Can modern multiple Hard Drive Heads read multiple cylinder tracks in parallel like a Raid Array, or do the heads still collect data sequentially in series? Older drives collected data sequentially and could not read multiple platters in the same cylinder at the same time. Is there a performance advantage (other than capacity) in having more heads?
Is there a performance advantage (other than capacity) between the Western Digital Scorpio Black (current 7200 RPM notebook hard drive) 320 GB and 250 GB sizes? What is the physical difference between the 2 sizes? Do they have the same number of platters, heads, and Areal Density? The spec sheet from Western Digital does not give much detail, but does indicate they are the same weight at 99 grams. http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=478 If the WD spec sheet is correct and they are the same weight within a gram, then it would seem they are identical except less inside track real-estate and storage capacity? I suspect the spec sheet does not address the differences between sizes and the 80 GB size likely has a lower head count and weight.
After using Tom's Hardware articles and forums as a hard drive 101 guide, I've decided to purchase 2 Western Digital Scorpio drives for my new Dell Precision M6400 Mobile Workstation (laptop / ship date 12/26). I looked at the SSD drives, but opted to put off upgrading for a few years and see how it plays out. I'd like to get high performance out of my hard drives, since they will likely be the main bottle neck for non-web work. I recognize that a raid 0 array may result in faster performance, but I may not set them up as a raid 0 due to the complexity and learning required. 250 GB is way more than I expect to need prior to upgrading to solid state drives in a few years. I would consider a smaller 160 GB drive if there is some advantage to the smaller size, but the price difference between the 160 GB drive and the 320 GB drive is negligible compared to the price of the system, so the primary factor is speed performance and reliability, and to a lesser degree, power and weight.
I recognize that any upgrade will be substantially better than my current system, which cost me an estimated hour a day in wait time.
I've been using a Dell C800 notebook for the past 8 years (2 keyboard replacements and 3 power supplies). During the past 8 years, it's been physically running about 85% of the time. State of the art for it's day, it has a Pentium 3 processor and it's memory is maxed out at 512K. I did upgrade the hard drive about 4 years ago from 20GB to a Hitachi 7200 RPM 60 GB. The performance improvement was noticeable. I don't need a large drive for storage capacity, but from what I've read I can realize a performance improvement by avoiding the inside tracks.
The OS on my existing 800 MHz machine is XP only, but I need to be backward compatible with some industrial software applications, so I'll try to set up the new computer to multi-boot all three windows operating systems. My primary processor intensive applications are AutoCad and Adobe products. I do on-site field engineering, and spend a lot of time in harsh industrial environments. I liked the size of my old 15" screen, but the newer 16:10 aspect ratio screens offer less vertical real-estate than the old 4:3 aspect ratio of my C800, so I need to go to a 17" screen to keep the same 9 vertical inches that I have with my current 15" screen. Unfortunately, the new system M6400 is based on a desktop chipset, so it uses a lot of power. I expect it will be heavy lugging up the ladders and through the airports, but my existing C800 is no featherweight either.
Thank you in advance for your accurate contribution / SD
Is there a performance advantage (other than capacity) between the Western Digital Scorpio Black (current 7200 RPM notebook hard drive) 320 GB and 250 GB sizes? What is the physical difference between the 2 sizes? Do they have the same number of platters, heads, and Areal Density? The spec sheet from Western Digital does not give much detail, but does indicate they are the same weight at 99 grams. http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=478 If the WD spec sheet is correct and they are the same weight within a gram, then it would seem they are identical except less inside track real-estate and storage capacity? I suspect the spec sheet does not address the differences between sizes and the 80 GB size likely has a lower head count and weight.
After using Tom's Hardware articles and forums as a hard drive 101 guide, I've decided to purchase 2 Western Digital Scorpio drives for my new Dell Precision M6400 Mobile Workstation (laptop / ship date 12/26). I looked at the SSD drives, but opted to put off upgrading for a few years and see how it plays out. I'd like to get high performance out of my hard drives, since they will likely be the main bottle neck for non-web work. I recognize that a raid 0 array may result in faster performance, but I may not set them up as a raid 0 due to the complexity and learning required. 250 GB is way more than I expect to need prior to upgrading to solid state drives in a few years. I would consider a smaller 160 GB drive if there is some advantage to the smaller size, but the price difference between the 160 GB drive and the 320 GB drive is negligible compared to the price of the system, so the primary factor is speed performance and reliability, and to a lesser degree, power and weight.
I recognize that any upgrade will be substantially better than my current system, which cost me an estimated hour a day in wait time.
I've been using a Dell C800 notebook for the past 8 years (2 keyboard replacements and 3 power supplies). During the past 8 years, it's been physically running about 85% of the time. State of the art for it's day, it has a Pentium 3 processor and it's memory is maxed out at 512K. I did upgrade the hard drive about 4 years ago from 20GB to a Hitachi 7200 RPM 60 GB. The performance improvement was noticeable. I don't need a large drive for storage capacity, but from what I've read I can realize a performance improvement by avoiding the inside tracks.
The OS on my existing 800 MHz machine is XP only, but I need to be backward compatible with some industrial software applications, so I'll try to set up the new computer to multi-boot all three windows operating systems. My primary processor intensive applications are AutoCad and Adobe products. I do on-site field engineering, and spend a lot of time in harsh industrial environments. I liked the size of my old 15" screen, but the newer 16:10 aspect ratio screens offer less vertical real-estate than the old 4:3 aspect ratio of my C800, so I need to go to a 17" screen to keep the same 9 vertical inches that I have with my current 15" screen. Unfortunately, the new system M6400 is based on a desktop chipset, so it uses a lot of power. I expect it will be heavy lugging up the ladders and through the airports, but my existing C800 is no featherweight either.
Thank you in advance for your accurate contribution / SD
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram