Hard Drive Overclocking Competition From Secau 162
Blittzed writes "We were reminiscing about the good old days of overclocking CPUs and memory, and the subject of hard drive overcloking came up. The discussion / argument we were having in the research lab ended up in a bet which now has to be settled. So, we are putting our money where our mouth is, and putting up $10,000 to anyone who can read a 500GB drive in under an hour. We will also consider other attempts with a smaller amount of money in the event that the one hour is not possible. There are a few rules (e.g. the drive still needs to work afterwards), but otherwise nothing is ruled out. Specific details can be found on the URL. Go let the white smoke out!"
First Post (Score:3)
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
Someone let the white smoke out...
Re:First Post (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
The OP forgot to mention which HDs they were trying to overclock...
How big is your hard disk?
He replies with hand gestures.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm failing to grok this. My two year old Velociraptor can sustain something close to 138MB/s transfer with no tweaking (the speed needed to read 500GB in an hour).
Is there really no enterprise-level drive that can manage this...?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm failing to grok this. My two year old Velociraptor can sustain something close to 138MB/s transfer with no tweaking (the speed needed to read 500GB in an hour).
Is there really no enterprise-level drive that can manage this...?
I'm hazarding a guess here, but I suspect that sustained transfer rate is for contiguous data - and even then it sounds a little high. As soon as you have to move the head to read the data (because large contiguous reads are really rare), you can expect to see the sustained rate plummet like a suicidal lemming.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some of us work with multi-TB scratch data on our workstations, and it it would be really nice not to have use do disk arrays to approach even one gigabyte per second, especially when even low-end memory and CPU busses can handle data at several times that rate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SLC, constant write at full speed will kill it in a matter of 10 or so years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=15k+sas&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=4570783421788284630&sa=X&ei=VS8OTpvVPIugtwev9cnqDQ&ved=0CGEQ8gIwAg [google.com]
15k SAS is a reality, and if they shrunk the platters a bit more, 20k is doable.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say, I have an utterly different experience with SSDs, perhaps he should stop buying MLC and stick with SLC? SLC has 10x the life expectency, 10x the speed, but 1/10 the storage (and 10x the price...)
Perhaps instead of such a large prize... (Score:3, Funny)
They should have considered spending some of it to upgrade their hosting.
Re: (Score:2)
Their hosting was only good for 500GB per hour, which they bet $10,000 that it was impossible for the Interwebs to read.
An hour? (Score:5, Funny)
An hour!? I have a 500GB drive on my desk and I can read it in under a minute! The first line says: "Seagate Barracua 7200.11 500 Gbytes" The entire label has only a few dozen words and serial numbers.
Re:An hour? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:An hour? (Score:5, Informative)
With a Seagate Barracuda I think the challenge is getting the thing to actually run for over a minute.
I just ran smartcl here and the two Seagate Barracudas in this machine have each been running for 29,908 hours.
Re:An hour? (Score:5, Funny)
With a Seagate Barracuda I think the challenge is getting the thing to actually run for over a minute.
I just ran smartcl here and the two Seagate Barracudas in this machine have each been running for 29,908 hours.
I see what you're saying... even the SMART data is corrupt.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have been laughing for at least 5 minutes hysterically....... you pwned him so good. LOL
Thank you
Re: (Score:3)
I can top this with my old 2x 200GB seagate barracuda 7200.7 drives. Used to be used together in raid0 on my old machine, now been in use as separate drives (one as system drive).
They're yet to cause problems, unlike several other brands I had to kick into the curb while these two lived. Their power on time is reported as 43092 and 45394 hours respectively by S.M.A.R.T.
You're probably talking about that specific failure in barracuda family, 7200.11. I had one of those, and had the typical problem (logic boa
Re: (Score:2)
I have 4 18GB 10krpm Seagate Cheetah U160 SCSI drives I bought in 2000, and which have been run 24x7 virtually ever since (other than brief down times for maintenance, etc)..
That's roughly 87000 hours of run time on all 4 of them, with no failures. I retired them this past March along with the RAID controller they've been married to all this time. I retired them not due to failure (though the bearings in one sounded like the end was drawing near), but because I needed more storage in the server.
Re: (Score:2)
Worth noting that there's a major difference between 10k rpm SCSI drives and standard 7200rpm IDE ones, both in terms of manufacturing quality and cost.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got an old Seagate 2.1Gb SCSI Barracuda that's been running since the 1950's.
