Slashdot Mirror


Not Much Happening in Hard Drives This Year

yahooooo writes "CoolTechZone.com has an article that talks about desktop hard drive developments in 2005. It looks this year is going to be a dud for the storage industry."

449 comments

  1. What about reliability? by liquid+stereo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No more technology is needed. How about reliability?

    1. Re:What about reliability? by Coneasfast · · Score: 4, Interesting

      there is not much demand for higher capacities (very few people would need >160gb).

      as for reliability, most HD's are acceptable, but you can never fully rely on them to never fail, you must always have a backup system for important data.

      speed is one of the areas which is always welcome for improvement (until of course it reaches the max interface speed, eg 150mB/sec for SATA)

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    2. Re:What about reliability? by wernercd · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong but your one of those that still believes we'll never need more than 64k of ram?

      Always room for new technology. And you call yourself a Nerd. Pffft.

    3. Re:What about reliability? by liquid+stereo · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see high-speed/performance mechanisms make their way down to the lower-price range.

    4. Re:What about reliability? by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Informative

      Make that both reilabilty and speed for me. PATA/SATA disk are still lagging horribly behind stuff like SCSI disks and their 10k RPM offerings.

      PS: If you want reilabilty for cheap, check the Seagate Barracuda series (i own this one) - cheap, VERY reliable and also damn quiet. I can't tell if the thing is running or not by listening to it.

    5. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      very few people would need >160gb

      Surely you meant to say 640k?

    6. Re:What about reliability? by JPriest · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Exactly, HDD read/write times are one of the worst bottle necks in computing today because they rely on actual mechanical movement. The new HDD technologies that come out this year will be what mom and pop are using in 4 yers to store files from their digital cameras, camcorders, music, and media center.

      Also, cheaper/better consumer HDD's = things like more mail storage, web space, voice mail capacity etc. from providers.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    7. Re:What about reliability? by eggstasy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Acceptable my ass. I haven't seen a hard drive last more than a year since, oh, single-digit capacities.
      I bought this box in mid-2001. I'm on my 4th HD and 3rd graphics card. The rest is all very much alive and kicking.
      A hard drive is a critical component. Its emphasis should be on reliability FIRST and then everything else.

    8. Re:What about reliability? by norton_I · · Score: 1

      It isn't that we'll never need more than 120/160/250/320/400/500 GB of storage, it is just that most users don't need that *right now*. As mentioned, the WD raptor drives are very popular despite having much lower maximum capactities. We need some new developments in some or all of processors, network bandwidth, video cards, busses, and storage interfaces before it will become practical for most people to take advantage of even the capacities available now.

      Some additional speed would be nice, but realistically, after startup my computer is rarely disk speed limited, since I have enough memory. For most people it would not be worth trading the increased noise and failure rate as well as decreasing reliability to get 15K rpm drives.

    9. Re:What about reliability? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      What are you doing to your hardware?
      Some of my IDE-drives are 2yrs and older and still ticking fine.

    10. Re:What about reliability? by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "very few people would need >160gb"

      Dont have a media system yet, eh?

      Let me tell you, when you start recoring video and storing your DVD's on disk for easy access, not even multiterabyte disks will seem enough.

      Add to that storage for backups which doubles or triples your needed space and you start seeing the problem. Then add mirroring and longterm archives...

      "but you can never fully rely on them to never fail"

      I'd rather say you can fully rely on them to eventually fail. Which is why you need so much space for backups.

      "speed is one of the areas which is always welcome"

      Welcome, but not essential. For actual system performance you're often better off with more memory for disk caches. If you have some very intensive applications needing very high speed you can improve performance with striping anyway, and in desktop systems it's often a better solution as heat and noise from faster disks make them unsuitable.

    11. Re:What about reliability? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      That sounds unusual. What's the temperature inside your PC case?

      Or maybe you're buying cheap hardware...?
      =Smidge=

    12. Re:What about reliability? by sevensharpnine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Four hard drives in four years? I'll admit modern disks are built poorly, but that seems excessive. It's possible that you have had a string of bad luck, but if they all failed in the same machine, you might want to check you power supply and/or cooling setup. The drives might have been killed.

      --
      "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
    13. Re:What about reliability? by wernercd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No doubt. I've had an external for 2+ years that has been dropped, around the world twice now (Second deployment to Iraq for me), taken apart, put back together, reformated a couple times... Needless to say this thing should have died a long time ago

      I think reliability is fine in a majority of drives. No different than operating a car. Gotta take care of it to get it to last 100-200k+ miles.

    14. Re:What about reliability? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure the original post realizes that.

      However, I think he's speaking as a whole. If you take all of the PC owners, how many do you think actually need THAT much space? Sure, there's a alot of people (including myself) that need that kind of space. But as a whole, we only make up a small percentage

      If you take into account all of the people that just use their machines for email, web browsing, taxes, and maybe the occasional game of solitaire then they really don't need that much space. Most people don't need their HP Pavilions to have 100+ GB of space.

      But increasing capacity is definately important for us "power users," as well as the obvious professionals. Capacity is good, but for Joe Sixpack what doesn't know the difference between Gigabyte and Gigahert it's not that important.

    15. Re:What about reliability? by Coneasfast · · Score: 1

      Let me tell you, when you start recoring video and storing your DVD's on disk for easy access, not even multiterabyte disks will seem enough.

      This is why i said 'very few'. Only a small percentage of people actually do video editing/storing on their computer.

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    16. Re:What about reliability? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really?

      Most of my hard drives are a couple of years old and I have no problems with them. And this is coming from a guy that uses his machines non-stop. Some are on all day processing data or converting shows I recorded on my PC DVR to a more compact format.

      You get what you pay for. I don't skimp on my hard drives, I buy well reviewed models from manufacturers I trust.

      But, I guess some people are just unlucky.

    17. Re:What about reliability? by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      I still have a system with a 20 gig 5400 rpm hard drive. What does SATA do? I see it everywhere, with the 8 meg buffers. It has been a long time since I upgraded or built systems. Is SATA as over-rated at IDE-133 was when IDE-100 was the standard. Is it just another marketing term, or does it produce results?

      And I thought I saw 10k rpm ide drives?

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    18. Re:What about reliability? by isecore · · Score: 1

      PATA/SATA disk are still lagging horribly behind stuff like SCSI disks and their 10k RPM offerings.

      There's the Western Digital Raptor which is 10k RPM SATA-drive, but apart from that the pickings are very slim. It's also a rather expensive drive (albeit cheap compared to SCSI).

      But I agree, IDE/SATA-drives need a boost in their speed. Storage is fine, but speed is lacking. I mean my old Sun Ultra-30 from 1998 has 15k RPM-drives! SCSI of course.

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    19. Re:What about reliability? by jarich · · Score: 1
      What's the temperature inside your PC case?

      Agreed. I had a 200 gig drive that kept locking up on me... I added a large (but quiet fan) inside the case to just move some air over it. It hasn't given me any trouble since.

      Actually, I've not had a hard drive failure in any of my machines (3 in my home office) since I started getting a little air flow over them. Before that I was seeing fairly frequent IDE failures as well.

      I wonder if it would be cheaper for manufacturers to start putting small fans on the drives rather than have to keep replacing them...

    20. Re:What about reliability? by Znork · · Score: 2, Informative

      PVR's are simply so useful that the average joe will have them soon enough. Wether they'll buy them as tivo's or as a media pc doesnt really change the fact that it's the same disks and the same needed storage volumes. And if you count non-PC pvr's I'd argue it's getting more than 'very few' already.

    21. Re:What about reliability? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      SATA is every bit as good (or bad :) as PATA... on a thin, easy to manage cable. Otherwise, the interfases are structurally very similar; you can even get PATA -> SATA convertors for cheap.

      As for the 10k RPM IDE drives, they're out there (parent post suggested one by Western Digital), but they're prohibitely expensive. I mean, c'mon, 10k RPM SCSI drives have been avaiable since what, 1995? It surprises me IDE drive manufacturers haven't catched up.

