Reviews Leaderboard Database Reference Search StorageReview Discussion Reliability Survey Search About StorageReview.com Contents

Fujitsu MAM3367


StorageReview.com PayPal Donations



Fujitsu MAM3367
  October 1, 2001 Author: Eugene Ra  


Conclusion

How about heat and noise? Fujitsu often excels in these areas. With the MAM, unfortunately, a different story arises. Seek noises are slightly louder than those heard from the X15-36LP. It's idle noise, however, where a true difference arises. The MAM exhibits a high-frequency pitch that we haven't heard since the days of second-generation 10k RPM drives. Though it's likely irrelevant in the server situations that the MAM targets, it may bother those who utilize the drive in a high-end, single-user system. Heat levels remain on par with the X15-36LP... meaning that though it's not as scalding as IBM's Ultrastar 36Z15, the drive gets hot to the touch outside a drive cooler in our smallish testbed case. Active cooling may be warranted in many situations.

Overall, while the MAM is a decent first effort (superior to the Ultrastar 36Z15 overall), it can't quite match the performance of the Cheetah X15-36LP. The latter provides equivalent if not superior IOMeter performance coupled with decidedly better WinBench 99 scores. To Fujitsu's credit, by the narrowest of margins, the MAM turns in the highest IOMeter file server index recorded to date. The MAM also, unlike the Ultrastar 36Z15, matches Seagate spec-for-spec... no compromises were made in areal density or buffer size. Hopefully Fujitsu's 15k RPM line will evolve into a competitor that gives Seagate a run for its money... the manufacturer has already proved that it's capable of such in the 10k arena.


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