• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why are EIDE HDDs limited to 7200RPM?

LOL @ Paulson


Heat is a major problem. So is manufacturing specs. SCSI specs are very tight in order to allow up to 15K RPM's, where as IDE is considered a low cost consumer interface, and thus cost is a major factor. There's quite a few more, but those are the main ones.
 
The primary reason is probably because they don't want IDE to get too close in performance to SCSI.

SCSI has definite advantages such has superior command queing etc. which would always keep it far ahead in the server area even assuming the specs were identical, but for the average home desktop system SCSI's higher command overhead would let an IDE drive at 10K RPM come dangerously close in performance to entry level 10K RPM SCSI drives.

Heat is also a definite factor, but many of the more recent 10K RPM SCSI drives arent terribly hot anymore... IDE could manage 10K RPM I'm sure... it's have higher heat and power consumption then current drives but not enough to put it out of limits of the average high end home desktop system
 
Because IDE sucks, and why bother giving it the good stuff? Pinto for you, poor boy.

And, I am being serious. IDE is not as good as SCSI. It can't take as many drives, it can't go as fast, and it cant access multiple devices at once. Not to mention that it isn't a bus like SCSI, all (both..) devices share a controller. SCSI can handle 15K drives because it can take enough of them to saturate a bus, a couple 7200's on IDE will get near maxing it out. Unless you really believe that you'll get 100MB/s off of ATA 100...
 


<< they are not.. i think manufacturers don't think there is market for them right now. i beg to differ >>



Oh I'm sure their well aware there is a market for 10K RPM IDE. But their not about to sacrifice the extra cash they can charge people for their 10K SCSI units by releasing 10K IDE drives.
 
i would expect that when 15krpm drives become the scsi standard, the ide'ers out there will get their 10krpm drives.
 


<< Zach... i hope yo don't think you are getting 160MB/s off a single SCSI drive...

Josh >>



As long as you don't think you're getting 100MB/s off a single IDE drive.

The reason for the need to have 160MB/s for a SCSI setup is that those are very often large RAID arrays & you can have tons of SCSI drives on the same cable.
 
I believe the sun workstations we have on campus have 10k IDE drives custom made. Mmm 1 ghz non x86 proc, 1 gig ram, 21 inch trinitron flatscreen.
 


<< believe the sun workstations we have on campus have 10k IDE drives custom made >>



If you ever here they are trying to sell them!

I don't care if EIDE is poor at coping with mutliple deviced per channel! That is why I only use 1 on each cable. I'd be up for getting a 10k EIDE drive or even a 15k one. Mainly so I can get lower seek times. Not too bothered about the transfer rate.
 
I don't care if EIDE is poor at coping with mutliple deviced per channel!

No, what was said is that IDE doesn't allow simultaneous access of more than one device per controller. Unless you also have seperate controller for each drive (like can be the case on many systems with integrated RAID controller), the drives don't transfer data simultaneously even if they're connected to different ports.
 
TunaBoo, Sun doesn't have 1 GHz SPARC's out there yet.

The fastest they're shipping right now is the 900 MHz US-III available in the SunFire servers and the Blade 1000 workstation, which ships with 10k FC-AL disks.

Anyways, the only Sun's that come with IDE disks are the Ultra5/10 and Blade 100, and they come with 5400/7200 RPM disks respectively.
 
"i think manufacturers don't think there is market for them right now. i beg to differ"

Both Maxtor and Seagate have stated on the record that they do not see a market for 10k IDE drives. Maxtor went on as far to say that they do not expect to see them until late next year. To drive manufacturers, you, 10 of your best friends, and some other random people on message boards is not a market. A market to them is IBM, HP, Compaq and other large OEM companies that will purchase allotments of 10's of thousands of units. The cutthroat market that is IDE drives cannot afford to cater to the enthusiast and continue to stay in business. If you want top of the line performance, you already have that option with SCSI.
 
Because they're too scared to admit that IDE is catching up to SCSI! The IDE interface is just as fast as U160 SCSI in non-RAID configurations. The performance advantage with Single SCSI is all in 10k and 15k drives. The latest SCSI interfaces (U160 namely), are no faster than earlier SCSI interfaces in non-RAID configurations. will allways have it's place in RAID, but IDE if it just had 10k RPM, oh that would be the day. It doesn't suprise me to see that Maxtor has said that there isn't a market for 10k IDE. heck, OEM's still use 5400's in systems. Really though I think that somebody has got to step forward and make a 10k IDE drive. u are right that Heat and noise is an issue, but as Rand said, it isn't out of reaches of an Average High End system.
 


<< No, what was said is that IDE doesn't allow simultaneous access of more than one device per controller. Unless you also have seperate controller for each drive (like can be the case on many systems with integrated RAID controller), the drives don't transfer data simultaneously even if they're connected to different ports. >>



So copying from two different hard disks on different channels but the same controller would be slower than if the each had there own controller? Hmmm. SCSI is starting to look better.

Not too bothered about the noise of the a 1ok HDD. More concerened about a quiet CPU cooler for my next CPU😉
 
Its not that IDE is 'LIMITED' to 7200 but that the drive mfgrs have elected to not provide them with higher spin speeds (or seek speeds or MTBF's for that matter). Faster spins and seeks require better and more expensive components like motors, read channels and servos. The mfgrs are putting the 'good stuff' in SCSI drives because those drives cost more and they can make more money there. Lower spin speeds do allow IDE drives to be higher in capacity though (bigger diameter media and lower data frequencies).
 


<< Zach... i hope yo don't think you are getting 160MB/s off a single SCSI drive...

Josh >>



You'll get closer, if not just because of the fact that SCSI is a bus and IDE isn't. I didn't feel like looking up enough information to back myself up so I stopped where I stopped. 🙂
 
I would like to see a 8500 rpm drive then At least a small amount of performance improvment. 😀

 
I wonder what SerialATA will do to this situation. Is anyone looking seriously at this to give SCSI something to second-guess itself?

-SUO
 
SCSIRAID



<< Lower spin speeds do allow IDE drives to be higher in capacity >>


I think that answers most of my question. Most people who buy EIDE drives want capacity. SCSI buyers want speed, reliablity, etc.



<< Its not that IDE is 'LIMITED' to 7200 >>


Sorry. I ment my choice was limited.

Thx all
 
There are discussions about creating a SATA drive 'class' with SCSI like attributes. Expect its costs to be more like SCSI than IDE though. No commitments though.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top