    22. Re:What about reliability? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's where RAID comes in. I am building a simple data acquisition system at work and it has to have a large capacity for storage and be reliable but have a low cost. I will get 2x 200GB drives for RAID-1 and a nice power supply + good cooling. Don't know which brands to choose for the drives. I used IBM at home and after 3 years I get some corruption once in a while, but I also have RAID-0 at home (good enough for games, web and email).

    23. Re:What about reliability? by batemanm · · Score: 1
      very few people would need >160gb

      Can I quote you in ten years?

    24. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be fair, SATA has finally shown that there's an advantage over PATA:

      NCQ. With the lastest offerings of motherboards, a 'true' SATA drive (not just a PATA drive + converter, which is what most SATA drives to date have been) will improve performance by finding a better path along the platter for data seeking.

      As far as performance goes, 10k drives are prohibitively expensive for a reason. They are HOT HOT HOT, and the platter density has to be lower than usual, meaning more platters, meaning more heat. The manufacturers know that true speed demands will be met by SCSI (because, don't lie to yourself, PATA/SATA will never be as CPU hands-off as SCSI, especially when dealing with 20+ drives in a single unit) and that offering a really expensive 10k IDE drive gets people saying 'hmmm.. 7200RPM isn't *that* slow, why the big trade off?'

    25. Re:What about reliability? by Chiisu · · Score: 1

      Are you using IBM "Deathstars" or Seagates by chance? I've been using a Western Digital and Maxtor, have had 0 problems. The WD is a 10,000 RPM SATA, and despite the heat it throws off it still works perfectly.

      Heat and insufficient power can also be factors of peripheral failure.

    26. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnily enough, over the past ten or so years my collection of "old" hard-drives are primarily Seagate. Not sure how many Fujitsu's and Western Digital's i've taken apart for fridge magnets.
      Fujitsu/Quantum are the oddball company.
      IBM/Hitachi? LOL!

    27. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've gone through about 12 hard drives on my dektop PC because of increasing storage needs, and I use the hell out of them, they truly get a workout...

      and yet I've never had a single failure. Not one. Not one HD failure in the many laptops Ive had either.
      Not one back in my mac days.
      In fact, since I started using systems with HD's back in the 80s, not one.

      What the heck are you DOING?

    28. Re:What about reliability? by magical1 · · Score: 1

      Hah, if you buy seagate you shouldn't be saying this then, but If you stick to other brands watch out.

    29. Re:What about reliability? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiousity is it an ATI video card? I went through 5 9500's (under warrenty) until I got my Nvidia 6800GT which's I've had ever since. Its never drawn one pixel wrong.

      I can't explain the HDD's though - I've got 6 ide drives on a raid and I've only had one of them fail in the last two years.

    30. Re:What about reliability? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      My drives use to die every 6 months until I added a fan and begin running open cased.

      My current IBM deskstar is running a record 3 years.

    31. Re:What about reliability? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Agree'd. I've not been buying anything other than seagate for my IDE-drives for a while and that's what I'm suggesting to anyone who asks. Might be just my personal expirience but over the years seagates have caused me the least trouble (read: none at all) and even survived some other drives that were bought later (namely Maxtor and IBM).

    32. Re:What about reliability? by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Probably letting them melt. I've had more than one HD problem with a drive that was simply overheating. My tips: get cases where the drive bays sit in front of the case intake fan and get some modest airflow over them, or use 5.25"->3.5" brackets so they have room for air to circulate.

    33. Re:What about reliability? by ricochet81 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should really think about cooling your HDDs, heat kills them, in my experience. You know those screws they come with? make sure you put all 4 in, tight. They help with the heat transfer. I have not had one hdd die in 5 years in my CoolerMaster case. The HDDs run room temperature to the touch. Cheap cases though.. I've had many HDDs die. I sense a pattern.

      --
      Error: Id10t detected
    34. Re:What about reliability? by billster0808 · · Score: 1

      I remember saying the same thing when I got my first 10 gig drive....

    35. Re:What about reliability? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The high RPM drives apparently are still a bitch to make. It is easy to make the motors spin that fast, but being able to read and write data at a tight areal density is tough. The older 15k RPM drives aren't necessarily all that fast. I have a couple older 9GB 10kRPM drives and they are sloooow, newer 7.2k RPM drives beat it in just about everything.

    36. Re:What about reliability? by cuban321 · · Score: 1

      I have 4 of these exact models in one of my home PCs and I cannot hear the damn things at all. I was amazed at even how cool they stay.

    37. Re:What about reliability? by Fweeky · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seagate have been good for (S)ATA in my experience (and seems to be confirmed by StorageReview's reliability survey). A pair of 7200.7's should do you just fine (and they have 5 year warranties).

    38. Re:What about reliability? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      You should look to your cooling, my friend... 7200rpm drives like plenty of air, especially a dual-fan HD cooler. I run all my boxen open-case, buy Maxtor, and my drives last for YEARS.

      Hint: ' noatime ' in your fstab options helps - a lot.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    39. Re:What about reliability? by zonker · · Score: 0

      i would imagine that much of the real technology isn't being developed for the desktop market as it is and has been commoditized for several years now, but instead for the mini drives like hitachi's and toshiba's. they are hot right now as everyone is trying to find ways to stuff them into mp3 players, phones, pda's etc...

    40. Re:What about reliability? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...a hard drive last more than a year...

      I have an old Mac color classic from 1993 running 24/7 as answering/fax machine that has never missed a beat, including the original hard drive.The only thing that no longer works is the internal clock battery is dead. Leaving a computer running doesn't seem to affect its life.

      --
      All theory is gray
    41. Re:What about reliability? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Acceptable my ass. I haven't seen a hard drive last more than a year since, oh, single-digit capacities.

      If that's the case, seriously, you're doing something wrong.

      My linux machine is using a 20GB hard drive that I bought in 1999. It still works flawlessly.

      Basically, all new hardware goes into my main machine first, what comes out of this one gets passed down among the other boxen. So, most hardware is at least a year old before it gets passed down.

      If you haven't had a hard drive that lasted for more than a year, there is something about your setup that is simply not right. Maybe you have dirty power. Maybe you shouldn't use your computer on tha back of a moving go cart. Whatever it is, such a short lifespan out of any of your hardware should tell you that there is something out of the ordinary with the way you're using it.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    42. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your drive hasn't lasted longer than a year, you have some SERIOUS heat issues or other problems. My OS drive is on it's 3rd year and it is a crappy wd800bb. My mp3 drive is a wd1200jb and it has lasted 1.5 yrs. /maybe you're just a lousy tech

    43. Re:What about reliability? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...IDE/SATA-drives need a boost in their speed...

      What application do you run that an ordinary, garden variety disk drive cannot keep up with? Are you running a transaction processing or data base server that has to respond to thousands of random requests as quickly as possible? Other than that, I cannot think of any application which the average drive cannot handle. If the OS has a decent data caching system, even a moderate number of random data read/writes should not slow the average throughput down all that much.

      The key to good computer performance with any given system is plenty of RAM. You can never have too much of that. If you are into media, especially video, then the capacity of the drive becomes important. Most ordinary drives are fast enough for normal video data. For HD though a faster drive may be needed.

      --
      All theory is gray
    44. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also use the proper filesystem for the job. If you are manipulating large video files (ala MythTV), you probably shouldn't use ext2/3. XFS is a better choice. If you are working with a bazillion tiny files, you should think about reiserfs.

    45. Re:What about reliability? by benna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Until a month ago, one of my harddrives was the only remaining part from my computer that I originally built 5 years ago. I have replaced all of the other parts. Finally a month ago I got another 250gb drive and took out my IBM 30gb only because I didn't have room for it anymore.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    46. Re:What about reliability? by Eric604 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Might be the environment, do you smoke?

    47. Re:What about reliability? by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1
      What the hell are you doing to your hardware? This 80 Gig Seagate next to me has, lessee, 17,679 power on hours (thats slightly over 2 years running time) and still works like on the day when it was brand new.

      Of course, it sits in a cooled drive bay and never gets warmer than 40 degrees C. The current drive temp is 28 degrees.

      The only defective hard drive I've had is a 2 Gig Quantum SCSI drive ... it still works, mind you, but it takes hefty slap to start up. The heads are probably stuck to the platters.

      Oh yeah, DTemp is pretty nifty.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    48. Re:What about reliability? by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

      I agree about the Seagate Barracudas, I love them.

