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

TANWare,

your logic is a little wobbly there I think. It will be either delivering data from the nand or from the platters - not both at the same time, right?

 

The 500gb has been the same price or cheaper than the other two at newegg for several weeks now. There's also been a coupon available for it more often than not.

 

i tried using PD11 like tiller taught me a few pages back but PD loads a fairly large process on boot and it added something like 4-5 secs to boottimer. i uninstalled/reinstalled PD around 3x and i consistently get the 4-5 secs increase with PD installed.
i also got lower cdm scores across the board with pd. iirc i did disable stealth mode, but it seemed like pd was indeed gathering a lot of hdd data in the background.
following the profile tiller gave me (and testing pd's default ones also) pd did place my 'most used' data on the speediest part of the disk. unfortunately, pd prioritized my 'most used' data as the hd tv episodes i torrented instead of the programs i usually use. to its credit however, i could scrub very fast through the hd videos while running my torrent (and lots of disk activity), something i could not do before. but i did not want this and i wanted my programs instead of data on the fastest part of the drive.
maybe i could have corrected some of this by tweaking the program, but i just shifted back to auslogics disk defrag free version because it just used less system resources and did the job for me.
not a complaint about pd11 but just an fyi post here.

 

I doubt the usefulness of PD using this way.

To me a HDD has 'distinct' performance region and I would just partition it accordingly. In other words, say for the first 100G being the faster and I would partition it like that and would not going through the effort of PD to let it find out which tiny part of this 100G is faster others in the same partition.

 

I think he was referring to the earlier poster who stated why not have two separate drives, a 16GB SSD and an HDD.

In either case I don't think it's a bad idea to have two on the same bus even. For most users, especially with a small SSD you won't be accessing both drives simultaneously a lot and it's also still a lot quicker than just an HDD.

 

Just a note;

PD does not place your most used data in any particular order. It places it sorted by date ranges.

That is why I recommend it for my partitioned setup (5 partitions).

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

 

at first i was very skeptical of the xt but after doing a little research i decided to take the plunge. 4gb does seem small on first thought but the xt does work. if you read back to this thread you will find many, many users who like me were very skeptical at first but were pleasantly surprised when they did get their xt's.
of course more nand cache; more capacity is always better. also a little bit more control over the cache would be great but imho the xt algorithm does a fairly good job of keeping things speedy. and for what the xt is now, id say its very much worth 90usd or even the 130usd i paid for it.

 

I am refering to those that do not want the nand as a cache but rather a dedicated drive for the os and a seperate drive for the platters. the only other option may be to have the NAND pretend to be the outside platters but this would not garenty the OS was sitting there. If they are two drives to the OS it can request at any time for data too or from either. If you had one wait for the other it would severly limit the advantage of the NAND so you would have times with simultanious data.

So Hybrid tech is the best answer.

Edit; I know with hybid it has too wait when the data is on the HDD but hybrid tried to move frequently read data to limit the wait for the HDD platter..............

 

I think Seagate has it right: the nand is 'invisible' to the O/S and the user and the algorithm can best decide what will speed up the drive the optimally, and constantly.

People who think they can be the best judge of what to put on the nand are simply wrong.

Remember, this is a single chip which can deliver data at about a third or less of what the platters can deliver (sustained) because it is only a single channel configuration.

Even if we do get the option to configure our nand usage in the future - it will still read the data sequentially - not in parallel - off the nand or the platters (but not both at the same time).

And, even if I'm wrong for the third time (can happen!), the SATA3 connection still has enough bandwidth to deliver the single channel nand's output with the platters peak output and still not be constrained by the SATA3 interface.

If I'm remembering correctly, it would need to be between 4 to 8 channels of nand output (at their peak) plus the drive's platters (at their peak) to saturate the interface.

Even with 10 channels of nand chips, I would still choose this hybrid configuration for a SATA3 system; not for the higher sequential speeds - but for the higher random speeds this would ensure - without the performance loss of writing 'heavily' to nand that all of today's SSD's display (to varying degrees).

 

Sata III is much tougher to saturate of course. With SSD's this will be a game changer if only for a short while. What I mean here is as NAND becomes cheaper and faster we will soon see drives that can handily saturate even SATA III ports.

 

In my opinion, the reason why we only have a 4GB portion in the hybrid drive is all to do with cost and risk. This is a new market for Seagate so of course they are not going to invest too much in the size of a newly released product.

