Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Seagate Claims 2.5" SCSI Drive is World's Fastest

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the like-a-supersonic-record dept.

218

theraindog writes "Seagate has announced a 2.5" SCSI hard drive that spins at an astounding 15,000RPM. The Savvio 15K is the first 2.5" hard drive with a 15K-RPM spindle speed, but what's more interesting is that Seagate claims it's the fastest hard drive on the market. Indeed, the drive boasts an impressive 2.9ms seek time, which is more than half a millisecond quicker than that of comparable 3.5" SCSI drives. The Savvio 15K also features perpendicular recording technology and a claimed Mean Time Between Failures of 1.6 million hours."

cancel ×

218 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

laptop use? (1)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648682)

would this work in a laptop, or would it just get too hot? has anyone seen the operating temp spec?

Re:laptop use? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648712)

How many laptops do you know of that use a SCSI interface?

Re:laptop use? (2, Informative)

Beer_Smurf (700116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649228)

Re:laptop use? (2, Funny)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649356)

I'm not sure Serial Attached SCSI is going to work in your Duo/PowerBook 100 series. Kickass as they were, adding a disk drive designed and manufactured twelve years after the last Duo was already discontinued isn't going to help you put off that Mac Book purchase for any longer.

(And yes, I know about the PowerBook 150 and it's IDE drive. Shut up.)

Re:laptop use? (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648784)

Generally speaking, Seagate's Savvio line of HDDs are intended for server and enterprise storage (read: SAN/NAS) use, not for laptop use. 2.5" hard drives are particularly useful in some compact storage arrays or in blade servers. They probably consume wayyyy to much power for your average laptop. Also, most laptops don't feature SCSI storage. Most use IDE or SATA. It's possible that Seagate could, in the future, come out with a SATA version of this drive, but I don't think it's likely given the power consumption and heat characteristics of 15K RPM drives. Seagates laptop drives don't even break 7.2K.

What about for professional use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17650092)

You know, like the laptop I lug around in the field for a little more demanding applications than word processing or the like? Since SAS is back-compatible with SATA it makes sense to go SAS in mid to high end portables (hello Apple). If Apple added SAS to their current MacBook*, my life would be orders of magnitude easier.

* The MacBook "Pro" should be renamed Poseur. Quick swap HDD and i965 for the win ;-)

Re:laptop use? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648862)

It will get hot. It uses lots of power. It only comes in SCSI. It is for small form factor servers like blades with well engineered cooling systems. These are latop drives in size only.

I've also seen these 2.5" server drives used in cluster heads and RAID/SAN/NAS boxes as the OS boot disk. You can easily fit 16 regular 3.5 disks plus one of these, a slimline CD/DVD and floppy in a 4U case.

Re:laptop use? (1)

NSIM (953498) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649060)

Two problems: 1. It will be considerably hotter and more power hungry than standard laptop drives that spin at roughly 1/3rd of the speed. 2. It has a SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) interface which you don't find in laptops. So, no, you can't stick one in a laptop

Re:laptop use? (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649428)

I think the intended application is blade servers. Some blade designs put a disk on the blade itself, so they use 2.5" drives. They're usually designed with good cooling systems and power supplies, so the fact that you can probably cook eggs on it isn't so much of a concern.

It ought to be fairly simple for Seagate to produce the same drive in an IDE or SATA model, by replacing the controller, using the same physical structure and technology, if there's a demand for this in high end "desktop replacement" notebooks...but I don't see it happening.

Breaking the bottleneck (4, Interesting)

cpearson (809811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648708)

They just keep chipping away at that Von Neumann bottleneck [wikipedia.org] .

http://vistahelpforum.com/ [vistahelpforum.com]

Re:Breaking the bottleneck (4, Funny)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648762)

The term "von Neumann bottleneck" was coined by John Backus in his 1977 ACM Turing award lecture. According to Backus: "Surely there must be a less primitive way of making big changes in the store than by pushing vast numbers of words back and forth through the von Neumann bottleneck. Not only is this tube a literal bottleneck for the data traffic a problem, but, more importantly, it is an intellectual bottleneck that has kept us tied to word-at-a-time thinking instead of encouraging us to think in terms of the larger conceptual units of the task at hand.

So that's where Ted Stephens got his analogy. I had no idea he was such a fan of the Turing awards.

