XYMer's Home away from Home

When http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com is down (i.e. always)
Privacy Policy
It is currently Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:38 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
Folks:

On my 09 MBPro the linux HD test shows 4 "pre-fail" aspects, and things seem a tad "slow" even though SMARTReporter shows "OK" . . . I'm thinking that I should order an HD for it, because I like multi-boot . . . .

Back over on the OWC channel there's a Seagate & Western Digital in 500 GB, which would be twice as large as the 250 GB I have now . . . both are I believe 5400 rpm (no point doing 7200) . . . but one of them is a couple dollars cheaper but shows "128 MB" cache, and the other is more expensive but shows "16 MB" cache? . . . . I'm thinking "128" is "better" than "16"???? I don't need blinding speed for this computer, but I won't turn down speed benefits that the mobo could do . . . .

https://eshop.macsales.com/item/Seagate/ST500LM030/

https://eshop.macsales.com/item/Western%20Digital/WD5000LPCX/

eep


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 15686
Why no point in 7200 RPM?

Well, 128MB is better than 16 MB, especially in a 5200 RPM drive, but 2 year Warranty vs. no Warranty???

Plus, I hold my breath every time I read Seagate, but mybe they fot their ct together?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 10421
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Unless you're worried about battery life there's no point in buying a non-7200rpm drive. You may even want to think SSD:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... 6820147674

Though I'd wait for black friday sales, there's got to be some coming out for SATA SSDs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:34 pm 
Offline
Master

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:24 am
Posts: 9982
Location: North of the State of Jefferson
If you have your data backed up, I'd save a bit more and get a cheap SSD for roughly another $30.

It won't transform the computer the way it would a newer machine, but it will be very noticeably faster across the board. I know this because I installed an 850 EVO in a 2009 13" MBP a couple years ago. If you can't afford the jump, then it probably makes more sense to get the drive with the longer warranty, since if it fails you may not be able to comfortably afford a replacement.

- Anonymous

EDIT: and monkeyboy got there about 30 seconds ahead of me. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 10421
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Looks like he could even save some cash and get a WD Black 500GB with a 5 year warranty:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QFXOL5G


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:53 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 15686
WD Black would be my choice, though the SSD looks tempting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
MonkeyBoy wrote:
Looks like he could even save some cash and get a WD Black 500GB with a 5 year warranty:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QFXOL5G


Thanks for the numerous posts . . . so, I just put an SSD in my MP '12 . . . and that is "zippy" . . . but in the past MB has mentioned that it defeats the purpose of SSD if you cut it into partitions . . . and for this computer I have 2 OSX partitions and one for Linux Mint . . . . So, I'm thinking HD?? Cheaper . . . there is no "guarantee" that other parts won't blow up around it . . . so I think spending less on this operation is "OK" . . . . And, OK, I'll have to look through the links/comments here to find which one has a warranty . . . I think BD seemed to be saying that Seagate generally isn't great . . . . I might have bought a Barracuda a couple years back for my MP . . . so far it has been fine . . . .

I think I'd rather have a "faster" HD than one that is "slower" but has a warranty . . . based upon the general fact that if a problem is going to show it would be right away and the one year general warranty would cover that . . . after that things break . . . nothing riding on making big bucks from any of this . . . . But, it seemed like someone was suggesting that a 7200 would run faster on my computer than a 5400 . . . ??? But, then we are back to the SATA speed is "3GB" . . . and the 7200 is "6GB" . . . and therefore would not be "6GB" . . . ??? So, if the 7200 would be "faster" on my olde laptop . . . in spite of the "3G" . . . then I would look at 7200 options . . . and pick the faster cache????? Or, nope, the cache number isn't that important as far as HD specs goes???

eep

Edit: PS: The Seagate 5400 has a "3 year warranty" . . . vs the WD has "2 year" . . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 10421
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
All things being equal, more drive cache is better.

The black line has a 5 year warranty and costs less, that'd be my choice if you want an HD.

The SSD doesn't particularly care what you put on it, every block is the same speed as any other block. You will want to be sure TRIM is enabled with a Samsung EVO, but Linux should be capable of doing that w/o much drama, while trimforce is around for OS X back to at least 10.11 which should support your 09.

