: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Hard disk technology (was: Disk based backup)
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Alverson, Tom (Xetron)
tom.alver...@ngc.com wrote:
I'm wondering why they have not done
).
-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:18 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Hard disk technology (was: Disk based backup)
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Sam Cayze sam.ca...@rollouts.com
wrote:
It promises
I'm wondering why they have not done this yet as well. Using more that
2 heads in parallel would at some point be enough to saturate existing
SATA interfaces. There is no way they could do 8 heads in parallel and
have enough bandwidth (even with 3.0 Gbit/sec SATA) to prevent
saturating the SATA
Message-
From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Hard disk technology (was: Disk based backup)
I have to agree with Ben here. If it were easy to do, it would have been
done already.
I suspect
I'm very curious as to when did harddrive manufacturers swich to having
independently operating heads? Is this a new development that I missed?
For as long as I can remember, the heads (regardless of how many there are)
are operated by a single head motor. So while it can interleave data across
But this info is not in the specs of thee HD isn't it? So how do you know that
is actually that fast before buying it?
Miguel
--- El lun, 21/9/09, Alverson, Tom (Xetron) tom.alver...@ngc.com escribió:
De: Alverson, Tom (Xetron) tom.alver...@ngc.com
Asunto: RE: Hard disk technology (was: Disk
The heads are all locked together. There is no need to have them move
independently.
From: Scott Kaufman [mailto:bskauf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11:17 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Hard disk technology (was: Disk based backup)
I'm very curious
Issues
Subject: RE: Hard disk technology (was: Disk based backup)
The heads are all locked togethe There is no need to have them move
independently.
From: Scott Kaufman [mailto:bskauf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11:17 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Hard disk
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Scott Kaufman bskauf...@gmail.com wrote:
So while it can interleave data across multiple
platters, all the heads would still be at the same
location on the platters.
In a sequential read or write operation, by interleaving data across
the platters (actually,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Alverson, Tom (Xetron)
tom.alver...@ngc.com wrote:
I'm wondering why they have not done this yet as well.
Using more that 2 heads in parallel would at some
point be enough to saturate existing SATA interfaces.
Unless they *are* already doing it, and the
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Sam Cayze sam.ca...@rollouts.com wrote:
It promises a sustained transfer rate of just 140MBps ...
I presume they mean 140 Mbyte/sec, which is 1140 Mbit/sec (ignoring overhead).
In other words, it can't even saturate first-generation SATA (1500
Mbit/sec), let
Related:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/21/seagate-2tb-barracuda-xt-worlds-first
-sata-6gbps-hard-drive/
Haven't been following the thread, but just saw this on Engadget.
Ready for this speed freaks? Seagate just announced the world's first
2TB disk with full support for the third generation
I have to agree with Ben here. If it were easy to do, it would have been done
already.
I suspect the improved bus speeds will help devices that aren't current
spinning disks (maybe flash based drives), or where we are able to present an
array of disks at the end of the bus (e.g. external
13 matches
Mail list logo