Re:Breaking the bottleneck (2, Informative)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648972)

In less [georgetown.edu] than two years [ntt.co.jp] , magnetic storage will sit aside vacuum tubes and punch cards in the Computing wing at Smithsonian.

wow (1, Informative)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648760)

and a claimed Mean Time Between Failures of 1.6 million hours.

Thats 182 years.

Re:wow (3, Informative)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648882)

Before you think that this means it has a lifetime of 182 years: this is not the case. The definition of MTBF is not related to lifetime.

Re:wow (1)

backwardMechanic (959818) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649040)

For something that isn't repairable, surely they are related? Lifetime = alpha * MTBF, where alpha is some number less than one? Or are you thinking that the curve is rather broad?

Re:wow (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650184)

For something that isn't repairable, surely they are related? Lifetime = alpha * MTBF, where alpha is some number less than one?
It's a common misconception that MTBF is related to lifetime. In fact they are separate parameters.

Failure rates of electronic and other components are usually modelled as a "bathtub". In this model, there is an initial high rate of failures, which rapidly drops off. This is the "infant mortality" period. Then there is a period where there is a low rate of random failures. MTBF refers to the failure rate during this period. Finally, the failure rate increases as the device reaches end of life. In other words, wearout.

So, as you can see, end of life is related to wear functions, while MTBF is related only to random failures during the device's normal life expectancy.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649330)


however it it calculated I think it's optimistic at best and bollocks at worst. how can anyone make such a claim without either doing hundreds of years of testing, or just combining other theoretical mtbf figures for the component parts?

take with 1.6 million grains of salt?

Re:wow (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649584)

There's this process called extrapolation. It's not perfect, but it'll get the job done.

Basically, you test, say, 1000 hard drives for 2 years and you find:

1 fails in the first 8 months...
1 fails in the next 4 months...
1 fails in the next 2 months...
1 fails in the next 1 month...

even after the first two or three you can expect a mean failure time of 15.5 months. This however does take into assumption a bell shaped probability curve. With enough evidence they should be able to know the shape of the drive-failure-probability curve.

you can follow the pattern to determine

Re:wow (1)

mike2R (721965) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649362)

Before you think that this means it has a lifetime of 182 years: this is not the case. The definition of MTBF is not related to lifetime.

I don't suppose you'd care to explain that a little? I've always assumed Mean Time Between Failure to be what you got if you took a bunch of drives, ran them until they broke, added up the amount of time they worked for and divided by the number of drives. Which would equate to drive lifetime in my book. Am I missing something? 182 years does seem completely insane..

Re:wow (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649580)

That means if you have 200 of these bad boys in your data center, on the average one of them will fail every year.

Re:wow (1)

mike2R (721965) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649722)

Ah, some light begins to dawn. So it's run a number of drives for a set period of time, after this period of time add up the number of hours all the drives have run for and divide by the number of failed drives?

Makes sense, and the comment MTBF != drive lifetime becomes comprehensible, thanks!

Re:wow (4, Informative)

norton_I (64015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649806)

MTBF is only defined within the drives expected life (something like 3 or 5 years). So, if you take 182 drives, you expect about 5 of them to die within 5 years, even if all of them die within 10 years.

Re:wow (1)

mike2R (721965) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649900)

Thanks. I've been wondering for a while why MTBF never figures much in consumer marketing/reviews of drives, it now makes a lot more sense.

Re:wow (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650106)

As also explained by others, it is an average failure rate figure. It does not tell you how long it will take for one drive to fail, but it tells you how many of your drives will fail when you have a large number of them in use.

Re:wow (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649544)

You guys are making MTBF calculations more complicated than they have to be. With a 182 year MTBF, if you have 182 drives then on average you can expect to replace one the first year.

Which means with my 400 desktops with this drive, I will expect to have to replace 3 a year. So if I bought a batch of these drives, I would order 409 to put in each of 400 desktops and with three extras for each for the three years I expect to use them for a total of 400+3*3=409. It's simple.

Re:wow (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649646)

Don't get too excited. They're being sold in relatively small capacities of 36 and 73GB. The reason for this is that any large business wants maximum throughput from the disks - and the way you do this is by spreading the data across as many disks as you can, usually in a RAID5. Who cares if you've only got 73GB/disk capacity when you'll probably stick a dozen of them in a server and get 730GB capacity (losing one as parity and reserving one as a hotspare)?

