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!"
2.5" portable external hard drive with 100 MB
Wouldn't that 100GB?
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Seagate is not the first with 400GB disks,
IBM announced them a copule months ago and already ships them.
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.
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.
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
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.
Higher density = more "bits - per - revolution"
More "bits/revolution" * same RPM = faster data rate
(of course if they just added platters, you wouldn't get faster - but it seems they're getting more bits by increasing the density/platter)
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
NewEgg.com (which is listed on pricewatch)
The length of the warranty shows how long they are willing to stand behind what they sell. If they will only stand behind it for 365.2425 days, then why should you trust it?
My IBM ThinkPad already allows me to boot from a USB Memory key.. and the ThinkPad is almost 2 years old.
Most current BIOS's will already support booting off of USB drives.
It only applies to bulk hard drives in media processing devices (TiVos, DVD recorders, MP3 jukeboxes (set-top or portable), etc.), and it goes (basically) to the French **AA.
I found this out by RYourFA.
This tax was discussed by French's Ministry of Culture, but was vetoed by former Prime Minister Jospin. So, in fact, this tax never existed.
It could take weeks.
Meanwhile, if another drive fails before the new one is built, then everything is lost.
The number of writes that your average flash chip can endure is so large, that you'd have to TRY to "wear it out". Most flash devices these days (at least all the good ones) do wear patterning, where new writes are spread out over a large second of unused space (though this often requires filesystem support, see jffs[2]). This makes it even harder to kill flash memory since writes to one spot won't actually write to one spot, but will instead be spread over the whole device.
For grins, someone once went and calculated how long it would take to "wear out" the flash in a 32MB iPAQ. They figured out that, using wear patterning on an unloaded device (in other words, writing the the entire device and then starting over at the beginnign again), it would take 12 YEARS to wear it out if one were to write as fast as the flash was rated to write. Of course, if you're not wear patterning, you could wear out a sector quickly, but that's what filesystems have bad sector support for (even FAT has it, though that's a holdover from the ancient days where hard drives came with bad sectors, and of course flash filesystems support the inevitable wearing out of sectors).