I've had fairly good luck with Seagates but even I've had my failures. That being said I've also seen a lot of HGST and WD failures too but personally I've been buying a lot of Seagates so those are the ones I personally know have been treated with baby gloves and still failed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
MonkeyBoy wrote:
Looks like he could even save some cash and get a WD Black 500GB with a 5 year warranty:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QFXOL5G


This does look to be in the same price range as the OWC options . . . and looks pretty good . . . I want to slice it into pieces . . . and run different OSs on it . . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
MonkeyBoy wrote:
All things being equal, more drive cache is better.

The black line has a 5 year warranty and costs less, that'd be my choice if you want an HD.


Cool. Yep, it does look to be "bang for the buck" . . . .

Quote:
The SSD doesn't particularly care what you put on it, every block is the same speed as any other block. You will want to be sure TRIM is enabled with a Samsung EVO, but Linux should be capable of doing that w/o much drama, while trimforce is around for OS X back to at least 10.11 which should support your 09.

I've had fairly good luck with Seagates but even I've had my failures. That being said I've also seen a lot of HGST and WD failures too but personally I've been buying a lot of Seagates so those are the ones I personally know have been treated with baby gloves and still failed.


OK, so it seems like an SSD could be partitioned and loaded up with some OSs . . . and that would be fine, i.e., no speed hits? Seemed like previously you were saying there was no point to trying to run two OSs on an SSD because it would defeat the benefits of having the SSD?? Still, in this case, older computer, not super fast to begin with . . . HD is going to be OK . . . and generally I keep it plugged in while using it so battery life isn't an issue . . . actually it's an aftermarket battery that doesn't have good life . . . even in sleep mode . . . .

But, thanks for the links on the Black HD . . . might be the one . . . precerate it.

eep


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:07 pm
Posts: 2630
Location: Inside Flatus Maximus
SSDs don't care about partitions. As noted above, every cell has the exact same response/seek time as the next cell, etc. Most people don't realize it, but the SSD controller is actually a RAID controller w/ custom firmware (or simply an in-house custom RAID controller w/ proprietary firmware). Every NAND device on the PCB is on a different channel, which is how the SSDs maintain such high speeds no matter where the data is located on the LBA table.

Just partition and enjoy. The controller knows where everything is and won't have any speed hits accessing any of it until the drive is nearly full, but that would be the case with just one partition as well.

_________________
Official Mac Tech Support Forum Cookie™ (Mint Chocolate Chip)
Guaranteed tasty; Potentially volatile when dipped in WWIII Forum Syrup®
Caution: This cookie bites back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
Squishy Tia wrote:
SSDs don't care about partitions. As noted above, every cell has the exact same response/seek time as the next cell, etc. Most people don't realize it, but the SSD controller is actually a RAID controller w/ custom firmware (or simply an in-house custom RAID controller w/ proprietary firmware). Every NAND device on the PCB is on a different channel, which is how the SSDs maintain such high speeds no matter where the data is located on the LBA table.

Just partition and enjoy. The controller knows where everything is and won't have any speed hits accessing any of it until the drive is nearly full, but that would be the case with just one partition as well.


@ST, et al:

Alrighty, thanks for the details . . . I guess with technology the lines in the sand(force) are continually moving . . . so, Oh well . . . bought a smaller SSD for my home desktop figuring it couldn't be partitioned w/o speed degradation . . . which, between it and the HDs isn't a radical/insane speed difference . . . noticeable, but not crazy . . . but, it's running 10.14!!!! totally AmAzZIN' OS . . . . :coffee: There is one more HD slot left to fill . . . waiting for a rainy day.

Anyway, back to the question at hand . . . decision yet to be made, but given that the OEM HD is just about ten years old, and doing "OK" . . . not moving around throwing the laptop down while it's running, etc . . . it's roughly 2x the space for the same price . . . leaning toward HD for this swap . . . . It's mostly for word processing these days, no need for blinding speed . . . I type very slowly.

eep


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 10421
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
You could also go with a 1TB black, which should be faster than the 500GB because it adds an extra platter. But then you're even closer to the 500GB SSD which would blow both out of the water.

