backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by rippleyaliens.. on Jan 23 at 1:39 PM


Seagate's Savvio 15K hard disk drive

Seagate's Savvio and Cheetah at 15K compared

The Savvios compared at 10K- and 15K-RPM
Seagate claims that its newest 2.5-inch 15K-RPM hard drive is the fastest in the world

Seagate Technology has announced what it claims to be “the world’s fastest hard drive” – the Savvio 15K with a seek time of a mere 2.9 ms. The new 15K-RPM addition to the Savvio family offers a number of advantages over 15K-rpm 3.5-inch drives including size and weight (due to 2.5-inch form factor), 30% decrease in power consumption (5.8 watts at idle), and reliability (1.6 million hour MTBF).

 “Seagate is committed to delivering solutions that will meet the needs of today’s demanding IT environment, and no product demonstrates this better than the Savvio 15K drive,” said Sherman Black, senior vice president and general manager, Seagate Enterprise Compute Business. “The development of the 2.5-inch Enterprise form factor represented a new way of thinking. Now, with the added number of performance and capacity choices offered, many of the leading enterprise system makers are transitioning from 3.5-inch to 2.5-inch form factor enterprise solutions.”

The move to small form factor enterprise disk drives was driven by data center requirements for greater storage performance density while focusing on lowering power consumption and cooling costs.

“The trend in IT is to scale down the physical size of components while scaling up capacity and performance,” said John Rydning, IDC’s research manager for hard disk drives. “Seagate’s first generation 2.5-inch 15K-rpm HDD is fitting with this trend, delivering fast I/O performance in a small package to meet the needs of demanding server applications.”

The Seagate Savvio 15K drives are shipping today in 36GB and 73GB capacities through OEM customers. HP is now shipping Proliant systems with 15K Savvio drives. The Savvio 10K.2 drive will launch in the channel this quarter as a replacement product for Savvio 10K.1 and as a transition path from Cheetah 10K.7 drives.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

cool... i guess
By NotAok on 1/16/2007 9:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not too familiar with hard drives, but why are these faster ones so small? (as far as storage capacity) It's great that they're getting faster but it seems to be at a huge cost... And are the speeds even that noticeable?

A month ago I purchased a 500 gig seagate hard drive for $135. To me, that's an amazing deal. I can't see spending more than that on a drive that, while it may be faster, holds so little.




RE: cool... i guess
By daniel1113 on 1/16/2007 9:26:28 AM , Rating: 3
That's because you're looking at these drives from the point of view of a home user, not a corporate user. Yes, the increase in speed is quite noticeable, and a couple dozen of these drives in a server would be quite useful to many organizations.


RE: cool... i guess
By sviola on 1/16/2007 9:27:44 AM , Rating: 2
In enterprise environment which require many I/O operations with huge ammounts of data, you'll see the benefits from faster drives.

Home users don't, usually, require high speed drives as they don't, usually, do intensive disk operations (you'd see better gains improving memory capacity, cpu or gpu). But eventough, if you use a Raptor as your primary disk you'll see some increase in intensive disk operations (like level loading on games, virus searching and defragmentation).


RE: cool... i guess
By Hydrofirex on 1/16/2007 1:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't sure about spending 200+ on a 150 Gig Raptor drive, but I do notice a very, very significant difference when loading programs and games. I'm always one of the first 3 people in a level, and I do spend a lot less time loading levels over-all on even non-online games.

HfX


RE: cool... i guess
By SteffenThomsen on 1/16/2007 9:31:11 AM , Rating: 3
This drive is not designed with the private user in mind. The selling point of this drive is the incredibly low seek times, physical size, power consumption and MTBF.

The low seek times improve the performance in many server environments because of the many random reads and writes (unlike the more sustained transfer oriented usage pattern of private users).

The physical size allows more drives in less space, which enables more drives in less space which is especially good in blade servers as they're very cramped already.

The power consumption reduces the need for cooling in large scale server farms.

The MTBF improves overall data security.

The amount of available storage is not as important for this kind of drive as the performance aspect. With today's cool technologies like SAS it is easy to incorporate large SATA drives for storage in your servers to take care of the storage needs, and low capacity, high speed drives like the Savvios for performance.


