Talk:Hard disk drive/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Editing reliable information and removal of speculation

The material removed is permitted under Wikipedia's speculation policy, notable, from reliable sources and of interest and therefore should not be removed. Tom94022 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The "reliable source" is a marketing department press release. But this particular reference is no longer valid: the company website no longer carries this press release. A citation is needed.

SMR itself is merely the "first step," and reaching the "2020" milestone presumes further steps: HAMR, TDMR and possibly BPM. Climbing to the top of a skyscraper or proposing an A380 aircraft design isn't the "first step" to landing a man on the moon by 2020. The "2020" date is pure speculation. Furthermore, the 20TB HDD is too vague to use as a milestone because it's just a capacity figure, not an areal density milestone. Cramming more disks into the same form factor, as they've done with some of the 8 TB and 10 TB drives, does not advance areal density. Marketing fluff, hype, and vague capacity claims six or seven years out in the future that pre-suppose as-yet-unreleased new technologies don't belong in Wikipedia.71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Dsmic, consider that "Growth can't go on forever" is a truism. Even so, perhaps Moore's statement should be retained since many readers may not realize this. Nonetheless, the "open question" is speculative, insipid, vapid and empty. Therefore, this adds nothing but airy fluff to the article. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Sheesh, why have I touched this? :) Sorry, but I'd prefer to leave further discussion on this to Tom94022. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The citation remains valid regardless of whether or not the press release remains posted on the website; removal is not renouncing. While u may find the language "speculative, insipid, vapid and empty" I don't so why don't you try coming up with language to make the same point without obliterating the point, which at least two editors think is neither speculative, insipid, vapid nor empty. It summarizes the many opinions about the future AD growth rate; some have predicted a return to 40%, most have not - that seems to me to qualify as an open question. You, the IP, are now edit warring. I am returning the paragraph to its original state and hope you will discuss rather than edit warring. Tom94022 (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's based on what Seagate says about the technology it's using and developing, and removal of a press release is nothing unusual. If it contained false information, there would certainly be a later explanation about it (or at least other few HDD manufacturers would have eaten Seagate alive :). Also, these days HDD manufacturers simply can't tell fairy tales, as the only way for them to remain competitive against SSDs is to keep ramping up HDD capacities, either through higher areal densities or by cramming in more platters. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nah, areal density (not capacity) forecasts are discussed separately. We all already know that growth can't continue forever, and the future is an "open question": no need to say it in this article. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP, u have two editors who do not agree with your proposed deletions; until u have consensus here you should not continue to force your changes into the article. What you are doing is edit warring which could cause sanctions against you. BTW as we all know areal density and capacity are related so your objection to the Seagate quote is without merit. I am returning the article to its original state. Please do not make your deletions until there is consensus reached in this discussion. Tom94022 (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Areal density obviously can't go up forever, but HDD manufacturers surely keep working on it and‍—‌putting all the press releases and mathematical prediction models aside‍—‌there's almost for sure more room for improvements there. The manufacturers simply must do something to produce higher-capacity HDDs or they'll go out of business soon – and they can't cram 12 platters into 1/3-height devices. Saying there's no room for improvement is quite similar to the proverbial "640 KB is enough for everyone". :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Think carefully, dear Tom94, as you're issuing these threats. You sound familiar with sanctions, likely because you've been on the receiving end of them. A review would expose your years-long and tawdry record of tendentious edits and conflicts with other editors. I'd welcome a review, but you wouldn't.

We all know that growth can't continue forever, and Moore put this plainly in 1995. Still, it might be worthwhile to reiterate this. No matter how much room there is for capacity or areal density improvement, and we all know that there's a lot of room, the amount of room is not infinite. Forever is a really long time, and nothing grows for that long.

We all know that the indefinite future is an “open question,” and this statement adds nothing to this article.

Bear in mind that the issue isn't capacity per drive: it's areal density or capacity per platter. Storage cost per bit, areal density and capacity per platter are important, but capacity per drive is less so. It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that "areal density and capacity are related," without defining what capacity means. Areal density (meaning capacity per platter) is a subset of drive capacity. In other words, improving areal density (capacity per platter) lowers storage cost per bit, while adding platters to a drive may not lower storage cost per bit. So advancement depends on how capacity per drive is increased: adding platters doesn't bring much advancement but improving areal density does. For this reason, capacity per drive is vague and causes confusion in this article.

