Slashdot Mirror
Seagate Rolls Out 400 GB SATA Drives
SenorCitizen writes "Seagate is the first hdd manufacturer to announce 400 GB 3.5" hard drives. The 7200.8 is SATA native and comes with buffer sizes up to 16 MB. Seagate also announced a 2.5" portable external hard drive with 100 GB, and an external USB2 pocket hard drive with 5 GB. Get leeching!"
Once BIOS supports booting from them, USB pen distros will be really nice. Read and write, and now a whole 5 gig on something easier to transport than a CD.
I was just about to purchase 2 x 200GB drives. Now I can pay thrice as much for storage I'll never use!
2.5" portable external hard drive with 100 MB
Wouldn't that 100GB?
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Wait a few months for the price to hit $200 then I'll be excited.
Is this news?
>>Seagate also announced a 2.5" portable external hard drive with 100 MB
Linux User #296508 Get Counted!
Is that 5GB in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Seagate is not the first with 400GB disks,
IBM announced them a copule months ago and already ships them.
For large writes, it is, because the writes can be quickly cached and handed over to the drive for storage.
However, for most Linux hobbiests, small writes (saving conf files, storing UI tweaks, etc) are the name of the game. Wasting space with the cache like that is just asking for huge penalties for the normal Linux user.
Gimme a smaller cache and a cheaper price.
...the more room I have for storing pr0n of course!
Is the warrany on this 400GB drive 1 year or 3 years? I didn't find mention on their site of how long it is, and if it is only 1 year why should you trust your data to it?
That could make for some pretty pricy hard drives if it's still in effect...
But not down to my level of use, seems more geared at enterprise solutions....80gb IDE drives are going for what... 50 cents a gb now? last 80gb drive i bought was around $60
Don't know the cost of this drive, but i'll stick to my RAID arrays and be happy as a Joe Consumer.
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
I don't need 400GB, hell I don't need 160GB; I need a hard drive that is more reliable
These are cool and all, i'd love to have one, but I'll rest easier knowing that my 80GB, let alone 400GB is safe and reliable for some time to come.
Error 407 - No creative sig found
But the only thing short of a really long tape that you can backup these things to in one media is another 400GB hdd. (it would still be 86 4.7GB DVDs)
Pretty fast, pretty big. I like the 16mb buffer. But the real question is how much does it cost ;)
I really haven't heard of bus-powered portable drives in this capacity before.
But that's just me.
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
Now this would be something. ;-)
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
seagate is the most expensive of maxtor and wd and hitachi, not worth it in my opinion.
I suppose that this is part of the technology that makes a Windows Longhorn installation possible.
More storage space for my ever growing collection of porn. I do no need 400GB...really!
Only $19,999 for a limited time only! Get out your credit cards!
Until it gets down to about $150, I can't see myself getting one.
OMG I'm wet.
Seriously though, the issue is the cost per MB. I'm guessing that it will cost ~ $1 per MB and there are cheaper (albeit smaller) HD with similar performance out there on the market. Stick with those till WB and Hitachi(IBM) come out with their versions and competition drives down cost. Btw, that 100 MB is 100 GB.
Seagate is the first hdd manufacturer to announce 400 GB 3.5" hard drives.
Seagate tenatively plans to call this line of hard drives the "Pornotopia" series.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
You are right, now that I think about it. All I really see advertised are 128MB devices. I guess an even 100MB device might be useful for something. :)
Linux User #296508 Get Counted!
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls. But, I don't get it. Why would you either a) take the time to always post this lame entry or b) have a bot post it for you? What do you get from it? You don't see people's reactions to it. Slashdotters already know it is a lame hoax. So, I guess, what's the point?
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
Has anybody tested the pr0n transfer rates on these?
This guy is way out there
Hitachi appears to have a 400GB drive to market already. I can find Hitachi 400GB drives on Pricewatch, but no mention of the Seagate variant anywhere.
I wonder if 16MB is actually an aid to performance on these drives? What kind of algorithms do they use to ensure efficient usage of all that space? Can anyone here comment?
I seem to recall in chip design that the larger the cash does not always equal more performance, if the cache manager has to search the whole cache everytime time (hash?) to deliver what needs to be used.
Easy guys, I put my pants on one leg at a time. The difference is after I put on my pants I make gold records!
