10K RPM ATA100?

[flamethrower205]

My freind's claiming to have 2 10K RPM ATA100 drives in his computer, which he got 1 from Japan, and the other from Bangladesh. Do these exist, or is he bsing me? He claimes each drive has a constant read of 60MB/s.

Sig of the week.

 

[Uncle_Astro]

As far as I'm aware none of the major manufacturers (IBM, WD, Maxtor, Seagate, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Toshiba) currently manufacture or market a 10K ATA drive. It really isn't necessary since they can get the transfer rate necessary for the interface without going that fast. If the drive spun at 10K it would stream data faster than the ATA interface could handle it.

"There are no mysteries with computers...just fix it you idiot!" (R. Warren 1909-1990)

 

[ath0mps0]

It is "possible" - the manus should have introduced them long ago, IMHO. If they are real they are engineering samples most likely. My bet would be "BS" unless he is somehow connected to the industry. The problem with spinning the drives faster is that you have to reduce density - meaning smaller (storage) or larger (physical size) HDDs. That is why you don't find 100+GB 15K SCSI drives out there. See if you can get manu, capacity, platter #s, physical size, etc. and screen shots of device manager, sisoft, HD tach, etc. Get him to put his proof where his mouth is. He can black out serial #'s if he is worried about legal issues, but If he won't comply with the above request it is probably just BS.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

 

[flamethrower205]

Will do......or I just go over to his house, unplug his hard drives and look em over

Sig of the week.

 

[ath0mps0]

If the drive spun at 10K it would stream data faster than the ATA interface could handle it.

This is incorrect! Most ATA100/133 drives have maximum transfer rates in the 35-45MB/s range (a few a little higher) while the interface can handle 100-133MB/s. Burst read rates don't count as these transfers come from cache, not the disks. Even doubling drive transfer rate would not cause a problem - the issue is with the speed of the read/write head electronics and the rotational speed. Because of the requirement to lower the data density if you increase rotational speed (due to read/write speed of the heads), the only major benefit achieved by increasing rotational speed is faster seek and access times - this is great for database type servers, but not really necessary for desktop or workstation configurations where most of the reading is sequential (if defrag is completed regularly).

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

 

[ath0mps0]

Yeah, take pics....

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

 

[labdog]

lol


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...<font color=red>

 

[labdog]

dont forget the kodak for the pics...


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...<font color=red>

 

[labdog]

the issue is with the speed of the read/write head electronics and the rotational speed. Because of the requirement to lower the data density if you increase rotational speed (due to read/write speed of the heads)

This is incorrect!

each hard disks generation (whatever the brand) have a density increase, rotation speed increase, heads number decrease, plates decrease.
this explains why hd capacities are now around 100GB instead of 6.4GB 1 year ago, & 170MB 20 years ago.


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...<font color=red>

 

[ath0mps0]

Yes, but take a look at 10K and 15K RPM SCSI drives - basically the same type of internals (platters and heads) are being used, but the densities are way down (36GB 15K or 72GB 10K SCSI vs. 120GB 7.2K IDE). For current technology HDD manus have reached a performance ceiling in the head read/write speed. To increase density, they have to lower rotational speed and vis versa.

If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.

 

[upec]

The most important reason for not have a 10K RPM IDE hard drive is that the hard drive manufacturers does not want IDE drive to be as fast as SCSI drive. SCSI hard drive is a lot more expensive and more profitable than the IDE one.

 

[labdog]

ouch, interesting but a bit annoying.

& what's about the serial ata associated to new hard disks generations ?

yet another propaganda ?


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...<font color=red>

 

[labdog]

i would like to believe.

can you give me a link supporting your theory ?


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...<font color=red>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

serial ata has nothing to do with 10k rpm IDE drives (unfortunately) :frown:

its more to do with getting rid of the cumbersome and ungainly ata protocol.

no more huge connections (think of connections the size of a usb port)

thin twisty cables

cables can be up to a meter long (no 45cm limitations)

more bandwidth. IIRC serial ata starts at around 150mb/sec up to 300 later on.

course when we actually get serial ata is anyones guess

<font color=purple>Win ME Slayer. And PROUD of it!</font color=purple>

 

[Lars_Coleman]

I actually haven't heard of any mfg. even contemplating making a Serial ATA hard drive. I've seen some road maps, but nothing that shows that for the next year. I know that Maxtor is due out with a 300GB+ hard drive by the end of the year.

I myself (just like most of you) can't wait to see serial ATA.

<font color=red>People and hard drives are like bandwagon fans and sports!</font color=red>