You start it with a pull-cord, like an old lawnmower. Sounds about the same, too.
I'm not sure I can read that in under an hour, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got an old Seagate 2.1Gb SCSI Barracuda that's been running since the 1950's.
You start it with a pull-cord, like an old lawnmower. Sounds about the same, too.
I'm not sure I can read that in under an hour, though.
Will it run Stuxnet?
Re: (Score:2)
I've got an old Seagate 2.1Gb SCSI Barracuda that's been running since the 1950's.
Now, that's impressive. Presumably a secret project that IBM stole for their first model, which was introduced in 1956. But IBM's only had fifty 24 inch platters, with a total capacity of 5MB, and it needed 3-phase power and a forklift to move it. Yours is a lot bigger. But is it faster than IBM's (whose access time was close to 1000 ms)?
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the "GET OFF MY LAWN" part... *sigh*
Hey, that's implied by my low UID. It shouldn't have to be explcit.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the "GET OFF MY LAWN" part... *sigh*
Hey, that's implied by my low UID. It shouldn't have to be explcit.
If your UID really would be low, then OK, maybe.
But to be considered 'low', I would guess that it would have 4 digits. Or less.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. Kids these days with their "superior" 5 digit UIDs...
Re: (Score:2)
Here I thought I was fairly late to the party.
Re: (Score:2)
Call that low?
Obligitory: You must be new here... (Score:2)
For saving confusion in the future, Grasshopper, you should automagically append "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" to every comment from a six digit /. UID.
See, sometimes the Geritol hasn't had time to kick in yet, and adding that to our comments gets overlooked in the frenzy of typing the reply.
Oh yeah, and...GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the last batch of 6-digit IUDs, so I like having people on my lawn, preferably naked.
Re: (Score:2)
He means it's been running since about 10 to eight.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is not the old disks. Actually, the older, the more reliable. It's the newest disks that are the worst. When you boast "My disk is running fine for 5 years already" you're talking about a disk from 5 years ago. And it's the disks from 2 years ago that keep dying on us. Tollerances get
Re: (Score:3)
Not really as during the life of the disk it will remap failing sectors to some spare unused blocks that are kept specially for that purpose. Once it runs low on spare blocks it will generate a SMART warning, and when it runs out you are screwed. The more hours the drive has on it the fewer spare blocks it is likely to have left.
Re: (Score:2)
The surface, the bad blocks is not really the problem here. Sure it degrades and starts slowing down, and eventually bad blocks may happen. But far sooner the disk motor bearing will die from constant vibrations, the head mechanism bearing will fail, the seals will leak moisture inside (and the dessicant bag will reach its capacity), the lubricant supply for the bearings will run dry, the "emergency parking" mechanism of the head will get stuck, capacitors will die on the PCB, and so on...
The magnetic surfa
Re: (Score:2)
whoops... something got
anyway, tollerances get smaller, meaning less room for error, wear and smaller wear causes faults. Disk that had 2 years warranty was built so that it could work for 18 years +-15 years. Now a disk with 2 years warranty will work 3 years +- 6 months...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You won't be able to push any more than 18 gigabytes in a minute through SATA-II and that's in theory. So theoretically one could read a 500 GB drive in ~28 minutes, but the drives just aren't nowhere near as fast. Then again, maybe your Barracua is many fold faster than Barracudas. I know my Sonny cassette player was faster than that from Sony.
You should try Sany. Way faster than even Sonny. The only problem I had with it is it would only read the cassette once and then you need a new player... and a new cassette.
Re: (Score:2)
The SAS 6G and SATA 3 (6Gbps) models of SSD go up to over 500GB now. Reading that in a few minutes is no big deal. Even the SATA II Intel 320 series [intel.com] does 600GB and sequential reads at 270 MB/s, which would be 600GB in (600000/270 seconds) - 2222 seconds or just over 37 minutes. My laptop has a better data rate, but I use off-brand components :-). This is no problem at all.
