sPECtre

New 500Gb Hitachi drives announced

Recommended Posts

Yuck.... 7K500 will be using 5 platters. They have the 125Gb platters as evident from T7K250 drive which uses only two platters, why not use four platters instead of five? So I'd rather stick with 400Gb Seagate which uses only three, should be much quieter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the specs of Deskstar T7K250:

250 GB (GB = 1 billion bytes, accessible capacity may be less)

843.2 Mb/s max. media data rate

8.5 ms average seek time

7,200 RPM, 4.17 ms average latency

ATA-100/Serial ATA 3.0 Gb/s

Smooth Stream Technology

25.4 mm in height

92 billion bits per square inch maximum areal density

2 aluminum platters

4 GMR recording heads

350 G (2ms) non-operating shock

5.2 watt idle power (Parallel ATA)

6.2 watt idle power (Serial ATA)

2.8 Bels typical idle acoustics

Fluid Dynamic Bearing (FDB) spindle motor

shipping 1Q05.....looks like I'll put that 7200.8 order on hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it also says that it will use SATA II.

I heard, (i dont know if it was here or on another forum) but that SATA II has ATAPI support (and i think thats that master , slave configuration thing... someone correct me if im wrong).

According to the specs, the 250GB version if much faster, quieter, and less power consuming than the 500GB version.

Why does the 250GB version use the 125GB platters but the 500GB versions use 100GB platters?!?!? *confused*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does the 250GB version use the 125GB platters but the 500GB versions use 100GB platters?!?!? *confused*

193657[/snapback]

Simple. It's easier to make higher areal densities work when you have fewer physical platters. I suspect the challenge of making five disks of 125 GB work was too daunting (or not economically-feasible, at any rate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how the different areal densities will affect STR rates? We could have a situation where the flagship is slower than the mid-sized drive in the line. Given SR's propensity to test just the flagship in a line, how well will the line be represented if the flagship is tested and is slower than the frigate (not the flagship, heh)?

FS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how the different areal densities will affect STR rates?  We could have a situation where the flagship is slower than the mid-sized drive in the line.  Given SR's propensity to test just the flagship in a line, how well will the line be represented if the flagship is tested and is slower than the frigate (not the flagship, heh)?

You mean the difference between the "T" and "not T" versions? If the "max media data rate" are any indication the difference will be about 3%?

I'm a bit confused as it says the 7K500 will use 16 Mb cache in the SATA version but it doesn't say what the cache will be in the TK250 (or have I missed something)

The "mikey" 1.0" (8-10Gb) sounds like it will be in the next version of Ipod Mini.... (Ssccchhhh *looks around nervously* do not repeat this or Apple will sue SR too ;) )

Interesting nonetheless... I would have bought the Maxtor Maxline III 250 or 300 gB if it was in the store this past monday... now this comes along to confuse me... damn!

Edited by Laglorden2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> while the Deskstar 7K80 rounds out the portfolio with an 80 GB offering, targeting the most popular capacity point.

Isn't that a bit small? I thought 160 gb was the most popular capacity? At least it's the sweet spot as far as capacity/price goes.

It's a shame there's no 300 - 375 gb unit, as now the max capacity of the line is 'stuck' at 250 gb like it's predecessor.

Edited by Olaf van der Spek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it also says that it will use SATA II.

I heard, (i dont know if it was here or on another forum) but that SATA II has ATAPI support (and i think thats that master , slave configuration thing... someone correct me if im wrong).

193657[/snapback]

SATA II does support more than one device per interface but ATAPI is something different. AT Attachment (=IDE, AT as in IBM AT) Packet Interface

ATAPI is used to allow packet devices to connect over ATA/IDE. Usually this means CD ROMs and DVD ROMs or burners.

What ATAPI support SATA II brings I don't know, can someone else fill us in?

Fairy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I like ATAPI support is simple: LESS CABLE CLUTTER INSIDE THE CASE

LESS CABLE CLUTTER INSIDE THE CASE = COOLER INTERNAL TEMPS

COOLER INTERNAL TEMPS = MORE RELIABLE HD's!!!

Besides, less cable clutter means that ur case will look better if u have a window and cold cathode in it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason I like ATAPI support is simple: LESS CABLE CLUTTER INSIDE THE CASE
Zip ties & fold your cables = problem solved. There's a few cable orgygami sites on the web too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What ATAPI support SATA II brings I don't know, can someone else fill us in?

