Posted 21 November 2004 - 03:15 PM
The Fujitsu MAS3735 has held the distinction as the "world's fastest drive" for nearly two years. As a result, expectations run high for the MAS's successor, the 147-gigabyte Fujitsu MAU3147. Join StorageReview as we examine how the MAU rates when compared to drives such as its predecessor and Seagate's new Cheetah 15K.4.
Fujitsu MAU3147 Review
If you would like to remove this advertisement, please register.
Posted 21 November 2004 - 04:43 PM
Those are some good number for single user workstation environment.
At last Fujitsu created a real exciting drive to save for: 146GB at 15K, I only imagine the cost; probably a bit more that a couple of bottles of Dom, and a lap dance.
Posted 21 November 2004 - 06:53 PM
These are my thoughts, on the loss of performance on the server side? Comments are welcome.
Since the intro of the Raptor, SCSI in general has taken a backward step on the desktop market. Could we be seeing the first evidence that manufacturers are trying to back back the workstation/desktop market from the Raptor? And since many corporations are sold on SCSI for servers, equal or slightly lower performance on the SCSI isn't going to be noticed by the larger corporate market, given that the newer models have a higher density. Lets face it, how many techs (in general) would understand the lower workings of their RAID setups, or even what drives are being used in their setups?
By re-enforcing SCSI superiority in the desktop field, also shows that SCSI is the only option for servers... (the PHB effect). So sales are NOT going to be lost on the corporate server market, by this move...
By showing that SCSI is still the best option for workstations, many companies won't switch from SCSI to Raptors on their next upgrades, saving lost sales to WDC and the Raptor.
Also I've been looking into many NAS boxes (for a future upgrade at work), and more and more models are utilising hotswap SATA drives instead on SCSI becuase of price/GB ratios. Also most NAS's focus on capacity rather than performance, esp when bottlenecked by either 100Mb or 1Gb LAN.
I'll now take off my tin-foil hat, and let the comments roll in...
Posted 21 November 2004 - 07:44 PM
Thanks as always for the nice reviews, Eugene. Just one correction that I could find:
"Even with segmentation settings switched to the default, server-oriented mode, however, the 15K.4's multi-user scores actually retreated from the levels set by the older 73-gigabyte flagships."
I think if you erase the first word, it would read better.
Posted 21 November 2004 - 09:06 PM
However, even with segmentation settings switched to the default "server-oriented mode", the 15K.4's multi-user scores actually retreated from the levels obtained by the older 73-gigabyte flagships."
My work here is done.
Great Scott! What is that! Sentence fragment on Tech Report! This looks like a job for CityK! Up, Up and awwaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy......
1 User(s) are reading this topic