A spinning rust platter isn't ever going to dish that, but if this is a job you need done and you're willing to spend ten grand, I'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's rather limiting. There are PCIe attached solutions that consistently read/write at more than 6GB/s rather than 6Gb/s - like for example the ioDrive Octal [fusionio.com]. It can have far more storage than your limit - ten times as much on one card. That thing has a serious 48Gbps serial read bandwidth, sustained, and you can configure many PCs with eight or sixteen of them. This is only one of many. There are actually some applications that strain against the limitation of this bandwidth.
The good rule for a thu
Re: (Score:2)
O noes I dont have access to hyper-expensive and exotic hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
The SAS 6G and SATA 3 (6Gbps) models of SSD go up to over 500GB now. Reading that in a few minutes is no big deal. Even the SATA II Intel 320 series [intel.com] does 600GB and sequential reads at 270 MB/s, which would be 600GB in (600000/270 seconds) - 2222 seconds or just over 37 minutes. My laptop has a better data rate, but I use off-brand components :-). This is no problem at all.
You have to use Western Digital Caviar Black 3.5" SATA 500GB hard drive (WD5002AALX).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but did the rules state the data read needs to be the same as the data written? Error free?
Just grab the data from the cache without worry if the cache got to be filled correctly and enjoy superior read speed!
Sarcasm filter broken? (Score:2)
Whooosh!
I think you need some PF Flyers[1], AND a trampoline to catch everything flying over your head.
[1]From the wiki on PF Flyers [wikipedia.org]:
emphasis mine
Oh yeah, and 'Get off my lawn!!'
Re: (Score:2)
He could read it correctly. Rules don't say that you have to write correctly, though.
Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/enterprise-hard-drive-charts-2010/Throughput-Read-Average,2156.html [tomshardware.com]
No, I didn't look at the page. It's Slashdotted.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's about 132 MB/s actually - remember, it's multiples of 1000, not 1024 and then some space is used by the file system.
Anyway, it's not clear what they want just from the description here on Slashdot. Read the labels of the drive? But seriously, one could get a 2 TB drive or whatever drive has the most density these days and make it show up as 500GB drive... I believe it's called http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/short-stroking-hdd,2157.html [tomshardware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-701277.pdf [wdc.com]
Formatted Capacity 500,107 MB = 488 GB so you need 138 MB/s to get data in an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
From that same document:
So 500,107 MB = 500.107 GB
"Formatted capacity" has nothing to do with file system formatting; it refers to the host-accessible storage capacity of the drive, which is 976,773,168 sectors (also from that same document). The contest is to read all those sectors in under an hour. Sectors are 512 bytes each, so you need to read 500,10
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean mebibytes per second. [wolframalpha.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet! After all these years, finally someone has come up with a reason for something better than UDMA 133 [wikipedia.org]!
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Settings settings settings. (Score:2)
Yes, I think you are on the right track here. If some people manage to reverse engiceer those dirty details how the HD works, then with that info a lot of HD could be recovered.
e.g. now a HD is considered dead if you do nog have a identical controller chip. If you can figure out how that controller chip is actually working, you can retreive a lot of data more simple.
The problem is that everybody still considers the HD a black box. If it works, fine, if it not works buy a new one.
However there might be a lot
Re: (Score:2)
Chip makers are known to sandbag their chips especially after a design is mature. They detune chips and sell them as low performance pieces to fill the market, and the performance is there for the taking with no real risk to t
Re: (Score:2)
Western Digital no longer publishes the internal organization for their drives but 126 MB/s over 500 GB yields about 1 hour and 6 minutes to read the entire drive in the best case. It is proportionally longer of course for larger drives since only one head can be read at a time and head switches require at least the same amount of time as a adjacent track seek.
Without physically raising the spindle speed, I do not believe it will be possible to lower the time to read the entire drive significantly. The sp
Re: (Score:2)
So this is a test to make a hard drive 'over clock' and I believe they mean it in the sense like we do for CPU and memory -- Software/voltage/etc.. More cooling would be okay, but not disassembly of the hard drive
Re: (Score:2)
More cooling would be okay, but not disassembly of the hard drive
You could replace the drive firmware with a hacked one that changes error detection behavior, changes the way the buffer/cache is used to optimize the drive for the contest's access pattern, or kills any power saving features.
The other thing would be changing characteristics of the drive's mounting to reduce vibration to insanely perfect vibration dampening for maximal mechanical performance.