The “2020” statement concerning capacity per drive is redundant, since areal density forecasts are already discussed separately in this article. Their median is 20% per year. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Could this adjustment be some kind of a compromise for the "20 TB HDDs" statement? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The "2020" claim should be deleted, no matter which authority made it. Firstly, it concerns capacity per drive which is not important as has been explained above in detail.

The claimed capacity in 2020 would have to be converted to an areal density growth rate to have much meaning. But, areal density growth forecasts are discussed elsewhere, and the median forecast is 20% per year. This "2020" forecast is too vague to contribute to that stable. So once again, the "2020" claim should be deleted, no matter which authority made it. It sounds important, but means little unless converted, interpreted and explained. The "2020" is a quintessential marketing claim that sounds great but is empty in reality.

Finally, remember that this is just the "first step." Skyscrapers and jet planes aren't the first step to putting a man on the moon, and SMR isn't the first step to a high capacity per platter, with high areal density and low storage cost per bit, unless several more developments like HAMR and BPR were assured. But, they're not assured. Suffice it to say that SMR was introduced in 2013, and remove the "2020" marketing puffery from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.35.13 (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The "2020" claim should be deleted, no matter which authority made it. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I undid the IPs revision again, since he has stated nothing new and has not convinced any other editor that his proposed deletions have merit. It would certainly help if he proposed improvements rather than just destruction. For example Dismic's proposed language could be worked into something like:

• One such technology, shingled magnetic recording (SMR), was introduced by Seagate in 2013 as a first step to reaching a 20 TB HDD by 2020.

And the open question language could be worked into something like:

• ...whether HDD areal density growth rate ever returns to its previous high rate is unclear.

I think there is relevant summary material in each statement objected to so I am reluctant to agree to obliteration. Hopefully the IP will respond with proposed language rather than insisting on his way. Tom94022 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be much better and much more productive if we could work together on adjusting the language until some kind of a compromise is reached. Also, it might be good to have opinions from more editors on the whole thing. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing is pruning, not obliteration. Parroting the industry press release encrusts this article with barnacles, and obfuscates advancement.

Again, we've two points of contention. The first is that the "the first step to reaching a 20 TB" drive capacity doesn't represent growth as well as areal density (platter capacity) does, because drive capacity is a vague metric. Areal density is discussed thoroughly elsewhere in this article. The second point is that we all know that the indefinite future is “unclear" or "an open question,” so this adds nothing to this article except clutter. Perhaps you could address these two points directly. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

1. The relationship between areal density and maximum capacity is not "vague" but instead is reasonably correlated since the vendors are constrained by drefacto form factor standards and practical limits on head size and disk thickness. IMO maximum capacity is far more meaningful to our readers than areal density so with the current maximum well established as about 8-10 TB a prediction by a reliable source of 20 TB by 2020; i.e. more or less doubling in more or less 5 years is reasonable information for the article.
2. While we all know exponential growth cannot go on forever, there are at least some observers predicting a return to 40% per year but most do not think so. The sentence maybe a bit of a non-sequitor but the open question is whether growth will return to its previous high exponential rates, remain stable at a lower exponential rate or even perhaps cease being exponential. At the present growth rate enough time has not passed to determine what sort of curve the technology is currently on, and of course there are lots of predictions of new technology causing the growth rate to increase. So if u can come up with a better way of saying the future growth rate is unclear or an open question, please do so, but don't obliterate this summary of the current situation.

May I suggest any rewording appear here so as to build consensus? Tom94022 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stay away from going into the bullet point #2, but I agree with Tom94022 on #1. In other words, and as I already wrote above, HDD manufacturers "can't cram 12 platters into 1/3-height devices". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Capacity per drive lags far behind areal density in relevance, importance and support from authoritative sources. You should provide a citation for the areal density and maximum capacity relationship that you're now claiming to be correlated.

IMO the trend for areal density is far more meaningful than capacity per drive, as this article contains numerous citations that thoroughly discuss areal density and its history. There are no citations nor discussion of the capacity (per drive) trend over decades, while the literature is rife with areal density discussions.

The only way to make capacity relevant is to undertake an unwise and rash editor calculation: “Seagate claims that capacity will grow by 17% per year, from about 9 TB to 20 TB in five years.” Seagate didn't say that, and their marketing/PR people would surely disavow your editor-produced claim. Capacity by itself, 20 TB in 2020, is so vague as to be meaningless, and that's what Seagate is aiming to do here: making a deliberately vague marketing claim.

