Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid HDD w/ built-in 4GB SSD

Double throughput, half the access times.

 

I'd define noticable to the naked eye as percieved performance. It will make you boot faster, programs will open slightly quicker and overall the system should be snappier. It won't help the CPU or GPU do anything other than load a game or level quicker.

My boot times go to show even shortstroking the XT has its benefits as apparently alot of things are not cached. From 12.199 before the short stroke to 10.514 after is a significant difference. I should note with the new bios before the shortstroke I did about 30 reboots but could not beat 12.199, closest was 12.225.

Third reboot after short stroke was 10.598, fourth was 10.566 and fifth was the 10.514. Subsequent reboots were 10 or 11 seconds but I couldn't get lower.

 

What is short stroke? Just partitioning the OS separately?

 

No, short stroking is simply using less than the full capacity of the HD by partitioning it to a smaller capacity.

You can short stroke and put all your O/S, apps and data on the single partition and you will still see a performance improvement depending on how much % less of the full drive you're using.

The 'sweet spot' is about 1/5th of the drive when we're talking about a 500GB HD - here, you have 100GB of the fastest and most consistent mechanical storage currently available and most people have enough room for the O/S, apps and most of their data too.

 

Most interesting, how would you accomplish to get this partition on the outer edge of the platters (that's the fastest part, right?).
Is that done automatically when partioned first, or does it require some tweaking with special tools?

'Short stroking' actually means dropping 90% of the capacity, right?!
How would 2 partitions, say 100/400 influence access/throughput.
Different than the picture from Phil above would suggest I think.

 

Let's say you create a 100GB partition and 400GB partition on the XT. Your OS takes up half of the 100GB partition. Would your system's performance be affected if you filled the 400GB partition close to capacity?

 

Do you have a similar image for the XT instead of the Hitachi you posted? Hum... here is what I get with a 7200.4, benchmark set to block size 64 kb & anti virus disabled. The dips on your graph seems to indicate some background process affecting the average read rates, maybe. Note: the screen capture was annotated for an other post, Win 7 64-bit on a Vaio_F11 i7-720QM:



The second image is for another 7200.4 installed in the ODD bay via a cheap Fleabay HDD caddy. Your Burst rate is quite higher but not the rest. Naturally there are machine/OS settings & software variations as everything is relative. One can see from the curve that the read rate is much faster at the beginning of the drive and decreases as it reads towards the center of the platter.

*****

 

Well true short stroking is just using the front end of the drive. I am really just partitioning at about the first 25% Since I do not use the second part of the partition other than acrchived storage for the most part it acts just like a shortstroked drive.

Short stroking can vary in the amount, under 10% yeilds low to no real returns and as you increase the size advanage decreases too. As mentioned the sweet spot is 20-25% or so and this can vary per drive. The higher the normal seek compared to the rotational latency the higher the percentage before you see a rapid decline would be a rule of thumb.

I am sure Phil used the HT drive as if you look at the seeks on an XT they will run fairly flat at about 0.4ms not showing the HDD section...............

 

Joe, could you please simply check the short-stroke checkmark in HD Tune and re-run your test?

This will/should show that the min/max values are very close to each other and also the access time should be improved too.

Thanks (I'm not running HD Tune anymore).

sjamie, not if you weren't accessing the filled 400GB partition concurrently with the O/S partition.

Fintan, short-stroking is not a fixed percentage - although the higher the percentage left unused, the better the effect (but remember you will experience diminishing returns as you make the capacity a smaller and smaller percentage of the total possible.

Maybe this will explain some things better?

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...-hitachi-7k500-benchmark-setup-specifics.html


Remember that the goal of my partitioning strategy is to have sustained performance over time - even while using the computer too. This is not the maximum performance you can achieve by partitioning (just the maximum possible with the least amount of 'maintenance' needed).

The fastest partitioning / short-stroking strategy?

Buy the biggest, fastest (7200 RPM, hybrid like an XT even better) HD available. Currently that is the Seagate Momentus 500GB XT Hybrid.

Calculate how much capacity your O/S, Apps and Data need.

Add 5GB free space to the above calculation.

Do a 'custom' clean install and specify the size of the partition as calculated above.

