Seagates new batch

[otispunkmeyer]

15,000 rpm and 300gb

nice


http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/04/18/seagate_perpendicular_drive/

 

[Sqube]

Interesting, but no immediate ramifications on the desktop market.

I'm waiting with baited breath for the desktop drives to come out and be reviewed so we can see what kind of real-world improvements Seagate can get from these drives.

 

[FreshPrince]

um...do all the drives have to sit in perpendicular format? that would suck for any server thinner than 4U.

also, 300GB 15K...it's about time!

I'm tired of paying so much for 300GB 10K scsi, bleh!

also the increased areal density is a load of crap...they already make 300GB 10K scsi drives...why would it be different with 15K drives?


otho, this would effectively double the emc cx100 to 4.2TB running at 15K

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
um...do all the drives have to sit in perpendicular format? that would suck for any server thinner than 4U.

also, 300GB 15K...it's about time!

I'm tired of paying so much for 300GB 10K scsi, bleh!

also the increased areal density is a load of crap...they already make 300GB 10K scsi drives...why would it be different with 15K drives?


otho, this would effectively double the emc cx100 to 4.2TB running at 15K

Er I think the term perpendicular refers to the way the drive reads and writes...

 

[GrammatonJP]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
um...do all the drives have to sit in perpendicular format? that would suck for any server thinner than 4U.

Its perpendicular recording, the drive still sits flat if you want to, does not affect mounting

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: GrammatonJP

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
um...do all the drives have to sit in perpendicular format? that would suck for any server thinner than 4U.

Its perpendicular recording, the drive still sits flat if you want to, does not affect mounting

OK!

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
also the increased areal density is a load of crap...they already make 300GB 10K scsi drives...why would it be different with 15K drives?


otho, this would effectively double the emc cx100 to 4.2TB running at 15K

I think (and may well be wrong on this) that the 15K discs are physically smaller than the 10K ones, something to do with centripetal force.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
um...do all the drives have to sit in perpendicular format? that would suck for any server thinner than 4U.

Even worse, think how much space this would take for a RAID 5 array.

Drive 2 perpendicular to Drive 1, which is perpendicular to Drive 0. It'd be a veritable staircase of hard drives!

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
um...do all the drives have to sit in perpendicular format? that would suck for any server thinner than 4U.

also, 300GB 15K...it's about time!

I'm tired of paying so much for 300GB 10K scsi, bleh!

also the increased areal density is a load of crap...they already make 300GB 10K scsi drives...why would it be different with 15K drives?


otho, this would effectively double the emc cx100 to 4.2TB running at 15K

Uhh... perpendicular refers to the orientation of the bits on the platter, not the physical orientation of the drive.

The article clearly states that the Cheetah 15k.5 doubles the platter capacity of the previous generation 15k drive, just like every previous generation 15k release. It says nothing about any other type of drive. That said, as Bobthelost mentioned above, 15k drives use smaller platters than 10k (~2.6" vs 3"), so having the same capacity of current generation 10k means 15k has a higher areal density.

125MB/s is mighty impressive, and would be the first mechanical drive to break the 100MB/s barrier. Too bad it's Seagate making the announcement. By the time the drive actually makes it to market, 2 or 3 other companies will probably have already reached the market with superior products, Duke Nukem Forever will have been released, the conflict in Iraq will be over, and the secret to how the cream filling gets into a Twinkie will have been revealed to an astonished public.

 

[PhoenixOrion]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
um...do all the drives have to sit in perpendicular format? that would suck for any server thinner than 4U.

Even worse, think how much space this would take for a RAID 5 array.

Drive 2 perpendicular to Drive 1, which is perpendicular to Drive 0. It'd be a veritable staircase of hard drives!

QFT.

.....gave me a good laugh though, thanks.