Print 20 comment(s) - last by grenableu.. on Apr 12 at 7:50 AM

Samsung announces new SpinPoint drives for the enterprise market

Although Fujitsu may be looking to solid-state storage (SSD) to replace 1.8" hard disc drives (HDDs), the market for fast 2.5" HDDs is still alive and well. Just last month, Fujitsu and Seagate announced 160GB 2.5" hard drives spinning at 7200RPM. Samsung has today upped the ante with a 2.5" enterprise 7200RPM HDD that boasts a capacity of up to 200GB.

The new SpinPoint MP1 Series utilizes perpendicular recording to achieve a density of 100GB per platter. The MP1 Series will be available in capacities of 80GB, 120GB, 160GB and 200GB and will support cache sizes of 8MB or 16MB.

All utilize a Serial ATA 3.0Gbps interface and feature native command queuing (NCQ). The drives also feature a rotary vibration controller (RVC) to protect drive from vibration and shock and are available with a free-fall sensor.

Samsung says that the MP1 series is designed for use in workstations, RAID servers, and blade servers. No pricing has been announced, but will likely be available closer to its May 2007 mass production date.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: The Internet is for Porn
By kumandos on 4/11/2007 1:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Could you explain what kind of magis is this you're talking about?
Because...I just can't figure out how you can read data faster off 100GB however smaller(even 1cm) from 100GB how ever bigger(lets give it 100KM) rotating at the same speed?!?! ;D

If i draw 5cm circle in 1s and I'll draw 100cm circle in 1s, it's still 1 second...Isn't it?

Magic I say...or lack of imagination.

...and yes 3,5' drive will be faster than a 2,5' drive with same platter capacity(for example - you can fit more and faster stuff into a bigger drive).

RE: The Internet is for Porn
By teddy6 on 4/11/2007 5:59:45 PM , Rating: 3
The parent post is not correct, smaller platters do not equate to faster transfer rates if all that was done was shrink the platter size with the equivalent capacity reduction.

That said, if I can properly translate your post into English, there is no magic necessary to read the same amount of data off a platter faster than a second platter spinning at the same rate. It all depends on how the data is structured on the platter.

If 2 same size platters have the same capacity, the platter with the lower track density, will have a higher cluster density which will result in a higher STR. It's not magic or lack of imagination, it's the simple fact that the more clusters you squeeze into each track, the more data there will be to be read during each platter rotation.

It's also false that a 3.5" drive with the same platter capacity will be faster. It's actually the other way around. A 2.5" 100GB platter spinning at 7200rpm's will be considerably faster than a 3.5" 100GB platter spinning at the same 7200rpm's under all conditions.

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki