Slashdot Mirror


Hitachi Announces 400GB Hard Drive

jkcity writes "Hitachi Global Storage Technologies has announced their new 400GB 3.5-inch ATA hard drive, which they claim makes them the new capacity king. Specs on the drive are also available."

5 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. Re:ATA-100 only ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, ata 133 is a scam.
    A standard 7200 RPM drive generally maxes at a little over 66MB/s (ATA100s just barly needed) (and cause its parallel, it can't share bandwidth).
    Note that WD and seagate don't use it.
    The hype about SATA is not 150MB/s, but that its serial and doesn't ahve any master/slave nonsense

  2. 5 platters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are 5 80gb platters in this harddisk. They're just putting more of what makes a normal harddisk into it. I don't think that's a good idea: The result is probably heavier and more mechanically fragile than most harddisks. In my experience, disks with more platters fail sooner than disks with only one or two platters.

  3. Re:Good for RAIDs by fake_name · · Score: 5, Informative

    The "I" in RAID stands for "inexpensive". Part of the idea behind RAID is you can create a 400GB "drive" using 4 100 GB drives, which should work out cheaper. (ignoring the cost of the RAID controller...)

  4. Re:deskstar by eclectro · · Score: 5, Informative


    Because of the "deathstar problem" they are outsourcing inspection and final testing of the drives to a different company now.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  5. Re:Good for RAIDs by divide+overflow · · Score: 5, Informative

    >>The "I" in RAID stands for "inexpensive".

    >Umm, no, it doesn't. It stands for "Independent".


    I believe you are BOTH right. As I recall, the "I" in RAID *originally* stood for "inexpensive" back in the days when the rapidly dropping price of 5.25" and 3.5" drives were making them very attractive "inexpensive" replacements for larger, *very* expensive mass storage systems. But time passed and the success of RAID arrays made them the primary method for providing high performance data storage and retrival as well as data redundancy. They became the new standard for comparison, so the term "inexpensive" was no longer relevant and was replaced with the word "independent," a term that better describes them. As I was typing this I found this link that seems to agree with my recollection.