Reviews Leaderboard Database Reference Search StorageReview Check Storage Prices Discussion FAQs Reliability Survey Search About StorageReview.com Contents

Seagate Cheetah 18XL


StorageReview.com PayPal Donations



Seagate Cheetah 18XL ST318404LW
  April 25, 2000 Author: Eugene Ra  

WB99/Win2k Low-Level Measurements

 Testbed II Low-Level MeasurementsDetails... 
Windows 2000 Professional using NTFS
Quantum Atlas 10k II (36.7 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 7.9|
Fujitsu MAJ3xxx (18.2 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 8.5|
IBM Ultrastar 36LZX (18.3 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 8.5|
Seagate Cheetah 18XL (18.4 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 8.9|
Seagate Cheetah 36LP (36.7 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 9.0|
Seagate Cheetah 18LP AV (18.2 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 9.1|
Windows 2000 Professional using NTFS
Fujitsu MAJ3xxx (18.2 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 42767|
Quantum Atlas 10k II (36.7 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 41467|
Seagate Cheetah 36LP (36.7 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 36167|
Seagate Cheetah 18XL (18.4 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 35967|
IBM Ultrastar 36LZX (18.3 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 34800|
Seagate Cheetah 18LP AV (18.2 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 28100|
Windows 2000 Professional using NTFS
Fujitsu MAJ3xxx (18.2 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 28300|
Quantum Atlas 10k II (36.7 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 25000|
Seagate Cheetah 18XL (18.4 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 25000|
Seagate Cheetah 36LP (36.7 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 24100|
IBM Ultrastar 36LZX (18.3 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 22800|
Seagate Cheetah 18LP AV (18.2 GB Ultra160/m SCSI) - 17500|

Click here to examine the STR graph for this drive

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

When it comes to sequential transfer rates, the Cheetah 18XL and Cheetah 36LP post virtually identical results. Interestingly, however, the 18XL features a negligible but not insignificantly faster transfer rate in its innermost zone, sliding by the 36LP by a 4% margin.

It's seek time that we're most interested in, however. Here the 18XL's optimized, reduced-weight actuator assembly allows it to power past the 36LP with an access time a whole... one-tenth of one millisecond less. Yes, that's right, the 18XL posts an average access time of 8.9 milliseconds compared to the 36LP's 9.0 milliseconds. Hmm... a 1% margin wasn't exactly what we expected. Are other differences between the two just as negligible? Let's find out!

 WinMarks...


HOME | ARTICLES | LEADERBOARD | PERFORMANCE DATABASE | REFERENCE GUIDE
COMMUNITY | RELIABILITY SURVEY | SUPPORT SR! | ABOUT SR |

Copyright © 1998-2005 StorageReview.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Write: Webmaster