[Duda] 3TB or 4TB hard drive

[ferelxyx]

Seagate Barracuda 5.900 4TB SATA3 - Manufacturer: Seagate - P/N: ST4000DM000

Go beyond 2 TB with DiscWizard software.
The safe way to get native access to drives larger than 2 TB is by adopting the new standard for BIOS called UEFI.
If you are not ready for the new standard, Seagate offers you an alternative.
The free DiscWizard software from Seagate provides you with a means to effectively use your 3 TB and 4 TB desktop hard drive,
even with Windows XP and standard PC BIOS. Get your free copy now to go beyond 2 TB.

regards

[chascos69]

I've looked into the diskWizard and it says that BIOS versions before 2011 only detect 2.2TB but if I understand correctly it's PER PARTITION... so if I take the 4TB drive and partition it into 2 of 2TB I shouldn't have any problems... right?
Here's the info: Support for Disk Drives Beyond 2.2 TeraBytes (TB) and 4K Advanced Format Sectors

The doubt is... does this software only work for Seagate drives?

The Seagate is 5900 RPM and not 7200 RPM and in the comparison I made it seems like it only beats it in one of the categories...

[Sylver]

I think it's not profitable. I'm on the verge of buying another hard drive (in my case external) and I'm not convinced by the fact that the capacity is always between 5 and 10% less than estimated (due to the unit used in the conversion by manufacturers).
Besides, the possibility of a drive failing is quite real, which is why I'm in favor of having several physical drives, whether internal or external, not just partitions.
My recommendation is two 2Tb drives, with good performance each, maybe it will even come out better for you.

Besides, I encourage you to try to write a little better, with correct spelling and taking care of capital and lowercase letters (I'm not the one saying it, those are the rules).

Regards

[ferelxyx]

in the specifications of your motherboard if it says
1: Due to limitations of Windows XP/ Vista, a RAID array with more than 2TB cannot be configured as a boot disk. A RAID array with more than 2TB can only be used as a data disk. For more information visit http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946557/en-us

that means that if it has more than 2TB of capacity you can't use it as a primary disk
but if it's for secondary you can use any

if you want it for primary (operating system) buy an SSD and a normal one for the rest

EG: Crucial M500 240GB SSD SATA3 - 189 euros and Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 2TB SATA3 64MB - 80 euros

I can assure you that you won't regret using a solid disk for the operating system
it's another world how fast everything goes

with that 300 euros budget this would be the best option

regards

[chascos69]

"in the specifications of your board if it says
1: Due to limitations of Windows XP/ Vista, a RAID array with more than 2TB cannot be configured as a boot disk. A RAID array with more than 2TB can only be used as a data disk. For more information visit http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946557/en-us"… if I buy it from 4Tb I will put 500Gb for Windows and the rest for data so I interpret if it would boot pe. in the Microsoft link it says partitions

Now I have another problem added... my board is SATA2 (3Gb/s) instead of SATA3.. my question is... do you know if the disk directly does not work or if it works but is reduced to SATA2 speed?
With one of 2/3TB m will happen the same I understand..

If you have convinced me with the SSD... I will do what you say.. besides I will buy myself an SSD for Windows only. Is there anyone better than the 'Crucial M500 240GB SSD SATA3'? I have seen this link but the model mentioned does not come out: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269-6.html

[Sylver]

Check this out, it has a 5-year warranty as well: Samsung 840 pro

Best regards

[ferelxyx]

what your buddy tells you is a Samsung 840 SSD Series 250GB SATA3 Full Kit

the crucial M500 is the new version of the famous crucial M4, which is the one I have

and if it works for you on sata2 that's why the samsung 256 840 fullkit works well for you
instead of the pro, you won't notice the performance

regards

[chascos69]

Ok.. and what about the Sata question? Does a sata3 HD adapt only the speed when placed on a sata2 motherboard? specifically in my model, that is

[Fassou]

@chascos69:

Ok.. and about the Sata question? Does a sata3 HD adapt only the speed when put into a sata2 motherboard? specifically in my model anyway

Long answer: YES

Salu2!

[chascos69]

Ok I've left the topic aside for a bit but I've already gathered the money

I'm going to buy both... I'll use the SSD I mentioned to boot the PC and the 4TB HD (now the price difference is 30 euros so I'm going for it) to store data. I've read this: ASUS Motherboard Disk Unlocker - Unearth the Missing Space… it seems like with this tool I'll be able to use it as a storage only...

I'm between

• Seagate NAS HDD 4TB SATA3 ST4000VN000 Hard Drive
• Hitachi Deskstar 7K4000 4TB 0S03363 Hard Drive
  http://bestharddrivereview.com/tag/best4tbharddrive/
  How do you see it?

[Sylver]

They are mostly server disks. And you have to keep in mind that they will have a capacity of around 400Gb less than the total, due to the change in unit of measurement from the manufacturer (around 5-10% less than the total). For these details, I like the idea of having several 1Tb disks or similar, in the end you always save a small percentage of capacity.

Regards

[chascos69]

"Because of these details, I like the idea of having several 1Tb disks or similar ones better, in the end you always save a small percentage of capacity."... you gain some Mb (or Gb) but you have more power consumption because there are several disks
I think the Hitachi has better speeds...

[Sylver]

@chascos69:

"For these details, I like the idea of having several 1Tb disks or similar ones better, in the end you always save a small percentage of capacity."...you gain some Mb (or Gb) but you have more power consumption because there are several disks
I think the HItacho has better speeds….

Consumption where?

Regards

[whoololon]

There are very basic concepts that, although they are not explained, just pointing them out like Sylver does should be enough.
Of course, to each their own, but since we have come this far, the most logical thing is to let ourselves be advised.
It has already been indicated that a disk, from a certain size, is not as cost-effective in terms of capacity. In fact, it increases the price per MB.
In addition, the time it takes for maintenance operations (unless we create partitions of reasonable size) and the amount of data we will lose in the event of a failure...
I can only agree with Sylver, as I prefer two 1 TB disks to one 4 TB disk, and I also think that these tera-disks (for the average user) respond more to a fashion than a need...
But as I said, to each their own. ; )