Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

2.5” Test HDDs: Hitachi Ultrastar C15K147

3.5" Vs. 2.5" SAS HDDs: In Storage, Size Matters
By

Finally, Hitachi's Ultrastar C15K147 is representative of 2.5” high performance enterprise hard drives, offering up to 147GB capacity. This isn’t much, but it's still more than most SSDs. In addition, Hitachi's next generation, with up to 300GB capacity, is only a few months away.

This drive offers the same characteristics as the 3.5” drive: 64MB cache and a SAS 6Gb/s interface. Hitachi uses two platters for this product, and we found that power consumption is amazingly low for a 15,000 RPM drive. A 4.7W idle and and 7.3W peak load is roughly half the power consumption of most 3.5” drives. The C15K147 doesn't run much cooler, though, still registering 59°C versus 61°C and 64°C for the 3.5” drives.

Performance-wise, the C15K147 can't reach the Ultrastar 15K600's 195 MB/s throughput, but it reads and writes data almost exactly at the same speed as the Ultrastar 15K450. Application performance outstrips the 15K450 a bit, while I/O performance is slightly better on the 3.5” drives. However, 2.5” drives have significant advantages over 3.5” models when it comes to storage density in rackmount environments. The space and power envelope required to run four 3.5” drives will allow up to ten 2.5” drives in the same 1U.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 4 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    lloydie_p , 9 May 2010 08:39
    "you can easily imagine that a simple RAID with four 3.5” drives could be replaced by six to ten 2.5” drives".

    With the drives mentioned at max throughput 10 x 2.5(15K) would draw 73 watts versus the 59 watts of the 4 x 3.5(15K 600GB) an considering the 4 x 3.5 would = 2.4TB of space and 10 x 2.5 only 1.4TB; unless no one considers capacity I don't see how 2.5 inch drives make for the best compromises.

  • 0 Hide
    andybird123 , 10 May 2010 23:34
    this article does talk about the trade off on throughput and performance per watt, versus raw capacity, but you are right, it's a trade off - at the same price point you can either go for 1.4TB of very fast storage space, or 2.4TB of fast storage

    if you were mainly interested in storage space you could get 4 x 1TB 7200rpm SAS drives for around the same price
  • 0 Hide
    shanky887614 , 10 August 2010 00:52
    this is not realy a valid test

    2.5inch drives where originally designed for laptops hence the small form factor and low power

    so it makes sence they will lose to speed and capacity of there 3.5 inch cosins
  • 0 Hide
    BulkZerker , 11 August 2010 23:53
    shanky887614this is not realy a valid test2.5inch drives where originally designed for laptops hence the small form factor and low power so it makes sence they will lose to speed and capacity of there 3.5 inch cosins


    Howso? Really the future for mass server storage seems to be migrating to 2.5" so it makes sense to see what the tradeoff is.

    Also, everyone who is reporting the spammers please mark them down as well as reporting them so people know they've been reported.