    49. Re:What about reliability? by Treacle+Treatment · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I have had my systems outstrip the drives storage capacity / usefullness LONG before they (would have) failed. Of the systems I've had for oh, say 20 years, I have had only one hard drive fail before it's time and that was largely due to it getting bumped HARD while it was running.

      - Mark

      --
      TT
    50. Re:What about reliability? by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1
      The only drives I have had fail are ones that my supplier installed with plastic adapters to fit the 5.25" drive bays.

      Their argument is that it cushions the drive in case of impacts in shipment or handling; My argument is that it insulates the drive from its heat sink, so I remove the adapters and put the drives into the dedicated 3.5" mounts provided in just about every case out there, which also frees up a 5.25" slot for other mischief...

    51. Re:What about reliability? by Zzootnik · · Score: 1

      Speed, eh?
      I'm wondering if someone will come out with "Raid-On-One-Drive" ('ROOD' ???). I mean 2 or more separate complete drive mechanisms hooked up to the same interface... If the bottleneck is actually reading and writing to the actual platters by the heads, why not make 2 to do it in parallel? If the bottleneck is the interface (ata/sata), then I suppose this won't help much...
      But yeah- that's a dumb acronym...rood...

      --
      Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....
    52. Re:What about reliability? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you must be very unlucky fellow then.

      i got a harddrive that's still running, bought in 1996 i think. it has not been even formatted since.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    53. Re:What about reliability? by tomjen · · Score: 1

      [i]. I've had an external for 2+ years that has been dropped, around the world twice now[/i]

      So this is the first satelite harddrive?

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
    54. Re:What about reliability? by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hi, I am working for a company that in the next year is going to be purchasing at least 525 Terrabytes of hard drives. You think size doesn't matter to us? The larger they get the more we can fit into our raid server. And the cheaper per GB it will cost us. And yes, we plan to be operating at nearly full capacity of the drives. We do need that amount of space.

      As for me personally? I keep a couply things on my computer that so far has lead me to install 400GB worth of disk space in my computer. Music Videos are one that take up Tens of Gigs. Pictures are another (I have so many they take up tens of gigs as well in JPG format). I run a website with the.

      As for the average consumer not needing 160GB? That is enough to store ~18 hours of HDTV content in a VCR. When we finally do get the dam digital transision done with, consumers will be buying up PVRs and that is what they will be using for storage.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    55. Re:What about reliability? by sahonen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pictures are another (I have so many they take up tens of gigs as well in JPG format).

      Yet another case of pr0n driving technological development.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    56. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man the temperature of hard drives are no joke nowdays. In my case I've always found the hard drive to be MUCH hotter than my cpu heatsink. Sometimes you cant even hold them for like a minute or two. It doesn't take much air to dissipate the heat, but without any _direct_ circulation, most modern hard drives seem to cook themselves.

    57. Re:What about reliability? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hmm. My IBM (old 27 GB) HD is ticking along fine. Sad that it has lasted longer than any of the Maxtor drives I have. Even sadder still, the IBM holds my MP3 collection.

      Can someone please explain to me why Maxtor drives start developing bad sectors at 6 months, and die at 9 months? I know they are adequately cooled (four 80mm fans blowing over them, constantly), so that's not the issue. Hell, I wouldn't care if I didn't keep losing my high-capacity drives at the same time. I have one dead 160GB Maxtor drive staring at me, and another (which holds the system partition) which is well on its way. The 120GB Maxtor (slightly older) has been replaced before, but seems to be holding up fairly well.

      At this rate, I'll be moving my critical data to the IBM HD or (alternatively) to the DVD burner. Do Seagate drives hold up better than Maxtors (how so)?

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    58. Re:What about reliability? by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      So I guess *your* dad doesn't use eMule? *g*

      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
    59. Re:What about reliability? by cillasri · · Score: 1

      That's not always the case. I have hard drives still up and running dated back from 1999.

    60. Re:What about reliability? by bryanp · · Score: 1

      I guess I must be the weird exception that proves the rule. I've been building my own PC's since 1991. I have had exactly one hard drive fail. The rest have all worked fine until I retired them / gave them away as I upgraded.

      Of course, I do have a couple of hard rules when I build. I don't cheap out on the case, the power supply, or the motherboard. Far too many people spend most of the build money on the fastest CPU and video card they can find and put it in a pretty (but cheap) case with a cheap-ass PSU. This is what is generally known as a Bad Thing. Basic Rule #1 - the case should cost you at least $75 without a PSU (and not because it's aluminum with a goofy window in the side). Rule #2 - the PSU should cost more than the case.

      Use a good motherboard, too. You can put a decent CPU in it now and then buy that screamer later when the price drops a bit.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    61. Re:What about reliability? by Uncle+Jimmy · · Score: 1

      DV Editing.

      13 GB/hour.

      Assuming an average project:
      - 13 GB/tape
      - About the same again for final render with effects (usually a bit less due to cuts)
      - A couple of gig for encoding to DVD format
      - And again for DVD image

    62. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't surprise me. In 2 households, I've had 11 bad drives in 1 year. IBM's infamous deathstar drives and some Maxtors.

    63. Re:What about reliability? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I just want them to get cheaper. A decent amount of storage has been $100-140 for quite some time now, since bitrates and resolutions just keep going up. It would be nice if they got cheap as fast as other stuff, like video cards.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    64. Re:What about reliability? by duck_oil · · Score: 1

      Adding a fan is good but opening the case is not. Put the side back on and make sure you've got good intake fans to match your power supply and exhaust fans. One of my 2 intake fans blows directly onto my new 200 GB HD. It stays nice and cool. Good luck!

    65. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      my hard drives are all fine despite the sound kicking and punching they recive along with the rest of my computer, the only thing I've ever broken from kicking it to much were floppy drives.

      Ive never directly kicked the mobo or cards tho, only punched them.

    66. Re:What about reliability? by jcr · · Score: 1

      If you want to get the best possible service life out of your hard drives, never let them spin down. They're just like jet engines: nearly all the wear and tear they get is thermal damage from being started up.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    67. Re:What about reliability? by Tek+Tekson · · Score: 1

      One word: HEAT

    68. Re:What about reliability? by jridley · · Score: 1

      Dude, you must have a really messed up power supply or something. That is NOT typical.

      I have a 40, an 80, and 2 160's in the machine I'm typing on now, plus a 200 in an external box, a 250 in my wife's machine, and a 160 in the linux server. All these drives are at least a year old, most are 2+, the 40 is going on 5 years old. Most of my machines stay on all the time, though this one (with the 4 drives) goes on and off daily because it's noisy and in the bedroom.

      I've had exactly one drive die in the last 5 years, a 120 that was about 2 years old at the time and had been in and out of many machines as a temporary setup drive, and may have been dropped. That's out of at least a dozen in pretty much full time use, and that one developed bad sectors which was caught by SMART monitoring, so I didn't lose any data.

      Seriously, consider getting a better power supply. That's always a good idea anyway.

    69. Re:What about reliability? by stanleypane · · Score: 1

      Yes, copying every DVD you own onto a group of disks can be very taxing on space. Although, as the parent said, "very few people would need > 160gb."

      I don't think your average user is copying his entire collection of DVD's onto his HD. It may be coming, but not quite yet. I'm sure we could all come up with a million scenarios in which a TB of data wouldn't be enough.

    70. Re:What about reliability? by Freexe · · Score: 1

      I thought that if you get too much RAM it can slow your system down as it takes longer to search for the data that you need. But I'm not 100% show that is true or whether the speed decrease is noticeable.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    71. Re:What about reliability? by andreyw · · Score: 1

      Rofl 7200 RPM. My 10k RPM UltraSCSI Cheetah doesn't just get uncomfortably warm to the touch... it will BURN you. Air cooling doesn't really help here either. Maybe I should go for a heatsink+fan.

    72. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warranties are good things.

      Just had a 80GB WD drive with 3ry warranty fail almost exactly at the 2yr mark. Bad sectors. WD sent me a remanufactured replacement with the remaining warranty. Exactly WHY I got that drive in the first place.

      That 80 was paired with an identical twin for backup purposes; I do not use single hard drives; one drive always backs up to a twin. Now that one 80 has failed, I am going to replace the other 80 as a preventive move. Probably go with twin 160s this time. Spinrite says the new 80 is clean so it will probably go in the spares bin.

      I just removed from service a Maxtor 5.7gb drive which has been running and running 24/7 for something like 6 years. It's run Win95, 98, ME, linux, and Win2K over the years, been moved from machine to machine to machine without any hardware problems, ever. Replaced it on principle due to age, and well, 5.7 is too small for a workstation.

      After pulling the drive, I ran a Spinrite level 5 check on it just to see what was what and no problems were found! This thing is a tank! But it is also as slow as a tank. I think the seek time is well in the triple-digit milliseconds.

      We have had a lot of problems at work recently with Fujitsu SCSI drives failing. They have full warranty coverage but it's through Dell so we have had to run around in cicles trying to get Dell to get off their butts and send a replacement. The last one took a month. Unacceptable.

      Anyway, here's a list of brands of drives that have failed on me over the years. I think it proves any brand can and will fail.

      WD
      Maxtor
      Seagate
      Fujitsu
      Micropolis
      Samsun g
      Quantum (pre WD)
      JTS
      IBM
      Toshiba
      Magicstor
      Probably some others.

    73. Re:What about reliability? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Can someone please explain to me why Maxtor drives start developing bad sectors at 6 months

      Not me.

      I've been using Maxtor since 1992 (a 250MB drive) and haven't seen a failure yet.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    74. Re:What about reliability? by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Not pron, Anime picture galeries actually.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    75. Re:What about reliability? by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Assuming you already have a fan blowing on it, find someone or a computer store with spare old pentium/athlon heatsinks. Get thermal adhesive and glue one or several to the HD.

      I moved my floppy drive up to a 5.25" bay and left the hole it came from open. That way the top of a hard drive had air blowing over it. Newer cases have been putting the HD's on the bottom, right behind a fan. Dunno what you've got, but I'm sure you can rig something up.

    76. Re:What about reliability? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      I don't like Maxtor either. My drive is still working (seems to have some bad sectors though), and doesn't give any errors really. But the SOUNDS the thing makes! Sometimes I really feel like turning off the machine when it's doing some heavy loading, just to relieve it of the pain and strain. You know, the kind of sound that makes your spine twist into knots. Not loudly either, just some eerie krt-whhhhhhztkrt-krr-rrt-ghzaaaauuuwhhzzhtt-krrrrr t. No I don't think it's the heads scraping, it's not a whining sound. In fact, it reminds me of the exotic sounds of the disk drive on my Amiga, but in a spooky new high-speed way.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    77. Re:What about reliability? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Ah about holding up: Seagate holds up way better, and is a million times more silent after a few months of use. They recently started giving 5-year warranties too. (although my drive doesn't have a SeaShield cover...)

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    78. Re:What about reliability? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Old beasts die when you turn them off.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    79. Re:What about reliability? by arkulkis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anime !?!?! That's even MORE depraved!

    80. Re:What about reliability? by arkulkis · · Score: 1

      My SCSI disks on my Linux box are 3 years old and working flawlessly (no changes in the internal bad-sector list). If I switch to IDE, they'll HAVE to be mirrored (RAID)

    81. Re:What about reliability? by screwdriver · · Score: 1

      Basic Rule #1 - the case should cost you at least $75 without a PSU (and not because it's aluminum with a goofy window in the side). Rule #2 - the PSU should cost more than the case.

      You definately are an American with the stereotypical mentality that if it costs more, it must be better. Don't judge the quality of a component based solely on its price. By your logic, I could have my 7yo put together a case made from cardboard, and as long as I charge enough it will be acceptable. Hmm.. /me thinks.

    82. Re:What about reliability? by Hal+XP · · Score: 1

      I had a 60GB 5400rpm drive that already had bad sectors when I bought it. I should have returned it to the store the hour I got my "drive seek" error. But I was too lazy. The drive lasted all of two years before I got fed up with the intermittent crashes and replaced it with a cheaper, speedier and higher-capcity 80GB drive. The damaged drive probably could have lasted a few more months, had I the mind to reformat around the bad sectors (which was what I originally did to make the drive useful during its two-year of life). But that would be prolonging the agony too much!

      --
      I'm a sci-fi vegan: I don't want the aliens to think we have as much right to live as the fried chickens we eat.
    83. Re:What about reliability? by corngrower · · Score: 1

      There was a bad series of Seagate drives once. It wasn't the drive mechanism itself that was bad, it was the controller board. These were SCSI drives. A power glitch would sometimes fry the board. A company I used to work for unfortunately had purchased these for some of their systems. On two occasions in two years I had drives go bad on me. Both went bad after brief power outages (like 1 second ). This was back 5-6 years ago and I'm sure they've corrected the problem since then.

    84. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many commercial PVR's use > 160gb drives? Exactly none.

    85. Re:What about reliability? by cortez · · Score: 1

      Single digit capacity? You had a 9-bit hard drive?

      --
      Paizurishitetai desu ka?
    86. Re:What about reliability? by SunFan · · Score: 1

      Hi, I am working for a company that in the next year is going to be purchasing at least 525 Terrabytes of hard drives.

      Yeah, well, you're also in the market for things like FibreChannel and redundant hardware RAID. Most of us are not.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    87. Re:What about reliability? by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1
      "I thought that if you get too much RAM it can slow your system down as it takes longer to search for the data that you need. But I'm not 100% show that is true or whether the speed decrease is noticeable."

      That doesn't make sense -- typical PCs don't have associative memory, so the hardware is not "searching for the data". Perhaps clock cycles need to be made a little longer to make sure all the RAM chips are in sync, but that should already be taken care of in the protocol; as far as I know, PC motherboards don't decrease the memory bus speed as you add more memory.

      The only concrete example I can think of that you might be referring to is the old (1997) Intel 430TX chipset, in which L2 cache was disabled for memory above 64MB. I think it was the case that if you had 128MB of RAM, lines from the upper 64MB would not be cached in L2, while the lower 64MB would be. In particular, since Windows (at least in those days) allocated memory from the highest physical address on down, it sometimes seemed slower with more memory.

    88. Re:What about reliability? by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1
      speed is one of the areas which is always welcome for improvement (until of course it reaches the max interface speed, eg 150mB/sec for SATA)

      Latency is actually a far bigger problem with the performance of hard disks than raw read-or-write throughput. Even a very fast 4 ms hard disk seek translates to 12 million processor cycles on a 3 GHz machine. If the processor doesn't have another thread/process to work on during the disk seek, that's a lot of wasted CPU time.

      Of course, the only way to drastically improve this situation is to use solid-state storage devices that don't require a mechanical seek. This is currently... expensive.

    89. Re:What about reliability? by kronchev · · Score: 1

      THAT'S your defense?

    90. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you can even get PATA -> SATA convertors for cheap.

      Not very cheap. They're about US$50.

      The advantages in SATA from my point of view are all about the cable :

      No slave drives, so :
      1) no fiddling with jumpers,
      2) every drive gets the full bandwidth,
      3) every drive gets the full one meter length (slave drive plugs are only about 3/4 along the cable).
      4) the cable is thin, so the air flows better arond the drive
      5) the plugs don't rely on you pulling the cable (which often, in my experience, pulls the back off the plug making the whole cable useless).

      The disadvantages from my point of view :
      1) the plugs do not connect very firmly,
      2) the plugs stick out more than the PATA ones - though you can get right angled ones.
      3) ditto for the power plugs - though the old molex (?) ones were always a bugger to pull out, so that's not just a bad thing.

      I'm sure there are more...

    91. Re:What about reliability? by karzgrrl · · Score: 1

      With one notable exception, my drives are into their 5th year of service and one is approaching 7. The exception was a Hitachi 120 GB that failed twice within 6 months. I suspect a bad lot of drives. (After much bitching, Hitachi replaced the 120 with a newer design 250 and it seems to be okay.) Mostly, my boxes are home built with server grade enclosures... hefty power supplies and lots of cooling. The Hitachi was in a B&W Mac.(?) k

    92. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps clock cycles need to be made a little longer to make sure all the RAM chips are in sync, but that should already be taken care of in the protocol;

      On the whole you're right, but just a small clarification: the syncing isn't a job for the memory access "protocol", it is a low-level BIOS setting. It's not so much a matter of syncing between chips, but just making sure that each chip can complete its task in the demanded time.

      Thus, if you increase the memory bus speed (making each cycle shorter in wall clock time), you have to loosen up the latencies (allow more cycles to each stage of the access so that the RAM chips have enough wall clock time to physically cope). The amount of memory has little to zero impact on this, save for the fact that "smaller" sticks generally overclock higher and/or cope with tighter latency settings, due to some stick characteristics (PCB design, chip placement, heat issues).

      Remembering fondly my Mushkin PC133 sticks that reached 140 MHz at the tightest possible latencies (2-2-2-5) and 155 MHz at more relaxed settings... Currently "teh sweet" is anything with Samsung's "TCCD" chips on it.

      (Beside all this, dual-channel systems of course get a boost from populating both channels; and some consumer grade motherboards get flaky if you populate the third and fourth slot... but other than that, adding memory should have no negative impact whatsoever on performance. The more the merrier.)

    93. Re:What about reliability? by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1
      "On the whole you're right, but just a small clarification: the syncing isn't a job for the memory access 'protocol,' it is a low-level BIOS setting. It's not so much a matter of syncing between chips, but just making sure that each chip can complete its task in the demanded time.

      Thus, if you increase the memory bus speed (making each cycle shorter in wall clock time), you have to loosen up the latencies (allow more cycles to each stage of the access so that the RAM chips have enough wall clock time to physically cope)."

      Yes, latency would be the more appropriate term here. I was referring to the fact that with more memory sticks or chips, you'll have more clock paths, so there is a possibility that there will be more variation in the latencies between the slowest and fastest responders. I doubt this is anything significant in a typical PC.

      "(Beside all this, dual-channel systems of course get a boost from populating both channels; and some consumer grade motherboards get flaky if you populate the third and fourth slot... but other than that, adding memory should have no negative impact whatsoever on performance. The more the merrier.)"

      Agreed.

    94. Re:What about reliability? by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      Which part of "very few people" didn't you understand? Very few people have a media system. The vast majority of users use probbably under 20 gigs of drive space. They aren't storing masses of movies, MP3s, etc. They don't have 5 different games installed, they just use the computer for email, online shopping, and word/excel. The storage requirements for those uses aren't going up too fast.

      --
      AccountKiller
    95. Re:What about reliability? by amorsen · · Score: 1
      If you want to get the best possible service life out of your hard drives, never let them spin down.

      Some (desktop) drives actually depend on being shutdown once in a while. The explanation I recall is that they only add lubricant when being powered up (or waking up from powersave).

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    96. Re:What about reliability? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      there is not much demand for higher capacities (very few people would need >160gb).

      Somehow I don't think that's true. But if you had said "very few people would need >160gb per drive", we'd be on the same page.

      I have 2x160GB in my little Shuttle cabinet, never mind what you can fit in a regular case. Is there any real difference to having 1x320GB? No. Of course, if I wish to expand beyond my 320GB it'd be an issue (except I have a linux server too...), but unless you want to have 500GB+, there's no reason to pay the solid premium of 3-400GB disks. And even if you do, you're more likely to stick a bunch of them in a RAID array. I'd really like to have one of those 400GB Seagate 7200.8, but well... it's cheaper and easier to get 2x200GB. Though I must admit having 560GB in my Shuttle box would be cool, the added 240GB is much cheaper to do as a 250GB disk in my server.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    97. Re:What about reliability? by Znork · · Score: 1

      "Very few people have a media system."

      No, 'very few' people have astrographics data storage at home and need fibre arrays and tape storage.

      The average tech nerd uses more than 200GB storage. The average tech nerd are the ones who buy storage. And by tech nerd I dont mean people with 10 computers or more with different OS's, I mean people with 2-3 computers who sometimes buy new parts for their computers.

      The computer email, online shopping and word/excel crowd have never been the ones driving the new hardware market. By that definition of 'very few', very few people need more than 16MB memory and a 100MHz CPU with Windows 3.11 to do those things. Yet, those 'very few' people who need more are actually not so few these days. And of the things that group of people need most, storage appears to be ahead of both CPU, memory, graphics, sound and display for most people I know.

    98. Re:What about reliability? by Znork · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about what's in things today. We're talking about what people want in the near future, and what drives the storage market.

      Ask your average PVR user if they'd like to be able to store five times as much on their PVR.

      The market for very large storage is not shrinking. As digital video storage is going mainstream, it's growing. Fast.

    99. Re:What about reliability? by shic · · Score: 1

      Hmmm - Your drive is "only" 80Gb... Can anyone comment on the Barracuda drives with larger capacities. I'm in the market to buy a new hard disk but realise I'm quite out of touch with which brands to buy these days (the last time I bought a desktop H/D as a separate package it was 17Gb and considered obscenely "top of the range!") I notice that the Barracuda drives have capacities up-to at least 250Gb (at relatively little extra cost over the basic models.) I am not particularly concerned about performance (i.e. I/O speed) as I intend to use this new drive to stash archives which would otherwise languish on misplaced CDs. [80Gb would do for now - I can justify buying up-to 0.5Tb!] I am primarily concerned about reliability, however, and remain quite sensitive to cost per gigabyte. Are the Barracuda drives similarly reliable across the capacity range? Can anyone point me at independent reviews or data concerning relative reliabilities of Seagate; Western-Digital; Maxtor; IBM/Hitachi mid-to-large capacity "cheap" IDE drives?

    100. Re:What about reliability? by bryanp · · Score: 1

      If you are in the US, a quality power supply is going to cost you a decent amount of money. I was using the cost as shorthand in place of mentioning specific brands and models. I'm not sure why you felt the need to turn that in to a "Oh, you Americans" insult.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    101. Re:What about reliability? by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 1

      Someone mentioned video editing, but a much more common use for huge (in nowadays terms) storage capacity is movie collection.
      With music collection it's already enough, since the day that the cheaper drives were 40 or 80GB. But for movies that day is still far away (five years or so?).
      A reasonable collection of ten thousand titles of 2GB each would need 20TB of storage.

    102. Re:What about reliability? by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      there is not much demand for higher capacities (very few people would need >160gb).

      But there will be once the HD DVR market grows. But that probably won't happen in 2005.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    103. Re:What about reliability? by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      I have an 86MB Seagate harddrive that has FreeBSD on it from the early 90's. It still runs fine... no bad clusters or anything. Fear my 86MB!

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    104. Re:What about reliability? by nospmiS+remoH · · Score: 1

      I can attest to solid IBM drive performance. I have a 20GB drive that I got with a Dell in 1999. The computer it is in is on 24/7. The S.M.A.R.T info on the drive indicates the total power on hours over 25,000 hours. Yes, the drive has been on for well over 25,000 hours. Much of that time it was caked with dust and pet hair. It will be a sad day when it dies.

      --
      !hoD
    105. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fail before it's time

      "its".

    106. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since it's been on 24/7, I suggest you don't turn it off for a long time - above 24 hours or a week. The drive will probably die when you do that.

      I've been mostly lucky so far, but I think my luck is starting to run out. I usually buy a new drive and duplicate my data a few months before my old drives die and back up my most critical data to CD's DVD's or some sort of tertiary storage. I haven't lost much data in the 15 + years that I've been saving data digitally. I always had enough space on the newer, larger drive that I can copy old data to it and have space for new data just as I need it.

      I've finally reached a point now where My data capacity exceeds a single drive, so I'm worried now now about buying a new drive to save data to. It just won't be enough.

    107. Re:What about reliability? by register_ax · · Score: 1
      They are getting cheaper. Last year it was basically $1 per gigabyte. Just a week ago I bought a drive for .34 cents per gigabyte and another for .47 cents per gigabyte. These were 200 GB drives. It seems drives are at roughly .75 cents per gigabyte if you go with smaller drives (40 - 80 GB) or with the latest drives (300 - 400 GB). Get the commodity drive that everyone is going after and they will be just as cheap.

