Sun 07 Sep 2008

RSS Feed

Edited by Paul Hales

Published by Incisive Media Investments Ltd.

Terms and Conditions of use.

To advertise in Europe e-mail here

To advertise in Asia email here.

To advertise in North America email here.

Join the INQbot Mail List for a weekly guide to our news stories:

Subscribe

WD makes enterprise Velociraptors

Goes after the SAS market

WESTERN DIGITAL CAME out with the 10,000RPM 2.5-inch Velociraptor HDs last spring, and instantly took the enthusiast crown. Now the firm is aiming for the same niche in the enterprise space with the new Velociraptor WD3000BLFS.

If you are expecting wildly new specs and features, prepare to be underwhelmed. Like the rest of the drives that WD makes, these enterprise variants are very similar to the normal Velociraptors, with updated firmware, slightly differing construction and better validation. The aim is to make them faster at the things servers do, not the things gamers do. And have a more reliable life while doing so.

The main thing WD is adding is a technology called Rotary Active Feed Forward (RAFF) which makes it live longer in multi-unit vibration prone chassis. This helps in achieving the 1.4 million hours MTBF rating - 9.8 million hours in dog years for the curious - or basically forever. Otherwise it is the same as the Velociraptor, 2.5-inch 10K RPMs and a 16M cache.

It will be interesting to see how well these drives do in the market,, The 2.5-inch enterprise sector is rife with SCSI/SAS competitors, but there are no SATA 10K drives out there. The other makers have a SAS line to protect, so they are staying out of the market for cannibalisation reasons.

Let's hope this one does well, nothing like cheap speed and capacity to shake up a staid marketplace. µ

Comments

Or basically forever?

"Or basically forever".

That's one way of looking at it. The other way;

In a lot of 159 of these, 1 will fail annually.

C//
posted by : Joe Kraska, 24 July 2008

Distribution

@Joe Kraska

You can't take a MTBF and divide it by the number of hours in a year to get the proportion of drives that fail in a year.

You need to take into account the distribution of the failures, and it's most certainly not flat.

http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf
posted by : BenPope, 24 July 2008
IThound
Search for solutions, reports & analysis

Newsletter signup



 

Top INQ Stories