Performance-wise, I'm sure it can't keep up with the 5400 RPM 60 GB Toshiba MK6022GAX with 16 MB cache...
Areal density actually makes more of a difference than seek time (rpm) or insane buffers. There were benchmarks I think on XLR8yourmac that back this up.
I, too, am curious about this new notebook drive. I sure could use an 80GB hard drive in my Powerbook with all the MP3s I have. But I would actually favor a drive that may have lesser capacity but better performance. You really notice the 4200 RPM and 2MB of the Fujitsu drive in here already. The length it takes to launch applications and navigate its hard drive is pokey at times.
Areal density actually makes more of a difference than seek time (rpm) or insane buffers. There were benchmarks I think on XLR8yourmac that back this up.
Platter density makes a difference, but in the context of these two HDDs, not that big a difference. I'm sure somce place will benchmark these two HDDs head-to-head for us...
a) don't modern computers/OSes use system ram for buffering data read from HDs? If so, of what relative importance is a hard drive's buffer size?
b) w/ a filesystem like HFS+, does it actually make a damn bit of difference? I mean, FSes like XFS use buffers to do 'last-possible-second' writes which speeds up reads/writes substantially by making the written data more contigious/less 'seeky and bursty'. But XFS was built from the ground up to do this. With an architecture like HFS+, surely low-level support for this sort of thing suxxors dramatically?
Does the buffer get used for filesystem read-ahead? Surely, noone wants constant, 16MB read-ahead?
What do buffers truly do, in a best case scenario?
Anybody spot any benchmarks on the 80GN yet? I'm very curious as well. I think it's gonna be pretty fast. The Fujitsu drives are as fast, if not faster than the 5400 drives out there because of how dense the data is. At 40gb per platter, the 80GN has to be pretty dense too. Would like to see numbers though...
Comments
Performance-wise, I'm sure it can't keep up with the 5400 RPM 60 GB Toshiba MK6022GAX with 16 MB cache...
Areal density actually makes more of a difference than seek time (rpm) or insane buffers. There were benchmarks I think on XLR8yourmac that back this up.
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Areal density actually makes more of a difference than seek time (rpm) or insane buffers. There were benchmarks I think on XLR8yourmac that back this up.
Platter density makes a difference, but in the context of these two HDDs, not that big a difference. I'm sure somce place will benchmark these two HDDs head-to-head for us...
a) don't modern computers/OSes use system ram for buffering data read from HDs? If so, of what relative importance is a hard drive's buffer size?
b) w/ a filesystem like HFS+, does it actually make a damn bit of difference? I mean, FSes like XFS use buffers to do 'last-possible-second' writes which speeds up reads/writes substantially by making the written data more contigious/less 'seeky and bursty'. But XFS was built from the ground up to do this. With an architecture like HFS+, surely low-level support for this sort of thing suxxors dramatically?
Does the buffer get used for filesystem read-ahead? Surely, noone wants constant, 16MB read-ahead?
What do buffers truly do, in a best case scenario?
Originally posted by Eugene
Performance-wise, I'm sure it can't keep up with the 5400 RPM 60 GB Toshiba MK6022GAX with 16 MB cache...
Eugene i used both,
MK4016GAX (same specs as MK6022GAX, except for 40 GB capacity)
40 GB
5400 RPM
16 GB buffer
12 ms seek time
Fluid Dynamic Bearings (noise reduction)
and
IBM Travelstar 40GNX
40 GB
5400 RPM
12 ms seek time
8 MB buffer
'Pixie Dust'
40GNX beats MK4016GAX, hands down even though it has only half the buffeer size of Toshiba's.
Plus these toshiba HDs make this greatly annoing rattling noise.
:-)
That would be nice!
I do, however, agree that an 80GB iPod would be a sick little piece of equipment.