The “first step to” 2020 should be removed from this article.

2. You're claiming that “there are at least some observers predicting a return to 40% per year, ... and of course there are lots of predictions of new technology causing the growth rate to increase."

Can you provide a reference for one of those observers? No observer in the last year or so is predicting 40% per year. Hope for robust growth of 40% per year has faded now. Those were happier times; but now the reality of much slower growth has set in.

Here's “a better way of saying the future growth rate is unclear or an open question”: don't say it at all. You cling desperately to a truism, which needs to be edited unto obliteration for the betterment of this article. It clutters the article with insipid, vapid, irrelevant fluff. Get real. This article does not need to apologize for the cloudiness of our crystal ball wp:crystal. The article references numerous well-sourced areal density forecasts already, and their median is 20% per year.

3. How many platters can be crammed into a hard drive isn't relevant. As noted above ad nauseum, storage cost is related to areal density. Cramming more platters into a drive ratchets up drive cost in proportion to the number of platters. Therefore, how many platters are in the drive or how much capacity it has, is vague and largely irrelevant to storage cost per bit. In fact, over the long sweep of HDD history, both form factor and platter diameter have changed several times as evidenced by the phrases we use to describe them: full height, half height, one third height, 2.5 inch, 3.5 inch, etc. Obviously, this dooms drive capacity as a measure of advancement when the scope is more than a decade or two. The HDD industry knows this full well, and for this reason it uses areal density as a proxy for storage cost per bit, not drive capacity.

The press release heralds the introduction of SMR, and SMR is worthy of note. The “first step to” 20 TB in 2020 claim obviously is not worthy. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Umh, this was close to a case of tl;dr. :) Well, it is important how many platters a drive can have, for one simple reason: the industry will never go back to 5.25-inch or full-height devices. HDD consumers would want even smaller, not bigger form factors, which can store increasingly larger amounts of data; there's no point in having a full-height 3.5-inch HDD that stores the same amount of data as three regular 1/3-height 3.5-inch HDDs. That's why drive capacity is important, and why it is directly related to the inevitable advancements in areal density. I don't think we can find a reference for that, but it should be obvious anyway. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Which source relates areal density and maximum capacity, or charts drive capacity over several decades? Most sources don't track drive capacity, for the reasons I listed above.

Recall that “there are at least some observers predicting a return to 40% per year, ... and of course there are lots of predictions of new technology causing the growth rate to increase." Has one of those observers predicting 40% been identified? 71.128.35.13 (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, but do we need a source that would tell us that the sky is (usually) blue? :) If we have a determined storage device form factor, areal density simply must go up if we want such devices to store more and more data on each of them. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

We can see the sky, so we've no need to look at historical records. But we rely on areal density records to represent HDD advancement. You still haven't found any historical context for drive capacity, so “the first step to 20 TB” is meaningless. Though capacity may grow by 17% per year through 2020, for this article advancement should be represented by areal density both looking forward, with a median 20% per year, and also backward, which was around 40% per year. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP likes to repeat his arguments so I think we can ignore his continuous reiteration of this unpersuasive point. The Seagate article is a reliable source and does not require "historical context," but if anyone wants some, just Google `"highest capacity" HDD` Tom94022 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The capacity context isn't obvious, so neither Googling nor hand-waving is a reliable source. Let's see if you can address the issues raised by The IP. To reiterate, for your convenience, first you claim that “there are at least some observers predicting a return to 40% per year, ... and of course there are lots of predictions of new technology causing the growth rate to increase." Could you provide a reference for one of those observers? Second, which source relates areal density and maximum capacity, or charts drive capacity over several decades? Third, if you've nothing to provide context for the "first step to" 20 TB capacity but the Seagate press release (marketing hype): edit/remove it. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Ok, hopefully this source, for example, is good enough to confirm that the sky is usually blue:

The growth in areal density corresponds to the total storage capacity the HDD can provide for a fixed number of heads and disks.

