[Thinkpad] drive speed

[RWM]

The swept data density argument sounds logical to me, Frank, but I am 
not a storage engineer.  I suppose there would also be issues of mean 
access time, number of heads, etc. in addition to rotation speed, cache, 
etc.  Multi-factors at play, just some of the reasons YMMV...

- Bob


Frank K-F wrote:
> If I assume that both drives have the same number of platters .. then 
> the 120 GB drive has twice the areal density compared to the 60 GB.   
> Thus one could argue ... and calculate ... that the slower spinning 120 
> GB drive's head will pass over as many (or even somewhat more) bits per 
> second compared to the faster spinning 60 GB unit.  Different type and 
> size of cache obviously is an additional consideration in overall 
> performance.
> 
> I'd like to hear if this rationale has validity.
> 
> Frank K-F
> ========
> 
> RWM wrote:
> 
>>Agreed, on YMMV, too, in that relative size of disk cache would also be 
>>a factor and relative performance may differ by application.
>>
>>- RWM
>>
>>
>>Matt wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>I noticed an improvement in performance by upgrading, so I'd think you'll 
>>>see a change by downgrading.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course YMMV
>>>
>>>
>>>Matt
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "richard" <rpritz at rcn.com>
>>>To: "'Thinkpad List'" <thinkpad at stderr.org>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:17 AM
>>>Subject: [Thinkpad] drive speed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>Will a 120gb 5400 travelstar drive seem much slower than a 60gb 7200
>>>>travelstar?