Subscribe to EDN

Hitachi's Deskstar 7K2000 HDD: 2 TBytes, Spinning More Speedily

August 6, 2009

A bit over a week ago, I pointed out that six months after introduction, Western Digital was still the only vendor manufacturing a 2 TByte 3.5" HDD in volume. As it turns out, I wasn’t exactly right; Seagate recently began selling a 2 TByte member of its Barracuda LP family, unveiled in late April. Seagate’s ST320005N4A1AS-RK, a four-platter (eight-head) configuration, spins at 5900 RPM speeds. WD’s WD20EADS four-platter product conversely doesn’t specify a RPM performance metric, instead relying on a nebulous ‘IntelliPower’ marketing monicker. The IntelliPower algorithm dynamically varies RPM to optimize speed-vs-power consumption at any particular point in time…unfortunately, WD won’t say what the peak platter rotation speed is on this particular product. I suspect it’s 5400 RPM or, judging from last week’s 2.5" HDD unveiling, perhaps even less.

What about higher rotation speed 2 TByte variants? As far as I know, Seagate’s ridiculously pre-announced 7,200 RPM drive still isn’t shipping. Hitachi’s the first to reach that vaunted threshold, with its just-announced Deskstar 7K2000 ($329 MSRP):

However, whereas the earlier-mentioned drives from WD and Seagate are four-platter models (i.e. 500 GBytes/platter), a close perusal of the above photo will reveal that the Desktstar 7K2000 is a five-platter (400 GBytes/platter, and 10-head) configuration. Impressively, Hitachi squeezed this abundance of magnetic media into the 3.5" HDD form factor’s standard 1.028 inch (26.1 mm) height. However, as with Hitachi’s four-platter 1 TByte HDD unveiled in early 2007, you should expect the Deskstar 7K2000 to on average burn more power than a future fewer-platter equivalent, with all other factors (total capacity, etc) being equal.

What’s with the platter-count discrepancy between manufacturers? Think about it; as a platter spins ever faster, it becomes increasingly challenging for the read/write head to discriminate between sequentially stored data bits. That’s fundamentally the reason why Hitachi’s 7,200 RPM drive needs five platters to deliver the same aggregate capacity as WD and Seagate’s slower-spinning four-platter competitors.

But of course, as with Moore’s Law for semiconductors, PMR (perpendicular magnetic recording) technology and other techniques over time enable HDD suppliers to squeeze ever-increasing bit counts onto a given-sized sliver of magnetic media. And in fact, within the same press release that launched the Deskstar 7K2000 is a hint as to where Hitachi will shortly be going next:

In addition to the new 2TB Deskstar 7K2000, Hitachi GST is also refreshing its high-volume desktop hard drive family. The new 7200 RPM Deskstar 7K1000.C family will deliver up to 500GB per platter, and will come in capacities of 160GB to 1TB…Volume production and worldwide availability of the new Deskstar 7K1000.C will begin in the current quarter.

With single-platter 500 GByte and dual-platter 1 TByte models due out before the end of September, a four-platter 2 TByte simplification of today’s Deskstar 7K2000 will inevitably follow in short order.

Posted by Brian Dipert on August 6, 2009 | Comments (3)

August 6, 2009
In response to: Hitachi's Deskstar 7K2000 HDD: 2 TBytes, Spinning More Speedily
Brian Dipert commented:

Dear gardoglee, Yes, by 'transfer rate' I didn't particularly intend to imply 'sequential'...'highly random' was in fact what I was thinking of. For that's the dominant pattern when, as you say, a large number of clients are simultaneously hitting a common server.


August 6, 2009
In response to: Hitachi's Deskstar 7K2000 HDD: 2 TBytes, Spinning More Speedily
gardoglee commented:

However, another reason for use of a small portion of a drive in some enterprise class applications is still the old head movement time and rotational latency. If you are reading sequentially this is not much of an issue, but when was the last time a multi-processing machine like a database server read more than a track or two sequentially? Buffering can only do so much, as you then have the write through problem, and NAS and SAN controllers can also only do so much. In the end you still need more actuators and less rotational latency for some parts of your data, like paging, indexes and the like. Without use of massive SSD or buffering, a database server with fifty well tuned 20GB drives spinning at 15Krpm will often still outperform the same server with a single 1TB drive by a significant factor, and is a whole lot less expensive than an extra 64 GB of server quality buffering memory, making it the better configuration for your local SMB.


August 6, 2009
In response to: Hitachi's Deskstar 7K2000 HDD: 2 TBytes, Spinning More Speedily
Brian Dipert commented:

Dear blk, It's actually quite common, especially in enterprise applications, to use only the fastest-transfer-rate portion of a platter, trading off effective storage space for speed. That's why SSDs are notably attractive in enterprise applications; the cost/GByte differential isn't as severe (since only a fraction of the alternative HDD's total capacity is being used), and read performance is (application-dependent) critical.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2012 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows