Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Seagate Claims 2.5" SCSI Drive is World's Fastest

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:23 PM
from the like-a-supersonic-record dept.
Data Storage Hardware
theraindog writes "Seagate has announced a 2.5" SCSI hard drive that spins at an astounding 15,000RPM. The Savvio 15K is the first 2.5" hard drive with a 15K-RPM spindle speed, but what's more interesting is that Seagate claims it's the fastest hard drive on the market. Indeed, the drive boasts an impressive 2.9ms seek time, which is more than half a millisecond quicker than that of comparable 3.5" SCSI drives. The Savvio 15K also features perpendicular recording technology and a claimed Mean Time Between Failures of 1.6 million hours."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Seagate Claims 2.5" SCSI Drive is World's Fastest 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • would this work in a laptop, or would it just get too hot? has anyone seen the operating temp spec?
    • How many laptops do you know of that use a SCSI interface?
    • Generally speaking, Seagate's Savvio line of HDDs are intended for server and enterprise storage (read: SAN/NAS) use, not for laptop use. 2.5" hard drives are particularly useful in some compact storage arrays or in blade servers. They probably consume wayyyy to much power for your average laptop. Also, most laptops don't feature SCSI storage. Most use IDE or SATA. It's possible that Seagate could, in the future, come out with a SATA version of this drive, but I don't think it's likely given the power consumption and heat characteristics of 15K RPM drives. Seagates laptop drives don't even break 7.2K.

    • It will get hot. It uses lots of power. It only comes in SCSI. It is for small form factor servers like blades with well engineered cooling systems. These are latop drives in size only.

      I've also seen these 2.5" server drives used in cluster heads and RAID/SAN/NAS boxes as the OS boot disk. You can easily fit 16 regular 3.5 disks plus one of these, a slimline CD/DVD and floppy in a 4U case.
    • Two problems: 1. It will be considerably hotter and more power hungry than standard laptop drives that spin at roughly 1/3rd of the speed. 2. It has a SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) interface which you don't find in laptops. So, no, you can't stick one in a laptop
    • I think the intended application is blade servers. Some blade designs put a disk on the blade itself, so they use 2.5" drives. They're usually designed with good cooling systems and power supplies, so the fact that you can probably cook eggs on it isn't so much of a concern.

      It ought to be fairly simple for Seagate to produce the same drive in an IDE or SATA model, by replacing the controller, using the same physical structure and technology, if there's a demand for this in high end "desktop replacement" not

  • Breaking the bottleneck (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cpearson (809811) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @12:28PM (#17648708) Homepage
    They just keep chipping away at that Von Neumann bottleneck [wikipedia.org].

    http://vistahelpforum.com/ [vistahelpforum.com]

    • Re:Breaking the bottleneck (Score:5, Funny)

      by macadamia_harold (947445) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @12:32PM (#17648762) Homepage
      The term "von Neumann bottleneck" was coined by John Backus in his 1977 ACM Turing award lecture. According to Backus: "Surely there must be a less primitive way of making big changes in the store than by pushing vast numbers of words back and forth through the von Neumann bottleneck. Not only is this tube a literal bottleneck for the data traffic a problem, but, more importantly, it is an intellectual bottleneck that has kept us tied to word-at-a-time thinking instead of encouraging us to think in terms of the larger conceptual units of the task at hand.

      So that's where Ted Stephens got his analogy. I had no idea he was such a fan of the Turing awards.
  • I know that this drive is supposed to be a server one, but I'm still disappointed that the SAS standard is not properly compatible with SATA.

    SAS is pretty similar to SATA in physical connections, and most SAS cards support having SATA drives plugged into them. Sadly it doesn't work the other way around: you can't plug a SAS drive into a SATA connector.

    It's a pity that they didn't sort this out, as drives like this would be nice for workstation users looking for a little speed boost.

