3 ms·
To take a guess, I'd say they managed to remove a platter or two to lower costs on the smaller drives (I wonder if an EFAX is physically lighter?) but couldn't
by alias_neo 6y ago
To take a guess, I'd say they managed to remove a platter or two to lower costs on the smaller drives (I wonder if an EFAX is physically lighter?) but couldn't get the same benefit or didn't need the cost reduction in the more expensive 8TB+ drives. It's also possible that in testing, the 256MB cache just want sufficient to make DM-SMR "usable" at those larger capacities or that the firmware/controller just wasn't up to it.