Comments on: The disk rotation speed bottleneck http://www.dbms2.com/2010/01/31/the-disk-rotation-speed-bottleneck/ Choices in data management and analysis Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:48:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2010/01/31/the-disk-rotation-speed-bottleneck/#comment-158696 Curt Monash Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:32:38 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1472#comment-158696 That last bit sounds like the title of a geeky country song! :) That last bit sounds like the title of a geeky country song! :)

]]> By: Andrew S http://www.dbms2.com/2010/01/31/the-disk-rotation-speed-bottleneck/#comment-158668 Andrew S Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:31:49 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1472#comment-158668 The theoretical upper end for RPM for a 3.5" disk platter is roughly 70k. At this rotational speed the outer edge of the disk will be travelling about 330 m/s, just under the speed of sound. In other words, there is little room for seek time improvement for conventional platter design. (Don't take this disk to Denver!) The theoretical upper end for RPM for a 3.5″ disk platter is roughly 70k. At this rotational speed the outer edge of the disk will be travelling about 330 m/s, just under the speed of sound.

In other words, there is little room for seek time improvement for conventional platter design.

(Don’t take this disk to Denver!)

]]> By: John M. Wildenthal http://www.dbms2.com/2010/01/31/the-disk-rotation-speed-bottleneck/#comment-157890 John M. Wildenthal Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:56:04 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1472#comment-157890 Robert Cringely is part of a group trying to make drives using stainless steel foil for platters. He was thinking they could run at 30K RPM - twice the speed, half the seek. The price difference with SSD is enough that he expects them to be commercially viable. They will also hold 3X as much data as standard drives due to additional platters. Original post: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20061026_001143.html Most recent post: http://www.cringely.com/2009/06/the-mouse-that-roared/ Robert Cringely is part of a group trying to make drives using stainless steel foil for platters. He was thinking they could run at 30K RPM – twice the speed, half the seek. The price difference with SSD is enough that he expects them to be commercially viable. They will also hold 3X as much data as standard drives due to additional platters.

Original post:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20061026_001143.html

Most recent post:
http://www.cringely.com/2009/06/the-mouse-that-roared/

]]> By: Osma http://www.dbms2.com/2010/01/31/the-disk-rotation-speed-bottleneck/#comment-157886 Osma Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:38:29 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1472#comment-157886 @SuperNintendoChalmers, you may be enlightened by http://www.storagesearch.com/nibble-futureofhdds-servers.html @SuperNintendoChalmers, you may be enlightened by

http://www.storagesearch.com/nibble-futureofhdds-servers.html

]]> By: Flash, other solid-state memory, and disk | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services http://www.dbms2.com/2010/01/31/the-disk-rotation-speed-bottleneck/#comment-157769 Flash, other solid-state memory, and disk | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:12:41 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1472#comment-157769 [...] has at least as high an annual improvement as Moore’s Law shows for chip capacity, the disk rotation speed bottleneck notwithstanding. Disk will long be much cheaper than silicon for data storage. And cheaper silicon [...] [...] has at least as high an annual improvement as Moore’s Law shows for chip capacity, the disk rotation speed bottleneck notwithstanding. Disk will long be much cheaper than silicon for data storage. And cheaper silicon [...]

]]> By: SuperNintendoChalmers http://www.dbms2.com/2010/01/31/the-disk-rotation-speed-bottleneck/#comment-157660 SuperNintendoChalmers Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:18:56 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1472#comment-157660 I don't get it. We've been stuck at 15K RPM for a decade now. I still remember Seagate touting the first 15K RPM Cheetahs in February of '00. Yeah, those first drives were hot and noisy (and the second generation drives only slightly less so), but they got the job done. By '03, Seagate and Maxtor (steward of the former Quantum) were producing comparatively muted, much cooler, and (with the arrival of Ultra320 SCSI) even faster...15K drives. And that's where we've been ever since. Why is that? The escalation from 10K to 15K happened in, what, less than five years? I thought I remembered hearing tell about 18K drives, but (and perhaps it's the lateness of the hour) am drawing a complete blank now. I don't think there are any widely-available/mass-market 18K drives, however. I don’t get it. We’ve been stuck at 15K RPM for a decade now. I still remember Seagate touting the first 15K RPM Cheetahs in February of ’00. Yeah, those first drives were hot and noisy (and the second generation drives only slightly less so), but they got the job done. By ’03, Seagate and Maxtor (steward of the former Quantum) were producing comparatively muted, much cooler, and (with the arrival of Ultra320 SCSI) even faster…15K drives. And that’s where we’ve been ever since.

Why is that? The escalation from 10K to 15K happened in, what, less than five years?

I thought I remembered hearing tell about 18K drives, but (and perhaps it’s the lateness of the hour) am drawing a complete blank now. I don’t think there are any widely-available/mass-market 18K drives, however.

]]>