      I can see your gripe that a 40GB drive should run about $10 by now (.25 cents per GB), but 40GB is worthless for me when I consider a) buy better products lead to better progress, and b) it's inefficient to use a lot of toxins (in hard drives) to produce a small drive, when you use about the same with a larger drive. Therefore, you are dealing with purchasing legacy for a lot, efficient for a little, or research (latest) for a lot.

    108. Re:What about reliability? by julesh · · Score: 1

      as for reliability, most HD's are acceptable, but you can never fully rely on them to never fail, you must always have a backup system for important data.

      You've obviously not been using Maxtors lately. I purchased 3 Maxtor 6E040L0 discs (DiamondMax +8 40Gb) last year, of which 2 failed within a week of each other last month and the third is showing signs of deterioration. They weren't even all from the same batch.

    109. Re:What about reliability? by julesh · · Score: 1

      "but you can never fully rely on them to never fail"

      I'd rather say you can fully rely on them to eventually fail. Which is why you need so much space for backups.


      I used to be a proponent of disc to disc backups. It's easy and quick and there's no fuss changing discs around all the time. You can even do it over a remote network link if you need a backup in case of fire damage/theft.

      Then I had two discs fail almost simultaneously. I'm sure its a manufacturing defect, they were the same model of drive (although purchased from different retailers several months apart from each other), and a third of the same model I have is also starting to fail.

      So, if you're doing disc to disc backup, please make sure you're at least using discs from different manufacturers...!

    110. Re:What about reliability? by register_ax · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I have 2 of these exact drives that have been running pretty much 24/7/365 since about 2001-02, and in mid-2004, one crashed on me. It was backed up though so no biggy, but I still consider Seagate to make one of the best drives. Seagates I have a 1 80, 1 120, and 3 160s. I recently bought a WD2000JBRTL (Western Digital 200 GB, got it for really cheap) and it compares quite nicely except it only has a 1 year warranty, which pales in comparison to Seagate's 5 yr warranty.

    111. Re:What about reliability? by julesh · · Score: 1

      I will get 2x 200GB drives for RAID-1

      Make sure the drives have different manufacturers. I had two Maxtor drives fail on me almost simultaneously last month, which was an unpleasant experience, to say the least. Any manufacturer could have problems, remember the shit everyone had with IBM drives a couple of years ago?

    112. Re:What about reliability? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Are you using IBM "Deathstars" or Seagates by chance? I've been using a Western Digital and Maxtor, have had 0 problems. The WD is a 10,000 RPM SATA, and despite the heat it throws off it still works perfectly.

      I've had 2 Maxtor 40GBs less than 1 year old fail on me recently, within a week of each other. A third that's in a different machine has recently been throwing the occasional bad sector message into the system log. There's no cooling problems in these machines (oversized case with two case fans and a power supply with a huge through fan stuck under it, I've never seen anything else like it, the cooling system was designed for 8 disc server setups), and power supply seems fine. The third Seagate drive from the machine with the 2 failures has been in there twice as long and is showing no signs of trouble.

    113. Re:What about reliability? by sawak · · Score: 1

      That's because smaller HDs are more reliable, the data density is lower and they spin slower too.

    114. Re:What about reliability? by Syrrh · · Score: 1

      The pre-Deathstar drives were really excellent, I wish I hadn't donated mine as a replacement for friend's dying system.

      Also have 6gb drives from Maxtor and WD that were 'inherited' from beat up old desktops at my last job, the WD has some problems being detected in certain setups but both are ok otherwise.

      The general impression I get is that newer drives are simply lousy, since mechanical quality isn't something that can easily be shown on a price sheet. I've *never* had a drive smaller than 20GB fail, the only reason they get dismantled for magnets is when they're just too small to be useful.

      Plus the actuator magnets in older ones seem to be a fair bit stronger than they are in newer drives.

    115. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      evidently he's not replacing them every month like you are.

    116. Re:What about reliability? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sigh, please reread my comment. My problem is that the price of storage is not keeping up with my needs, or even the needs of the consumer. Broadband and video editing are becoming very common, with a plethora of programs on the market to allow people to take their badly shot footage and edit it down into bad home movies...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    117. Re:What about reliability? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Oh goody. I just reviewed some of the disks atributes, and it has switched over the PIO mode. That would help explain the performance drop...

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    118. Re:What about reliability? by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      The Barracuda 7200.7's go up to 200G; I have an 80G, 2 160G's and 3 200G's and they've been very good. The 7200.8's go up to 400G (3 * 133G platters; as dense as it gets) and they're *expected* to continue the good spell Seagate seem to be having.

      Storage Review are good for comparing drives. They don't have 7200.8 reviews yet though, and their reliability database isn't going to be of much use for them for a while.

    119. Re:What about reliability? by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      I think the gp meant that disk caching can become counterproductive if your cache gets too huge, because it starts adding a significant latency just looking up data in the cache. Thankfully I doubt many cache lookup strategies these days use a linear search ;)

    120. Re:What about reliability? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Spend your money on a decent UPS, power in my area has frequent partial-second interrupts. I used to lose drives often until then, with the UPS, they are lasting years now.

    121. Re:What about reliability? by shic · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I didn't previously know that the 80s, 160s and 200s were all part of the same "series" - I guess that fact (coupled with the competitive pricing of the 160Gb and 200Gb models) probably means one of them is my ideal choice.

    122. Re:What about reliability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gates' comment stands up a little better if you inflation-adjust it according to Moore's law.

    123. Re:What about reliability? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Hi, I am working for a company that in the next year is going to be purchasing at least 525 Terrabytes of hard drives. You think size doesn't matter to us? The larger they get the more we can fit into our raid server. And the cheaper per GB it will cost us. And yes, we plan to be operating at nearly full capacity of the drives. We do need that amount of space.


      Do you guys use the cheaper, consumer-grade disks in your RAID and expect failures? (Yes, the I in RAID is Inexpensive, I know).

      I've often wondered if large installations just used the cheapest and hoped, or it they actually went up to more 'commercial' level disks. I wouldn't think the people looking for 525TB of disk space are using the same disks as Joe User does.

      Then again, who knows.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    124. Re:What about reliability? by bulliver · · Score: 1

      Just 3 months ago I finally replaced the 3GB Quantam Fireball (~9 years old) that was the sole HDD on my firewall/server with an 80 becuase I wanted space for backups of my workstation. It was still working fine. In fact I didn't have the heart to retire it...now I use the entire disk for a swap partition on the aforementioned server. Why? Because I can. Doesn't see much action now though:

      total used free shared buffers cached
      Mem: 759 698 60 0 162 371
      -/+ buffers/cache:165 594
      Swap: 2598 0 2598
      --
      Support the mob or mysteriously disappear.
    125. Re:What about reliability? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of it is anime pr0n.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    126. Re:What about reliability? by MicklePickle · · Score: 1
      I can think of quite a few things:
      • RAID 0,1,5 on disk: why not start to provide RAID between the platters? And have multiple controller cards to reduce single points of failure.
      • Military hardening: Being able to drop you HD while it's running and have it still function would be good.
      • Connections: Why not provide WiFi, USB, Firewire, ethernet, SCSI, ATA, SATA, etc instead of just one connection?
      • File serving: Bring the function of file serving onto the disk itself!
      • Backups: Get the HD to backup to tape itself. Or provide snapshot backups so backing up takes just seconds.
      • Dynamic addition of HD storage: Need more storage? Don't want to shutdown your PC? Just go off buy another HD, come home plug it in, presto! Another 500G!

        • That's just for kickoffs. Give me half an hour and I'd come with a whole bunch more. But basically it's all about bringing solutions that have been in the enterprise for a long time into the home user market.
      --
      -- main(s){printf(s="main(s){printf(s=%c%s%c,34,s,34) ;}",34,s,34);} $p='$p=%c%s%
    127. Re:What about reliability? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      525TB? Nice. Now you and WalMart can duke it out over who can fit more internets in their databases.

    128. Re:What about reliability? by screwdriver · · Score: 1

      I can bash Americans because I am one. Besides, I have an Antec case+PSU that cost about $65 together and has not given me a single problem in the 3 1/2 years I've used it. The point is, buy a decent brand, one that is well recognized, not some overpriced noname.

    129. Re:What about reliability? by isecore · · Score: 1

      What application do you run that an ordinary, garden variety disk drive cannot keep up with?

