Samsung 1.5 TB drive

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:18:30 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Obviously you didn't fill it will data. 1.5TB weighs 36g.

I zero-filled it.

BTW I've determined (by comparing the known weights of coins against
the scale reading) that my scales overestimate by 2.7%, so the actual
difference is even greater.

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
.. .

Out of curiosity I've weighed the spindle motor (46g), voice coil
actuator (22g) and one platter (14g) out of an unknown IDE drive, so
I'm wondering where the weight difference comes from.

Incidentally, a Seagate model ST3320620A HD that is specified to weigh
635g, on average, weighs only 596g on my scales, so I'm wondering if
this 40g variation is genuine or whether it reflects an inaccuracy in
my scales. If it is genuine, then I can't see where it is coming from.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On 22 Mar 2009 19:45:56 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed:

jdkki wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote
On 21 Mar 2009 21:26:55 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

I'm wondering why Samsung is not yet offering a 2TB drive. Seagate's
ST31500341AS 1.5TB drive appears to have 4 platters, so it stands to
reason that Samsung should be able to fit 4 x 500GB platters in the
same form factor. Instead of playing catch-up, Samsung could be
taking the lead ???

Maybe Samsung (being a large engineering enterprise with expertise
in many fields) is more concerned about reliability than taking
the lead? They can afford it. And when you look at the recent
bad press Seagate had, maybe not being there first has its
advantages. In addition, Samsung HDDs have a reputation of
being very quiet and low-poer. That could be difficult with
4 platters.

Actually WD have already released a 2TB drive with 4 platters:
http://www.wdc.com/en/library/sata/2879-701229.pdf (March 2009
brochure)

Strangely the WD20EADS (2TB) and WD15EADS (1.5TB) models both
have the same acoustic specs, same weight, and same power specs.

Nothing strange about it, likely the 1.5TB drives are
drives with one platter not viable and so not used.

I notice that some Seagate [embedded servo] models have an odd number
of heads. Assuming that the WD15EADS has a dud platter, then why
discard the entire platter if one surface is still OK? Why not market
a 1.75TB drive in this case?

Even the 500GB model has the same acoustics.

No reason why the number of platters should make any
difference to the acoustics if the same rotation motor is used.

The motor makes practically no sound. Sound sources (during
non-seek) is air turbulences caused by the platters and
vibration from the platters not being exactly centerd. Both
go up with more platters.

Arno

So why isn't there a corresponding difference in the WD specs?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Franc Zabkar wrote:

I zero-filled it.

Zeroes weigh more than ones -- unless they're filled with helium.

Franc Zabkar wrote:
On 22 Mar 2009 19:45:56 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed:

jdkki wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote
On 21 Mar 2009 21:26:55 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

I'm wondering why Samsung is not yet offering a 2TB drive. Seagate's
ST31500341AS 1.5TB drive appears to have 4 platters, so it stands to
reason that Samsung should be able to fit 4 x 500GB platters in the
same form factor. Instead of playing catch-up, Samsung could be
taking the lead ???

Maybe Samsung (being a large engineering enterprise with expertise
in many fields) is more concerned about reliability than taking
the lead? They can afford it. And when you look at the recent
bad press Seagate had, maybe not being there first has its
advantages. In addition, Samsung HDDs have a reputation of
being very quiet and low-poer. That could be difficult with
4 platters.

Actually WD have already released a 2TB drive with 4 platters:
http://www.wdc.com/en/library/sata/2879-701229.pdf (March 2009
brochure)

Strangely the WD20EADS (2TB) and WD15EADS (1.5TB) models both
have the same acoustic specs, same weight, and same power specs.

Nothing strange about it, likely the 1.5TB drives are
drives with one platter not viable and so not used.

I notice that some Seagate [embedded servo] models have an odd number
of heads. Assuming that the WD15EADS has a dud platter, then why
discard the entire platter if one surface is still OK? Why not market
a 1.75TB drive in this case?

Even the 500GB model has the same acoustics.

No reason why the number of platters should make any
difference to the acoustics if the same rotation motor is used.

The motor makes practically no sound. Sound sources (during
non-seek) is air turbulences caused by the platters and
vibration from the platters not being exactly centerd. Both
go up with more platters.

Arno

So why isn't there a corresponding difference in the WD specs?

Indeed. I have seen this before with other drive families. One
thing is that the specs do not all have to be exact. Maybe they
just measured the worst one and then gave the same number to the
others.

Anyways, drieve noise specs are often quide different from what
the drive noise really is. One reason a really thorough HDD review
includes measurements for that. Power specs are often not the
full story as well.

I think it is basically sloppy measurement or no measurement of
specs that most customers never look at.

Arno

Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:18:30 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Obviously you didn't fill it will data. 1.5TB weighs 36g.

I zero-filled it.

Ah, less entropy, less weight!

Seriously, the difference is too small to be measurable. And
modern encodung puts about the same number of 0 and 1 on the
platters anyways, regardless of what data you write.

