Disk Drive Sector Discussion Forum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Disk Drive Sector Discussion Forum

WDC 174.03

-0.1%

1:03 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sam who wrote (6097)	4/20/1999 7:42:00 PM
From: Frodo Baxter	Read Replies (1) of 9256

That white paper was written for the original Bigfoot and Bigfoot CY, which spun at 3600rpm. Later Bigfoots TS and TX used 4000rpm. No Bigfoot ever used 4500rpm. All Bigfoots performed badly relative to 3.5" competitors, mostly because of long seeks (more physical distance is necessary to travel between tracks) and more latency (latency being .5 / [(rpm) * 1 min / 60 sec] i.e. on average, the head waits half a rotation for the relevant data bits to pass through). The high data transfer rate as described in the white paper does not compensate for these deficiencies. As a point of trivial, since performance on the outer tracks is higher than on inner tracks, hard drives fill data outside in. This performance difference is marginal, however, again buttressing the point that data transfer rate is not as important for performance as seek times and rotation speed.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next