      Microsoft Windows.

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
  2. No news by saider · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is good news?

    --


    Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    1. Re:No news by deft · · Score: 3, Funny

      "No news Is good news?"

      I think you mean "no news IS news".

      --

      There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    2. Re:No news by saider · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of a "Bloom County" cartoon where the TV newspeople are pondering the lack of anything going on. I belive the punchline was Tom Brokaw doing a segment called "Nothing: Is it Something?"

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  3. If you need more than a few hundred gigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Then you are a theif or a pervert and belong behind bars.

    1. Re: If you need more than a few hundred gigs by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you need more than a few hundred gigs, then you are a theif or a pervert ..

      You're so right, I must be both. Thanks for enlighting me. Screw Slashdot for the evening, back to pr0n surfing, much more fun than reading up on domain hijacks...

      .. and belong behind bars.

      Yup, but then you've got half the population behind bars. So you need the other half to guard them. Who's gonna feed everybody in that scenario? Or do some nanotech-science or writing /. comments on the side?

      Just saw "Revenge of the nerds" on TV (I kid you not). Damn, that movie sucks!!!

    2. Re:If you need more than a few hundred gigs by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is flat out wrong. Digital video, content you create yourself is incredibly demanding when it comes to storage. DVCAM video is 3 MB/sec, and let's not even talk about HD. If you're in the film/video industry, 160 GB is too little to even consider.

    3. Re:If you need more than a few hundred gigs by Thnikkaman · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? With new technologies making it easier and easier for any user to film and edit their own videos, space becomes extremely important. How much video is a mother capable of shooting? Anyone who has any video generally needs lots of space, not just those in the industry.

    4. Re:If you need more than a few hundred gigs by JesusQuintana · · Score: 1

      If you need more than a few hundred gigs, then you are a theif or a pervert and belong behind bars.

      I know you have already been ridiculed, but...

      WTF!

      I am a freelance video producer. I am currently working on a project that consists of over 200 Gigs. That's in addition to my applications, music, DVR recordings I make with the ATI card, etc.

      The largest project I ever worked on required over a Terabyte. And that was just my end of the project.

      I'm about to start editing a wedding for a friend. The raw MiniDV footage will occupy nearly 200 gigs itself.

      I am also a pervert, and the last time I checked, this was not illegal. It may not be revered, but it is not illegal.

      Further, do you agree that the cost of housing these "thieves or perverts" would be worth punishing them for their fairly victimless crimes? Nothing like paying $45,000 a year to house someone who download a few hundred dollars worth of CDs. And even though you may consider these folks the scum of the earth, they may, other than having a nasty BitTorrent habit, be upstanding members of society. You could be sending soccer moms and dads to jail. You'd be breaking up families which would seem to have a much greater detriment to society than a few lost MPAA profits. And we must send the evil little ones to jail for their after school downloading behavior, because that's where we should raise our downloading children, in jails where they can learn to commit real crimes.

      It seems to me that any Slashdot post that is shorter than one line and doesn't make you laugh, is as dangerous as a George W. Bush dichotomy. (Of course, geopolitics is as simple as categorizing the individuals and nations of the world as good and evil.) IMHO, people who cannot spell the word thief, or avoid the logical fallacy of oversimplification, should be behind bars.

      --
      You said it man. Nobody f#%ks with the Jesus.
  4. This is news? by christopherfinke · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't wait for the next two Slashdot stories: "The sky is still blue" and "There's nothing interesting to report."

    1. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why do you fucking come to this site? Good god people your getting a free news service and you still bitch about the content. Go start your own damn site if you want to bitch.

      waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

    2. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      free news service????
      what news?

    3. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      for the fucking intelligent discussions

    4. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol

    5. Re:This is news? by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      It's just like when the Garfield strip lost all ambition, and every strip thereafter is "Bored. (next panel). ZZzzzzz. (next panel). I'm bored, Odie."

    6. Re:This is news? by sanityspeech · · Score: 1

      Consider yourself lucky for not being marked down by some overzealous moderator as being offtopic.

      Maybe there's some method to the madness mentioned in the FAQ that isn't crystal clear.

      Either way, watch your head.

    7. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me too!

    8. Re:This is news? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Eat more Lasanga!

    9. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While our posts (ACs) are replies and therefore ontopic in the scope thier parent posts, the parent is truly offtopic since it's not even an reply!

  5. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now we're getting no-new news. pfff

  6. Nothing Happening by JamesP · · Score: 1

    It's a slow day today. Really!

    For "news" that atually say "hey, nothing happened"

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  7. What we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are cheap, super large disks that don't need to be the fasted. I'd love a 500 gig hard drive that was running at maybe 5400 rpm. I just want to use it for storage of media, and that should be plenty of speed.

  8. Slow news day? by sulli · · Score: 5, Funny
    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, some pretty cool stuff has been happening today, such as the release of Xfce 4.2, but nobody is talking about that.

    2. Re:Slow news day? by brutus_007 · · Score: 0

      I do believe so... the next article's title is: "Despite slow news day, Slashdot editors maintain consistant daily volume of stories for readers."

      --
      I have 1 million monkeys on a million year contract to make me a better sig.
    3. Re:Slow news day? by mutantcamel · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly...I'm half expecting a /. headline like "Man dies of natural causes" anytime now...

    4. Re:Slow news day? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. They'll post a few more urban legends as fact on the front page by nightfall.

    5. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun sets in west. NASA launches investigation.

    6. Re:Slow news day? by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1
      from the booooring dept.

      Is this supposed to be some sort of example of "no news is good news"? "Not much happening" is on the front page of /. I never thought I'd see that.

      Wake me when something happens.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    7. Re:Slow news day? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      And in the dead tree newspapers round here ...

      Boy wears fancy dress to fancy dress party.

    8. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an iceberg ran into an ice-shelf, but that was about it..

    9. Re:Slow news day? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      And the worst part?
      You just KNOW this story is going to dupe.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:Slow news day? by SamSim · · Score: 1

      This isn't news! It's anti-news!

  9. Storage by spike+hay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd like to see more speed, but capacity hardly matters to anybody these days, now that 200+ gig drives can be had for ridiculously cheap.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    1. Re:Storage by GreatDrok · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'd like to see more speed, but capacity hardly matters to anybody these days, now that 200+ gig drives can be had for ridiculously cheap.

      You know, 200+ gigs isn't going to go very far once you start storing your DVD collection. Certainly mine would occupy over 2TB if I were to rip it to disc and use a network media player to access it.

      Video, especially HD, is going to eat these discs pretty quick. I remember my first PC (previously I had avoided x86 boxes) had 200MB of disc and that seemed huge at the time (able to run a pretty complete Slackware install). My current machine (ten years on) has 200GB and it is already damn full.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    2. Re:Storage by wernercd · · Score: 1

      lol I feel your pain.

      Being overseas, me and my fellow Americans have ALOT of downtime out here. So I have 2 300gb hard drives FULL of movies, tv shows and clips for people to watch. Makes time go by SO much smoother when work can be broken up by watching a movie or two. I was surprised to think that I might have to upgrade to a couple 500's when they come out lol.

      Now that I've mentioned Movies being shared, it's been nice knowing you. I need to get ready for the Feds *snicker*

      Peace

    3. Re:Storage by Homology · · Score: 1
      I'd like to see more speed, but capacity hardly matters to anybody these days, now that 200+ gig drives can be had for ridiculously cheap.

      What I would like is cheap and reliable harddisks. Too often I've got problems with IDE disk that starts failing for no good reason. When I buy a harddisk it seems like lottery if the drive will last or not. (Yes, I do cool the drives)

      So, I've finally bought a good SCSI controller and is in the process of buying SCSI HDD for my home servers. For my servers 74GB is plenty of space, and I don't need a 300GB unreliable harddisk.

    4. Re:Storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Lots of storage is the future of software features.
      • Video can take tens of gig / hour. Your always-on-HDTV-video-camera that'll replace home photography one day will take petabytes.
      • Facial recognition index databases for everyone you know (for searching those videos) will probably take many gig.
      • If, later, you store your DNA sequence on your computer (wouldn't want to trust that to a health care company) it'll take maybe a gig; but indexes to get useful information from it will take many.
      • A 200GB httpd cache lets me browse the sites of failed .com companies from the 90s.