RE: cool... i guess
By AllYourBaseAreBelong2Us on 1/16/2007 10:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
MTBF stands for "Mean Time Between Failure". It is the average time a component works without failure.


RE: cool... i guess
By zsdersw on 1/16/2007 10:56:52 AM , Rating: 3
Data security can also mean something to the effect of: "secure the data's availability". A higher MTBF means the data is more secure in the sense that it's less likely to be lost due to device failure.


RE: cool... i guess
By Mday on 1/16/2007 11:10:35 AM , Rating: 3
I think he meant integrity, versus security.


RE: cool... i guess
By Oregonian2 on 1/16/2007 3:10:24 PM , Rating: 3
Another way to look it is that after the MTBF amount of time, half of one's units will have failed and half still work.


RE: cool... i guess
By JCheng on 1/18/2007 2:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
No, that would be Median Time Between Failure. ;)


RE: cool... i guess
By cgrecu77 on 1/16/2007 9:38:59 AM , Rating: 3
these hdds are used for servers, most servers that use this kind of disk are dedicated to a single website. There are very few websites out there that require more than 30GB of space - and the biggest bottleneck for a wisele configured server is usually the disk system.

for storage you don't need speed, you need capacity ...


RE: cool... i guess
By OrSin on 1/16/2007 9:58:35 AM , Rating: 2
So many people wrong. The one guy got it that these are for servers. Servers are all going to small form factors. Blade 1 and 2 U servers. Even data pass 4-8 processors are using very small forms. Servers are all all going to NAS or SAn or SAS. Its getting harder and harder to get big raid arrayies to support servers. Its going to centralize management. That measn these drive are made to boot servers and unsder some circumsances run small data base at least ont he server end. On the storge end this are very different from just 5 years ago. Before SAN was ll rate by size of storge but thats is no long the case. Size is easy OI processes is not. WE current ha server with 12 TB and it not even 50% full and the server is bottled necked every day. New SANs need IO and the easy wasy to get it more and smaller drives. Also the smaller driver have better seek time. I hope I explained it clear.


RE: cool... i guess
By NotAok on 1/16/2007 10:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
oh i see, thanks guys. I guess I primarily was thinking of a home user rather than business use. I was in that mindset simply because I recall a friend or two going nuts over the fact that their pc had a 10,000 rpm hard drive, yet it barely had any storage.


RE: cool... i guess
By Axbattler on 1/16/2007 7:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, a fast HD can benefit the home users too. Having a fast drive as an OS drive is a plus. It's poor value per GB, but there are people from the enthusiast crowd who would pay a good chunk of extra to maximise performance. Prior the Raptor, a relatively small proportion of enthusiasts would go SCSI to have access to HD faster than IDE solutions. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are still enthusiasts taking that path (the Raptor is very fast, but not the fastest).

And if capacity is needed, there is always the option of getting a large SATA HD for data storage.


RE: cool... i guess
By wrekd on 1/16/2007 11:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
"for storage you don't need speed, you need capacity ... "

I work on an Enterprise SAN and find this statement completely false. If you want to synchronously replicate data offsite, you need speed. All of our drives are 146GB Fibre Channel drives for EMC Symmetrix systems.

This drive featured here would ideally be use for the OS.


RE: cool... i guess
By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2007 11:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
> "for storage you don't need speed, you need capacity ... "

I had to laugh at that also. I have a 5TB scientific dataset, most of which has to be updated daily. Try doing that with a slow array of drives. For transactional systems, the low latency of these drives would be even more important.


RE: cool... i guess
By patentman on 1/16/2007 12:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the problem with storage capacity and high rotational speed is a technical issue. It has nothing to do with marketing. See my post below.


RE: cool... i guess
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/16/2007 10:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
its the other way around- they're faster because they're smaller- less of a radius means a motor has to provide less torque to spin the platters at the same speed- faster reads are because the head has to move a lot less of a distance...


RE: cool... i guess
By kextyn on 1/16/2007 11:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
That's not exactly true. The seek time is probably faster because of the shorter distance for the head to travel. But sustained data rates will be slower because the outside edge of a 2.5" platter will be spinning slower than the outside edge of a 3.5" platter if both of their motors are spinning at 15k RPM.