BTW I've determined (by comparing the known weights of coins against
the scale reading) that my scales overestimate by 2.7%, so the actual
difference is even greater.

Lets just say that a lot of HDD specs are stated with large
tolerances (i.e. sloppy measurements and/or sloppy manufacturing).

Arno


"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
. ..

Out of curiosity I've weighed the spindle motor (46g), voice coil
actuator (22g) and one platter (14g) out of an unknown IDE drive, so
I'm wondering where the weight difference comes from.

Incidentally, a Seagate model ST3320620A HD that is specified to weigh
635g, on average, weighs only 596g on my scales, so I'm wondering if
this 40g variation is genuine or whether it reflects an inaccuracy in
my scales. If it is genuine, then I can't see where it is coming from.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Arno wrote:
jdkki wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote
On 21 Mar 2009 21:26:55 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

I'm wondering why Samsung is not yet offering a 2TB drive.
Seagate's ST31500341AS 1.5TB drive appears to have 4 platters, so
it stands to reason that Samsung should be able to fit 4 x 500GB
platters in the same form factor. Instead of playing catch-up,
Samsung could be taking the lead ???

Maybe Samsung (being a large engineering enterprise with expertise
in many fields) is more concerned about reliability than taking
the lead? They can afford it. And when you look at the recent
bad press Seagate had, maybe not being there first has its
advantages. In addition, Samsung HDDs have a reputation of
being very quiet and low-poer. That could be difficult with
4 platters.

Actually WD have already released a 2TB drive with 4 platters:
http://www.wdc.com/en/library/sata/2879-701229.pdf (March 2009
brochure)

Strangely the WD20EADS (2TB) and WD15EADS (1.5TB) models both
have the same acoustic specs, same weight, and same power specs.

Nothing strange about it, likely the 1.5TB drives are
drives with one platter not viable and so not used.

Even the 500GB model has the same acoustics.

No reason why the number of platters should make any
difference to the acoustics if the same rotation motor is used.

The motor makes practically no sound.

Wrong, as always.

Sound sources (during non-seek) is air turbulences caused by the platters

Wrong, as always.

and vibration from the platters not being exactly centerd.

Wrong, as always.

Both go up with more platters.

Wrong, as always.

Franc Zabkar wrote:
On 22 Mar 2009 19:45:56 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed:

jdkki wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote
On 21 Mar 2009 21:26:55 GMT, Arno put finger to
keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

I'm wondering why Samsung is not yet offering a 2TB drive.
Seagate's ST31500341AS 1.5TB drive appears to have 4 platters,
so it stands to reason that Samsung should be able to fit 4 x
500GB platters in the same form factor. Instead of playing
catch-up, Samsung could be taking the lead ???

Maybe Samsung (being a large engineering enterprise with expertise
in many fields) is more concerned about reliability than taking
the lead? They can afford it. And when you look at the recent
bad press Seagate had, maybe not being there first has its
advantages. In addition, Samsung HDDs have a reputation of
being very quiet and low-poer. That could be difficult with
4 platters.

Actually WD have already released a 2TB drive with 4 platters:
http://www.wdc.com/en/library/sata/2879-701229.pdf (March 2009
brochure)

Strangely the WD20EADS (2TB) and WD15EADS (1.5TB) models both
have the same acoustic specs, same weight, and same power specs.

Nothing strange about it, likely the 1.5TB drives are
drives with one platter not viable and so not used.

I notice that some Seagate [embedded servo] models have an odd number of heads.

Yes.

Assuming that the WD15EADS has a dud platter, then
why discard the entire platter if one surface is still OK?
Why not market a 1.75TB drive in this case?

You get too many models with a 3 platter drive.

Even the 500GB model has the same acoustics.

No reason why the number of platters should make any
difference to the acoustics if the same rotation motor is used.

The motor makes practically no sound. Sound sources (during
non-seek) is air turbulences caused by the platters and
vibration from the platters not being exactly centerd. Both
go up with more platters.

So why isn't there a corresponding difference in the WD specs?

Because he's just plain wrong.

Arno wrote:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

"Eric Gisin" wrote:

Obviously you didn't fill it will data. 1.5TB weighs 36g.

8)

I zero-filled it.

Ah, less entropy, less weight!

Seriously, the difference is too small to be measurable.

Really? Are you sure, Arno? 8/

Eric Gisin wrote:

Obviously you didn't fill it will data. 1.5TB weighs 36g.

What I'm wondering is how the centrifugal force doesn't spin all that
data right off the platters!

chrisv wrote:
Arno wrote:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

"Eric Gisin" wrote:

Obviously you didn't fill it will data. 1.5TB weighs 36g.

8)

I zero-filled it.

Ah, less entropy, less weight!

Seriously, the difference is too small to be measurable.

Really? Are you sure, Arno? 8/

The interesting thing is that it actually does make
a difference :-)

Arno