The upshot of this is it's quite reasonable to expect a large server room to have hundreds of disks. 182 years MTBF and 360 disks means you can expect about two failures per year.

1.6 million hours? (1)

huckda (398277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648766)

divide that by 24...and you get 66666.66667....

definitely looks fishy to me

Re:1.6 million hours? (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648994)

There's only one important question - what's the manufacturer's warrantee?
That's them putting their money where their mouth is - everything else is just lies, damned lies, and manufacturer-selected statistics.

FatPhil

Re:1.6 million hours? (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649126)

It's seizegate, so the warranty is five years [crn.com] .

SAS is a little disappointing (1)

robosmurf (33876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648794)

I know that this drive is supposed to be a server one, but I'm still disappointed that the SAS standard is not properly compatible with SATA.

SAS is pretty similar to SATA in physical connections, and most SAS cards support having SATA drives plugged into them. Sadly it doesn't work the other way around: you can't plug a SAS drive into a SATA connector.

It's a pity that they didn't sort this out, as drives like this would be nice for workstation users looking for a little speed boost.

Of course, it looks like these kind of low-capacity / high-speed drives are about to be overtaken by the even faster flash based drives coming out.

Re:SAS is a little disappointing (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649026)

I'm using a pair of those 10k rpm SATA drives on my audio/video workstation and they're pretty quick. I tried a RAID array of regular SCSI 15k drives and there wasn't enough difference for me to notice. I saw it on the benchmarks, but it wasn't enough to make me want to switch.

SAS is about more than speed (2, Informative)

tppublic (899574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649798)

You don't see a reason to switch, because the benefits of SAS are in reliability, not in speed. The mechanism inside an enterprise drive is different than that in a consumer drive, and you can see that in the reliability specs and the warranty periods. Given that most consumer data really isn't mission critical (as much as people claim it is), RAID 1 SATA drives are sufficient.

Seagate Research presented a good technical article [usenix.org] on SCSI vs. SATA back in 2003. Much of this is still relevant today (though it's SAS vs. SATA)

Re:SAS is a little disappointing (4, Informative)

ErMaC (131019) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649728)

SAS is not designed to be used by a SATA controller. If you wanted your cheapo SATA controller to work with SAS drives, it wouldn't be a cheapo controller. The difference between SAS and SATA is that SAS uses SCSI as its command language, which requires a whole different set of logic on the controller end.
If you're a workstation user looking for a speed boost, then you use SCSI or SAS drives with a proper controller like workstations have since 1990.

And Flash drives have almost no chance of penetration in the server market, which is where this drive is being targeted (not at Laptop or Workstation users). Don't let the 2.5" form factor make you think it's for laptops, it's for high density servers or blades.

Re:SAS is a little disappointing (1)

evilbessie (873633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650070)

Um SATA is forward compatible to SAS, so you can use a SATA drive on a SAS connection. This implies that the SAS controller can 'speak' SATA which should be fairly easy to implement. Whilst having a SAS drive (SCSI instruction set drive with a SATA type connector) speak both SAS and SATA would put too much electronics on these drives (you are only going to buy SAS drives if you really need them as they are much more expensive, but you may have SAS connectors you wish to use on your motherboard).

If you really want to use SAS drives on a SATA controller you are a complete weirdo. You lose all the benifits of the SCSI instruction set whilst paying for the complete lack of any features not already available on cheaper SATA drives. Maybe a slightly better manufacturing quality, but then if you don't back up your data you will be sorry sooner or later.

So the added expense is making the SAS controller on the motherboard understand SATA command set; (and the SCSI command set) so that you can use cheap drives on a motherboard with SAS drives, useful for non-mission critical machines; is not much compared with the overall cost of the motherboard.

Rather than have SAS drives support SATA as you are only likely to buy these (you'd be really dumb otherwise) if you need the benifits of SAS, ie. the SCSI command set.

Example: 500GB SATA 300 £125; 146GB SAS £435 or 36GB SAS £126.

You are basically saying you should use >5x more expensive disks should be used when you lose all benifits of paying so much.

