Ok, let’s now consider the data transfer rates in the beginning and in the end of the drive:
As you see, the “densest” platter belongs to Fujitsu HDD, as the ratio between the data transfer rate in the beginning and in the end of the drive is the lowest (1.22). Seagate’s drive managed to get the highest ratio (1.49).
Here are the linear read graphs for your reference. Click on the graph to open:
Well, our test session for three HDDs with 15,000rpm spindle rotation speed showed that despite the similar claimed specifications, the HDDs performed absolutely differently throughout the entire test session.
Maxtor HDD performed very vividly everywhere. Due to small access time value the drive worked perfectly well in patterns imitating the disk subsystem workload, such as File- and WebServer. At the same time, the synthetic SequentialWrite pattern revealed its low speed during write requests processing. Atlas 15K proved especially slow with U160 controller and small data blocks.
DataBase pattern uncovered one more bottleneck of this drive’s firmware: inefficient lazy write algorithms.
Maxtor’s results in WinBench caught me absolutely unawares: in FAT32 the HDD was rocking, while in NTFS it was dramatically slow.
Fujitsu HDD performed not bad at all: it worked very fast in DataBase pattern, which indicates excellent firmware algorithms. At the same time, the results in DataBase got pretty low when the HDD worked with U320 controller. The same performance drop could be observed in File- and WebServer patterns. Hopefully they will eliminate this drawback in the firmware of mass drives.
Seagate Cheetah 15K.3 yielded to its younger rivals from Maxtor and Fujitsu in most benchmarks. I think that it is the optimization for higher workloads that caused this failure today.
In conclusion I would like to say only one thing: the competition in the high-performance HDD sector has become really intense. And this is very good news for the users. Let the strongest win…