Meh, size is nothing, speed is everything. Having used a 10k and a 15k rpm scsi disk in my workstation I'm far more eager to see faster rather than larger.
:-)
Now 20k or 30k rpm? *that* would make me drool
----- Documentation is worth it just to be able to answer all your mail with 'RTFM' - Alan Cox.
Get multiple drives and RAID them together. A 2-disc RAID-1 is quite reliable, but you can go for more if you are really concerned. Also, go SCSI instead of IDE. SCSI drives tend to be engineered to a higher standard, and are generally warenteed longer to boot.
However, don't bitch about the price. You WILL pay more for less storage, that's the cost of reliability.
Win2k's is 128GB and I was bitten by this once. I bought a 160GB drive, created one big partition with Redhat 7.3, and formatted it as NTFS under Win2k. Win2k displays it as 160GB but actually when the drive is near full, old data was overwritten by the new one!
Is Win2k's limitation artificial? I'd hate that.
Well, anyway, I've said goodbye to Windows as my desktop.
Hitachi has had 400GB drives (SATA) for a few months now link
It looks like the only thing unique here is the "highest areal density", meaning (I assume) that Hitachi is using a four platter system, where Seagate's only has three.
Also, I wonder what problems might arise from 16MB caches on normal desktop machines. One of the issues I seem to recall with larger cache drives is the risk of filesystem corruption. If power is lost while data is sitting in cache, waiting for a write, then you could potentially royally screw up your file or filesystem. Hence, the only 16MB cache drives I've seen are notebook drives (almost always gonna have a battery) and SCSI drives (likely in a server or workstation, which will most likely have a UPS). Before you go countering that these aren't meant for desktop use, keep in mind that DV video, digital photgraphy, and music are all things that home users like the idea of, and they are also the things much more likely to consume massive amounts of storage capacity.
That's just amazing. I remember back when I was in college and couldn't afford a good hard drive. Instead, I scrounged several cheap, small drives and an extra IDE card. My PC, built into an old server tower, had seven (7) IDE drives totalling about 5 GB in disk space. There was so much rotating mass, you could balance the PC on its corner and watch the precession.
Unknown host pong.
Someone said enterprises, but at only 7,200 RPMs you'd get better performance RAIDing some smaller drives. I guess if you've only got one slot to spare and you've got a lot of DVDs to store and cash to spend then you might buy one of these, but it's going to have to drop in price or increase in RPMs before this gets popular.
I think you were hit by a limitation of your BIOS, and not your OS. I'd be very surprised to learn that NTFS-5 was limited to 128 gig partitions. Sunny Dubey
EB = Exabytes = BIGGG
I believe the problem you ran into is only during installs, and is similar to WinNT4's 4GB max boot partition. You can simply put the drive in another Win2K box that's already installed, format the full 160GB and use it nuts. Just be aware of NTFS versions that differ in Win2K/WinXP... I think XP has a newer version, and 2k can't use it, but could be wrong..
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
That's the point of journaling, to ensure that the file system is never left in an inconsistent state, even in the event of a failure during write. You can loose data, of course, but that has always been true. Any data not comitted to disk will be lost, regardless of if it's in RAM or a disk buffer. However on a journaled file system (ext3, NTFS, etc) make it a near zero possibility that the file system be in an inconsistent state.
I have flashed my BIOS with the latest and the BIOS has shown the right size (160G).
Besides, Microsoft is known to put artificial limitation, for example 32GB for FAT32.
Win2K, by default, doesn't do 48-bit LBA, which is necessary for it to see anything past the 128GB boundary.
It's fixable in Win2K SP3: http://www.48bitlba.com/win2k.htm
The default windows 2000 install does not support harddisk sizes over 128gb. SP3 enables the support for 48bit LBA, thus solving this problem.
Here's the related MSKB article.
Win2K does not have a 128GB limit. We have a Win2K SP4 database server with a 887 GB partition. Perhaps it's Win2K Pro vs Win2K Server???
I've done video editing on a 480GB hardware raid partition under win2k, worked fine.
I've been looking to RAID5 a bunch of HDs, and 400GB makes it worth it. I saw a good RAID 5 card with 6 SATA ports, so 5 x 400GB = 2 TB. Mmmm 2TB. Finally be able to rip all my DVDs.
Yes, and Hitachi/IBM came out with that 400GB drive a while ago BUT I've yet to see it on sale anywhere.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
In response to a recent article on Slashdot, both the RIAA and the MPAA have announced a partnership with Seagate, Inc.