And anyway most of the modern workstations i've seen recently have contained at least some SAS connectors, if you don't have them and you have the money to waste on SAS drives go buy yourself one.

And anyway a SAS controller card is only about £200 so it's no worse than getting one more SAS drive.

Re:SAS is a little disappointing (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650074)

Some enlightenment for you.

If you look inside an SCSI,SAS,SATA or even plain old ATA you will not notice anything different physicaly at all. They all have the same haeds and platters.

ATA drives are far simpler to implement because everything is at the interface layer. There is no command queueing, there is not 16 levels of drive negotiation or anything like that happening. Remember the SCSI spec is for anything, hard drives, CD-ROMS, Tape drives, printers, you name it!

The ATA controler was extremely simple AND inexpensive to implement because it could only have TWO devides MAX and one was always the master, and if it died your slave drive was nowhere to be seen!

In terms of raw performance, there is no longer a big difference between drives, bascialy the data bus is the bottle neck. Where the difference begins to really show is when you put these things in a server and when you do that, SCSI or SAS just rips ATA or SATA a new one. The SCSI command set and interface logic was designed from the ground up to handle massive amounts of simultanious read and write requests. When your server is handling file and print requests for say, 300 people and hosting a database engine the system really needs to offload things to the SCSI controller. So the write commend is sent, along with the data block to the controller and the NOS can simply forget about it and move on to service the next disk request, since SCSI will start sending back error reports if something goes wrong with a particualr command.

That is the big difference. That is why SCSI or SAS is so much more expensive then ATA. They have tried to make ATA raids but not many people use them in servers, because they are more complex the SCSI raids and less robust.

Can you hook a SATA drive to a SAS controller, I have never seen it but i will take your word for it. You can buy a dual ported SATA controller at CompUSA for pretty cheep. The adaptec web site lists the Adaptec RAID 1220SA SATA controller for $75.00, 2 SATA ports, 2 drives, RAID levels 0 and 1.

SCSI or SAS RAID controllers start at around $400. bucks.

What's so astounding about 15k rpm? (2, Informative)

Pegasus (13291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648798)

I have 15k rpm disks in production since ... 2002 I think. The poster should mention data per actuator figure from TFA, because that is what really matters.

Re:What's so astounding about 15k rpm? (3, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649074)

You have 2.5" 15k RPM disks in production since 2002? Who are you? And how were you able to make such bitchin' hard drives in your mother's basement?

Re:What's so astounding about 15k rpm? (3, Interesting)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649238)

I guess what's new is the 2.5'' form factor. Smaller drives should be generally faster due to increased density, but they get a bad reputation from laptop drives with really low RPM.

Re:What's so astounding about 15k rpm? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649454)

I think the main idea is that you can hypothetically install more drives per rack or greater flexibility in the design of devices that need high performance drives. The 3.5" high RPM drives basically use smaller platters anyway, so it's not too much of a stretch to put them in a smaller enclosure, but there may have been concerns about miniaturizing other parts of the drive and still maintaining the enterprise-level reliability.

I think the show-stopper here is that the drive stated capacities are still small, there do exist 150GB 15k drives but these are half that.

Nice, but not big news. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17648802)

They've had 15K RPM SCSI drives for years and years. This is no big deal.

By only using a 2.5" drive rather than 3.5 of course the average seek time is lower, because the read head doesn't have the extra 1" to cover. This is at the expense of all that extra storage area.

You could get just about as high an average seek if you partitioned up a 3.5" 15K drive and only kept data on the inner partition.

It's nice that they have these, but it's really not that super special. Why is this front page news?

BTW, your laptop is going to need some serious cooling to use this, as 15K drives do get rather warm.

Re:Nice, but not big news. (2, Insightful)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649574)

>> By only using a 2.5" drive rather than 3.5 of course the average
>> seek time is lower, because the read head doesn't have the
>> extra 1" to cover.

it's even more trivial than you paint. The 2.5 and 3.5 numbers
represent diameter, but the head only travels on one side of
the disk so to it the difference is only 0.5 inch as far as it
is concerned.

Re:Nice, but not big news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649780)

The fact that these drives are 2.5" doesn't mean they are meant for laptops. They would be more useful in a storage server. The smaller size means more drives to fit in the box. Given the same amount of space, you can fit more smaller drives than larger drives. The area of "wasted space" that you mention can be made up with more drives. The question of whether this is more cost effective will not be answered in this post as it was not originally discussed.