$50 vs. $67 vs. $80

And if you wait for a black friday sale next week the latter number might even come down further. This is the same part on Amazon if that alleviates some concern:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/b0781z7y3s/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:06 pm 
Offline
Master

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:24 am
Posts: 9982
Location: North of the State of Jefferson
Aside from speed, the SSD will probably also be more reliable if you're not writing insane amounts of data. There's basically nothing to break. In a spinning HD, one unlucky bump and the thing's reduced from being a storage device to a whining plate of rust-coated aluminum.

Personally, I'm done with spinning drives for anything other than bulk storage/backups.

- Anonymous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
MonkeyBoy wrote:
You could also go with a 1TB black, which should be faster than the 500GB because it adds an extra platter. But then you're even closer to the 500GB SSD which would blow both out of the water.

$50 vs. $67 vs. $80

And if you wait for a black friday sale next week the latter number might even come down further. This is the same part on Amazon if that alleviates some concern:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/b0781z7y3s/


@MB:

Thanks for that link and the suggestions . . . obviously the price differential on any of them isn't that extreme . . . my "issue" is that it's not clear how much "vitality" this laptop has left in it . . . . I'm having something going on with my usb mouse which seems to be "non-responsive" when I first boot the computer . . . the mouse is "new-ish" cheap Logitech, had another one that lasted many years . . . or, problem with usb ports via mobo . . . . I need a mouse, just because . . . . Point being I'm somewhat loathe to throw high end parts into an 09 MBP . . . obviously the SSD could be scavenged for whatever the next laptop will be . . . . It's one of those, "This is a 'Core 2 Duo' machine . . . it's not going to do warp 6, we're on Impulse drive . . . on its best day, would $30 more dollars get me into high Impulse or even Warp .5???" . . . and I'm holding it at OSX 10.9 because of the limitations of ye olde C2D . . . but, it does what I need it to do, doesn't have to be "faster" . . . just trying to flog it down the road for as long as I can . . . . I went to 8GB RAM a few years back, was waiting to change the storage until it showed "red" on SMARTReporter . . . but, seems like little anomalies in performance are happening . . . now might be the time to change the drive . . . could be SSD would be more "amusing" . . . ???? I'll have to mull it over . . . maybe Black Friday or Tech Monday if the deals are "amazing" . . . if the price gets closer to the HD range . . . ???

@Anonymous: Thanks for those thoughts, just seeing it as I was trying to post . . . between the various "cookie" windows and such . . . .

eep


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline
Benevolent Dictator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 am
Posts: 15686
As per Mike's site today...
Quote:
SSD Firmware Updates to Address Vulnerabilities in some models
CERT Coordination Center has a Vulnerability Note VU#395981 Self-Encrypting Drives Have Multiple Vulnerabilities. For CVE-2018-12037, they list Crucial (Micron) MX100, MX200 and MX300, Samsung T3 and T5 portable drives, Samsung 840 EVO and 850 EVO drives (In "ATA high" mode these devices are vulnerable, In "TCG" or "ATA max" mode these devices are NOT vulnerable.) For CVE-2018-12038, they list Samsung 840 EVO drives but note "other products were not reported to have been tested, and similar vulnerabilities may be found in those products". Down the page are links to Vendor firmware updates to address the vulnerabilities and additional information for BitLocker/Windows users.
Samsung has a related Consumer Notice regarding Samsung SSDs with recommendations for portable and non-portable drives and firmware update links.

http://xlr8yourmac.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
@BD:

So, the 860 EVO isn't mentioned . . . must be up to date on firmware???

Edit/repost: Noticing that Amazon also lists the "Blue WD" and a Sandisk SSD option . . . right in the same price range as the Samsung . . . any reason to look non-Samsung in the SSD department??? If I could squeeze everything into 250GB the price is similar to 500 GB HD . . . .

eep


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:25 pm 
Offline
Master

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:24 am
Posts: 9982
Location: North of the State of Jefferson
Those are vulnerabilities in the self-encrypting feature of certain drives. If you use secondary encryption in the OS (e.g. FileVault) it doesn't matter, nor does it matter if you don't expect the drive to be self-encrypted (e.g. your current drive).