    Of course, it looks like
    • I'm using a pair of those 10k rpm SATA drives on my audio/video workstation and they're pretty quick. I tried a RAID array of regular SCSI 15k drives and there wasn't enough difference for me to notice. I saw it on the benchmarks, but it wasn't enough to make me want to switch.

    • Re:SAS is a little disappointing (Score:5, Informative)

      by ErMaC (131019) <ermac.ermacstudios@org> on Wednesday January 17 2007, @01:26PM (#17649728) Homepage
      SAS is not designed to be used by a SATA controller. If you wanted your cheapo SATA controller to work with SAS drives, it wouldn't be a cheapo controller. The difference between SAS and SATA is that SAS uses SCSI as its command language, which requires a whole different set of logic on the controller end.
      If you're a workstation user looking for a speed boost, then you use SCSI or SAS drives with a proper controller like workstations have since 1990.

      And Flash drives have almost no chance of penetration in the server market, which is where this drive is being targeted (not at Laptop or Workstation users). Don't let the 2.5" form factor make you think it's for laptops, it's for high density servers or blades.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dfghjk (711126)
        SAS stole the entire physical interface from SATA and was deliberately implemented to allow combination SAS/SATA controllers. Saying that SAS isn't designed to be used by a SATA controller shows a total lack of understanding in the matter.

        SCSI doesn't offer any "speed boost" over ATA either and SAS is certainly not faster than SATA. It's the devices that may or may not be faster.

        Finally, solid state storage has been used to accelerate server apps for decades.

        This is apparently not your area of expertise.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by drsmithy (35869)

          What do you mean? I fully expect that rotating drives are on their way out. There's too many advantages to flash and the disadvantages with using SSDs in a server environment are being worked out as_we_speak. I'm willing to wager that within 3 years SSDs will beat high end HDDs in every desirable metric sans price- and price is just a matter of time.

          I doubt SSDs are going to come within a bull's roar of magnetic media in terms of cost-effectiveness any time soon (if they ever do).

          What I *can* see, is the

  • I have 15k rpm disks in production since ... 2002 I think. The poster should mention data per actuator figure from TFA, because that is what really matters.
    • You have 2.5" 15k RPM disks in production since 2002? Who are you? And how were you able to make such bitchin' hard drives in your mother's basement?

    • Re:What's so astounding about 15k rpm? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TeknoHog (164938) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @12:59PM (#17649238) Homepage Journal
      I guess what's new is the 2.5'' form factor. Smaller drives should be generally faster due to increased density, but they get a bad reputation from laptop drives with really low RPM.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Agripa (139780)
          In this case, they've got many times lower capacity than even their 10k RPM 2.5" HDD, never mind their 3.5" HDDs.

          One of the applications for these drives are systems that are performance limited by access time and not capacity that can not yet use solid state storage. In a lot of very large storage installations, the existing arrays are already capacity underutilized because excess spindles and actuators have to be added to lower the average access time for multiple requests. It is not uncommon to not eve
    • I think the main idea is that you can hypothetically install more drives per rack or greater flexibility in the design of devices that need high performance drives. The 3.5" high RPM drives basically use smaller platters anyway, so it's not too much of a stretch to put them in a smaller enclosure, but there may have been concerns about miniaturizing other parts of the drive and still maintaining the enterprise-level reliability.

      I think the show-stopper here is that the drive stated capacities are still sma

  • Nice, but not big news. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2007, @12:34PM (#17648802)
    They've had 15K RPM SCSI drives for years and years. This is no big deal.

    By only using a 2.5" drive rather than 3.5 of course the average seek time is lower, because the read head doesn't have the extra 1" to cover. This is at the expense of all that extra storage area.

    You could get just about as high an average seek if you partitioned up a 3.5" 15K drive and only kept data on the inner partition.

    It's nice that they have these, but it's really not that super special. Why is this front page news?

    BTW, your laptop is going to need some serious cooling to use this, as 15K drives do get rather warm.

