spindle question

The spindle/track density of 500GB drives is about double that of
300GB (before right-sizing and all that) but the spindle size is the
same, 3.5".

So if my drives are half full, my logic states that my seek times will
actually be less because the head has to travel less distance (higher
track density). As the disk approaches full the seek times become
normalized with the 300GB drive.

I don;t doubt there's a flaw in my logic so will someone please
educate me on this?

Thanks.

~F

Faeandar wrote:
The spindle/track density of 500GB drives is about double that of
300GB (before right-sizing and all that) but the spindle size is the
same, 3.5".

That kind of surprises me: I'd have expected the difference to be
primarily in the number of platters rather than in the bit density (are
you sure you're comparing drives of the same generation?).

But assuming that your observation is correct...


So if my drives are half full, my logic states that my seek times will
actually be less because the head has to travel less distance (higher
track density). As the disk approaches full the seek times become
normalized with the 300GB drive.

One factor that might tend to compensate at least in part for the
reduced seek distance might be the fact that the increased bit (likely
track) density might require more head-settling time.

- bill

On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:06:03 -0400, Bill Todd
wrote:

Faeandar wrote:
The spindle/track density of 500GB drives is about double that of
300GB (before right-sizing and all that) but the spindle size is the
same, 3.5".

That kind of surprises me: I'd have expected the difference to be
primarily in the number of platters rather than in the bit density (are
you sure you're comparing drives of the same generation?).

I'm not certain of any of this. I am not comparing anything
specifically, strictly logic.

More platters would also, at least in my logic, equate to less seek
time due to more heads. But again, not an expert on this topic.


But assuming that your observation is correct...


So if my drives are half full, my logic states that my seek times will
actually be less because the head has to travel less distance (higher
track density). As the disk approaches full the seek times become
normalized with the 300GB drive.

One factor that might tend to compensate at least in part for the
reduced seek distance might be the fact that the increased bit (likely
track) density might require more head-settling time.

If the track density remains constant though this would not be a
consideration would it?


Essentially my purpose is to better understand the differences between
the drive sizes in the same family (ie. FC family, SATA family, etc.)

~F