 03:20 AM
I also have (had?) 2 Quantums..
1) Viking II 9.1gb: This one worked very good for a year, it stopped working and after a month or so it worked again on a like 200kb/sec speed (good enough for me, i managed to save the data).
2) Atlas III 18gb: I'm running this a my secondary drive right now and so far (been using it for about 6 months) it hasn't given me any problems. It´s fast, not to noisy and keeps pretty cool.
Quantum: good for home usage if you want a little faster and better computer.
Seagate: awesome for servers! Also good for home if you have your computer in another room ;)
11-24-2000, 04:53 AM
I haven't delved into SCSI drives yet for my home systems. I use Maxtor DiamondMax Plus (7200 RPM) drives almost exclusively (edison has a 1.2 gig Seagate that's older than dirt). I haven't had a single problem with the Maxtors, and most of them have been formatted over and over (trying various OS's), and the Seagate (as old and slow as it is) is dubbed 'old reliable'...
The Maxtors are pretty loud and get pretty hot, but for IDE drives I don't think they can be beat. Once you get into SCSI though, it's a different story...
One day I may get into SCSI -- my biggest problem is that I hate having hardware that won't work in any of my systems. I have a bad habit of cascading hardware down when I upgrade the bigger systems, and SCSI drives require a SCSI controller, good cabling practices, cooling, etc... just a few reasons I haven't gotten into SCSI yet. I'm sure the performance would make it worth while though, but I don't do all that much disk I/O -- I'm more into RAM and raw CPU ;)
FutureQuest (http://www.FutureQuest.net/index.php) Support
11-24-2000, 09:03 AM
Tell me about it!
If you get a problem with your SCSI drives.. well.. "may the force be with you" as they say in the starwars movies ;)
A couple of months ago I had my computer open and my foot accidently got stuck to the 50pin SCSI cable and dragged it out (I have a big tower that i keep on the floor next to my desk) while the computer was on. Well, that port died on the card. I didn't want to buy a new card so I bought a couple of convertors 68->50pin.. But whenever I connect one of my SCSI cd-roms a red light is lit on the card and the computer won't start. So I'm going today to get a new card. I'm hoping the cd-roms havn't been damaged (holding thumbs).
11-24-2000, 11:56 PM
I can personally attest to the Atlas 10K SCSI hard drives, as everyone on our servers pounds the daylights out of them... ;)
Due to a recent shortage of Atlas 10K drives, when Quantum was delayed on releasing the Atlas 10K II drives, I had to find a viable alternative...
Going back to our original roots, I selected the IBM DDYS-T18350M hard drives to serve as a hold over...
My first goal is reliability, with performance in a close second place...
Of all the drives I've used in servers - I have had nothing but problems with Western Digital and Seagate drives...
There is a good chance that I might use the new Seagate 15K drives when I perform some conversion work to 36G drives...[nbsp][nbsp]However, I'm still not convinced if they are the best choice for the long haul...
IMHO: Seagate trades off engineering excellence in their pursuit for the almighty dollar...
--What would you trust to store your website on?--
11-25-2000, 03:27 AM
I personally don't see any reason why to change something that works perfectly. But I'm sure you'll make the right decision. ;)[nbsp][nbsp]
Anyway, I plugged in the Tekram SCSI card and it looks like working. I installed HotBurn and first time I ran it it burned a CD without even telling me! I don't know if it was testing or what (I'm pissed it ruined one of my cds without telling me first). After that I burned another cd and it went smooth. We'll see how long that lasts ;)[nbsp][nbsp]
[This message has been edited by zolbian (edited 11-25-00@03:29 am)]
My first Atlas 10K II has now been ordered.
And it's great!
It took an extra minute to setup because the sticker on top which lists the jumper positions seems to be incorrect![nbsp][nbsp](I even got a second oppinion :)[nbsp][nbsp]
The sticker indicates to place one jumper on any of the first four pin couples to get SCSI ID 3, 2, 1, and 0 (0 is shown next to the singe pin).[nbsp][nbsp]Yet when I put the jumper on "0" the SCSI ID returned was "1" by the Adaptec menu... Removing all jumpers yields ID "0" as reported.[nbsp][nbsp](It didn't come with a book, so maybe the sticker is just "misleading"... maybe you have to add jumpers in pairs or something.)
But, the drive runs wonderfully![nbsp][nbsp]It is a bit faster than the Seagate Cheetah (the Seagate was the only 2nd generation, so I expected this.)[nbsp][nbsp]It is also substantially quieter than the Seagate.[nbsp][nbsp]Tom's hardware said that it "was too loud for a desktop system", but the Atlas II is so much quieter than my 2nd generation Cheetah that I kept checking to make sure it was still running during the Disk Copy operation.
Anyway, thanks for all the feedback - it looks like it will be a great drive.
(I also found my invoice for the old Seagate - I paid $650 for the 9 gig SCSI drive back then :) :)
11-29-2000, 03:26 AM
The pins go 1, 2, 4, 8, etc (binary code or as they say "computer language"). So if we say "0" is no jumper and "1" is with jumper..
0000 = 0
1000 = 1
0100 = 2
1100 = 3
0010 = 4
1010 = 5
0110 = 6
1110 = 7
0001 = 8
and so on..
basicly you could read it as "1+2+4+8", so..
1000 = 1+0+0+0 = 1
0100 = 0+2+0+0 = 2
1100 = 1+2+0+0 = 3
1010 = 1+0+4+0 = 5
0110 = 0+2+4+0 = 6
1110 = 1+2+4+0 = 7
I know this is a little confusing but I hope this gives you an idea how it works.
When I went for "1" I accidentally got "4"... but I just wasn't putting it together.
Thanks - it now makes perfect sense.
--if only they printed the sticker big enough to read and on the same side as the jumpers I would give them a 10!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.