RE: cool... i guess
By mindless1 on 1/16/2007 11:54:55 AM , Rating: 1
They're faster because of the higher RPM. That higher RPM can be maintained more reliably, with higher MTBF because the platters are smaller.


RE: cool... i guess
By Axbattler on 1/16/2007 7:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
If RPM were the sole variable in HD performance, then all 7200RPM drives would perform alike, all 10k RPM drives would perform alike, etc.

But it's nowhere the case. I had a venerable 2nd Gen Cheetah (10k RPM), and while it was one of the fastest HD at the time, a modern SATA drive would stomp all over it in desktop applications.. and most likely server applications as well. Without even going that far back, compare the three generation of Raptors. Or even the 'silent' improvement made to the 2nd gen Raptors.

Spinddle speed is a highly influencial variable. But density, firmware, seektime, cache, number of platters can all affect performance (some more than others).


RE: cool... i guess
By IntelUser2000 on 1/16/2007 8:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a modern SATA drive would stomp all over it in desktop applications.. and most likely server applications as well.


(FU AT/DT and the stupid quote system)

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=17...

Probably not. Newer SATA products won't make up for such a big difference. And newer server products based on SAS will probably be faster. If SCSI/SAS products were slower than SATA drives in workstation/server apps as much as it did in PC apps, nobody will buy them.


RE: cool... i guess
By Axbattler on 1/17/2007 9:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that I am talking about a drive from 1998.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/9804/980416s...

Even the fastest SCSI drive is not future proof ;)


RE: cool... i guess
By rippleyaliens on 1/23/2007 1:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, here is the Real Deal Info. A 15 k drive, vs a 10k raptor in a Desktop PC. It is hare to really show teh clear differenc. BUT if you put the Raptor in a Server environment, in which you have multiple READS /Writes. THat extra 5k, shows a clear difference. More so, the disk I/O, are just clearly supperior with a faster hard drive. MEaning, doing more than just copy / pasting.
Disadvantage with SATA is that for each drive, there needs to be a channel. VERSUS with SAS, each channel can support multiple drives.

There are some good SAS/SATA controller out there. The difference comes also, when you RAID the drives. I have at work, a 12 drive 500gb, sata array. Using the SEAGATE lastest GEN, with the command q, etc... Now in a raid 10 array, i get 3tb, BUT versus my 6 drive SAS 15k raid 10 array, the SAS litteraly SMOKES my sata array. Sata was not designed for anytype of HEAVY sustained READ / WRITE, condition. Now some PC stuff, but heavy workstation / server class IO.
With VISTA now, they are trying everytihgn in the world to speed up the OS, but it is still bottlenecked by the DISK speed / I/O. You best believe i will get these new drives. IN a 2 u CHASIS, i can put 12 drives. IN a raid 10, that is a sustained 900 (non cached)I/O Per second. 4-500 MB sustained Transfer rate. yah, that is very fast.


RE: cool... i guess
By patentman on 1/16/2007 12:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm not too familiar with hard drives, but why are these faster ones so small? (as far as storage capacity)"

See my posts on the anandtech forum (under klaviernista) at:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...

and

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...

They should answer your questions.


RE: cool... i guess
By Madzombie on 1/16/2007 3:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
I always wondered why they never pushed speeds above 15,000RPM. I assume all 15K drives have 2.5" platters. If this is the case then faster drives might be possible with smaller platters, say 20,000RPM drives with 1.8" platters. Capacity would be reduced further but with even smaller platters the seek times should be proportionally shorter.


RE: cool... i guess
By Missing Ghost on 1/16/2007 7:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Now that they use 1.8" platters in server drives, I suppose such a 20krpm product will soon be released.


RE: cool... i guess
By patentman on 1/17/2007 7:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
US Patent 6819531 to Shiroishi teaches a hard disk apparatus having a 50 MB/s transfer rate where the platter is spun at 25,000RPM. The recording density is fairly low (5GB/square inch) compared to slower drives (50-100gb/siquare). But it is fast!

Higher rotational speeds are definitely possible, but eventually new platter substrates will have to be developed in order to handle the g's


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki