Seagate's 300 GB 10kRPM SCSI Lineup Making Quiet Debut

[Dïscfärm]

US$1,370.43
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=698105


ST3300007LC CHEETAH 10K.7/300GB/U320/10KRPM/80PIN/895Mbit/3MS/8MB. AU$2206.85
http://www.briscomputers.com.au/Category/SCSI hard disc.htm


ST3300007LC, 300gb 80-pin £call
ST3300007LW, 300gb 68-pin £call
http://www.hamiltone.co.uk/HARD_DISC_DRIVES.htm



=======================[ 10K.7 FAMILY ]=============================

ST3300007LC Cheetah 10K.7 300 GB Ultra320 SCSI 10000 rpm 4.7 ms avg 1-inch
ST3300007LW Cheetah 10K.7 300 GB Ultra320 SCSI 10000 rpm 4.7 ms avg 1-inch
ST3300007FC Cheetah 10K.7 300 GB Fibre Channel 10000 rpm 4.7 ms avg 1-inch
ST3146707LW Cheetah 10K.7 146 GB Ultra320 SCSI 10000 rpm 4.7 ms avg 1-inch
ST3146707LC Cheetah 10K.7 146 GB Ultra320 SCSI 10000 rpm 4.7 ms avg 1-inch
ST3146707FC Cheetah 10K.7 146 GB Fibre Channel 10000 rpm 4.7 ms avg 1-inch
ST373207LC Cheetah 10K.7 73 GB Ultra320 SCSI 10000 rpm 4.7 ms avg 1-inch
ST373207LW Cheetah 10K.7 73 GB Ultra320 SCSI 10000 rpm 4.7 ms avg 1-inch
ST373207FC Cheetah 10K.7 73 GB Fibre Channel 10000 rpm 4.7 ms avg 1-inch

http://www.seagate.com/products/discfamily/cheetah/listing/0,,4^4^332^351,00.html

 

[Dïscfärm]

Still no SAS-y ones... yet...

• grrrrrrrr......

 

[P5-133XL]

A bit spendy, but hey that is SCSI.

 

[Dïscfärm]

A bit spendy, but hey that is SCSI.

I wouldn't be surprised if the price was US$150 less for 300 GB in 20 days (i.e. -- 10K.6 marketplace deja vu all over again).

 

[RWIndiana]

I'm sure this is a really idiotic question deserving an idiotic answer, and not exactly on topic, but why are scuzzy drives odd sizes (as compared with typical ATA)?

 

[MaxBurn]

I'm sure this is a really idiotic question deserving an idiotic answer, and not exactly on topic, but why are scuzzy drives odd sizes (as compared with typical ATA)?

Different Track layout? How about the Raptor drives at 36 and 74.

 

[LunarMist]

Any news of the 15k.4?

 

[iGary]

I'm sure this is a really idiotic question deserving an idiotic answer, and not exactly on topic, but why are scuzzy drives odd sizes (as compared with typical ATA)?

Believe only one of the following paragraphs:

It’s mainly a question of morality. Scuzzy is always going to be odd because it was simply meant to be that way. Scuzzy is also full of bad sectors and it has many mysterious zones. ATA (also called ATAboy) is always available in nice even sizes due to the use of square platters.

Given the current state of the art with media, heads, and controllers (including FIFO buffers and cache RAM), engineers will push the media read/write rate towards the highest possible RELIABLE rate until another variable (such as heads) can’t keep up with that data rate. It just happens to be that all the latest 10kRPM SCSI drives have about the same data rate as WD’s SATA Raptors because they’ve tweaked all the hardware variables to fit the same platter size and RPM. I also suspect that 10kRPM hard drives use a slightly less aggressive form of RLL encoding than their lower speed brethren as well as slightly wider data tracks to allow for a little extra head overshoot during hard seeks. All this adds up to a certain platter density.

Any news of the 15k.4?

Just the old rumour of "November / December." My "beta tester" connections (usually storage dealers) and my "dealers that couldn't keep secrets" sources have pretty much all dried up in recent years. These days, if I can't get something out of the manufacturer's field personnel or sales agents, I can't get anything juicy as far as advance product info, availablity dates, specs, etc.

At this point, I'm still hoping for a simultaneous release of the 15K.4 series with F-C, U-320 SCSI D68, U-320 SCSI SCA, and Kick Ass SAS interfaces. However, my gut feeling is early December for 15K.4 debut and January for the SAS splash (both 10K and 15K). Maybe that 7200 RPM 500 GB SATA behemoth will still make it by December.

 

[RWIndiana]

Wow. . . Square platters. . . I had no idea.
Heh
Thanks Gary that helps.

 

[Adcadet]

maybe a stupid question, but one I've been wondering about for a while: why do HD's stick with standards RPMs? If a company can't make it to 15K, why not hit 12K for an advantage over all the other 10K drives? And why doesn't some company release a 16K drive for a bit of an advantage over the 15K drives? And do all the drives spin at exactly 5.4K, 7.2K, 10K or 15K?

 

[Explorer]

Hitachi had a 12kRPM hard drive about 6 or 7 years ago.

The main reason hard drive rotation speeds are what they are is because of data density and the ability to read and write at a particular media rate. When the drive designers design a new drive, likely the first parameter they fix (after form factor) is the drive rotation speed -- everything else follows.

Not all 10kRPM or 5400 drives spin at exactly the same speed. Western Digital had a "5400 RPM" hard drive that spun closer to 6000 RPM than 5400 RPM. I believe IBM's older 10KRPM hard drives spun about 50 RPM faster than other 10kRPM drives.

 

[sechs]

Don't Fujitsu's 10k drives run at 1024RPM?

 

[RWIndiana]

You know, it's a frightening thing to open up a hard drive that is spinning faster than 7200rpm. . .
I know, off topic, but I'm the type who will try anything. Didn't take long for that drive to bite the dust, by the way. It made some dramatic last-gasp noises before it went out though. Fascinating-all the dents, dings, and scratches that appeared after only a few seconds. I remember the old MFM and low capacity SCSI and IDE drives used to run without error for very long periods of time with the cover removed. It only takes seconds to destroy a modern drive that way.

 

[.Nut]

You know, it's a frightening thing to open up a hard drive that is spinning faster than 7200rpm. . .
I know, off topic, but I'm the type who will try anything. Didn't take long for that drive to bite the dust, by the way. It made some dramatic last-gasp noises before it went out though. Fascinating-all the dents, dings, and scratches that appeared after only a few seconds. I remember the old MFM and low capacity SCSI and IDE drives used to run without error for very long periods of time with the cover removed. It only takes seconds to destroy a modern drive that way.

The heads of early hard drives were essentially built around tape recorder head technology.

 

[Mickey]

maybe a stupid question, but one I've been wondering about for a while: why do HD's stick with standards RPMs? If a company can't make it to 15K, why not hit 12K for an advantage over all the other 10K drives? And why doesn't some company release a 16K drive for a bit of an advantage over the 15K drives? And do all the drives spin at exactly 5.4K, 7.2K, 10K or 15K?

Customers demand standard speeds. Since drives are commodities, it makes sense for them to insist that everyone uses the same speed. This also makes it easier to buy subcomponents, since everyone would then (in theory) be using interchangeable parts. There is some play in the actual spin speed, but not much.

Spin speed affects slider design, channel design, motor design, servo design, and a whole host of other things. This is set quite early in a new design, so trying for 15K and then, when things aren't looking good, opting to "slow it down" to something feasible just isn't going to work in reality. It impacts too many parts and processes.