The details of this new partnership are sketchy, but it seems that it will entail the automated delivery of detailed information on everyone that purchases the new Seagate 400GB SATA hard drive. This comes from the assumption that the only reason anyone would really need that amound of drivespace is to store their growing collection of music and movies. Understandably, downloaders and rippers are tired or poor quality movies and audio, and as such this new drive will allow them to contain all their new high-bitrate media in one central location.
In a related story, the RIAA has officially sued Seagate because this new hard drive gives people the capability to store pirated music on their computers. Said an RIAA spokesman, "We feel this is a gross violation of artist's rights, and that it's our responsibility to protect them."
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
The limit should be 2TB 2TB
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
Yeah, kind of weird, he makes a good post earlier and then this stuff comes out? Maybe he got high on something. Too much HDD space can do that to ya.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
Link Has the info on how to get past that.
just because you have warranty doesn't mean that your data is safe. Sure you would have replacement in your warrenty period but data lost is lost forever unless you backup ;)
Can't we just say 0.4 TB? It's only a matter of time...
STUPID TROLL
This thing has a native Serial ATA interface... will we ever see a drive with a native FireWire interface?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
You are correct, and if you put an NT disk in an XP machine (say to do data recovery) the XP machine will -automatically and without asking- convert your NT disk to it's version of NTFS, rendering it unbootable.
-dameron
Seagate has redefined a 'Byte' to be 4 bits.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I simply do not trust any hard drive larger than that. Had too many instances where they fucking died on me. I'm happy with an 80GB and a 20GB master/slave combo.
My 420MB hard drive from my 1994 AST Advantage computer still works perfectly.
I got hit by this recently. Windows 2000 was limited to support for 128GB partition sizes until SP3. Once you have SP3, it takes a registry change to enable "Big LBA" (48-bit).
Here's the relevant document.
This isn't an issue with XP, from my experience. I jacked in a 250GB drive in a USB chassis to my laptop and it worked fine right off the bat.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
So what are you guys using for cases for these systems? Any ol' full ATX tower with a bunch of drive bays? I know for SCSI systems, one could buy an external enclosure, put 4+ drives in it, plug it into the external SCSI port, and go. Is there anything similar for ATA/SATA?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Why are the 2.5-inch drives being touted as external USB/Firewire drives? Me, I'd be happier with an *internal* 2.5-inch 100GB drive than a 3.5-inch 400GB one. The 2.5-inch will be quieter, will generate less heat, will consume less power, and is almost certainly more reliable.
In fact, many drives default to having them off.
I think you are narrowing in too far in this case. The amount of time the data sits in the cache unflushed is the rotational latency of the drive, plus the time taken to write it, which is size/transfer rate.
Well, the rotational latency of drives has dropped as the rotational rates went up from 3600 to 7200rpm. also, the transfer rates have risen at roughly the same rate as the size of the caches. In fact, the cache is probably sized to hold a certain amount of data measured in time, not bytes.
So it is likely that data sits on in the write-behind cache less time than it used to, not more. Thus you are less likely to have corruption.
To be honest though, it is the job of the filesystem to overcome issues of drive corruption, you cannot ever remove the possibility. And I think today's file systems are up to the job.
....of replacing them. It can be a significant figure in price to many people. Not all, to some people a new hardrive is a pittance, or it's on the companys tab or it's deductable on taxes or whatnot, but to others it might be equivalent-say-to the monthly power bill or the weekly grocery money, etc.
I'd rather have a smaller drive that I was more confident wouldn't fail for a decade, if the price was the same. Say a 20 gigger with a decade warranty(deserved, and if it existed obviously) as opposed to a 200 gigger with a one year warranty.
Here is a story about a similar announcement from Fujitsu - with regard to the 100GB mobile drive. From what I can tell, Fujitsu is saying that it's already shipping a 100GB mobile drive and Seagate will ship its 100GB mobile drive in the third quarter. Does anyone else have a clear view on this? http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/s tory/0,10801,93820,00.html?from=homeheads
As if nerds who read /. don't have enough porn already...
Props to GNAA!
No, it's SP3 vs. SP3=.
If Windows encounters a FAT32 partition >32GB, it still works with it. It doesn't corrupt it.
Microsoft would be stupid to artifically corrupt file systems over a certain size.