Re:Nice, but not big news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17650176)

By only using a 2.5" drive rather than 3.5 of course the average seek time is lower, because the read head doesn't have the extra 1" to cover. This is at the expense of all that extra storage area.
In fact, looks like they've already figured that out [seagate.com]
I wonder if this new one is actually 1,8" inch drive inside 2.5" casing..

Re:Nice, but not big news. (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650300)

It's news because it's supposedly the fastest platter based disk yet, and because it's the first major development in 2.5" disks in several years; in that time they've grown rather popular in servers, as seen in Sun's range of Opterons for example.

This now makes the form factor even more competitive in IO-sensitive applications, and I dare say Slashdot has enough users interested in such a thing to warrant a FPP.

News For Nerdz: Stuff That DOESN'T Matter +3 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17648816)


While AL-QAEDA [huffingtonpost.com] occupies the White House [whitehouse.org] .

Seagate said; Sanyo said, IBM said, and so on and so forth.

Patriotically as always,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

If you're so damned concerned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17648960)

...why are you here?

Go fuck yourself, spammer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17650274)

Nobody click that link. "Kilgore Trout" regularly spams here, and going to his website will only encourage him to continue.

Moving disks are old SSD is in (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648826)

I do not understand why large companies like Seagate are not jumping on the bandwagon for SSD. http://www.pqi.com.tw/news_1.asp?ID=1444 [pqi.com.tw]

SSD is the big hit right now. No moving parts increased redundancy no seek time. It wont be long before these things start outperforming typical moving disks. I wouldn't be suprised if they don't do that already. The price on the SSD are high but not redonkulous.

Re:Moving disks are old SSD is in (2, Insightful)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649280)

You do realize that the SSD you reference is based on flash, right? If you look carefully, you will find that no vendors list write seek times or write IOPS for such devices. The reason is that the performance is just plain awful.

RAM based SSD is nice, but flash based SSD won't touch a decent 15k drive for any write heavy application.

Re:Moving disks are old SSD is in (3, Informative)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649764)

You do realize that the SSD you reference is based on flash, right? If you look carefully, you will find that no vendors list write seek times or write IOPS for such devices. The reason is that the performance is just plain awful.

RAM based SSD is nice, but flash based SSD won't touch a decent 15k drive for any write heavy application.


The reason "seek time" isn't listed for SSD devices is the same reason dynamic RAM manufacturers don't list "seek time" in their device specifications, namely, it doesn't apply. In storage device parlance "seek time" refers to the time it takes for the drive head to reach the target data on a rotating disk. Read the (ahem) authoritative Wikipedia article here [wikipedia.org] .

Furthermore, the recently announce flash-based SSD's from Samsung and SanDisk have file access times far superior to any rotating disk-based storage device. However, it is true that the dynamic RAM-based devices have access times that are approximately 10 times faster than the flash-based devices, but the flash based devices have file acces times typically much more than 10 times faster than a disk drive's seek time. For reference, see the SanDisk press release [sandisk.com] for their SSD device.

Re:Moving disks are old SSD is in (1)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650198)

Yes, seek time is no longer the proper term for it, but people use it. IOPS is the relevant measure, and as I have said, they do not list write IOPS. Read IOPS for the recent SanDisk SSD announced was 7000; this is much better than spinning media, but still pretty bad for SSD. Write IOPS are much worse, and they won't even list that.

In any case, the difference between flash and RAM SSD is far more than 10x.

I must have ordered from the future!!!! (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648836)

... becuase last week I ordered a server from HP with 2.5" 15k drives HP [hp.com] .

Re:I must have ordered from the future!!!! (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648884)

Opps, ignore me. I didn't realize they were talking about old SCSI. Mine are SAS (serial attached SCSI).

Finally, an upgrade for my beloved powerbook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17648848)

Awesome. I've been looking for a replacement for my 180c. Now if only I can get around the 14MB RAM limit, I'll be set up.

Re:Finally, an upgrade for my beloved powerbook (1)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649638)

Now if only I can get around the 14MB RAM limit, I'll be set up.

Well, there's also the 40-minute battery life to be contend with...but nothing beats that 8.4" Toshiba active matrix display!

