On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, George Yanos wrote:
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Schumann <cschumann@twp-llc.com> writes:
> Chris> Keep in mind that if the platter count is the same (which I have not
> Chris> checked), a drive that holds 25% more data (100 = 80 * 1.25) should have a
> Chris> 25% higher sustained data transfer rate at the same speed because of the
> Chris> increased data density. So a 100GB drive at 5400RPM should be 25% faster
> Chris> than an 80GB 5400RPM drive.
> I think (somebody, no doubt, will correct me if I'm wrong, please)
> that it is easier to increase the density of tracks than to increase
> the density of bits along the track. If that's so, maybe the 100gb
> drives have same platters, same sectors/track, and more tracks?
Hmm. You may be right. Of course, the medium itself determines the data
density. The engineering determines what you can get out of the medium.
More tracks per inch means finer control of the head motion and a smaller
track width regarding the data head.
Finer pitch along the track means higher frequency response and resolving
more data.
When I think about it, improving either one seems really hard!
I was assuming only improving bits per inch and the same number of tracks,
and that would be under ideal conditions to get a 25% improvement. Adding
only tracks would get you NO improvement in the data rate (and a little
slowdown unless the head motion is improved), so the real world outcome
must be somewhere between those two extremes.
Chris Schumann
_______________________________________________
Thinkpad mailing list
Thinkpad@stderr.org
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad
Received on Thu Sep 16 16:16:06 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 26 2006 - 16:03:37 EDT