I'm sure this was an LBA28 (referred to as the 137GB limit) issue.
I've had that same problem with my win98 box when I put in the 20GB drive...
Now it's my 486 server. runs like a baby in a ferrari
Privacy is terrorism.
The Real Maxinum Partition size of an W2K/XP Partition is 2TB (using 512 byte blocks). However you can increase the partition size by using larger block (ie 4 TB using 1K blocks or 8TB using 2K Blocks). I have a W2K box configured with about 17TB using IDE2SCSI and FiberChannel Disk arrays, and have partitions of 2TB, 4TB and 8TB
An alternative is to do what Conner did a while back... use double the number of heads. Basically the head and actuater was duplicated, one set on the left, and one set 180 degrees away on the right. This cut the speed-induced-latency by half and doubled the thoroughput, all without going to a denser substrate or doubling the drive speed. But, the linked article gives a good reason noone has tried this since... it was costly (the doubled parts weren't cheap) and competed too closely with RAIDs.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Just bought a datacenter full of G5 rackmounts with 250GB SATA drives. Feels like the time I had to order a 66 Mhz PowerMac for school in June, and the 80Mhz machines were out in October.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Buy more hard drives and stick them in FireWire or USB2 enclosures and use em like tapes. Sure the 'tapes' cost more but since the 'drive' is usually included on a modern motherboard you win unless you need a LOT of tapes. They can also double as hard drives! And it is SO much easier to recover a single file from a backup when your backup program is rsync or "cp -a".
Democrat delenda est
Actually 2^64 byes (1024 TB) equals a Petabyte NOT an Exabyte
It would be nice to see HD's average transfer rate stay closer to it's peak rating for comonly used files.
Ok, so what, a RAID 0 array of 80GB disks... Thats 5 drives, each using about 50W of power. Your average dell or sony ships with maybe a 300w PSU. Not that i trust a hard drive as large as 400GB entirly, but fewer points of failure than a RAID 0 array. I'd say if you factor in enough drives to match capacity, another drive or two for mirroring within the array, a RAID controller and a new PSU to run 6 hard drives or so, you probably break even on a $/GB basis. With that said, my next computer will have a 550W PSU, 2 74GB Raptors in RAID 1 and 2 250GB SATA drives in RAID 0 for storage. :p
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Slightly OT, but I've come to a realization recently.
I just bought a spindle of 50 DVD-Rs for about 60 bucks CAD (about 40 USD). That is when I noticed I really don't need more than my 120GB drive. 220GB worth of DVD-Rs cost 40USD, whereas the same capacity in hard disks will cost several times that.
I understand that some people might need this (intensive video editing, high-capacity serving, etc...) but the average Joe home-user has no use for it. And yet the people at Future Shop will shove a huge capacity HD down the throat of an unsuspecting buyer when that same buyer could save a few hundred bucks by simply getting some media.
It's great to see advances in technology like this, but doesn't this eventually lead to bloated software? How many gigs will Office Longhorn take?
I'd rather have better reliability, better seek times, and faster transfer rates. When will drives include more than one set or R/W heads around the platter to accelerate the seek of multiple files? At least then, newer hard drives would give some tangible benefits. They would make your overall computer faster.
Welp, that was my 0.02$...
You got trolled! How does it feel to be totally fucking owned by that guy? Now, please go fuck off and die. KTHXBYE
Seriously, though. I'm not sure why Stephen King is the target of this particular troll. I know he is a popular horror writer (I've read almost all of his books, The Stand being the best), but I'm not convinced that there is a large nerd connection to him. Unless that is the point, so that nerds don't follow news about him and they might be convinced that he really died. But whatever; it's still a classic troll. I remember the first time I saw it. I was totally owned and was searching google and all the news sites for any more information for about 10 minutes. Hahaha.
is probably how lacie can manage 1 TB.
500 GB... hello editors?
Specs from a WDC 80GB 7200 RPM IDE drive.
Current Requirements and Power Dissipation
Operating Mode RMS Current Power, Typical 1
12 VDC 5 VDC
Spinup 2.2 A 525 mA 17.0 W
Read/Write/Idle 350 mA 800 mA 8.0 W
Seek 900 mA 675 mA 14.0 W
Power Management Commands
Operating Mode RMS Current 1 Power, Typical 1
12 VDC 5 VDC
Idle (E1H) 330 mA 675 mA 7.25 W
Standby (E0H) 20 mA 200 mA 1.25 W
Sleep (E6H) 20 mA 50 mA
0.5 W
NT4sp4 I believe should be able to boot NTFS5 disks.
as Seagate rolls out 400 gangsta drives?