How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (2, Interesting)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648856)

I don't know about you, but every single Seagate HDD I've tested, both brand new and used give a lot of seek errors way above the SMART margin if you run SpinRite 6.0. I've experienced Seagate HDDs simply failing because of too many logged seek/ECC errors and Windows will freeze as it initially loads. I have never seen this type of perfomance with Samsung, WD, Fujitsu (SCSI) and Hitachi HDDs. Sure, not all hard drives are perfect but in my experience, Seagates have always given me problems to the point where I simply don't recommend them anymore.

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649008)

You're a fool for believing anything that comes from Steve Gibson.

http://grcsucks.com/spinrite.htm [grcsucks.com]

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (1)

mungtor (306258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649084)

Everybody has stories like this. I have no problems with my Seagate drives, but I wouldn't put anything on a WD drive. Sure, it will be fast for 3 months until you lose it all. With most manufacturers it comes down to a particular model being a bit flaky, although all WD drives suck.

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (2, Interesting)

D4rk Fx (862399) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649382)

I've only had 2 of more than 12 WD drives die; one was because it fell while running from more than 8 feet off the ground, the other was insufficient cooling. I've had 5 of 6 Maxtors die, and I'm 4/4 with IBM drives deaths. 0/4 for Seagate, but they are my most recent acquisition.

You're right, everyone has stories. I have 2 4 drive WD arrays that have been around for 3 and 2 years, no failures there. But I wouldn't trust any data to an IBM or a Maxtor drive.

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (2, Insightful)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649708)

And the flip side, I've owned close to 2 dozen IBM Deskstar drives (mostly 72-80GB). No more then a handful died before their warranty period expired.

Most of those deaths were directly related to heat issues (poor cooling or poor airflow). Some were undetermined cause.

From my experience over the past decade, heat is the #1 killer. Some makes / models are better at dealing with 50C+ temperatures then others. Maxtors seemed to be a bit sensitive to anything above 50C (and Maxtor drives were a real PITA to RMA, IBM RMAs were a simple click-click-click on a web form prior to send it back).

Nowadays, I simply plan for failure (RAID1 across 3 drives or RAID10 w/ hot-spare) along with backups. I try to keep drives at or below 40C and I keep enough airflow across them that their operating them doesn't change by more then 5C between idle/active.

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (2, Insightful)

D4rk Fx (862399) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649950)

I completely agree that heat is the #1 killer. Yes, drives will run hot, but they will last a lot longer if they run cool. Last I checked, none of the drives I run now were hotter than 30C. I haven't had any significant drive deaths in a few years. I had one that seemed like it had firmware issues, as it would just stop responding on occasion, but would be fine when the power was re-applied.
On a side note, the hard disk in my laptop thinks that the Min/Max temps it's seen while operating is 52C/65528C. Now why the manufacturer would have used an unsigned 16 bit integer to track temperature escapes me...
KEEP YOUR DRIVES COOL, PEOPLE!

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (1)

Yewbert (708667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649998)

My personal and professional experience tend to align more with this. I've personally had at least three Maxtors die *very* prematurely (the first time, a SATA, losing me a fair amount of data in the process) out of maybe four or five that I've ever bought. One WD death out of maybe half a dozen, and so far, 0 Seagate deaths out of what must be approaching 20. I tentatively think Maxtors may be more sensitive to overheating than other brands, 'cos the circumstances in most of these drive deaths included sub-optimal ventilation.

At work (one of my several hats is 'workstation support' in a department with around 300 specialized workstations [this dept only - company-wide, there are probably tens of thousands of desktops/workstations/laptops with hardware equivalent to store-bought builds, not to mention hundreds of monstrous servers]), it's become a running joke to the point that when a workstation in the field has a hard drive failure, we practically write the trouble ticket up as "Maxtor failure."

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649860)

I've had a few Seagate die on me for various reasons like cooling, etc, but I would have trusted them in the past. I've had no issues with WD. I still have one that has been running since 2000 without an issue. Maxtors have always crapped out on me. I've had to return the same model twice now.

With Seagate buying Maxtor, the line will be blurred. I would hope that Seagate would bring Maxtor's quality up but I'm afraid it is the other way around.