Re: (Score:2)
In all modern IDE/SATA drives, the firmware is stored on the plater, not in an eeprom. And for most manufacturers, it's not field accessable. Plus there's zero documentation for the firmware / internal processor(s) outside of the manufacturer's labs. (and maybe the company making the chips.) Hacking the firmware is beyond the reach of anyone who would be wowed by a $10k prize.
Re: (Score:2)
In all modern IDE/SATA drives, the firmware is stored on the plater, not in an eeprom. And for most manufacturers, it's not field accessable. Plus there's zero documentation for the firmware / internal processor(s) outside of the manufacturer's labs. (and maybe the company making the chips.) Hacking the firmware is beyond the reach of anyone who would be wowed by a $10k prize.
Its not that mysterious. People mod DVDrom firmwares every day. HDD is just a DVDrom with magnetic media :)
+ firmware IS "field accessible". Every HDD on the market can have firmware updated by end user.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it have to be a spinning platter drive? If not, some of the PCI-E SSDs can get over 1GB/s sequential reads which would easily put a 500GB read at under 10 minutes. Of course, you'd likely have to spend at least half of the $10k prize on the drive itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Orgrimmar:DATA admin$ df -h | grep disk7
Orgrimmar:DATA admin$ date ; dd if=/dev/zero of=test.bin bs=16k count=10240000 && du -sh test.bin && dd if=test.bin of=/dev/null bs=32m ; date
Thu Jun 30 22:47:45 PDT
Done already! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're sure it's not the hair of Schwarzenegger and muscles of Ariel?
Solution (Score:2)
Post a bounty on slashdot, watch your drive fry.
do not do this (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an attempt by a forensic company to crowd-source the development of a product on the cheap. I you can do this, you can make a fortune selling to the different LEAs around the world. But please don't do it, we do not need more efficient spooks.
Re: (Score:2)
This is another hidden benefit of Apple hardware that people don't readily consider.
Apple hardware is very hard to get in and out quickly, covertly, and without a few red flags being noticeable.
A couple of years (4+ now) ago when I sat in with Apple's instructor led hardware certification labs there were a small team of high tech crime investigators for the Australian Federal Police, and Australian Attorney Generals department attending.
They weren't interesting in passing the test, they had absolutely *no*
Smells like marketing... (Score:2)
Has anyone considered that this is simply a high-profile device for:
A: Selling amazing amounts of the specified WD 500GB HDD?
B: Giving WD some free (or nearly so, $10k is pennies in the pot) development of a product line, via a third-party agent?
IRONY (Score:3)
What is ironic is that this story precedes the one, that gives the actual reason for this one [slashdot.org].
It's not too saddle, is it:
'Federal Wiretaps On The Rise'
'Hard Drive Overclocking Competition from Secau'
Re: (Score:2)
subtle, I meant subtle. I didn't have a good night rest and am still slippy....
Vary temperature and pressure (Score:2)
Hmmm... HDD have atmosphere seals.
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/hard-drives-hermetically-sealed-t2014655.html [pcreview.co.uk]
wonder if varying temperature and pressure will help.
E.g. doing this in a cold, low pressure environment.
Or a cold, high-pressure environment.
It's time for a different environment (Score:2)
Repost from the site (Score:2)
Overclocking Competition
CPU overclocking is old school, and GPU overclocking isn't much newer. Memory overclocking? Been there done that. For all of you hardware modders looking for something else to let the white smoke out of, have we got a challenge for you! Hard drive overclocking! Why do you want to do this? Because you can! And, in these days of really big hard drives, getting data off the things can take a long ti
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly -- I always wondered why this was not done -- is it a limitation of the form factor? Why not have two arms? We already use multiple heads, multiple platters. Seems like you could double the performance or at least allow a minimal cost error checking (single disk-level mirroring?) with such a solution.
Re:Is that all? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno what you're talking about. Disks used to have multiple r/w arms. They also used to be the size of your desk. Putting another arm in the housing would only work if it was on the opposite side from the one that's there, but now your housing is 4 cm longer, and you've got extra wire causing latency and skew problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Head preamps are usually somewhere on the arm assembly, and they drive controlled impedance differential pairs, so an extra inch or two shouldn't be that big of a deal. Latency is not an issue at all, each arm would be controlled separately and they don't need to be synchronous at all.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been hard drives in the past with two arms. I don't think it helped performance enough to make up for the cost difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen drives with two arms before, configured multiple ways:
One drive had one arm just for reading, one for writing.
