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

Could somebody point me to some XT feedback & especially real world battery life stats?

 

I am having some serious reservations about RAID0 of this or any other HDD. I had forgot about Stripe and other headaches associated with Raid0. I am thinking one for the boot of my U81-a and the other as storage/user files/ desktop etc and an SSD for primary of the P7805u.

Sandforce 2 120GB 50,000K IOPS version or X25-m 160GB are the running choices right now. I am thinking this as I know I'd be happy with the Raid performance but I'd always be wondering about different stripe sizes, slack especially in the SSD cache etc etc etc. A set and forget solution sounds more friendly................

 

I don't see your problem. What is it you are worrying about? Nobody forces you to worry about stripe sizes, just use the default and be done with it. No reason to go all obsessive-compulsive about stuff you shouldn't even think about.

Also, there should be no issues that I can think of with the SSD cache. As a matter of fact, that's the beauty of Seagate's disk-firmware-based solution. It doesn't make one wit of a difference whether or not you use those XTs in a RAID configuration.

 

I am just a bit OCD about such things. What bothers me is if you stripe the drive at times it will inevitably pass the files including extra slack to the SSD portion, The SSD portion then is just caching all that extra slack, Maybe I am wrong here.

Since the Nand supposedly caches at 2048 bits, read that somewhere, maybe a 4K stripe, if it exists, would be optimal. I just don't know. I think we can format NTFS with 4096 byte allocations to 1TB.

I do know I worry WAY TOO MUCH. That is why I'm thinking primary SSD.

Another option is try the raid out with different configurations and see what I like. When you Google around you get mixed opinions as it seems there are two sides of the fence arguing for small or large stripe size .........

Edit; a theoretical ploy would be if say the cache operates toward small random accessed files then it could be doubled. If the stripe is small enough. Say the file limit is 8KB in size where seek was random. on a 16K Stripe the file could be 16K and the individual drives see it as 8K files from it being split. on a 128K stripe the file needs to be over 64K before being split.............

Edit 2; the drive can kind of see file size if it monitors sequential sector access and possibly seek times to create an optimized caching scheme...................

Edit 3; They could also be caching large files where when a large sequential read takes place the cache holds the first say 40MB of data and when the samestarting sector is hit the cache provides the 40MB while the heads line up to stream the rest of the data. This would hide the access time of the HDD section.

As you can see I think and worry way too much..................

 

or even if the SSD cache fails, the HDD will continue operation like a normal 7200.4

 

Yes, I can see that. Not good for your peace of mind. Maybe you should get a Mac: In that case, Steve Jobs will tell you how to use the computer, there's nothing to configure because you're not allowed to configure anything (because Steve Jobs knows best what's good for you...), and, presto: no worries anymore. Sorry, that was a bit off-topic.

Seriously, though: Like I said, you worry about stuff you shouldn't even know about. My advice, leave well enough alone, and forget about this stuff. Life's too short...

 

Well enough only becomes great when you don't leave it alone.............

 

Buy a mac? meh..

 

Guys, no more off topic messages from now on. If you really want to have a discussion about stripe sizes open up a thread.

Actually the mechanical part of the XT performs significantly better than the 7200.4.

 

The SSD NAND memory is SLC and has a much lower failure rate than any other component in the drive.

 

correct, I believe seagate said that internal testing on a 250GB drive every day for 5 years showed the NAND to have no degredation whatsoever. it's unlikely, however if it does, seagate has specifically said it will perform like a regular drive.

I believe the XT has a 32mb DRAM cache for the mechanical part, as opposed to the 7200.4 which has 16mb, so it should be a bit better, I agree.

 

Even the sequential reads and writes are significantly faster.

Benchmark Results: Throughput And Interface : Momentus XT Review: Seagate's Marriage Of The HDD And Flash Memory

 

2-5mb/s read advantage doesn't seem like a lot, however write does seem to be noticeably faster, yup. I'm glad they managed to shave something off that horrible 14ms write time too.

 

Benchmarks on Mac_Pro: Momentus XT vs. Momentus 7200.4. connected via 4-port PCIe host adapter & eSATA enclosure.







While the figures are relative they show a difference between the two HDD's like several other reviews. Point is the XT is not a 7220.4 with a memory chip slapped on it.

 

The only place it has a significant advantage is random writes(why'd you leave those out? ) which is probally because of the double buffer thing. Otherwise, the gains are small and relative to the cache increase. It's not spinning any faster than a 7200.4, it has double the cache and probably some slightly better firmware.

and acutally, anandtech says seagate starts with a regular momentus 7200RPM drive

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3734/seagates-momentus-xt-review-finally-a-good-hybrid-hdd

the added frame buffer (32mb vs 16mb) is most of the reason why it outperforms a 7200.4 I suspect.

 

I doubt the cache size has any impact on sequential speeds.

 

then I'd say 3-5% increases are within tolerable testing limits. Ie they're they same. Not mentioning that I'm not sure anyone is going to notice an extra 3mb/s sequential...

