The verdict
The benchmarks performed showed very mixed results. The claims found on the internet, however, have been confirmed. The AAK disk does have a much lower throughput rate than the AAE disk. While firmware can tune various aspects of performance it is highly unusual for it to affect sequential throughput. The STR is pretty much a 'fact' of the disk, and should not be affected by different firmware.
However, the AAK disk managed to win some of the applications profile benchmarks. After performing those benchmarks and gathering the results, i suspected the AAK disk to be optimized for non-sequential I/O, for example by limiting the read-ahead and write-buffering. Yet, when running the actual applications benchmarks (page 5) the AAK disk couldn't keep up, sometimes showing huge differences.
Why does AAK exist?
One theory might be that the AAK firmware is optimized for server-type I/O instead, causing it to perform less at usual desktop tasks. Without any response from Seagate, though, this cannot be confirmed.
AAK: good or bad?
If our theory is correct, the drives should never have reached regular consumers through retail channels. Customers buy the 7200.10 after reading or hearing it performs excellent, but when they come home and run tests they are disappointed by its performance. The altered STR characteristics are simply inexcusable. Also, relying on our stopwatch benchmarks (page 5) to be correct, AAK disks provide lower performance to home users and common tasks where waiting time is based solely on hard drive performance.
Damage has been done
Regardless of the question whether AAK-drives actually perform less than AAE, the fact that reports on the internet were filed claiming that this was the case withheld consumers to buy the product. Instead they went looking for a competitive product. In other words - the damage had already been done.
Now that the claims have largely been confirmed by quite thorough testing, the damage could spread and Seagate might lose an even bigger portion of their sales to their competitors in an already very competitive market. The retail market is very sensitive to articles found on the web. If reports are filed and confirmed that some Seagate disks offer bad performance, customers will simply choose a product of the competitors. After all, the storage market is pretty fierce and both prices and specifications are not that much different between the competing brands. What were they thinking?!
Psychology
Many people are motivated to buy quality products by an emotional feeling about their product. They buy something believing it is fast and of high quality. It doesn't really matter if that is actually the case, but we get a good feeling believing it is! Consumerism is all about psychology. How could Seagate have forgot that?
The benchmarks performed showed very mixed results. The claims found on the internet, however, have been confirmed. The AAK disk does have a much lower throughput rate than the AAE disk. While firmware can tune various aspects of performance it is highly unusual for it to affect sequential throughput. The STR is pretty much a 'fact' of the disk, and should not be affected by different firmware.
However, the AAK disk managed to win some of the applications profile benchmarks. After performing those benchmarks and gathering the results, i suspected the AAK disk to be optimized for non-sequential I/O, for example by limiting the read-ahead and write-buffering. Yet, when running the actual applications benchmarks (page 5) the AAK disk couldn't keep up, sometimes showing huge differences.
Why does AAK exist?
One theory might be that the AAK firmware is optimized for server-type I/O instead, causing it to perform less at usual desktop tasks. Without any response from Seagate, though, this cannot be confirmed.
AAK: good or bad?
If our theory is correct, the drives should never have reached regular consumers through retail channels. Customers buy the 7200.10 after reading or hearing it performs excellent, but when they come home and run tests they are disappointed by its performance. The altered STR characteristics are simply inexcusable. Also, relying on our stopwatch benchmarks (page 5) to be correct, AAK disks provide lower performance to home users and common tasks where waiting time is based solely on hard drive performance.
Damage has been done
Regardless of the question whether AAK-drives actually perform less than AAE, the fact that reports on the internet were filed claiming that this was the case withheld consumers to buy the product. Instead they went looking for a competitive product. In other words - the damage had already been done.
Now that the claims have largely been confirmed by quite thorough testing, the damage could spread and Seagate might lose an even bigger portion of their sales to their competitors in an already very competitive market. The retail market is very sensitive to articles found on the web. If reports are filed and confirmed that some Seagate disks offer bad performance, customers will simply choose a product of the competitors. After all, the storage market is pretty fierce and both prices and specifications are not that much different between the competing brands. What were they thinking?!
Psychology
Many people are motivated to buy quality products by an emotional feeling about their product. They buy something believing it is fast and of high quality. It doesn't really matter if that is actually the case, but we get a good feeling believing it is! Consumerism is all about psychology. How could Seagate have forgot that?
| Page 1: Introduction | Page 5: Benchmarks (actual performance) |
| Page 2: Test setup | Page 6: Seagate's response |
| Page 3: Benchmarks (throughput) | Page 7: Conclusions |
| Page 4: Benchmarks (application) |
execution time: 110 msec, queries: 18
