If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Seagate ST32000542AS & ST31500541AS -- specs
Looking at Table 1 on page 10 of the following document, I see that
the 1.5TB and 2.0TB drives both have 4 platters and 8 heads, and identical data densities. Barracuda LP Series SATA Product Manual: http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100564361b.pdf In fact the only difference in the specs is the number of guaranteed sectors. Why wouldn't Seagate have used 3 platters and 6 heads? I considered the possibility that, for the same capacity, more platters means less cylinders, and therefore better average seek times, but this isn't reflected in the specs. Surely this isn't a yield issue? - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Seagate ST32000542AS & ST31500541AS -- specs
Franc Zabkar wrote:
Looking at Table 1 on page 10 of the following document, I see that the 1.5TB and 2.0TB drives both have 4 platters and 8 heads, and identical data densities. Clearly the 1.5TB drives are actually drives with one non viable platter. Thats the only way you can make those numbers fit, particularly the data densitys. Barracuda LP Series SATA Product Manual: http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100564361b.pdf In fact the only difference in the specs is the number of guaranteed sectors. Bet thats just not bothering to spell out the one non viable platter in the 1.5TB drives. Why wouldn't Seagate have used 3 platters and 6 heads? Presumably because they cant get 2TB that way currently. I considered the possibility that, for the same capacity, more platters means less cylinders, and therefore better average seek times, but this isn't reflected in the specs. Surely this isn't a yield issue? Bet it is. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Seagate ST32000542AS & ST31500541AS -- specs
Franc Zabkar wrote:
Looking at Table 1 on page 10 of the following document, I see that the 1.5TB and 2.0TB drives both have 4 platters and 8 heads, and identical data densities. Barracuda LP Series SATA Product Manual: http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100564361b.pdf In fact the only difference in the specs is the number of guaranteed sectors. Why wouldn't Seagate have used 3 platters and 6 heads? I considered the possibility that, for the same capacity, more platters means less cylinders, and therefore better average seek times, but this isn't reflected in the specs. Surely this isn't a yield issue? Why not? The 1.5TB model may just be a way to not have to scrap 2TB models that do not make the cut. Also, producing 2TB drives and limiting them to 1.5TB may be cheaper than having two assembly lines for 1.5TB and 2TB both. Would not be the first time... Arno |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Seagate ST32000542AS & ST31500541AS -- specs
On 7 Sep 2009 13:34:33 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed: Franc Zabkar wrote: Looking at Table 1 on page 10 of the following document, I see that the 1.5TB and 2.0TB drives both have 4 platters and 8 heads, and identical data densities. Barracuda LP Series SATA Product Manual: http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100564361b.pdf In fact the only difference in the specs is the number of guaranteed sectors. Why wouldn't Seagate have used 3 platters and 6 heads? I considered the possibility that, for the same capacity, more platters means less cylinders, and therefore better average seek times, but this isn't reflected in the specs. Surely this isn't a yield issue? Why not? The 1.5TB model may just be a way to not have to scrap 2TB models that do not make the cut. Also, producing 2TB drives and limiting them to 1.5TB may be cheaper than having two assembly lines for 1.5TB and 2TB both. Would not be the first time... Arno If Seagate is producing drives with 4 fully functional platters and then turning off 2 heads, why not take full advantage of the potential performance gains? Reducing the number of cylinders instead of turning off an entire platter would result in better average access times and higher average throughput (because the outer cylinders pack more data per revolution than the inner ones). - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Seagate ST32000542AS & ST31500541AS -- specs
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On 7 Sep 2009 13:34:33 GMT, Arno put finger to keyboard and composed: Franc Zabkar wrote: Looking at Table 1 on page 10 of the following document, I see that the 1.5TB and 2.0TB drives both have 4 platters and 8 heads, and identical data densities. Barracuda LP Series SATA Product Manual: http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100564361b.pdf In fact the only difference in the specs is the number of guaranteed sectors. Why wouldn't Seagate have used 3 platters and 6 heads? I considered the possibility that, for the same capacity, more platters means less cylinders, and therefore better average seek times, but this isn't reflected in the specs. Surely this isn't a yield issue? Why not? The 1.5TB model may just be a way to not have to scrap 2TB models that do not make the cut. Also, producing 2TB drives and limiting them to 1.5TB may be cheaper than having two assembly lines for 1.5TB and 2TB both. Would not be the first time... Arno If Seagate is producing drives with 4 fully functional platters and then turning off 2 heads, why not take full advantage of the potential performance gains? Reducing the number of cylinders instead of turning off an entire platter would result in better average access times and higher average throughput (because the outer cylinders pack more data per revolution than the inner ones). Because this would make the strategy obvious? And in addition, there is the yield question. Arno |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Seagate ST32000542AS & ST31500541AS -- specs