The 860 is new enough it's probably not affected by the same bug. Samsung firmware tentatively appears to have improved since the 840 series. I've been running 850s, both Pro and EVO, for several years and have been very pleased with them. I haven't used their self-encrypting feature. I don't even know how to turn it in OS X, if OS X can even use it.

- Anonymous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 10421
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Personally when I'm looking at storage I have two numbers in mind:
1) At what point does doubling storage more than double the price of the unit
2) How much can I honestly spend

If I can afford a 1TB drive and 2TB is over 2x1TB then I'll probably get 1TB. If 1TB is under 2x500GB than and I can afford it I'll get 1TB.

When the price starts more than doubling for doubling the space, I tend to end up buying 2 of the smaller drives and concatenate them into a single logical drive, if I really need that much space.

If it's $60 for 250GB and $80 for 500GB, I would certainly opt for 500GB. If 1TB is $150 but I don't want to spend over $100 then I'll get 500GB.

The more space you have on the drive the more useful it will be to you in the future. If the MBP dies the day after you stick the SSD inside you could still buy a $10 UASP USB 3.0 case and plop the SSD inside for reasonably speedy use.

I don't have much use for 250GB and 320GB 5400rpm SATA drives these days but I have a whole crapload of them lying around at work because we dumped them out of systems in favor of 1TB 7200rpm disks. I even brought some in from home to use before I convinced them to pony up $50 for the 1TB disks. So now... they sit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:20 pm 
Offline
Master

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:24 am
Posts: 9982
Location: North of the State of Jefferson
I do like having old useless 3.5" hard drives lying around: nothing ever falls off my refrigerator! :mrgreen:

Someday I'll cast something really awesome out of solid aluminum.

- Anonymous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
@MB && anonymous:

Thanks for the follow-up . . . . In my MBPro I've been working three OSs in 250 GB and nothing is over-flowing within the partition walls . . . but, sure, never enough space . . . never enough speed . . . . The SSDs are under the "2x the price" line of the HDs . . . prolly will go in that direction . . . . Samsung v WD v Sandisk?? All the same or Samsung is "the kind, the only kind in SSD world"????

eep


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 10421
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Samsung is generally a good option since they have a low failure rate and moderately (to really) good performance.

I have a lesser-name SSD in my PC and frankly its performance isn't anything to write home about. But it was cheap. Not as cheap as Samsung is now mind you.

Sandisk is Western Digital. Sandisk is typically where WD sells its lower performance products, but they've basically destroyed Sandisk since the acquisition because they can't figure out what to do with the name (and basically neutered their old product lines).

Its not worth saving $10 to get a worse performing less reliable product. At this point I'm regretting my decision - and I saved about $50 on it. (maybe more. I think Samsungs were $150 when I got this thing for $80-something)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
@MB:

Cool. Yep, generally there is "false economy" whenever we go for the lower priced items . . . I try to hit the sweet spot somewhere in the middle . . . . Was thinking that SSD was "too high" . . . but, life has to have its amusements to keep it . . . amusing . . . . :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline
Master

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:24 am
Posts: 9982
Location: North of the State of Jefferson
Yeah, I concur that Samsung is the way to go for a general purpose SATA SSD. They're very good: fast and reliable.

In your MBP you won't be able to enjoy all the performance the drive is capable of, but it will still be much faster than anything else you could do. The '09 MBP only supports SATA2 so you'll "only" get up to 300 MB/s across the bus rather than 550-ish that the drive can push in a newer machine. This is hardly debilitating. ;)

- Anonymous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 1023
@anonymous:

Thanks for the concurrence . . . my original thought was "Why get something faster than the mobo can do?" . . . but, in looking around it does seem like the faster SSDs are cheaper by a tad bit than the older, slower SSDs . . . so, seems smarter to go with the faster yet cheaper items and take the speed hit . . . as just one of those "sacrifices that have to be made . . . " . . . :whip:

eep


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group