Archive Home arrow Reviews: arrow Storage arrow Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001
Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001 E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Storage
Written by Olin Coles   
Tuesday, 01 November 2011
Table of Contents: Page Index
Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001
Features and Specifications
Drive Testing Methodology
AS-SSD Benchmark
ATTO Disk Benchmark
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 Tests
Iometer IOPS Performance
EVEREST Disk Benchmark
PCMark Vantage HDD Tests
Seagate Barracuda Conclusion

ATTO Disk Benchmark

The ATTO Disk Benchmark program is free, and offers a comprehensive set of test variables to work with. In terms of disk performance, it measures interface transfer rates at various intervals for a user-specified length and then reports read and write speeds for these spot-tests. There are some minor improvements made to the 2.46 version of the program that allow for test lengths up to 2GB, but all of our benchmarks are conducted with 256MB total length. ATTO Disk Benchmark requires that an active partition be set on the drive being tested. Please consider the results displayed by this benchmark to be basic bandwidth speed performance indicators.

ATTO Disk Benchmark offered very consistent results for both the Seagate Barracuda XT ST33000651AS (five-platter) and new Seagate Barracuda ST3000DM001 (three-platter). Both hard drives shared a nearly identical read and write ramp-up to their maximum output, and both produced similar test scores. After comparing the results, it appears that the new Seagate Barracuda ST3000DM001 (three-platter) hard drive shows an advantage with this test. The read and write speeds were just a few MB/s faster with the new Seagate Barracuda ST3000DM001, but they reach that maximum output just a bit quicker.

ATTO-Seagate-Barracuda-XT-3TB-HDD-ST33000651AS.png

Seagate Barracuda XT 3TB Hard Drive ST33000651AS (Five-Platter)

ATTO-Seagate-Barracuda-3TB-HDD-ST3000DM001.png

Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001 (Three-Platter)

In the next section, Benchmark Reviews tests sequential performance using the CrystalDiskMark 3.0 software tool...



 

Comments 

 
# RE: Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001Doug Dallam 2011-11-01 13:36
I just finished retesting my two Western Digital Caviar 640 Blacks and used a lot of the same tools you did. (My reasons weren't to compare this drive but other tests I was doing unrelated.)

One of the things I wanted to do was test using real files. I chose to use a folder with 6GB of jpg/RAW/and video files. I then compressed that entire folder into a solid RAR archive and tested with that as well. Synthetic benches are fun, but real world file transfers can tell a different story.

All in all a tight review, but I'm wondering why you didn't test the drive using real files, say reading from an SSD and writing to it?
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001Olin Coles 2011-11-01 13:53
I could have used real files, but felt I already had enough tests completed to illustrate performance. When you use real files, they must be the exact same files every time. Compressed files (mov/avi/mpg/etc) also skew results depending on the SSDs used.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001Doug Dallam 2011-11-01 14:07
When you say "skew" results, you mean because SSDs take into consideration compressible files as opposed to uncompromisable files? If so, that's why I created a compressed RAR file and the folder with loose files in it. It would have just been nice to see two real world file transfer scenarios, as per above. Maybe I'm off base here. If so, disregard.
Report Comment
 
 
# Uncontrolled VariabilityBruce 2011-11-01 18:09
I've done some comparisons like this during my NAS tests: "Instead of one 10 GB file, the green portion of the chart shows what happens when transferring 4,793 items totaling 6.5GB from the PC to the NAS. If you're going to use any NAS for basic backup duties, this is the kind of action it's going to see." My informal tests showed that the real-world examples introduced too much variation in the results, making comparisons difficult and/or misleading.

Still, I get your point, and I also wish there was a way to use a standardized set of test files, that everyone could agree on.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Uncontrolled VariabilityDoug Dallam 2011-11-02 03:30
Since here only two drives were being compared to each other, the same files could have been used for both drives. One, as explained above, multiple file, and the other one large file. Because as you point out, drives act differently depending on what is being transferred.

I suppose you could save those same files and use them to test other drives also, albeit, with the same drive and rig set up. Or, one could test a number of drives using the same files on any rig, as long as the host drive, to prevent bottlenecking, is faster than the drive being tested. That SSD Olin tested recently would have been a good contender for the host drive, since it is the fastest SSD currently commercially available to the public.
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001ersan 2011-11-30 04:40
does this drive work with sata 2 raid controllers?
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001Olin Coles 2011-11-30 08:54
Yes, SATA 6Gb/s is backwards compatible with SATA 3Gb/s and 1.5Gb/s.
Report Comment
 
 
# Sales RepDavid carr 2012-01-30 07:53
I have both the Workstation and the Sabertooth motherboards with the P55 chipset and if they are the same as the X79 the Sabertooth compared to the Workstation are the same my p55's. The Sabertooth was able to OC 300 mhz more then the workstation 4.3Ghz for the Workstation comaper to the Sabertooth able to clock to 4.6Ghz.
Report Comment
 

Comments have been disabled by the administrator.

Search Benchmark Reviews
QNAP Network Storage Servers

Follow Benchmark Reviews on FacebookReceive Tweets from Benchmark Reviews on Twitter