Maybe optical drives with SATA connections? Haven't looked recently but I'm under the impression they still don't exist yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know at which price those 500GB disks will be selling? I am looking for huge and still cheap storage - even the currently available 400GB disks from both seagate and hitachi are a lot more expensive than say a 300GB maxtor DM10 (per GB that is).

regards

nicola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What ATAPI support SATA II brings I don't know, can someone else fill us in?

Maybe optical drives with SATA connections? Haven't looked recently but I'm under the impression they still don't exist yet?

193711[/snapback]

I've heard about Plextor burners with SATA1. AFAIK SATA1 is already able to supports ATAPI. Maybe in SATA2 support is required?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What ATAPI support SATA II brings I don't know, can someone else fill us in?

Maybe optical drives with SATA connections? Haven't looked recently but I'm under the impression they still don't exist yet?

193711[/snapback]

I've heard about Plextor burners with SATA1. AFAIK SATA1 is already able to supports ATAPI. Maybe in SATA2 support is required?

193716[/snapback]

The T7K250 will be a fast HDD targeted for OEM like Dell/HP... As they car be quieter than Maxtor, maybe cheaper but also faster.

The 7K80 is targeted for Low-End OEM while 7K500 is targeted for AV recorders.

I think Hitachi is less targeting direct consumers as before. There can be one reason multiple type of HDD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that a bit small? I thought 160 gb was the most popular capacity? At least it's the sweet spot as far as capacity/price goes.
Not for OEMs. Still lots of 40GB and 80GB demand out there from Dell, HP/Compaq, IBM, Acer, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason I like ATAPI support is simple: LESS CABLE CLUTTER INSIDE THE CASE
Zip ties & fold your cables = problem solved. There's a few cable orgygami sites on the web too.

193697[/snapback]

Yeah... that is true... BUT:

1) They aren't as flexible and bendible as REGULAR SATA cables

2) There's no need to zip tie any cables... heck! a small rubber band will do

3) With SATA II ATAPI, in theory 1 cable could be sufficient FOR ALL DRIVES!!!

4) Faster bandwitch that SATA I

IDE cables don't offer that advantage.

Why have spaghetti in your pc when you can have 1 small thin cable?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm disappointed that they are all, with the exception of the SATA version of the 7K500, 8MB cache drives. I was hoping more manufacturers would move to a 16MB cache size, or at least give consumers the option. Does it seem likely to anyone else that the highest capacity drives benefit from a large cache less than their lower capacity iterations because of the increased locality that the highest capacities offer?

I'm also a little disappointed by the fact that the 7K80 has slower seek times than the T7K250. I suppose that makes sense for a volume-oriented drive, but I am annoyed by the trend towards reducing the performance of the lowest capacity drives. I have far less use for performance on giant storage disks than I do on low capacity system disks.

As far as cable clutter goes JPWRana, SATA II allows splitters, but I don't believe you're going to see anything like a two-device single SATA cable (unless it has two discrete cables bundled inside it). That is, if by 'ATAPI' support you meant two-device, master-slave cables, which is what I have managed to gather from your posts. Personally, I have no regrets for the disappearance of the master-slave hierarchy. I never observed performance issues mixing hard drives, but I've had issues when optical devices snuck onto the cable. Too few optical manufacturers designed their devices to play nice on those cables.

SAS devices, however, can be daisy-chained, but that it is because they're using the good old SCSI protocol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm disappointed that they are all, with the exception of the SATA version of the 7K500, 8MB cache drives.  I was hoping more manufacturers would move to a 16MB cache size, or at least give consumers the option.  Does it seem likely to anyone else that the highest capacity drives benefit from a large cache less than their lower capacity iterations because of the increased locality that the highest capacities offer?

Shouldn't the cache size be irrelevant with proper NCQ support where the data can be send after the command, only when really needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't the cache size be irrelevant with proper NCQ support where the data can be send after the command, only when really needed?

193747[/snapback]

I never quite understood that either.

If your OS has a perfect virtual filesystem the latency incurred by going to main memory instead of ondrive cache should be negligible. And you could vary cache replacement algorithms for prefetch better with usage patterns.

Or?

With separate systems accessing the drive as permitted by sata2 this falls apart and a huge onboard cache would be the way to go of course.

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