That would have pushed expenses up and costs would be even higher for the new adopter. If they see good sales and high enough demand, then they will have the confidence to release a bigger hybrid drive in the future.

No wise person would place all of their Gigabytes into one basket.

 

First of all, thank you for the in-depth reply. I do like the idea of how it can defrag unmoveable files. That is one thing that Iobit's software doesn't do. Anyone know if Auslogic's defrag does this?

Does PD11 have to run at startup? Defragmenters like Smart Defrag and Auslogics Disk Defrag don't startup with the computer, unless you want it to.

 

Afaik, no other defragger is capable of fully defragging a hard drive (including the normally 'unmoveable' files) like PD can.

PD11 does not have to run at startup - but as pointed out by trvelbug, it does install some processes that run constantly.

The main reason that I have stuck with PD for so long is that it uses MS's approved methods for moving live files around your storage subsystem with the least disastrous effect. I can't say the same for some other defraggers though.

This same MS certification is what also allows PD to be able to move the unmoveable files while doing an offline defrag (during a reboot).

I haven't paid attention if PD increases the boot time as trvelbug noticed recently, but the last time I timed it it only decreased boot times, not increased them (but that was also with PD 10 too).

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...-c-b-defrag-c-x-defraggler-perfectdisk10.html


Let's just say that without PD a system does not feel finished to me. Slow, laggy, noisy and simply feels like something I was working on from 1990 instead of 2010.

 

I do believe this is actually the same thing as what was sold as intel robson memory. which came on a mini pci card

Ive looked at the ssd and it is filled with 1.5 gb ( 2.5 empty) of what is called boot files. nothing else yet

 

stamar,

Robson Memory was located on the MB.

This may work similarly, but it is not the same technology.

How can I tell?

The Seagate Hybrid version actually works.

 

robson memory came in pci cards just like what is used for wi fi cards

inside the laptop but not in the motherboard.

I dont have a test yet that shows this is working lol. Im hopeful because I own one but my boot time has increased since I got my xt, not a little but a lot.

 

Is this with Intel RM enabled?

Clean install?

Defragged?

 

this is a clone of a clean install on a seagate 500gb 54k thats about 3 weeks old.

intel rm enabled? what is that and where is it?



completely defragged to 0% perfect disk is what shows me whats on the nand

 

I think you have a 'broken' XT. You shouldn't see the nand at all with PD!

I would be RMA'ing it right now.

Just don't tell them you defragged the nand.

 

automatically locates the boot files backed up from the drive.

thats how it works.

no errors in the smart of the drive.

 

stamar,

Sorry, lets start again.

You are able to see your XT's nand separately from the platters? You shouldn't be able to do that - if you can - RMA it now.

If you're talking about Robson Memory (what I called Intel RM), then that's different.

RM still is a waste of your time though. Too small to make a difference when used in 'manual mode' and the algorithm is nowhere close to what the XT's is capable of with it's internal nand chip.

If you do have RM installed; remove it and let the XT do its job properly.

There are many examples of RM actually slowing down computers instead of speeding them up - and this was at a time when hybrids did not even exist - who knows how it's interacting with the XT now.

Good luck.

 

The NAND in the XT cannot be seen as a separate drive. It's like a cache, and completely transparent to the OS.

 

its not a seperate drive

go ahead and open pd it will show the boot files for the drive

 

wow lol lets start again.

Perfect disc shows the drive boot files size which are backed up onto the nand.

This computer does not have robson memory for me to cross check if it works the same way. I just think it does.

 

Okay,

Consider yourself lucky you don't have RM to weigh you down.

Just because PD shows the size of the boot files (now, I finally know what you're saying!) it doesn't mean that is what's in the XT's cache.

We actually have no way of knowing what's in the XT's nand - the algorithm is constantly adjusting what to keep and what to replace.

How often do you defrag your XT? If more than once a week, it will be slower because it will keep rebuilding the 'most used files' you use.

 

Ya im most likely seeing the two defrag programs i have installed as causing a software problem with it on boot up.

It will take a while to figure out. my boot time is now over a minute though.


ive completely defragged it about 6 times in the last couple days.


ya the g71 had a slot for turbo memory but the g72 does not so thats about where it disapeared in the asus world.

I do believe the same slot is used for a larger ssd now in some models. theres something lenovo is marketing for faster start ups.