 

My take: The 7200.4 and XT perform quite different in so many benchmarks I'd say they're not the same. And I can't agree that the differences can be explained by testing variance or cache size.

Seagate's Momentus XT hard drive - The Tech Report - Page 6
Seagate Momentus XT Review | StorageReview.com
Benchmark Results: Windows And Application Startup Time : Momentus XT Review: Seagate's Marriage Of The HDD And Flash Memory

I agree.

 

Obviously so how the stats? How's the failure rate and all?

 

Thanks for the storagereview, It's definitely better than the 7200.4 in small writes and latency.

 

Just got the second drive I ordered. I put it in an enclosure and no high vibrations or noise from this one. Also HD Tach did not have all the spikes of that first drive.

I am now backing up the P7805 and will try this one as a primary boot drive........

Edit;
I have it as the primary drive. This itteration is MUCH better. It is as smooth if not smoother than the 320 Black it has replaced. Just as quiet as well. Have been able to boot a few times and without a doubt a bit faster, especially after the password and having the desktop ready.

First quick impression is that it is about as quick as the ready boost was but not as discriminatory without having to wait for superfetch to fill it up. Tried the RB card in it as well and the RB loads 3x faster as now the bandwidth of he card write gets flooded.

Time to play..................

 

Your XT HD Tune vs. mine on a VAIO_F11 i7-720QM for a 7200.4:



The acess time is skewed by the memory & your Burst rate is impressive but is it also skewed?

*****

 

I was wondering if anyone has used readyboost along with the Momentus XT. Would there be any gains?

 

Trying it, too early too tell. It does seem to make it feel more consistent in that it makes it the HDD read and cache some of the same files. That is about all I can tell for now.

You can see this is NO SSD. It seems great for a HDD but nothing that will set any records. you can feel the system is a bit more responsive than with the 320 Black. The Jump feels like coming from the 320 Back about the same as going from a good old 320 GB 5400 RPM to the 320 Black itself.

Shaved about 10 seconds off the boot. My U81 is faster to desktop with a standard HDD. The P7805 used to be about 50 seconds with the 320 Black to desktop now it is about 40 seconds from power on, 8 of these in both cases the Bios. Once the DT is up though gadgets RocketDock etc load up much faster. Where the apps took a good 30 seconds to settle in it is about 10 seconds or less now.

Where my RB card reader would cap at 20MB/s I used to watch it take forever to load at about 4MB/s. Now it is only 4MB/s once in a great while and usually at 12-20 MB/s. so it loads up in a third of the time or less.

As I load the desktop and watch all the programs load and settle my CPU, P9600, is at a much higher load. I think this is as it isn't waiting on the HDD nearly as much. I used to never see 100% load on both core but see it often now.

I am not impressed with the writes though. like some of my larger picture folders building the large thumbnails from 100 or more 11 MB jpegs. You know it is a true HDD then. I may forgo Raid0 and go with a SSD for primary.

I can see this will be a great compliment drive for storage for the SSD. I'm not 100% settled yet but leaning more towards it each day.

 

Burst rate is more a function of bus and hdd cache etc. It isn't skewed at all to my knowledge in HD Tune. Yes the SSD does effect the access rates here. This can be seen in HD Tach run 1, 2 then 3 attached, burst rate I believe here can by effected by writeback I think............

 

Reviews of this drive have been good. Even if windows DOES take up more than 4GB 80+% of that is NEVER used.

 

Ok, I've tried it for a bit now. While YMMV ready boost is a waiste here. I use it on my u81 with a 7K500 and here before with my 320 Black. It had its benefits then once populated.

This drive is like a built in non discriminatory RB on steriods. Without RB when superfetch reads the drive info it all just goes soo fast. With a RB SD card it actually slows it down. RB is not needed for these drives at all and actually may be a hinderance.............

 

Just installed mine and did a fresh install of Win 7 on my new laptop. WEI scores (FWIW?) is only 5.9, compared to 5.8 for the WD Scorpio Blue it replaced.

Curious, are there any drivers that need to be installed with this drive? Got it from Newegg.ca, but didn't come with anything (not even a box).

Thanks.

 

This is to be expected. The WEI index will only test the harddrive, which is more or less equal to the big bunch out there.
The integrated ssd will improve access to the most frequently used parts of the disk, thereby improving boot and app loading time.

No drivers needed, it will behave like any other harddrive.

 

This was discussed a few pages back. Look top right of this page, there is an internal search engine: Search this Thread with: WEI.

Basically, WEI is meaningless for drives as it rated a drive with boot time of 1:48 the exact same as an other one with 1:11 which also happens to have also a faster read/write speed.

 

Thanks for the replies. So far so good, unit remains cool, battery life still impressive, and the drive is pretty darn silent. Very slight ticking sound every once in a while, but nothing bothersome or unusual that I wasn't hearing on the Scorpio Blue drive it replaced.

Was curious as to whether Seagate offered a different driver or software of some sort that "optimized" the drive, but sounds like nothing is needed.

