[larob]

I want to upgrade the stock hard drive that comes with the Mac Pro (the 320gb with 8 mb cache) to something that has 16mb cache minimum.. a few questions:

1. will 32mb cache vs 16mb cache provide any real word performance boost noticeable for day-to-day computing (not just in test measurements or extreme video/Photoshop comparisons)?
2. will the drive trays support full height AND half height drives
3. I plan to leave my computer on 24/7 so it can be reached from outside world remotely in case I need a file or something - does using "enterprise" class drives that support this as a feature offer any better performance or uptime?

thanks in advance for your help!

[Tesselator]

1. Yes. It's not dramatic but it's often noticeable.
2. No. But heck, do they even make full height drives any more? Me thinks not.
3. No. Well not in the sense you might mean. They last longer (better MTBR) but
   if you use smcFanControl and boost the fans enough to keep the drives at or
   below 34c or 35c regular drives will usually last just as long.

[larob]

re: #2

I guess I meant half height AND quarter height then..

[Tesselator]

Hehehe well honestly, I haven't seen 1/2 height in years and years either. It doesn't mean there isn't a line tooled
and active somewhere but I never see the result being sold anywhere. Anyway, here's what the guts look like so
you can see that it's made for the one inch slim liners. There might be a bay that could accommodate a thicker
unit but I wouldn't bet on it.

[newtech]

last 5.25 half/full height drives I saw were enterprise class Ultra-SCSI III LVD, wicked fast, wicked expensive and rather low density. In fact I think you would be hard pressed to find a 1.6" height 3.5 drive these days, pretty much everything is 1" or 8-13mm for 2.5 drives.

[Tesselator]

I did a little research since I was a bit confused and "1/2 Height" these days refers
to 1.63" units as opposed to "Slimline" or "Low Profile" units that are typically 1"
thick. I got confused because I knew a "Full Height" drive is five and a quarter:

So I was thinking the half height drives were 2.5" or so and I have bought and
sold a few AV drives around 1999 or 2000 that were just about that thick. As
is turns out it's 1.63". According to this my confusion is justified somewhat
however. It says: " This name is kind of funny, since it is "half" of a height
that never existed for 3.5" form factor drives." Hehehe...

[newtech]

I remember well when a floppy was a full height 8" drive that held 96KB unformatted/hard sectored.

[Tesselator]

Yup me too! I bet I'm one up on you tho... I remember (and still have) paper-tape units.

/me contemplates installing his paper-tape drive into his Mac Pro...

[newtech]

Best old school computer practical joke, shuffling a deck of punch cards. Could reduce a programmer to a quivering mass of jelly.

[Tesselator]

Tee Hee Hee... Those were my University days...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by larob 

I want to upgrade the stock hard drive that comes with the Mac Pro (the 320gb with 8 mb cache) to something that has 16mb cache minimum.. a few questions:

1. will 32mb cache vs 16mb cache provide any real word performance boost noticeable for day-to-day computing (not just in test measurements or extreme video/Photoshop comparisons)?
2. will the drive trays support full height AND half height drives
3. I plan to leave my computer on 24/7 so it can be reached from outside world remotely in case I need a file or something - does using "enterprise" class drives that support this as a feature offer any better performance or uptime?

thanks in advance for your help!

No.
Probably not.
Yes better performance (but the regular ones are fast enough over most networks) and marginal improvements in MTBF.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by mduell 

1. No.
2. Probably not.
3. Yes better performance (but the regular ones are fast enough over most networks) and marginal improvements in MTBF.

3.
But when you look at the server grade parts - if and when there is a corresponding workstation grade part - and
there often is, the ONLY difference is in the MTBR and the max operating temperature and stuff like that. I've never
seen a difference in speed, cache size, or anything like that. It always seems to be about the ruggedness of the
unit. Statements from manufacturers seem to reflect that as well.

[mduell]

Depends how you're defining "workstation." I consider workstation/server drives to be the same, and contrast them to desktop drives.

The Seagate ES2 line (for workstations/servers) is faster than the Seagate 7200.11 line (for desktops).

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Depends how you're defining "workstation." I consider workstation/server drives to be the same, and contrast them to desktop drives.

The Seagate ES2 line (for workstations/servers) is faster than the Seagate 7200.11 line (for desktops).

That might be apples and oranges you're comparing there but I don't know every
model in the seagate line. I know they don't advertise them as being faster. There
are several enhancements that Seagate made to the ES line. The few that are worth
mentioning are:

1. Rotation vibration error recovery so you'll get less failures, and
2. Workload management (WLM) which essentially means that when the disk heats up to
   about 58C, the disk will slow down -- up to 40% until the temp lowers -- which
   should provide a better MTBR. Eh-hem, or to quote Seagate: it will "manage key
   drive components and activity levels, dynamically regulating drive activity in order
   to minimize failures caused by operation outside of the drive’s thermal envelope".
3. The ES line goes through a more stringent burn-in process too, so the drive units
   you get are the top-shelf units. This secondary sort is what makes the price so much
   higher as well.

Also I have been defining "Enterprise Grade" as I saw OEMs and VARs originally
define it. And that is as a server product - not a workstation part. Things may
have changed though I dunno.

[Tesselator]

I just had a look at the specs and there are no speed differences between
seagate's published specs for the two drives you mentioned. Both are 105
megs/sec Transfer Rate (sustained), 32MB cache, and 7200RPM. Do notice
the MTBR tho! The ES2 drive is 1,200,000 hours and the WORKSTATION
(their words not mine) unit is 750,000.

So, hehehe, like I said originally:

3) No. Well not in the sense you might mean. They last longer (better MTBR) but
if you use smcFanControl and boost the fans enough to keep the drives at or
below 34c or 35c regular drives will usually last just as long.