Seagate ST3146855LC Economies of Capacity and Speed: Choosing the most cost-ef - Page 1

Seagate ST3146855LC - Cheetah 146.8 GB Hard Drive Manual

Page 1 highlights

TP-525 • From: Seagate Global Product Marketing • May 2004 Technology Paper Economies of Capacity and Speed: Choosing the most cost-effective disc drive size and RPM to meet IT requirements Introduction IT departments are under growing pressure to find the most cost-effective means to meet their escalating data storage requirements, including disc drive capacity and performance. Today's storage systems must hold ever-increasing amounts of data, achieve input/output (I/O) performance goals, meet client response-time expectations and minimize physical space (U or ft3) requirements. Furthermore, IT professionals must ensure their storage systems are reliable-maximizing system availability while minimizing drive failures, the number of RAID rebuilds and RAID rebuild time. All of these factors can come into play when determining the optimal capacity and speed of a system's disc drives. In this paper we will discuss a variety of factors that impact the choice of disc drive capacity and speed for systems that offer a choice between 3.5-inch 10K-RPM drives and 3.5-inch 15K-RPM drives. Let us start by looking at the current trend in drive purchase decisions. While IT departments often speak of buying drives on the basis of cost/capacity (price per GB), the majority of drives they will actually purchase are 36GB 10K (lowest price box cost), as opposed to 146GB 15K (highest initial acquisition price/GB) or 300GB 10K (lowest price per GB). Were cost/capacity truly the dominant purchase criterion used by IT departments, they would instead be buying 300GB 10K drives (see Figure 1). 350 Capacity 300 300 of 10K 250 Offered 200 Gbytes 150 146 100 50 36 73 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Calendar Year Figure 1. IT departments are not buying the lowest cost/GB drives. Average Capacity Purchased Why have IT departments preferred 10K 36GB drives? The history of disc drives and other system component offerings will shed some light on this.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Economies of Capacity and Speed:
Choosing the most cost-effective disc drive
size and RPM to meet IT requirements
Introduction
IT departments are under growing pressure to find the most cost-effective means to meet their escalating data storage
requirements, including disc drive capacity and performance. Today’s storage systems must hold ever-increasing amounts of data,
achieve input/output (I/O) performance goals, meet client response-time expectations and minimize physical space (U or ft3)
requirements. Furthermore, IT professionals must ensure their storage systems are reliable-maximizing system availability while
minimizing drive failures, the number of RAID rebuilds and RAID rebuild time. All of these factors can come into play when
determining the optimal capacity and speed of a system’s disc drives.
In this paper we will discuss a variety of factors that impact the choice of disc drive capacity and speed for systems that offer a
choice between 3.5-inch 10K-RPM drives and 3.5-inch 15K-RPM drives. Let us start by looking at the current trend in drive
purchase decisions.
While IT departments often speak of buying drives on the basis of cost/capacity (price per GB), the majority of
drives they will actually purchase are 36GB 10K (lowest price box cost), as opposed to 146GB 15K (highest initial acquisition
price/GB) or 300GB 10K (lowest price per GB). Were cost/capacity truly the dominant purchase criterion used by IT departments,
they would instead be buying 300GB 10K drives (see Figure 1).
Why have IT departments preferred 10K 36GB drives? The history of disc drives and other system component offerings will shed
some light on this.
TP-525 • From: Seagate Global Product Marketing • May 2004
Technology Paper
Figure 1. IT departments are not buying the lowest cost/GB drives.
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Gbytes
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4 Q1
Q2
2001
2002
2003
Calendar Year
2004
2005
300
146
73
36
Capacity
of 10K
Offered
Average
Capacity
Purchased