Does that satisfy your request for a reference, 71.128.35.13? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference does not track capacity over several decades. Still, the reference is good enough (satisfactory) to distinguish between advancement in areal density and storage capacity. It says that the latter does not improve cost, since adding more heads and media costs more:

"the average annual cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR) in areal density is currently less than 20%. In order for HDDs to keep their $/GB or perhaps better nowadays, $/TB, advantage over other storage technologies they need to retain some rate of areal density growth. Considering the growth in capacity of flash memory this probably needs to be about 40% CAGR in areal density. There are other ways to increase storage capacity in a HDD, such as adding more heads and media but this adds additional costs and will not help in space constrained HDDs such as those introduced for ultra-thin notebook computers... For these types of HDDs it is expected that soon there will be He-filled versions and perhaps shingled magnetic recording (SMR) versions of these drives that will be announced within the next year. This will likely increase the capacity of 3.5-inch capacity enterprise HDDs to 6-8 TB."

For these reasons, the "first step to 20 TB" is misleading, because it allows more heads — perhaps even TDMR — and more platters (which don't improve storage cost), and should be removed or pruned. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but how are the manufacturers going to fit more than, say, eight platters into a 3.5-inch HDD? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Six years ago, Kryder of Seagate (this was their VP of technology, not a Seagate marketing and public relations press release) defined capacity quite differently for 2020: a two-platter, 2.5-inch disk drive with 40 GB. Just four years later in 2013, they said "first step to 20 TB" forecast for 2020 without even defining the drive diameter or the number of platters. Consider that the number of platters tripled from two to maybe, possibly six, and the drive diameter increased from 2.5 inches to 3.5 inches, and the total capacity shrank by half from 40 GB to 20 GB. Therefore in the space of four years from 2009 to 2013, their areal density estimate worsened by about (3 x 2 / 0.5) a factor of 12 (twelve). Their 2013 press release is too vague, too undefined and too meaningless to use in this article. This article (properly) discusses HDD advancement in terms of areal density not capacity. The "first step to 20 TB" should be removed (pruned). 71.128.35.13 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If I got it right from the summary of the paper, the "40 TB by 2020" projection for HDDs is made by "assuming the alternative technologies could solve their remaining problems and assuming that hard drives would continue to advance areal density at a pace of about 40% per year". On the other hand, the "first step to 20 TB" forecast is based on a particular recording technology. Those are two quite differently based predictions, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the first step to 20 TB is not based on a particular recording technology, for example on SMR. SMR is just the first step, and Seagate invokes (prays for) further steps like HAMR, TDMR, etc.What are the next steps, how many platters and heads (TDMR might require extra heads) does 20 TB take, and what is the platter size? Capacity is a deliberately vague yardstick. Areal density has a documented history over decades, while capacity has next to no published history. The "first step to 2020" hot air should be removed or pruned, replaced by areal density. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps if instead of quoting Seagate we paraphrased it to read next technology step, latest technology step or most recent technology stepthe IP will go away. Clearly the literal first step was the IBM 350 disk storage and that everyone except maybe the IP gets what Seagate means when they say "first step". So I'm OK with quoting Seagate as is, but if such a paraphrase would make the IP go away lets do it. FWIW, at least some technologists suggest HAMR maybe shingled, so contrary to what the IP implies, SMR could literally be the most recent technology step. Tom94022 (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We understand that Seagate's "first step" is intended as vague, enthusiastic marketing hype. Exasperation, i.e. "go away," doesn't fix the weakness of capacity as a metric. SMR might be termed the next technology step, latest technology step or most recent technology step to follow perpendicular recording. But, SMR has been confined to an archival niche, and has not found widespread use in mainstream HDDs. Perpendicular recording is mainstream. The narrow adoption of SMR begs the question: is SMR worthy of "step-ness" alongside perpendicular recording, GMR, etc.? This article should not forecast capacity in 2020, because areal density represents HDD advancement better than capacity. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right that SMR comes with substantial drawbacks, and that deserves a brief note; does this change make it more suitable for you? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually device managed SMR hides this recording technology from the host so the "drawbacks" can be reduced to some variable additional latency, not unlike what can be experienced in RAID arrays. This could be negligible in hybrid drives having on board Flash regions. Personally I think the lack of public information about the currently shipping SMR drives is to allow the debugging of the many lines of firmware before general availability. Dsimic, I'm going to wordsmith yr note a bit to reflect this, but u might consider removing it as WP:Undue in this context. Tom94022 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Rmv SSD comparison, because SSD writes at double or triple the speed of HDD.[1][2] 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, SMR has limitations. Even so, capacity is still a vague measure, and very high areal density requires further technologies, further steps. You still haven't any published historical context for drive capacity, so 20 TB is meaningless. Edit/prune as follows: "One such technology, shingled magnetic recording (SMR), was introduced in 2013 by Seagate, however, SMR comes with design complexities which may slow write performance." 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Tom94022, I'm totally fine with your changes as they actually better represent different modes of operation availabe in SMR HDDs. However, I don't find that the note should be deleted per WP:UNDUE as it provides a slightly better insight into the SMR recording technology, which certainly has some drawbacks. Also, I agree that it might be better not to compare it with SSDs, at least not until some in-detail public information becomes available. At the same time, I've restored another reference as it's actually quite usable with the finer details it provides.

