Quoting Nick Chalk <nick@???>:
> Dr Adam J Trickett <adam.trickett@???> wrote:
> > In the early days SCSI disks were both more
> > reliable and more flexible and potentially
> > faster, now the only difference is that they
> > cost a lot more per Mb.
>
> There's still significant differences in the
> drives.
>
> Take Seagate for example, comparing the Barracuda
> ST3320613AS 320GB SATA drive [1] with the Cheetah
> ST3300007LC 300GB U320 SCSI drive [2].
>
> Ignoring the obvious difference in spindle speed -
> 10k RPM for the SCSI, 7.2k RPM for the SATA - the
> physical geometry is different. The SATA drive
> achieves its capacity with one platter and two
> heads, whilst the SCSI uses four platters and
> eight heads. That suggests to me a much lower bit
> density on the platter, which should result in
> better signal-to-noise and less reliance on signal
> processing to actually read or write bits.
Interesting, the reviews in custom pc magazine suggest that less platters for a
capacity means a higher areal? density. This supposively means a higher speed
presumably because the arm doesnt have to move as much.
Martin N
----------------------------------------------
This mail sent through
http://www.ukonline.net
