Caviar drive - running too hot?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy Brick MacKenna
  • Start date Start date
kony said:
I can't claim to have seen *all* Compaq models, but of those
I've seen that weren't small form factor or under-monitor
desktop type, they typically had a vertical screw-on
carrier, and a couple slits in the bottom of the case (or
holes tapped for screws).

I'm wondering if the drive below the floppy was something
the owner (or another person, later) did. What kind of case
was it? It's unlikely I have all Compaq cases from that
era, but I do have several.
Click to expand...

It wasn't something the owner did, I actually unpacked the PC and installed
the RAM, burnt the recovery discs, removed Nortons, installed AVG, Adaware,
Spybot etc. and tweaked XP ("Optimise for best performace" "Windows
classic"....) to get the best out of it he could.

It's a mini-tower case, not SFF. Thinking back, perhaps the drive was in a
seperate drive cage. If so it would have only taken two drives (sandwiched
together) maximum, not much bigger than a cigarette packet, and it certainly
was nowhere near where the front vent was. (Much lower down the case.) As I
said, this was an end-of-line model and it was only around a year ago, maybe
18 months. Actually, almost exactly 18 months, just checked my calendar.
Sorry, I don't have the model number here. Also, I find that half the models
we get here in New Zealand are different to the "international" (read: US)
models.

Cheers,
 
Randy, forgot to mention in my other reply to you. If HDDs spinning at
5,300rpm and 7,200rpm used similar amounts of energy (and therefore gave off
similar amounts of heat) why is it that (by far the majority of) laptop
drives are still either 4,200rpm or 5,300rpm? Maybe you know something that
laptop manufacturers don't? The difference in response times between 7,200
and 5,300 drives is vey noticable. If there was a "barely measurable"
difference in energy consumption surely they'd want their laptops to be
significantly more responsive?

Cheers,
Click to expand...

I didn't realize they were still offering 4200rpm drives in
laptops...Dell and Lenovo seem to be a mix of 5400 and 7200.

Anyway, here's why I think we don't see more 7200rpm drives in
laptops: it's due to the higher power consumption/heat generated by a
7200rpm drive. However, this has to do with spin-up energy, not
steady-state. The energy required to get a 7200rpm drive up to speed
is significantly higher than that of a 5400rpm drive. Since laptops
by default are running ACPI pretty aggressively (in battery mode),
they are going to be starting and stopping the HD a whole lot more
than a desktop. The energy hit at getting up to 7200rpm versus
5400rpm is too great, as well is the latency while waiting for the
platters to reach target speed.

Now tell me how wrong I am ;-)

-Randy
 
Randy said:
I didn't realize they were still offering 4200rpm drives in
laptops...Dell and Lenovo seem to be a mix of 5400 and 7200.
Click to expand...

Yeah, look around at the lower ranges of laptops.
Anyway, here's why I think we don't see more 7200rpm drives in
laptops: it's due to the higher power consumption/heat generated by a
7200rpm drive. However, this has to do with spin-up energy, not
steady-state.
Click to expand...

Then why spin them up more than once per power-cycle?
The energy required to get a 7200rpm drive up to speed
is significantly higher than that of a 5400rpm drive. Since laptops
by default are running ACPI pretty aggressively (in battery mode),
they are going to be starting and stopping the HD a whole lot more
than a desktop. The energy hit at getting up to 7200rpm versus
5400rpm is too great, as well is the latency while waiting for the
platters to reach target speed.

Now tell me how wrong I am ;-)

-Randy
Click to expand...


Sure, no problem. <g>

You say that it's nothing to do with steady-state. If that's the case then
why stop/start the drives at all? Surely, if the power involved in keeping a
drive at 7,200rpm is no big deal then you'd simply run it up to speed and
keep it there? Starting and stopping a drive sounds far more
energy-intensive than spinning it up and keeping it at speed. Unless keeping
a drive at 7,200rpm (steady-state) is more power-hungry than stopping and
starting a 5,300rpm drive.

If I hadn't had a few glasses <cough> of port, followed by a tumbler of
Johnnie Walker Black label on the rocks I'm sure this would sound a lot more
convincing. <g>

Why would you be spinning up and then allowing a drive to stop if it wasn't
saving energy compared to keeping it spinning?
 
Back
Top