4 ms·
Biggest problem with large spindle is that noise and heat dissipation (both mostly due to air friction) are roughly proportional to the square of linear speed o
by aexaey 10y ago
Biggest problem with large spindle is that noise and heat dissipation (both mostly due to air friction) are roughly proportional to the square of linear speed of the outer part of the platter, and bigger the platter, more linear speed you'll get at the same angular speed. On the other hand, you want to crank up angular speed to get any decent random IO operation/second value.
Last 5.25" HDD I've seen was Quantum Bigfoot CY [1], (which happened to be half-height FWIW), and this thing was pretty noisy even at 3,600 RPM. Dividing this by 60 (seconds in one minute) gives you theoretical maximum of only 60 random IOPS. Not exactly stellar, and as far as I remember, that was substantially lower in practice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bigfoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bigfoot
- SoapSeller 10y agoI can imagine a 5.25" drive populated with a couple(3-5) sets of ~1.8" platters, you could also have internal raid speeding things up and protecting from single set failures.
- givinguflac 10y agoWhy would you ever do that vs having separate disks you RAID if desired? That sounds like you'll inevitably end up with at least one failed disk in your 5.25" array, and then what do you do? If you can open it to replace the part, what is the functional benefit over separate disks to begin with?
- fulafel 10y agoThe Bigfoot failed in the market because they crashed and ate your data. The time might be right to try again with better execution. The current use for using spinning disk is for capacity applications like archive/media storage, so the speed tradeoff would be fine.