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On 7 Sep 2009 13:34:33 GMT, Arno put finger to keyboard and composed: Franc Zabkar wrote: Looking at Table 1 on page 10 of the following document, I see that the 1.5TB and 2.0TB drives both have 4 platters and 8 heads, and identical data densities. Barracuda LP Series SATA Product Manual: http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100564361b.pdf In fact the only difference in the specs is the number of guaranteed sectors. Why wouldn't Seagate have used 3 platters and 6 heads? I considered the possibility that, for the same capacity, more platters means less cylinders, and therefore better average seek times, but this isn't reflected in the specs. Surely this isn't a yield issue? Why not? The 1.5TB model may just be a way to not have to scrap 2TB models that do not make the cut. Also, producing 2TB drives and limiting them to 1.5TB may be cheaper than having two assembly lines for 1.5TB and 2TB both. Would not be the first time... Arno If Seagate is producing drives with 4 fully functional platters and then turning off 2 heads, why not take full advantage of the potential performance gains? Because its a lot harder to do and that particular market is entirely driven by price. Reducing the number of cylinders instead of turning off an entire platter would result in better average access times and higher average throughput (because the outer cylinders pack more data per revolution than the inner ones). And is a lot harder to do than just not using a couple of heads on the less than ideal platter. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Seagate ST32000542AS & ST31500541AS -- specs
On 10 Sep 2009 00:15:31 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed: Franc Zabkar wrote: If Seagate is producing drives with 4 fully functional platters and then turning off 2 heads, why not take full advantage of the potential performance gains? Reducing the number of cylinders instead of turning off an entire platter would result in better average access times and higher average throughput (because the outer cylinders pack more data per revolution than the inner ones). Because this would make the strategy obvious? And in addition, there is the yield question. I was wondering how WD's Raptor drives were achieving 8ms access times while their other models were getting only 14ms: http://www.hdtune.com/testresults.html#Western_Digital It seems that WD's 10K RPM drives had smaller 3.0" platters compared with the usual 3.25": http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/.../t-200923.html My calculations (for Fujitsu drives) suggest that the usable data area occupies a band of width 2.37 cm: http://groups.google.com/group/micro...3?dmode=source Assuming the reduced platter size results in a reduction of 6mm in the usable radius, then that equates to about 73%. That, and the reduced rotational latency, explains the faster access times. So, if WD got away with it, why couldn't Seagate? ;-) - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Seagate ST32000542AS & ST31500541AS -- specs
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On 10 Sep 2009 00:15:31 GMT, Arno put finger to keyboard and composed: Franc Zabkar wrote: If Seagate is producing drives with 4 fully functional platters and then turning off 2 heads, why not take full advantage of the potential performance gains? Reducing the number of cylinders instead of turning off an entire platter would result in better average access times and higher average throughput (because the outer cylinders pack more data per revolution than the inner ones). Because this would make the strategy obvious? And in addition, there is the yield question. I was wondering how WD's Raptor drives were achieving 8ms access times while their other models were getting only 14ms: http://www.hdtune.com/testresults.html#Western_Digital It seems that WD's 10K RPM drives had smaller 3.0" platters compared with the usual 3.25": http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/.../t-200923.html My calculations (for Fujitsu drives) suggest that the usable data area occupies a band of width 2.37 cm: http://groups.google.com/group/micro...3?dmode=source Assuming the reduced platter size results in a reduction of 6mm in the usable radius, then that equates to about 73%. That, and the reduced rotational latency, explains the faster access times. So, if WD got away with it, why couldn't Seagate? ;-) WD is (or used to be) the only HDD company without SCSI drives. Seagate does this in their SCSI models and you pay for it. Arno |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WD, Seagate Lack of USB drive specs | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 2 | December 20th 08 05:39 AM |
PC Specs | Mark[_12_] | Nvidia Videocards | 1 | December 10th 07 09:13 PM |
New cpu specs? | ***** charles | AMD x86-64 Processors | 3 | September 20th 06 11:37 PM |
Seagate 160mb SATA drive and Seagate DiscTools Problems - PLEASEREAD | Sgt_Wilson | Storage (alternative) | 3 | May 30th 04 04:53 PM |
Top Specs | Muttly | General | 2 | November 1st 03 02:29 AM |