Sign in to follow this  
Guest Eugene

Seagate Cheetah 10K.7

Recommended Posts

Guest Eugene

Seagate's seventh-generation 10,000 RPM Cheetah will be its last as the firm prepares to try and guide the industry to a smaller 2.5" form factor. What kind of sunset does the Cheetah 10K.7 leave behind? Join StorageReview as we take a look at the final version of a true classic!

Seagate Cheetah 10K.7 Review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, what is going on with the Design team. Why are the new Seagate drives lacking on performance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...

Benchmarks across the board for the latest drives aren't looking too hot, at least not with SR's tests and testbed. Does anyone have any other benchmarks to look at-- e.g. from Tech Report or anyone?

Time to wait for Atlas 10k V results. Looks like I may pull the trigger on an older 10K.6 if I can still get them new and cheap (enough) for another data storage drive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Eugene is hoping/expecting that forthcoming drives will prove more worthy of the award. After all, "Safe Buy" is a relative thing, and if (for example) the new Maxtor drives don't suffer the shortcomings of their Seagate counterparts, and someone was looking for which drive SR recommends, it wouldn't help to have awarded both brands a Safe Buy award.

Of course, Eugene can answer your question best, SCSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't get it. how can the performance of a 10K rpm drive with avg access time of 8 ms be the same as that of a 7.2K rpm drive with avg access time of 13.7 ms???

Single User SR Office DriveMark 2002:

  • 8.0 ms, 73 GB, 8 MB buffer, Cheetah 10K.7 ($186 street) = 407
  • 13.7 ms, 250 GB, 8 MB buffer, Maxtor MaXLine Plus II ATA-133 ($94 street) = 407

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a mechanically slower drive with the same cache size can match or exceed the performance of a faster SCSI drive, the most likely culprit is firmware.

SCSI drives have firmware which is optimised for the highly random workloads a typical fileserver will see, as several users simultaneously work on files in different parts of the disk.

ATA drives typically have firmware which is optimised for the highly localised workloads that single user applications such as office, gaming and content creation produce. This would be a disadvantage in server use (as the drive would waste time reading ahead when the next access would probably be miles away), butr in single user tasks, this firmware can give ATA drives a significant advantage over SCSI drives. Sometimes, this will be enough to overcome the mechanical advantage that the SCSI drive has.

That's why the Raptor 150 or 7K500 can beat a 15K SCSI drive in some single user tasks, and that is why the 10K SCSI drive you compared wasn't as good at single user tasks as a mechanically slower drive with more suitable firmware optimisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this