I wonder where that came from...
No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
Cost per GB: $1.20 (hd) vs. $.25 (tapes) but the initial investment is $70 vs. $6e+3 (tape drive figure is an educated guess). So unless you're going to be backing up more than, oh, six terabytes (really 5930 GB) concurrently, the hotswap bay is a better investment :-)
Only one head is active at a time, and they are all attached to a single positioning mechanism. That eliminates any parallelism. It also takes a measurable amount of time to switch heads. Every time the drive switches heads, it must tweak the head positioner to move the head over the currently selected cylinder. Track densities are so high that each surface must have embedded servo data for head positioning. You can't assume that all heads are simultaneously positioned on the same cylinder.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Finally no more wimpy 40GB iPod... I would honestly like to see a non-server with 400GB of anything to fill up. Unless you demand loseless audio quality, and rip your entire DVD collection to disk, it would be quite a challenge. I got a 160GB disk, and it's only 10% full. And it has all my music, some assorted iso's, lots of software, etc... Why not use several smaller SCSI drives? I wouldn't like the idea of my 400GB of anything being corrupted for whatever reason all at once. The only big single drive I would buy would be a 1TB drive, just so I can say I have one.
At what point are just going to light the torches, hoist the pitchforks and march up the SSD (Solid State Disk) manufacturers and demand they start to bring the price down on SSDs so that we can finally get meaningfully great performance out of all this money?
I don't need the rought equivalent of the Library of Congress. What I need is FAST ACCESS to a much smaller subset of that.
It's a "responding to trolls with a pseudo-naive response" troll, I think this is new...
I don't think I understand your question - you think that flash manufacturers are intentionally keeping the performance of their technology down? Or that RAM-based SSD manifacturers are charging too much? Neither really has anything whatsoever to do with the HDDs mentioned in the article.
Can't quite see the source of your exasperation.
sic transit gloria mundi
That's a hardware/BIOS limit of some sort.
I just went through this when I tried to attach a 160 Gig drive to a machine running Windows 2003 via a USB external drive. The machine simply would not recognize it as anything greater than 128 Gigs.
I replaced the motherboard with a newer one, which I'd been planning to do anyway. Now running the same OS, I see the whole 160 gigs.
Were you able to partition and format the drive entirely under Linux? I guess I would be somewhat surprised if you could.
You could maybe try XP ntldr etc. then. I have been using 2K and XP copying stuff between them fine and both boot properly, although via XP bootloader (installed in a FAT partition).
One important detail when constructing a multi-TB PC is that the 3Ware 8506 series cards can address at most 2TB per card. This is no problem with 250GB drives, but with 400GB drives, it becomes an issue (8 x 400GB = 3.2TB).
The recently announced 3Ware 9506 series can address more storage (4TB per card, I think) but when I looked two months ago, no vendors had it yet.
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
because utopia is about perfection, or at least ignoring the imperfections. A pornucopia is about more porn than you can ... do what you do with porn ... with. errr...
Now I can finally back up the internet.
-theed
it is to make backups of the ghost image to 3.5" floppies. I might consider using CD-Rs but according to the theory of big O notation it doesn't really make any difference ;)
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
"Seagate will also offer the new 400GB capacity in its award-winning desktop Seagate External Hard Drive, which is perfect for using less desktop space and travels well with notebook PCs while still offering a 100GB capacity."
Seagate makes great stuff. It's too bad their marketing department is so clueless. Getting two products confused isn't a great way to convey professionalism, but these things happen. On the other hand, you don't need to know anything about either product to know that a sentence claiming something offers both 100GB and 400GB capacity just isn't right.
NCQ will be nice. In other products, it's provided a serious boost to performance in multiuser configurations, and remains one of the reasons why SCSI drives always beat IDE drives in server performance, even when the IDE drives are mechanically superior. This new generation of SATA drives, coupled with maturing SATA RAID cards and enclosures, will put huge pressure on SCSI for use in large disk arrays.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
whoa! it's the 7200.8! that's .8 more model numbers than the now inferior 7200! who wouldn't want one now?
