Seagate AS vs. NS drives RRS feed

  • Question


    Seagate has 2 lines for 1TB drives:


    1. AS - Desktop version
    2. NS - Enterprise version


    I had assumed that the NS version was the better drive of course (it cost more must be better!)


    and then I was reading on another forum about the NS drive that it does more read/write checks and is slower overall.


    Does anyone want to wiegh in on this?


    I would like to migrate to all 1TB drives in my WHS Smile


    Thanks in advance..



    Monday, January 14, 2008 6:25 PM

All replies

  • I have the exact same question and trying to find what's better about the NS drives with regards to WHS. From what I recall reading they are the enterprise class drives and I assume from that are less prone to errors and problems but not sure if that holds true. Will reply again if i find out more.




    Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:14 PM
  • I have a similar issue with the naming conventions of Seagate drives.


    All I really remember is that drives marked with ES or ES.2 are enterprise and thus NS models.



    Bjorn3d.com did a review of both types, AS and NS for their newest 7200.11 Terabyte drives and ES.2.


    Here is the AS (desktop drive, 7200.11) review: http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1180

    Here is the NS (enterprise drive, ES.2) review: http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1181


    From what I gather, they are similar, though enterprise NS drives are meant for be running 24/7.

    Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:33 AM
  • From what I can tell the ES drives are enterprise level and NS drives are for large server systems. Neither is recommended for desktop users due to lower performance. The AS drives are both faster and a bit cheaper and recommended for use in desktop systems, including WHS.


    Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:26 PM
  • How would you define large server systems?


    I have 4 TB of data I store and 8 PC's connected to WHS .. I know this is not big like most corporate networks..but it is  more storage then any of my clients have hehe


    I am more concerned about relaiablity then performance ..i just dont want to lose my data.. so to me if the NS class drive is slower but will last loger/better then that sounds like the drive for me.


    However it is an NS drive that keeps coming up with the unhealthy flag.. go figure all the AS ones i have are fine Sad


    As always I apprecaite your input greatly. Smile


    Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:47 PM
  • FWIW, I'd like to relate my success with a Seagate ST31000528AS (7200.12). It runs 20 degrees (F) cooler than other drives in my WHS. Right now it's 96.8 F. It's been a pleasure to work with meaning no unpleasant surprises at all. I didn't know it would run cooler than similar Seagate drives.
    Other drives in my system are ST3300822AS (7200.9) and ST3500418AS (7200.12).
    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:08 AM