Ignore the rest of the drive/space on the HD.

Cheers!

 

This is assuming you don't expect your needs to grow by more than 5GB and you don't need the rest of the drive space for storing large media files, etc., right?

 

sjamie, of course we're assuming that - that is what 'ignore the rest of the HD' means.

 

@ Joe, the only reason I posted the HD Tune graph was to show that the beginning of the drive has double the throughput and half the access times of the end of the drive. The same is shown in your HD Tune graphs and HD tune graphs of the XT.

 

Just checking...

 

I didn't partition my Momentus XT. The drive is fast enough as it is and if the drive does fail to boot I could just place it on an external enclosure and extricate the data.

 

Partitioning is not about data retention.

Depending on how it failed to boot, you may never see your data again.

Hope you have an ongoing and consistent backup strategy.

 

So you're essentially saying to waste 400gb out of a 500gb drive? Why would putting the large media files in a separate 400gb partition affect day-day performance, they're farther into the platters anyway.

 

vinuneuro,

I'm saying to 'waste' the remaining 365GB (effective) capacity if we want the maximum performance our HD is capable of.

I agree with you that as simple storage for media files, it won't affect day to day performance too much.

 

Using the leftover as primarily archive only will have little performance effect. Shortstroking on a servers etc usually means most, if not all files, are constantly accessed so you will see shortstroked Raid0 arrays etc. trying to improve performance and storage capacity.

We are talking about highend servers here but getting the most from our laptops..............

 

Nice completely offtopic discussion above (including my entry, mea culpa )

I conclude that the first part partioned is at the outer edge of platters, not seen any evidence - but it does sound very sensible.

Of course, wasting 400 out of 500 is not decent conversation for most of us - certainly not for the XT - wanting a decent capacity.

I do agree there is a good advantage partitioning the drive in a OS/data part. My mistake, it does make very good sense - especially for boot times.

For boot, the first partition will be the only one accessed - and partioning it separately will make sure that later installed programs are also in this favorable part of the drive.

Enlightening discussion, thanks!

 

Fintan,

if we stay on-topic, we don't grow.

Just a note: when Windows boots, it accesses all partitions (just like it accesses network drives/folders) so a used secondary partition is still slower than a single short stroked partition.

How can you combat this 'effect'? Simply use PerfectDisk to put the directory entries of the secondary partition at the beginning of the disk (the fastest part of the 'slower' partition).

This way, when Windows boots up and 'queries' the drive - the directory entries are at least loaded as fast as possible, considering that they are well into the second 'slower' part of the platters.

So, you still need 'proof' huh?

See:
Please post your HDtune 2.55 results **SPREADSHEET UP, PLEASE RE-READ FIRST POST** - Page 62 - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net


Now do you believe?


Edit: Note too that that is only using a third of the HD and not a fifth like I recommend. Also, note that this HD is a 3.5" HD not a notebook 2.5" platter and will have a greater increase in performance by short stroking than the smaller circumference notebook drive will (at the same % decrease in capacity).

 

Actually this somewhat is on, not off, topic. Since the XT caches alot of the files does shortstroking and/or small primary partition help the XT as it does on a standard HDD? Apparently a big YES it still does. If you were to use the XT shortstroked apparently it is still way better than a HDD also shortstroked, but I degress as it is true why not just get a true SSD then. for small primary partition there is a nice improvement for both bootup and program launching etc............

 

Good point! However, if you truly need 100s of GBs of space, does the performance gains of a SSD really make it worth the upgrade $$$ and having to carry around a portable HDD (maybe an XT in an enclosure) for all of the files that won't fit on the SSD?

 

What is the concensus on the 250GB and 320GB XT's? Are they as fast as the 500GB?

I was considering a 40GB SSD for my desktop, then I thought for the price I can get a momentus XT 250GB, I'd consider the 320GB for $5 more too (wow such a big spender).

Are there any noticeable or inherent differences in performance between the different sized drives?

 

No there will not be noticeable performance differences between them.

We've had one user with a 250GB saying it was very quiet (Tinderbox).