    • >> By only using a 2.5" drive rather than 3.5 of course the average
      >> seek time is lower, because the read head doesn't have the
      >> extra 1" to cover.

      it's even more trivial than you paint. The 2.5 and 3.5 numbers
      represent diameter, but the head only travels on one side of
      the disk so to it the difference is only 0.5 inch as far as it
      is concerned.

    • Re:Nice, but not big news. (Score:4, Informative)

      by TopSpin (753) * on Wednesday January 17 2007, @02:43PM (#17650880) Journal
      This is at the expense of all that extra storage area.

      The people for whom these high end disks are intended aren't concerned with the "storage area" of individual devices. They care about the ratio of storage to spindles and arms. They buy things like this [tpc.org].

      Why is this front page news?

      Because it's a site about stuff geeks want to read. It's actually rather nice to hit the page and find some news about the latest incremental change in storage, as opposed to more [slashdot.org] move-slash, dot-on politics [slashdot.org].

  • ... becuase last week I ordered a server from HP with 2.5" 15k drives HP [hp.com].
  • I don't know about you, but every single Seagate HDD I've tested, both brand new and used give a lot of seek errors way above the SMART margin if you run SpinRite 6.0. I've experienced Seagate HDDs simply failing because of too many logged seek/ECC errors and Windows will freeze as it initially loads. I have never seen this type of perfomance with Samsung, WD, Fujitsu (SCSI) and Hitachi HDDs. Sure, not all hard drives are perfect but in my experience, Seagates have always given me problems to the point wher
    • Everybody has stories like this. I have no problems with my Seagate drives, but I wouldn't put anything on a WD drive. Sure, it will be fast for 3 months until you lose it all. With most manufacturers it comes down to a particular model being a bit flaky, although all WD drives suck.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by D4rk Fx (862399)
        I've only had 2 of more than 12 WD drives die; one was because it fell while running from more than 8 feet off the ground, the other was insufficient cooling. I've had 5 of 6 Maxtors die, and I'm 4/4 with IBM drives deaths. 0/4 for Seagate, but they are my most recent acquisition.

        You're right, everyone has stories. I have 2 4 drive WD arrays that have been around for 3 and 2 years, no failures there. But I wouldn't trust any data to an IBM or a Maxtor drive.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by WuphonsReach (684551)
          And the flip side, I've owned close to 2 dozen IBM Deskstar drives (mostly 72-80GB). No more then a handful died before their warranty period expired.

          Most of those deaths were directly related to heat issues (poor cooling or poor airflow). Some were undetermined cause.

          From my experience over the past decade, heat is the #1 killer. Some makes / models are better at dealing with 50C+ temperatures then others. Maxtors seemed to be a bit sensitive to anything above 50C (and Maxtor drives were a real PIT

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Emetophobe (878584)
        And here is some anecdotal evidence to counter your claim that Western Digital drives suck.

        I have 4 250gig WD SATA drives (all model WD2500KS). I've had 2 of them for a year and not a single issue. Recently I bought two more and I've had them set up in a RAID0 array for the past 3 months without any problems. I use Acronis True Image just in case, but I haven't had to restore any images yet... IMO, these western digital drives are great, they are fast and quiet, and they cost less than $90 a piece.

        One major

  • Omission from TFA (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout (579035) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @12:39PM (#17648890)
    The laptop holding the drive was itself spinning at 5000 RPM to achieve this figure, which makes it slightly difficult to use.
    • Spinning your computer equipments that fast would cause serious damage to components. It would not work anymore, and using it would be virtually impossible.

      I think it is implausible that it was really spinning as fast as you say.

  • the edge of the plate spins 50 meters a second! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dgerman (78602) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @12:42PM (#17648926) Homepage
    This is insane. The edge of the plate travels 3km a minute:

    2.5 inches diameter => ~20cm perimeter at 15k RPMs => 3km/Minute => 50m/s => 180 km/hr.

  • 2.5 and 15K?

    That sucker must screech like your ex-wife one day after your alimony payment was due.