I'm not sure if the form factors allow for it, but it would be even better if you could do this for laptop drives, since most laptops have space for just one drive. You'd put two 1.8" iPod-type drives (available up to 40 GB) into a single 2.5" drive slot. I guess you could certainly fit 1.3" microdrives, but those are way expensive and max out at 4 GB each.
I hate how windows limits Fat32 partitions to 2gb.... you can format it in dos pretty much as large as you want, but windows forces you to use ntfs if your drive is larger than 2 gb.
-Jalsk
Hitachi and Maxtor already had 400 gig drives out a while before this article was published. Though the maxtor doesnt have comparable specs. the hitachi does.
"Algebraic expressions are what we sue when we have no clue what were talkign about"
Along the lines of "Not 1000, but 999,50" there's also a rule that says that "0.x something" sounds small. That's why around here they love to use fuel measurements like "0.53l / (10 km)" (in Norwegian: liter/mil).
They'll start using TB when they hit 1TB. Then they can go [Doctor Evil] One TRILLION bytes *raise pinky, cue cheesy manical laughter* [/Doctor Evil]. Least in the US, here it's just a billion. Don't ask me why, it makes less sense than the imperial/metric unit thing.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not entirly out of my ass, i was checking prices earlier today, read the second review. So maybe all my power arguments were unfounded, but i think my reasoning for price was sound.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I think the grandparent misunderstood something. I read on ZDNet that it's Timothy's penis that rolls out into Taco's ass.
Off topic but related and affects many people who are still buying the Nomads thinking they are getting a 4GB microdrive usable in their digital cameras etc. (like me recently burned after buying directly from Creative). Hitachi has followed up on their threats (from http://www.steves-digicams.com/microdrive.html): "Other OEM drives with different part numbers are also not CF compliant and meet the requirements of that customer. All are subject to change without notice as well. So if you have an OEM drive that works now, one from that same mfg may not work later on...."1 019&message=9153930
and others on digital camera forums confirm that the MD in newer Nomads
do not work in CF devices (it even says so on the package in fine
print) .
This thread http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=
I was forgetting this is more on topic than it seems - Seagate has announced a 5GB CF microdrive supposedly available for under $150 in Q3 of this year (http://www.steves-digicams.com/microdrive.html). In other words if you can wait, don't buy expensive Hitachi CF drives (which they hope you will do now that the Muvo option is gone) - cheaper alternatives are on the way.
This sig shameslessly plugs my work with tandem recumbent tricycles and the severely disabled
Seagate is probably the worst manufacturer of hd, i work with more than 100 computers and it fails a lot. Not reliable if you pretend to store any apreciated data.
Storage is a function, not a thing. The function is to hold and to access a given something. Manufacturers seem to have forgotten that critical fact. And while we appreciate being sold what amounts to essentially unlimited amounts of storage - the performance of that storage has been flat for years, in fact, in relation to its size and to the performance of other aspects of your computer it's actually gone backwards.
So if not SSD then something else but in this day and age where desktop PCs have as much memory as 5 million dollar mainframes of 10 years ago its silly to pretend that there is NOTHING to be done with storage performance except by paying supercomputer prices for SSD.
SATA? USB? We are talking about HD here, mind you. So, USB? ATA? IDE? Seriously, what's wrong with SCSI?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Hmmm...I have a 135GB partition under Win2K server of internal SCSI drives. I also have a 1.36 TB partition on Win2K server on an external fibre channel RAID array.
You can get a 1000VA UPS for under $150 that's plenty big enough to run a 19" CRT, a rather power hungery PC (2+ HDD, 2+ optical, dual 2Ghz+ CPU, 460Watt PSU), a hub+router and a cable/dsl modem for at least 15 minutes. you're gonna spend a lot more than $150 on a 400GB drive, I'd bet $150 for a UPS isn't a big deal.
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
you are completely correct, 1024TB = 1PB and 1024 PB=1EB.. what a bunch of n00bs, they obviously didn't check this byte converter a tron
lamers
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
You can pretty much rest assured that when someone comes up with better technology they will sell it to you - there is no corporate conspiracy going on to deprive you of faster disk access.
sic transit gloria mundi
I read in anandtech's forum that this drive is only 375Gb formatted to NTFS. therefore it would only be a .375Tb kinda gay sounding if you ask me.
Just for the record, this drive has only 1 purpose, to be RAIDed out.