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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
that's a big deathstar
Here's the secret scoop on how they did it.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
At these sizes, a HD is becoming the only way of backing up another HD
This is not my opinion. Actually, it's not even an opinion. And I'm nowhere to be seen near it
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
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.
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...)
This aught to push the 320GB drives into the sub-$200 category within a few weeks. About time, too, the prices have lingered between $250 and $300 for months now.
;-)
Nothing like a bigger-better-faster-harder product to make the rest nice and cheap.
"The Deskstar 7K400 provides enough capacity to store the following:
....
400 hours of standard TV programming
45 hours of HDTV programming
More than 6,500 hours of high quality digital music"
"or, after you install Windows and Office XP...:
13 minutes of standard TV programming
4 minutes of HDTV programming
More than 6,500 seconds of high quality digital music"
...except that the disks aren't independent. The whole point of RAID is that the disks are closly dependednt on each other.
Hooray for marketing!
The person writing the specs is either incompetent or insane. For 400GB of storage, they quote:
"45 hours of HDTV broadcast, or
4,000 high-resolution x-rays, or
40,000 typical library books, or
10,000 high-quality, 4 minute MP3 recordings"
Wow... I never knew that a typical library book took up 10MB (more like 100k). What are they doing, scanning all the pages in? And what kind of bitrate are they using for a 4 minute MP3 recording to take up 40MB?
Nothing to see here
Well, if every clown represented one GB, it would roughly take one hour for all the clowns to get out of the volkswagon (9 sec per clown).
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
>>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.
..after the spectacular failure of the smaller IBM Deathstar, the new 400GB Hitachi Imperial Deathstar will be protected against failure by a forcefield projected around it from the nearby motherboard that it orbits.
No, "Independant" is just plain wrong, as is FOLDOC, and I'm sick of having to point it out just because some people can't stand to be corrected.
First of all, "Inexpensive" still applies and then some. It's much, much cheaper to assemble an array of disks adding up to more than a few hundred GB than to try building a single drive.
Secondly, there is nothing "independant" about the disks in a RAID. The closest you come is in straight mirroring configurations (which are highly unusual for an array of any significant size), and they still don't operate independantly.
In the past 3 years, I've had 3 of my hard drives die.
Meanwhile, the 340 megger in my 486 firewall chugs away, having turned ~11 years old this year.
I remain skeptical that "bigger is better" in the hard drive world. Before they advertise size and speed, give me a hard drive with vastly improved quality and longevity, and *then* I'll become interested.