 

everything is done at the hdd level in the firmware, unlike their old psd hybrid drive which worked at the os level. so there's no 'optimizing' that needs to be done.

 

Well curiosity is getting to me. I have my second drive so a tryout in Raid0 is the order of the day. Intel Storage matix manager is migrating now. I figure I'd try a 4k stripe and see how it works out.........

 

Is it just me or does this drive not pick up as an external? Anyone else try putting it in an enclosure? Works for cloning, just not storing stuff.

 

As an external unit, the premium price will only pay off if connected by USB3 or eSATA. Standard USB2 is easily maxed out.

 

Ok Some Raid 4K goodness..........

Edit 4k format seems to hold it back, see the 1st 100 GB unallocated Windows 7 partition.............

Edit 2; 3x reboots and 5 seconds longer to desktop than the single XT. 3 of them the Raid Control but bye bye raid0.....

 

That wasn't the question I was asking but okay.


Also I did a couple of boot time tests in the order they were done.

Seagate Momentus 7200.4
66.440 seconds
63.866 seconds
64.381 seconds
64.163 seconds
68.000 seconds

Seagate Momentus XT
76.128 seconds
41.621 seconds
52.728 seconds
48.765 seconds
45.458 seconds
37.050 seconds
41.184 seconds
39.499 seconds

The Momentus XT isn't really consistent with boot times but it definitely is faster.

 

My U81-a from 23.368 with the 7K500 to 17.425 with the Momentus 500GB XT. Even Fully loaded was faster as I was at 45-52 seconds with all the bloat.......

 

Just go to my mom's in PA with my U81-a. I have finally got to use the battery.

Now I used to be on power saver with the system and permanently had an Extreme SD 8GB card in for Ready Boost. This running a 7K500 for the primary drive. The system now is running the same software configuration as I used Windows 7 backup utility to just restore the image of the 7K500 but without the SD card or Ready Boost.

A bit of a warning here. I had to do the restore twice. The first time failed as it seems the 7K500's partition was slightly larger that what the XT will accept. You get an error message like "no disk can be found that the system image can be restored to". The fix was to shrink the volume first and then back it up,

Back to the point, Windows 7 used to show at 95% battery left 6 hours left. With the XT I now get 6 hours and 30 minutes. Now while there I decided to get all my mail and download all the pictures. This while being sure to hit multiple sites. This keeps the HDD busy with lots of small files coming in for the images and pages. This would keep the HDD and Ready Boost when I had it very busy.

Now under that scenario I would see the battery drop to about 3 hours and 45 minutes under the old setup at 90%. With the XT it went to 4 hours and 25 minutes at 90%.

So I can't speak for HDD only but can tell you it is much more efficient than a HDD and SD card with Ready Boost and overall much faster..........

Edit; Remember this is battery time Windows 7 is reporting, NOT a full test so take it with at least two grains of salt.........

 

So is the XT confirmed to be faster and better overall than the 7k500?

 

The 7K500 may have it's stronger points with heavy - large file usage. For most casual use though the XT is better. For casual use I suspect it should be better than even the 500GB black, but that has yet to be proven.

The 500GB black for strict file storage should make for the best secondary drive. I however am looking to also use the drive for all User files and storage and possibly some small gaming etc. The XT may be a better compliment there for a primary SSD......

 

For operations that are cached on the SSD the XT is faster than the 7K500 and WD5000bekt of course.

If you only look at the mechanical hard drive the differences are small. But no one has posted real life performance comparisons between these drives, as far as I know. WD5000bekt is probably the fastest.

 

This whole thing has me wondering if its possible to use your existing SSD and with software use it as a high speed cache for your secondary hard drive? That is if you have an SSD and HDD installed in your machine.

 

could work if the software existed but it could also add to cpu usage and eventually a slight hit on overall performance.
i believe the xt does this cacheing at the hardware level and that supposedly makes it more efficient.

 

negative, the Seagate drives that used OS level management of the SSD in this way still had special firmware and special drivers. What you *can* do however, is use a small SSD as the pagefile of the OS. That would speed up *all* tasks considerably. I was planning on using a small mini-pci-e SSD for this purpose, however the SSD's that are notably quicker than a RAID 0 array are just as expensive as a real SSD.

 

Gah! Just so frustrating that SSD's are so dang expensive. I need about 250GB to be comfortable and you'll pay $600+ for that tech. Just too expensive. Seems the XT uses more power, generates more heat, vibrates a lot more, and is loud. Not sure if I want to go that route either especially since I'm looking to get up to 5 hours on battery from an Envy 14 that I still have yet to order.

 

what?! did you read any of the reviews or did you just go look on newegg?

 

I've read a handful of user comments and a couple reviews. Comments are all over the place though, so hard to make an assessment.

 

Not my experience at all. Battery time the same, internal system temps the same and no difference in vibration I can tell from stock HD. For me the speed difference was well worth the price.

 

I may go this route. Either way I will probably just get the 250GB (base HDD) in the Envy 14 and decide what I really want to do as far as SSD or Momentus XT.