Comments on: What Is The Secret To Efficient Hard Disk Drives? http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/08/25/efficient-disk-drives/ Understanding the accumulation of data Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:58:00 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: DeepStorage http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/08/25/efficient-disk-drives/comment-page-1/#comment-14039 DeepStorage Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:47:05 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=2227#comment-14039 We should all remember that faster rotational speeds are more about speeding random I/O where you have on average 1/2 a rotation to wait for your data after each head movement than sequential I/O. Since the apps we're likely to use 1.5TB or larger drives in are more sequential (OK dedupe breaks that somewhat) than random 5400RPM probably isn't much of a performance hit.<br><br>Now I have to test. Calling WD.<br><br> - Howard We should all remember that faster rotational speeds are more about speeding random I/O where you have on average 1/2 a rotation to wait for your data after each head movement than sequential I/O. Since the apps we're likely to use 1.5TB or larger drives in are more sequential (OK dedupe breaks that somewhat) than random 5400RPM probably isn't much of a performance hit.

Now I have to test. Calling WD.

– Howard

]]> By: DeepStorage http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/08/25/efficient-disk-drives/comment-page-1/#comment-13600 DeepStorage Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:47:05 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=2227#comment-13600 We should all remember that faster rotational speeds are more about speeding random I/O where you have on average 1/2 a rotation to wait for your data after each head movement than sequential I/O. Since the apps we're likely to use 1.5TB or larger drives in are more sequential (OK dedupe breaks that somewhat) than random 5400RPM probably isn't much of a performance hit.<br><br>Now I have to test. Calling WD.<br><br> - Howard We should all remember that faster rotational speeds are more about speeding random I/O where you have on average 1/2 a rotation to wait for your data after each head movement than sequential I/O. Since the apps we're likely to use 1.5TB or larger drives in are more sequential (OK dedupe breaks that somewhat) than random 5400RPM probably isn't much of a performance hit.

Now I have to test. Calling WD.

– Howard

]]> By: knobunc http://blog.fosketts.net/2009/08/25/efficient-disk-drives/comment-page-1/#comment-13594 knobunc Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:02:57 +0000 http://blog.fosketts.net/?p=2227#comment-13594 Thanks for an interesting look into current drive tech, I learned a few things about the state of the art.<br><br>However, I don't see the differences between the drives. They all appear to have made pretty much the same design choice: Keep the speed down so that they can use higher density platters and consume less power. What am I missing?<br><br>Thanks,<br>-ben Thanks for an interesting look into current drive tech, I learned a few things about the state of the art.

However, I don't see the differences between the drives. They all appear to have made pretty much the same design choice: Keep the speed down so that they can use higher density platters and consume less power. What am I missing?

Thanks,
-ben

]]>