 

Thanks. As I start to assess my computers and drives, after looking at a 256GB SSD for my notebook, I'm realizing I'm better off just spending the money on a momentus XT than a 256GB SSD at five times the price. This thing seems pretty nice.

 

I just received my 500gb XT version it shipped with the latest firmware, which apparently some people are having issues with, but oh well nothing i can do about that.

I'm also about to get my HP envy 14 here in a day or two, which I'm going to replace the HDD with my shinny new XT drive. The plan was to boot up the Envy, check to make sure nothing is wrong, and clone the data over to the XT HDD. Then i would use Gparted to split the drive into two and leave about 100gb for an OS and any other commonly used programs, then the rest would just be for storage.(looking back i guess i could split the drive before hand)

So my question is i see a lot of people talking about just doing a fresh install instead of cloning the drive. Is there any big reason i should do a fresh install instead of cloning? I have the cables for cloning, but i also have a copy of Windows 7 pro i could use for a fresh install, also i doubt i would have problems finding and installing the needed HP drivers for the laptop, unless of coarse they are extremely hard to find.

What do you guys/gals recommended?

Thanks.

 

With a fresh install you're starting out clean. It won't have registry entries left over from program installs/uninstalls or the bloatware packaged with brand new laptops.

 

As an Envy 14 user a few words of wisdom:

1. Make the system restore DVD's. It'll take a couple hours and four DVD's, but worth the headache.
2. Backup your "C:\SWSetup" folder. It'll take one DVD or just copy to an external hard drive. It contains all the drivers and apps. You WILL want this, trust me.
3. People have had mixed results with a clean install. Thankfully HP offers a "minimal install" option on the recovery disks. Basically it's a clean install with all drivers, and basic HP apps needed. No bloat. Saves a lot of headache. It's all automated too. I *HIGHLY* recommend this over a clean install.
4. Visit the NBR HP Envy & HDX forums. Lots of good info there.

 

Did any of you make the switch from a Scorpio Black? I know the Momentus XT is quite a bit faster all around, but the Scorpio Black feels pretty snappy as it is and I get <20sec boot in my standard services config. So did you feel a big improvement in performance day-day? After all there's still a $40-50 difference, and I'd like to make sure it's worth it before pulling the trigger. Honestly, I'd also be more comfortable with a WD equivalent hd.

 

Thanks htwingnut.

Ive gone ahead and done the minimal install twice...after it asks me to hit continue and it reboots instead of loading windows it tells me "no bootable device -- insert boot disk and press any key"

So what now? how do i fix this?

 

I had a 320GB black on my P7805 and went with the XT as primary for a bit beforre trying Raid0. I can tell you the XT is faster...........

 

i "upgraded" from a scorpio black to momentus xt, because my scorpio died after two months. the momentus is faster, especially when it comes to often used programs, like office, email client etc... these open almost instantly after pressing enter. windows runs also better. its no huge difference, but its definitely noticable, as everything goes even a bit snappier than with the scorpio black. even if the momentus acts as a normal 7200rpm disk, it feels a bit faster than the scorpio (maybe due to the bigger cache), hd tune says the same. if it is worth the extra money, for me it is... or better was... or will be again, hopefully... because i had to send my momentus xt back for replacement because of serious vibrations. but as i said i liked the good performance as a system NB drive

 

I tried short-stroking yesterday. Clean Win 7 install on a 50gb partition in a 320gb Scorpio Black (250gb/platter), 50% filled.

It resulted in a .5ms slower access time while everything else remaining the same, including I/O's per sec. Seems counter-intuitive, but that's what happened. Maybe there's no benefit with Win 7?

 

Or the way you measured it wasn't accurate?

I suggest real world testing to measure it.

 

Hi,

I recently purchased a Seagate momentous XT 500 GB and have been having some problems. The first drive I received made a considerable noise in normal function. So I got an RMA. The second drive also seemed to make the same amount of noise and caused the system to crash. In addition the notebook failed to detect the HDD in BIOS as times. The third drive seems to be somewhat quieter but is still significantly louder than the drive that was included as part on the notebook (the included drive is a 7200RPM Toshiba). The new Seagate drive too causes the system to crash and failed detection from BIOS at times.