  • The drives are 36GB or 73GB. This seems to be a standard size for SCSI, but SATA 2.5" drives have capacities in excess of twice that. Can anyone explain to me why SCSI drives always seem to be lagging IDE in terms of capacity? Does the increased rotational speed make them unable to discern smaller features on the disk?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by D4rk Fx (862399)
      The increased rotational speeds dictate that they must use smaller diameter platters, or risk the platters exploding because of the increased centripetal forces exerted.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rrohbeck (944847)

      Can anyone explain to me why SCSI drives always seem to be lagging IDE in terms of capacity?

      The main limitation for bit density on a high speed drive is the channel data rate (since you can't use anything but standard CMOS in a low power, high volume, low margin product.) If you spin faster, at a given maximum bit rate, you lose bit density. Also, for faster seeks, you have to put down more servo information (otherwise you may not see any servo bursts for some time while the head is crossing only data.)
      You can generally stuff more data on a platter by spinning it slower. That's why basic 2.5" dri

  • Faster Porn? (Score:5, Funny)

    by chromozone (847904) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @04:42PM (#17653156)
    http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/30/magazines/fortune/ obrienseagate.fortune/index.htm [cnn.com] "Not so with Bill Watkins, the mercurial, salty-mouthed Texan who runs the $15 billion hard-drive king Seagate Technology. At a San Francisco dinner on Tuesday evening, he was candid about his company's ultimate mission: "Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn."

    • Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)

      by pe1chl (90186) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @12:39PM (#17648882)
      Before you think that this means it has a lifetime of 182 years: this is not the case. The definition of MTBF is not related to lifetime.
      • For something that isn't repairable, surely they are related? Lifetime = alpha * MTBF, where alpha is some number less than one? Or are you thinking that the curve is rather broad?

      • Before you think that this means it has a lifetime of 182 years: this is not the case. The definition of MTBF is not related to lifetime.

        I don't suppose you'd care to explain that a little? I've always assumed Mean Time Between Failure to be what you got if you took a bunch of drives, ran them until they broke, added up the amount of time they worked for and divided by the number of drives. Which would equate to drive lifetime in my book. Am I missing something? 182 years does seem completely insane..

        • There's this process called extrapolation. It's not perfect, but it'll get the job done.

          Basically, you test, say, 1000 hard drives for 2 years and you find:

          1 fails in the first 8 months...
          1 fails in the next 4 months...
          1 fails in the next 2 months...
          1 fails in the next 1 month...

          even after the first two or three you can expect a mean failure time of 15.5 months. This however does take into assumption a bell shaped probability curve. With enough evidence they should be able to know the shape of the drive-fai
    • You do realize that the SSD you reference is based on flash, right? If you look carefully, you will find that no vendors list write seek times or write IOPS for such devices. The reason is that the performance is just plain awful.

      RAM based SSD is nice, but flash based SSD won't touch a decent 15k drive for any write heavy application.

      • Re:Moving disks are old SSD is in (Score:4, Informative)

        by jdgeorge (18767) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @01:29PM (#17649764)
        You do realize that the SSD you reference is based on flash, right? If you look carefully, you will find that no vendors list write seek times or write IOPS for such devices. The reason is that the performance is just plain awful.

        RAM based SSD is nice, but flash based SSD won't touch a decent 15k drive for any write heavy application.


        The reason "seek time" isn't listed for SSD devices is the same reason dynamic RAM manufacturers don't list "seek time" in their device specifications, namely, it doesn't apply. In storage device parlance "seek time" refers to the time it takes for the drive head to reach the target data on a rotating disk. Read the (ahem) authoritative Wikipedia article here [wikipedia.org].

        Furthermore, the recently announce flash-based SSD's from Samsung and SanDisk have file access times far superior to any rotating disk-based storage device. However, it is true that the dynamic RAM-based devices have access times that are approximately 10 times faster than the flash-based devices, but the flash based devices have file acces times typically much more than 10 times faster than a disk drive's seek time. For reference, see the SanDisk press release [sandisk.com] for their SSD device.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.