Seagate Claims 2.5" SCSI Drive is World's Fastest 218
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."
wow (Score:1, Informative)
Thats 182 years.
Re:laptop use? (Score:5, Informative)
What's so astounding about 15k rpm? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Breaking the bottleneck (Score:0, Informative)
Re:1.6 million hours? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:laptop use? (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerBook_Duo [wikipedia.org]
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_d
Re:SAS is a little disappointing (Score:5, Informative)
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:Moving disks are old SSD is in (Score:4, Informative)
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.
SAS is about more than speed (Score:2, Informative)
Seagate Research presented a good technical article [usenix.org] on SCSI vs. SATA back in 2003. Much of this is still relevant today (though it's SAS vs. SATA)
Re:wow (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But, about that noise? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:15k rpm -- old, OLD news (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nice, but not big news. (Score:4, Informative)
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].
Re:Why the low capacity? (Score:3, Informative)
You can generally stuff more data on a platter by spinning it slower. That's why basic 2.5" drives usually spin at 5400 or even 4500 rpm.
Of course the interface has nothing to do with it. SCSI=>high end=>faster=>lower capacity. This may actually change with the convergence between SATA and SAS.
Re:Nice, but not big news. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:How many seek/ECC errors does it give?? (Score:1, Informative)
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 214270477
4 Start_Stop_Count 21
7 Seek_Error_Rate 10434919
9 Power_On_Hours 163
194 Temperature_Celsius 42
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 2701
Notice it has only run 163 hours, but has 214,270,477 read errors! That's around 365 errors per second. Something definitely isn't right about the way Seagate counts errors.
It also claims the drive is 148 degrees F. It's in a case with very good airflow in a 65 degree F computer room. That number is also bogus.
The other three drives I looked at had similar numbers. Out of the 90, two have quit so far. I'm going to have fun trying to keep that 67TByte storage cluster running.
Re:What's so astounding about 15k rpm? (Score:3, Informative)
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 even utilize the inner area of 3.5 inch drives because the extra capacity is not needed and doing so marginally lowers the access time for systems where this is of primary importance.
Personally, I'll wait for 3.5" HDDs with dual servos instead (basically, internal RAID), which will completely smoke this, and everything else out there.
Dual actuator drives would indeed help significantly and it has been tried however the price premium over using twice as many standard drives would seem to make it too expensive. I suspect solid state storage will become cost effective before multiple actuator drives do.
Re:Flash Drives (Score:3, Informative)
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 growing use of flash [drives] as an intermediate caching device - in SANs/NASes (eg: each physical array comes with an SSD for caching purposes), individual drives (the drives with flash RAM that have been talked about recently), some magic device that plugs in between the regular drives and the disk controller and the poor-man's DIY version at the OS level (eg: Vista's "ReadyBoost").
I can also see them being used in small scale, very specific tasks (eg: DB transaction logs).
But, flash completely - or even meaningfully - replacing magnetic media in the forseeable future ? No way. It just can't provide sufficient density at a reasonable cost. Price out a 500G (usable) array of flash disk. Even being generous and using a parity-based RAID scheme where you only need n+1 or n+2 disks is still going to have a cost vastly in excess of an array of regular disks (and potentially requiring more physical space as well).