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649168)

if i said "every maxtor i ever tested gave me seek errors"

and then came to the conclusion that all maxtors must be bad.

people would think i'm a huge moron.

think about that.

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649196)

Why do you post the same comment all the time whenever the word Seagate comes up? Are you mentally ill? Did you know that Spinrite sucks ass? Or are you some sort of paid commentator to try to praise Spinrite and ridicule Seagate? Please, just die.

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (1)

Slaimus (697294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649672)

I have seen very high seek error rates reported by SMART as well for Seagate drives. However, I have not seem them affect anything in terms of reliability.

Maybe Seagate just uses uses a different metric for measuring seek error rate that results in higher raw numbers.

Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (1)

fatphil (181876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649882)

Name a time when Seagate was ever involved in a scandel like the Hitachi deathstar/troublestar one.

I will never buy a Hitachi or Hitachi rebrand. My data is just too valuable to risk it to a company that can produce things with a ~30% failure rate. (Though from personal experience, it feels more like 50-60%, as I've had 3 fail on me.)

Omission from TFA (4, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648890)

The laptop holding the drive was itself spinning at 5000 RPM to achieve this figure, which makes it slightly difficult to use.

Re:Omission from TFA (3, Funny)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649030)

Spinning your computer equipments that fast would cause serious damage to components. It would not work anymore, and using it would be virtually impossible.

I think it is implausible that it was really spinning as fast as you say.

the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (4, Interesting)

dgerman (78602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648926)

This is insane. The edge of the plate travels 3km a minute:

2.5 inches diameter => ~20cm perimeter at 15k RPMs => 3km/Minute => 50m/s => 180 km/hr.

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (1)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649124)

Somehow, this is the most interesting and unique response to the article I've seen.

That is really fast. So, now use your mad math skills, how fast would it travel if it was 3.5 inches in diameter?

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649712)

Linerally proportional?

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (1)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649170)

What about the hard drives in the laptops of passengers on commercial airplanes? I would think that some of those travel in upwards of 800km/hr during flight.

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (5, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649324)

For the metrically challenged among us, 180km/hr is 12025769.5 rods per fortnight, or really, really fast.

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (0)

imaginieus (897756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649752)

Or 112 mph for those of us in this century.

And centripetal acceleration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649442)

Centripetal acceleration of 8000G at the edge of the disk. Did I calculate that correctly!?!?!

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (1)

Spezzer (101371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649444)

Math may be slightly wrong on my part but...

2.5in is about 6.35 cm, so it's actually closer to 32cm perimeter, which roughly is about 4.8 km/m or 80m/s.

But also keep in mind that the outer edge of a 3.5in plate spinning at 7200rpm is about 4.4km/m or 73m/s, so it's not that surprising.

In fact, the 3.5in 10000RPM raptors edge spins at about 110m/s.

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (2, Interesting)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649598)

That's nothing; in terms of rotating things, flywheel batteries [wikipedia.org] are much more interesting. They have achieved a velocity of 2km/s at the edge. (about Mach 6)

Take a look at http://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/04_96.2.pdf [llnl.gov]

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649762)

It also doubles as a cockpit anti-terrorism unit. When the pilot is attacked from behind he ducks and pops off the side of these babies... WHAMMO!! Flying blades of death!! Actually who cares that they can store data ... wiping out terrorists is the important thing!

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (1)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649908)

This is insane. The edge of the plate travels 3km a minute:

Well, it certainly is fast for such a small platter, but I recall servicing the old HP7906 removable platter disks back in the early '80s. During one of our moments of boredom, we did the math, and came up with a figure somewhere around 170mph on the outer edge of the disk. Granted, those platters were huge in comparison. I tried to find some specs, but had no luck in my five min. search.

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649922)

Don't the magnetic bits get really really dizzy spinning that fast? What keeps them from flying off or chucking their cookies?

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (1)

J.R. Random (801334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649978)

At the rim of the platter there's nearly 8,000 g's of centripedal acceleration. I wonder if the engineers have to take into account the gradual stretching out of the disk.

The math: 1.25" radius = .03175 m.
15,000 rpm = 250 cps = 1,570.796 radians / sec.
acceleration = r * omega^2 = .03175 * (1570.796)^2 = 78,339.98 m / s^2.
1 g = 9.8 m/s^2, so acceleration = 7994 g's.

