From: v923137@vms.ucc.okstate.edu
Subject: Re: Fast hard drives - seek isn't everything.
Organization: Oklahoma State University Computer Center
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:41:00 GMT

In article <BzGu6r.811@sunnup.MAGDATA.COM>, beemer@sunnup.MAGDATA.COM (Oscar the Grouch) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.092641.24824@doug.cae.wisc.edu> keiths@cae.wisc.edu (Keith Scidmore) writes:
>>
>>I asked Hard Drives Intl for their fastest IDE drive (thinking I would
>>let Zeos keep the Seagate 3283A 245MB drive that came with my system 
>>and upgrade immediately).
>>HDI sent me a $1000 FJ2624A 510MB Fujitsu IDE drive.x

Perhaps you should have defined *fastest*. Fastest seek time? Fastest transfer
rate? Fastest average of the two?
 
> So they sent you what you asked for the disk with the fastest published specs.
> 
>>It turned out to be slower than the Seagate on
>>all the benchmarks and programs I tested even though it had about
>>an 8 ms seek time to the Seagate's 11 ms.  The following explains
>>how this was determined and why the Seagate was faster on both
>>the benchmarks and on real programs.
>>
>>I started by testing the drives using PCTools, Norton Utilities, 
>>Checkit, and Core.  They all showed that the 245MB was *much* faster on 
>>transfers but slower on average seeks.  Thinking that the larger buffer on 
>>      [ stuff deleted about testing procedure] 
>>
>>Results:
>>
>>The Seagate was 10-20% faster than the Fujitsu on all my program test.  The 
>>reason is that the Fujitsu drive was about 18% faster on seek times but the 
>>Seagate was about 50% faster in transferring the data.  I returned the 
>>Fujitsu to HDI.
>>
>>There were two things I learned.
> 
> So who paid for your learning experience. Sounds like HDI did.

Sounds like you should have considered data throughput before purchasing a
new hard drive.  
 
>>First, transfer speed is significant in
>>choosing a drive.  The Fujitsu's 8 ms average seek time (measured) didn't 
>>make it faster. 

You said it had faster seek time.  Do you mean it was less efficient in
transferring data?    Sounds like thats what you're talking about.
>>
>>Second, HDI doesn't always know what they are talking about.
> 
> What they told you was what you asked for the published stats.

That's right.  You should have asked the right questions to start with.
 
>>They were inaccurate in telling me the stats of both drives.  My tests
>>showed that the Seagate Drive on my Zeos 486-66 VLB machine ran faster 
>>in transferring data than HDI said it *could* by 50%.   This was true even
>>on the Core benchmark that they suggested I use.  Unless you have a
>>really fragmented disk I think the Seagate is the better bet.

Well, the larger cache on the Seagate probably had something to do with it,
but like I said, you should have considered the data-transfer rate before
buying the drive.

>>The bad news is that the Seagate drive is in such demand that HDI can't
>>get them.  I'll just have to live with the one 245MB that came with my
>>Zeos system for now.
> So let me guess, after installing the disk, beating hell out of it with
> your testing program, and using it for some unmentioned period of time 
> you returned it for a full refund. Not; because the drive was defective.
> Not because it did not meet the published specs. but because it did not
> live up to your expectations. Now that it has been returned what do you
> expect HDI to do with it. They can no longer sell it as a new drive, that
> would be unethical. They could probably sell it as a used drive but that
> is not their business. So what they do is take a loss on the drive and dump
> it through a broker. This loss gets distributed across the product line as
> a price increase, and we all pay more for components in the future. I for
> one am unwilling to finance your education. I work for a Disk company and 
> get tired of seeing this happen time and again. We have plenty of the Seagate
> 245s in stock but would not offer one to you. You would probably beat hell
> out of it and then send it back because you did not like the color. I am
> sure you would not appreciate someone doing this to something you sold them
> but you seem to feel you have some special privledge that makes it ok for
> you to do this. I cannot understand this kind of attitude.

AMEN!

 
>>
>>Keith R. Scidmore
> Tom Neveras
-Jason Worley