One of the issues with the Momentous XT drives I have received that they make a concerning clicking/reading noise when the laptop is being moved around. The included Toshiba drive is hardly audible. Has anyone experienced such issues with the Seagate drives?

I don’t really know what to do anymore. The laptop is a HP DV6-3016AX which was purchased about three weeks ago.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated?
Thanks

 

Jadolpus did you install the latest firmware SD23?

 

I used HD Tune. What's the real world test for access times?

 

Having a single number for access times like HDTune gives isn't that helpful, IMO.
Try CrystalDiskMark:
CrystalDiskMark - Software - Crystal Dew World

 

A real world test would be duplicating a folder in that partiton.

Access times are part of synthetic performance.

 

im really deciding whether its worth my while to get the momentus xt.
for one, i live in the philippines and it isnt available here. so i will have to order it online. my sis will be in the US this month though and she can receive it for me.
im not concerned so much about performance and more so on reliability and quality. it would be an absolute pita for me to return a defective since international shipping both ways would significantly add up the costs. and the number of complaints and returns really does put me on edge.
at present im quite ok with my wd wd5000bevt and for a 5400 hdd i think it is quite snappy, quiet, and not hot.
my usage pattern is also a little more complex than the ave user since i use around 10 programs and play around 10 or so games, so the only area where i will probably see any use of the NAND is startup and shutdown.
with all these in mind, would it still be prudent for me to get the XT? should i wait ( im willing to wait till around jan '11) for a better hybrid or cheaper and larger ssd's?

 

You are quite wrong where you think you will only see startup and shutdown improve for your use. The whole OS is more directly connected to your inputs and simple things like copying and moving files and folders are also faster (which, the 4GB nand chip can have no direct effect on).

Why such an overall speedup in response? My best guess is that the nand chip is keeping the NTFS tables in cache and that in turn makes everything faster.

I can't make you get the XT or wait - you are the only one deciding that right now. But, after buying the 7K500 just a few weeks before I tried the XT in my VAIO - all I can say is that the 7K500 is collecting dust for now.

Yes, that is how much better the XT is than any other 2.5" HD I've ever tried.

Good luck.

 

thanks for your input tiller. at least that answers some questions regarding performance.
but like i mentioned i am more concerned about reliability/quality. although i have read a lot about this issue i would like to see what opinions owners/users will have re my purchase considering the predicaments i have.

 

The reliablilty/quality angle is always a tough one. Especially in your situation where a single RMA could mean doubling the cost of your purchase.

The problem is that the only reliability/quality angle we care about is our own. Does not matter if we read about a million happy or unhappy users with the exact same product - when it affects us (a single user) it negates what a million happy customers may have indicated previously.

Basically, you pay your money and take your chances. But know that it is not only with Seagate you are doing this with - but with any other manufacturer too.

I know the above hasn't helped you - but this is how I would look at it in your situation:

If you can take the $$cost of the XT and say that you threw it away and not care about it; then the possible rewards are greater than the possible loss/expense.

Otherwise, I would not only consider not buying the XT, but actually not buying any other HD either - save up your 'throw-away' money for the XT - that's how good it is (performance-wise).

Hope this puts your predicament in a different perspective for you?

Good luck.

 

thanks for the comments, it does and +1
i know youve also tested a number of ssd's, although its of course quite different, how do you personally gauge the XT against your preferred/favorite ssd in terms of price/performance ratio and pure performance.
thanks

 

I don't know if I'm allowed to say in this thread?

Phil?

 

Hi Phil,
the current hdd i have came with SD23 installed.

 

One of the great advantages of SSD's and the XT is that programs load a lot quicker. Is that synthetic? It's quantified in access times as 0.5ms vs 14.5-17.5ms.

 

Acces times help, but there are a lot of other factors determining the speed of program launching.

For example a HDD with acces times of 17ms can beat a HDD with 12ms in program launching.

 

Curious as to Amazon's shipping rate the Philippines. During the 5 year drive warranty you will deal directly with Seagate. Seagate does not have any distribution channels in the Philippines?

You might want to e-mail Seagate and even WD to check for local or planed local support if this helps.

 

use johnny air for US to Philippines shipments.