One was made so if one arm failed, the other could continue. In the mean time, one arm did the work, while the other one just stayed idle.
One was similar to the previous, except both arms did reading/writing at the same time.
I think it didn't catch on because of cost, but could be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I would also foresee problems with precision involved. Hard to keep heads on track.
Re:Is that all? (Score:4, Informative)
If you look at it the right way (translation: I'm about to break a rule) it's done all the time. It's called RAID0.
But seriously, that tells you why it's not done: because if your really care about performance that much, you can get more performance than a multi-head-set drive and spend less money by using commodity parts. If you make a drive that works this way, no one will buy it. (Except for money laundering purposes. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
From the practical aspect: My U-Verse DVR had a not-very-special 2.5" drive in it, and was able to record four things at once while replaying a fifth in my not-special configuration at home. (I believe it can actually do more than that with multiple receivers networked to it, but I just had the single DVR box.)
That said, in the interest of pedantry: Unlike a striped RAID 0, a RAID 1 array of n+1 disks could conceivably perform as a single disk with multiple heads, since a RAID 1 of n+1 has n+1 worth of in
Re: (Score:2)
Say you have a video recording application where you're writing a video stream to disk, and that (perhaps uncompressed?) stream is of such ungodly bandwidth as to take a significant chunk of your drive's throughput. One head's fine if your disk isn't ridiculously fragmented (which it won't be); you have RAM to buffer it while the drive seeks occasionally (e.g. past a file fragment to the next unallocated space), then it'll catch up. But now suppose you want to playback a timeshifted stream of this same bandwidth
That said, in the interest of pedantry: Unlike a striped RAID 0, a RAID 1 array of n+1 disks could conceivably perform as a single disk with multiple heads, since a RAID 1 of n+1 has n+1 worth of independent head stacks, all reading identical data. (Also in the interest of pedantry, n is 1 or greater, since otherwise it is perfectly possible to create a RAID 1 consisting of a single disk with none of this potential, even though it is neither redundant nor an array.)
Except that that's not true in the case that the grandparent post described where you have a stream bring written at close to the maximum physical transfer rate of the disk, then you want to read that same stream from the beginning while you continue to write to it.
With two heads on the same disk, this should be possible, one head is busy writing, the other head is busy reading, with little seeking going on for either head and the full bandwidth of each head is available for each of the concurrent streams.
B
Re: (Score:2)
RAID1 requires n+n drives, not n+n. RAID5 is n+1, RAID6 is n+2.
All HW raid solutions except RAID0 has serious performance degradation, even most of the time HW RAID0 gives marginal benefit.
SW raid (Linux) RAID0 gives *almost* linear performance scale upto 4 drives at least. RAID10 in Linux works in a sane way vs. HW RAID10, it actually gives almost same performance benefits as RAID0, while offering the mirrored redundancy.
RAID1, RAID5, RAID6 in simplified terms could offer better performance than single dri
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid the limitation is cost, few people are willing to pay twice the price for same capacity...on obsolete technology. There were few CD-ROM drives that used multiple lasers, then DVD came in and the projects didn't return their own cost. So far the bus was always not fast enough to guarantee doubling the speed of the fastest drives.
If you want faster HDD, get SSD.
And as for home mods, 1) the precisions involved are out of reach of any non-professional, 2) just think about writing the firmware to run
Re: (Score:2)
what's to stop me from just putting an additional set of heads and control electronics on the other side of the disk
Err, the engineering difficulty involved? But, you know, if you can just install an additional set of heads and controllers on a hard drive then I guess you've got the prize money in the bag!
Re:Fizzzzzzttt (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe that's what they mean.
"If you can get anything off our 500 GB drive in the next hour, we'll give you $10K."
Re: (Score:2)
I think they are referring to things like we used to do. change a crystal, perhaps a cap or two and add a bigger heat sink, not re-engineer the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can almost certainly overvolt an electric motor, unless it's already at it's peak RPM rating. Especially true with brushless.
I would bet the motors used in HDDs would run fine for years even at 36V, assuming they are 12V. Thus tripling the RPM rating. Just avoid stopping & starting the platters often (highest peak of power used). Question is can platters do it. HDDs are meant to work for years upon years, so they should be working at rather low end of their potential capability, in terms of wear