• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Seagate Ships 4 TB-class Hard Drives with 1 TB Per Platter Density

5400 RPM drives for my setup... Nope. VMs would run like a dog. Same with video encoding and performance. Best off just having a few smaller cap faster drives. This won't sit too well with the media pro and Hypervisor crowd.

VMs are slow enough on a 7200RPM drive... let alone a 5200 RPM drive.

I plan on getting a larger capacity SSD for my VMs when I can afford it.

Use a laptop (most have 5400/5200 RPM drives) and they are hella slow.
 
FordGT90Concept said:
he platters act like an internal RAID0. It can read and write to all platters simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Because when you look at the performance of the 1,2 and 3TB version of this drive (all of them are 7200RPM and 1TB per platter) it doesn't seem so.
And not to mention the risk of data loss with 8 R/W heads....
 
FordGT90Concept said:
The platters act like an internal RAID0. It can read and write to all platters simultaneously. It should also get a nice performance bump going from 750 GB/platter to 1 TB/platter. I think it could hit 200 MB/s sequential.
Click to expand...

Noup. Not by far. Having multiple platters doesn't work like internal RAID.
 
I paid $160 each for my 2tb and I bought 4... I love technology prices.
 
repman244 said:
Are you sure about that? Because when you look at the performance of the 1,2 and 3TB version of this drive (all of them are 7200RPM and 1TB per platter) it doesn't seem so.
And not to mention the risk of data loss with 8 R/W heads....
Click to expand...

Prima.Vera said:
Noup. Not by far. Having multiple platters doesn't work like internal RAID.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did some research and the general consensus is that they don't. The main reason why they don't is because a bad sector on one platter would effectively make that area on all platters unusable (capacity would fall much faster due to bad sectors). There's also an issue of circuitry to handle read/writes on 2-5 heads simultaneously.

If they really wanted to improve performance, it is something HDD manufacturers likely could try but, as far as I know, it hasn't been done yet.
 
Yeah. Actually, multi platerrs HDD are slower than single ones. Imagine data fragmented on different platters...
 
Prima.Vera said:
Yeah. Actually, multi platerrs HDD are slower than single ones. Imagine data fragmented on different platters...
Click to expand...

In theory, data interleaved across multiple platters is accessed faster.
 
Prima.Vera said:
Yeah. Actually, multi platerrs HDD are slower than single ones. Imagine data fragmented on different platters...
Click to expand...

That is why defrag exists. :slap: Actually multi-platter drives read sequential data better because it can read from more platters at once. It doesn't scale perfectly linearly but pretty close. For any hard drive at the same speed (7200rpm, 5400rpms, etc.) more platters with the same density will generally give you better performance. Increasing platter density while maintaining the same speed will also improve performance. Both cases assume the controller on the hard drive isn't bottlenecked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top