 

I would recommend you configure PerfectDisk to run manually (not in Stealthmode or on a schedule). I normally run it on the second Tuesday of the month - after I've installed the latest MS Updates (second Tuesday of each month = MS Update day).

I would also uninstall all other 3rd party defragging programs you have installed.

Finally, make sure you have the Windows defrag program disabled.


6 times in the last couple of days? The nand is extremely confused now! Remember that the nand can only count a file as being cached if the disk location is not changed for the copy of the file it has in the nand - if the file has been moved by a defragger - the nand has to (eventually) re-cache that file.

 

ok thanks a lot how do you disable windows defrag?

 

Click Start, and type Disk Defrag, hit enter and make sure that the defragmenter is not on a schedule.

 

I take it all back

I can see my boot times decreasing. Im using asus fastboot as a timer.

my boot times are decreasing every time, its now down to 49 seconds.

 

Running slightly off-topic for a minute, I've been using Puran Free Defrag since they came out with the free version about... a year ago, I think? It seems to work pretty well (it will defrag my page file and other normally "unmovable" files with an offline defrag), but I don't know how it might compare to PD.

 

Judicator,

This is something I'll be trying (just too curious).

A quick glance shows it is a basic clone of PD, I'll have to see if it offers anything other than a great price.

 

Just got this! Is it suppose to just come sealed in the plastic bag?

I was reading a review and ppl where commenting that the guy was holding the hd wrong in the photo. what's the proper way to hold it?

by the way, anyone want to buy an cms transfer kit off me? lol

 

The proper way to hold a HDD is from the long edges, not from the flat areas above and behind the platter(s).

Congrats on your new purchase, btw!

 

There is more risk of damage from static discharge if you don't hold if from the edges.

 

Thanks you guys! I've successfully installed the XT! Was also my first HD install. What program should I use to partition my drive?

 

You can use EASEUS Partition Master. Its a free program. I used it to clone and partition my HDD.

 

Or you could just use the Disk Management utilities in Windows.

 

Didn't know that it is possible to resize a partition a partition using Disk Management.

Thanks for the tip.

 

I didn't know either. I just used the partition master. Thanks! My computer is alot more spiffy with this upgrade. I'm just waiting on my internet connection now haha. The XT's quieter than my old 4yr HD that I replaced. I do feel it a bit more but I'm ok with it.

 

hellogoodbye,

You may be interested in this partitioning strategy:

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


Which can give the highest results in the AS SSD copy benchmark as seen here:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...le-copy-result-hdds-ssds-easy-comparison.html



In the second link above, note how both my 7K500 and the XT are significantly faster than even the same HDD's with no partitioning strategies.

They are actually faster than the KingstonSNV425S2 scores posted by HRK and the XT nips at the heels of an OCZ Vertex 2 120GB posted by unreal25.

Yeah, the Win7 built-in partitioning is great (Vista had it too, of course) - I just wish that we could make more than 3 partitions when installing Win7 though.

Enjoy your new drive!

 

I already partitioned with 115gb and 350gb fyi. But, I will read it anyways.

I take it back, I think the XT has the same noise level as my old one..just more annoying now. I can hear it reading/working? and spinning or rotating and everytime it goes around once it has a little bump sound.

 

That should be fine. Your C: is using the fastest portion of the drive. A regular defrag should give very decent performance. The only thing that I am not too sure is how defrag affects XT's cache.

 

A defragmentation run will reset the XT's nand cache: the file location addresses are now different and therefore 'fail' the basic test it should be doing to verify the data in it's cache matches the data it is pointing to.

 

wait, so should I defrag on the XT? or how often?

 

Is there any reason to partition a HDD besides if you plan on running multiple operating systems?

Also, has anyone looked into Puran defrag's performance vs PD?

 

You can create a small first partition to ensure OS and programs stay in the fastest part of the disk. Also keeping OS and data separate allows you to reformat your OS partition without having to worry about your data.

 

Do you guys thing the G3 SSD's will affect the XT in any way?

 

No. Not unless they can offer 500GB of storage for $100 or less. There will be a 600GB G3 but most likely will cost near $1000.

 

When I make the switch from my current HDD to the Momentus XT, which of these two options should I do?

1. Use the CMS Data Transfer Kit DTK-25U2, including the EasyMove software

2. Just use the hard drive enclosure from the kit, but use the Seagate DiscWizard software?

Thanks