Re:the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17650024)

The edge of the disc feels an acceleration of about 8000 G.

Really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17648966)

cough, cough (seagate) cough.

But, about that noise? (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649138)

2.5 and 15K?

That sucker must screech like your ex-wife one day after your alimony payment was due.

Re:But, about that noise? (1)

Intocabile (532593) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649378)

I would imagine a drive with such a high mean time before failure is quieter by design.

Re:But, about that noise? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649850)

Right now I'm sitting in a room with 40 Seagate 3.5" 15k RPM drives. The noise isn't that bad. I can still hear the heads move over the rotation noise. Of course in a few months when the bearings start going, then they'll start screetching like hell. I'm dreading that because when the bearings in the 7,200 RPM Seagates we replace with the 15k ones started failing I couldn't hear to talk on the phone. I'm sure it's going to be worse with the 15k ones.

Re:But, about that noise? (1)

keilun (771946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649984)

If you goto the link in the article, which leads you to their review of the Savvio 15k, you'll notice a noise comparison on page 12:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/seagate-savvi o/index.x?pg=12 [techreport.com]

Re:But, about that noise? (1)

J.R. Random (801334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650102)

Actually, that review is dated October 15, 2004 and is for the 10k Savvio. So I don't think it tells us anything about the noise level of the 15k Savvio.

Why the low capacity? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649456)

The drives are 36GB or 73GB. This seems to be a standard size for SCSI, but SATA 2.5" drives have capacities in excess of twice that. Can anyone explain to me why SCSI drives always seem to be lagging IDE in terms of capacity? Does the increased rotational speed make them unable to discern smaller features on the disk?

Re:Why the low capacity? (2, Insightful)

D4rk Fx (862399) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649554)

The increased rotational speeds dictate that they must use smaller diameter platters, or risk the platters exploding because of the increased centripetal forces exerted.

Re:Why the low capacity? (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649772)

Can anyone explain to me why SCSI drives always seem to be lagging IDE in terms of capacity? Does the increased rotational speed make them unable to discern smaller features on the disk?

SCSI drives, while using a 3.5" form factor, use smaller platters inside so that they can spin at the higher rotational speeds. Thus, lower capacity. AFAIK, SCSI drives use the same bit density per square unit of linear measure as SATA/PATA drives.

Re:Why the low capacity? (1)

tppublic (899574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649888)

Because SCSI and SAS are not about density. See the Seagate Research paper in my other post [slashdot.org] .

Re:Why the low capacity? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650124)

The people buying SCSI drives are going to be attaching them as part of a honking great array. The biggest concern is speed, and you get that by spreading the data across as many drives as you can.

73GB doesn't sound so bad when you multiply it by 12 for the number of disks you plan to use.

15k rpm -- old, OLD news (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17649714)

Putting it in a 2.5" package is pretty cool, but there have been 15k rpm 3.5" drives since the early '90's, as far as I recall. My desktop Dell has one. Here's a review of three popular ones [xbitlabs.com] . And, for the record, the edge velocity on a 3.5" is considerably higher than a 2.5" for the same rpm.
Correct me if I'm wrong here: 3.5" x 3.14 = 11 cm circumference, *15,000 = 1.6E5 cm/min, /100 = 1.6E3 m/min, *60 = 98910 km/hour.

Re:15k rpm -- old, OLD news (1)

tppublic (899574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650094)

Well, you're half right. The chassis is 2.5" or 3.5"... the platters are not. SCSI drives generally use smaller platters than SATA drives. Seagate's Cheetah X15 15,000 RPM drive is a 2.5" platter in a 3.5" chassis.

Re:15k rpm -- 2000 actually (1)

tppublic (899574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650158)

Forgot to say the first 15K drive was 2000... an article [storagereview.com] with the dates and speeds.

Re:15k rpm -- old, OLD news (1)

lagfest (959022) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650152)

I hope you don't work for NASA.

In addition the units, note that 3.5" is the size of the drive, and not the disk itself. and for 15k drives, the difference is substantial.

Re:15k rpm -- old, OLD news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17650232)

You went from meters to kilometers without dividing by 1000.

Speed (1)

certel (849946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650128)

Zoom zoom zoom! I've never been a fan of SCSI, but then again, I've never used it on any personal PC. Some opinion.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?