[linux-lvm] hard drive shock tolerance

[Russell Coker]

On Saturday 13 January 2001 08:41, Scott Laird wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Given a choice I prefer hard drives with lower rotational speeds because
> > of the lesser heat production.  Read the spec sheets and you'll see that
> > as a general rule 10K rpm drives use twice as much power as 7200 rpm
> > drives, twice the power == twice the heat!
>
> Hmm.  Seagate's current 9GB 7200 RPM drive, the ST39236LC draws 7W when
> idle.  Their current 9 GB 10k RPM drive, the ST39204LC draws 8.5W when
> idle.  IMHO, that's not really very significant anymore, especially when
> your CPU eats 20-70W.  Both of these numbers are way better then drives
> only a generation or two back -- last year's ST39175 (9 GB, 7200 RPM) drew
> 9.75W when idle.

I've just done some more research on this, IBM Deskstar workstation drives 
40G:
7200RPM - 6.7W idle
5400RPM - 4.9W idle

IBM UltraStar server drives 36G:
Ultra 160SCSI 10K rpm - 7.4W idle
FCAL 10K rpm - 9.4W idle
Ultra 160SCSI 7200rpm - 8.9W idle


These results surprise me.  It seems that the only way of significantly 
reducing power by using a lower speed is when using Deskstar IDE drives.

Also I am curious as to why a drive that uses FC-AL will take so much more 
power because of it!
My previous message on this topic was based on information that is (now) 
obviously out of date.

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/     Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/       Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/     My home page