71.128.35.13, would you be fine if we go with replacing the dreaded "the first step to reaching a 20 TB HDD by 2020" quotation with something like "a recording technology that will allow significantly higher HDD capacities"? Tom94022, would you be fine with that wording as some kind of a compromise? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that replacement. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to abandon the 20TB since this quote from a reliable source puts into context the projected median growth in areal density of 20%/year, which I recall was edited into the article by the IP (a 2020 20TB represents a CAGR of 19%/year assuming 7 years and starting at 6TB). To many if not most of the readers I suggest capacity is more meaningful than areal density and therefore it should remain in. Tom94022 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The Seagate press release is a questionable source with an apparent conflict of interest. It expresses views are promotional WP:QS, and unsuitable for a contentious 2020 forecast about the “first step” to “20 TB.” According to the press release, achievement of 20 TB would require additional technologies or “steps,” so SMR is not a sufficient condition nor a stand-alone 20 TB technology. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. Seagate is a reliable source only for the current technological status and shipments of SMR HDD, not for forecasting HDD advancement where this press release is not neutral, not unbiased WP:BIASED, and not objective. This article already draws on multiple sources that forecast HDD advancement; the median areal density forecast is 20% per year.— 71.128.35.13 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with Tom94022 that the maximum capacity of a single HDD is more meaningful to the majority of readers, as in the end that's what the consumers want (yeah, they probably store Quad HD cat videos, but hey, that drives up the whole storage industry). Speaking of whether this source is a WP:QS or not, well, Seagate enjoys good reputation; maybe some kind of a compromise could be to add some more wording around the quotation, to explain it better? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is some more wording around the quotation, to explain it better: One such technology, shingled magnetic recording (SMR), was introduced in 2013 by Seagate as "the first step to reaching a 20 TB HDD by 2020."[51] HDDs had reached 8 TB as of 2015, so capacity would advance 20% per year. However, SMR comes with design complexities that may cause slower write performance.[52][53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.35.13 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with something like that, but of course let's hear Tom94022. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated; we've had no dissent since 14 January. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

With regards to "8 TB SMR," the Seagate press release doesn't say 8 TB SMR. Should this be edited down to "8 TB"? 71.128.35.13 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone asked how are the manufacturers going to fit more platters or more bits into a 3.5-inch HDD? Well, just make bigger platters! "Seagate’s marketing campaign “20TB by 2020″ for laser-assisted hard drives ... During the week, Seagate’s management indicated that it could start selling hard drives in the now extinct 5.25″ form-factor. ... These could be especially useful for Seagate given that the company would require a larger platter size for 20TB hard drives."[3] Drive capacity or "20TB by 2020" is a very misleading measure of storage cost when compared to areal density.71.128.35.13 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting thing to know, we'll see how successful the revival of 5.25-inch HDDs is going to be. However, that might have little sense, as I'm not sure how much data can be stored on a 5.25-inch HDD, when compared to roughly two 3.5-inch HDDs fitting into the same amount of physical space inside a computer case. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources show no advantage of HDD write latency and product lifetime over SSD:[4][5][6] remove these claims. Replace forecast with current assessment wp:crystal. — 71.128.35.13 (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve Board price index is reliable, relevant, and relates to enterprise HDDs in large scale storage systems. Dsimic, it's best to discuss on the talk page before reverting mindlessly. With careful editing, improvements to the article are possible that retain useful and relevant information. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Yeah, but that kind of information is pretty much irrelevant in the Hard disk drive § Market segments section. That's what I've referred to, and I really don't see where else in the article such information would fit well. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Pricing is a very relevant performance consideration in the "other considerations" section for HDDs and large scale storage systems, and I moved it there.71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, it's a better placement but I'm not sure how well it fits into the section that deals with HDD performance characteristics, but let's also see opinions from other editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)