    5. Re:Storage by Feztaa · · Score: 4, Funny

      Funny, I have the opposite problem. I'm buying DVDs so that I can delete the videos that are taking up so much space on my HD.

    6. Re:Storage by Wolfrider · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I run this test on EVERY new/used hard drive I buy, before putting it into regular use:

      ' hdparm -c1 -d1 /dev/hdX '
      ' time badblocks -c 256 -n -s -v /dev/hdX '

      --Using this method on newly-delivered HDs has allowed me to RMA them right away, before they fail with MY data on them.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    7. Re:Storage by Tlosk · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of things people don't even think of doing because their hard drives would be far too small. Drives hold only a limited amount media (audio and video) even in the formats of today, let alone the formats of tomorrow. Don't get me wrong, you have an argument for a decent sized group of people, who really don't need more space for what they are doing now or even for what they might want to do in the next few years. But it's wrong to think that group includes almost everyone. There's a substantial number of people out there who feel constrained even by 400 GB disks, myself included.

    8. Re:Storage by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, how many times have you found a drive to fail this way? What kinds of drives were they?

    9. Re:Storage by SunFan · · Score: 1

      storing your DVD collection.

      Once I realized how CPU-bound MP3/Ogg encoding was, I pretty much abandoned ripping my CD collection. I just didn't want to be a CD-R jockey for that long. DVDs are several times the length of CD-Rs. Ugh.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    10. Re:Storage by runderwo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A better approach would be to use smartctl -t long /dev/hda and let the drive test itself. Modern drives will mask many errors from the user, so your badblocks test will gloss over problems that a firmware test would report.

    11. Re:Storage by julesh · · Score: 1

      Funny, I have the opposite problem. I'm buying DVDs so that I can delete the videos that are taking up so much space on my HD

      DVD-R is a much cheaper solution to that particular problem.

    12. Re:Storage by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

      Just buy another hard drive to put them on: that's what I use to backup all my files.

      I got a USB/Firewire hard drive enclosure, bought a hard drive, and combined the two. It's pretty cheap storage, and it's nice because you can buy slower hard drives with less cache. It's just being used for backup, so speed isn't as important.

      The enclosures are nice because you can switch hard drives when the current one becomes too small.

    13. Re:Storage by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      I've found at least 2; one was a used 6-gig which I exchanged, and the other was a brand-new Hitachi that was basically a relabeled Deathstar, IIRC.

      BTW, I absolutely refuse to buy Western Digital due to them screwing me over a few years ago with a return; to me, their drives are crap plain and simple. Doesn't matter what their price point is, how fast they are, whatever. I will never buy WD again.

      I've never had any trouble with Maxtor or Seagate, but then again that's just my personal experience.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    14. Re:Storage by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      Good info; I'll have to reference this somewhere.

      However, this assumes that the user has the "smartsuite" pkg installed. Badblocks is more common in default distro pkg selections.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    15. Re:Storage by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The only drive I've actually had crap out on me was a Seagate, but of course this was an 80 MB (yes, that's megabyte) 5.25" drive from around 1990.

      I have an IBM Deathstar (40GB), from just before they sold it to Hitachi, which I immediately took off-line and replaced when I read all the reports, and I think I also heard a few odd sounds from it.

      Lately, I've been using Maxtors, which seem to work well.

    16. Re:Storage by runderwo · · Score: 1

      It's also called smartmontools in a lot of distros.

  10. What I would like to see... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I would like to see is more and cheaper network attached storage devices like the Ximeta Netdisk. With networks being so popular in homes, it's amazing that they don't have one place to store their files without a actually having a specific computer turned on. And most people, including myself, don't see the need in devoting an entire computer to serving files.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:What I would like to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the Ximeta disk requires a computer to share the disk before it's available on the network for other computers. This is a serious flaw in the engeneering!

    2. Re:What I would like to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those ximeta products are pieces of shit. its not "network attached" its a USB disk with a crappy USB over ethernet driver attached to it.

      its unroutable, it doesnt have an IP stack. its worthless as network attached storage for the vast majority of people.

    3. Re:What I would like to see... by Pendragn_tk · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Linksys NSLU2 is pretty cheap (around $80) and provides computer-less file sharing on home networks. As a plus, it runs Linux and can be hacked fairly easily. tk

    4. Re:What I would like to see... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Which is why we need more and better consumer grade network storage. That's one of the few hard drives I've been able to find that offer any kind of network interface.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  11. What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    CPU speeds won't increase?

  12. TFA says consumers aren't demanding more by filmmaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Part of the reason why hard drives haven't kept up with other components is because consumers don't demand more features. Seems like people don't want their hard drives to do more - though I know that I'd like better performance when working with large video files.

    1. Re:TFA says consumers aren't demanding more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm ordering a 10K RPM SATA drive today, so that's something anyway. Yeah, it's nearly a year old already, but most users' PCs haven't got one, so I think the HD industry is still ahead of the game. Didn't Hitachi just announce their 500GB drive?

    2. Re:TFA says consumers aren't demanding more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have my hard drives do less (i.e. solid state), not more.

    3. Re:TFA says consumers aren't demanding more by WisconsinFusion · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I know that I'd like better performance when working with large video files.

      Get a mac.

    4. Re:TFA says consumers aren't demanding more by zCyl · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason why hard drives haven't kept up with other components is because consumers don't demand more features. Seems like people don't want their hard drives to do more

      They would if they understood how big of an impact HD speed has on system performance. Sounds like a marketting problem to me. The first person who develops significantly faster storage, and markets it correctly, wins.

    5. Re:TFA says consumers aren't demanding more by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People are spending $300 on video cards these days, but they usually don't want to spend more than $100 on storage. So, that pretty much proves your point. Luckily you can attach quite a few hard drives to your system and scale pretty much linearly... although storage is one of those things that prove you can't have everything: Size, speed, capacity, price, and reliability all depend on one another.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Flash Memory Based 'Hard Drives' by SmellsLikeFish · · Score: 1

    When will I be able to buy one ?

    1. Re:Flash Memory Based 'Hard Drives' by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even if you could, flash has a limited number of writes/rewrites (between thousands and hundreds of thousands, as far as I know and depending on whom you believe), and it wouldn't be well-suited for typical use as a "hard drive"--and definitely not one that has a swap file. And to top it all off, any capacity comparable to that of a hard drive is way more expensive.

      --
      R.Mo
    2. Re:Flash Memory Based 'Hard Drives' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      512MB-1GB storage is the $100 range. It wasn't many years ago that the same sized hard drives were more. Ignoring the number of writes issue, flash storage is catching it pretty quickly.

    3. Re:Flash Memory Based 'Hard Drives' by geeber · · Score: 1

      Ummm, isn't that what USB sticks are?

    4. Re:Flash Memory Based 'Hard Drives' by corngrower · · Score: 1
      When will I be able to buy one ?

      When you earn what Bill Gates does.

  14. Article? Or usenet rant? by coupland · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article is terrible. Looks like nothing more than a usenet rant to me. The author decries the terrible progress of the storage industry, obviously completely ignorant of the fact that the storage industry has consistently bested Moore's Law for at least a decade. If processors increased in speed at the pace that hard drives increase in size, we'd have processors in the tens of gigahertz today. Besides moaning about the slow pace of one of the fastest-paced areas in the industry, what is it the author thinks they should be focusing on? In his own words:

    we would certainly like to see a set pattern where users can expect something significant in this industry

    "Something." That's as specific as the author gets. Storage capacity is doubling every 12 months, but we need to see something significant. Nothing in particular, mind you. Just something. Go figure it out, come back to us when you're done. That's 5 mins of my life I'll never get back...

  15. Western Digital's SATA II plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will Western Digital make a native SATA II hard drive? Currently all of their SATA offerings use PATA with a SATA bridge chip. UGLY!

    Surely we can expect them to upgrade their product line this year to match Seagate and Maxtor, right? The Raptor is fast and all, but I'd like NCQ before I plunk down $180 for a hard drive. And of course, we all want more cache.

  16. less to archive, more to remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. sorry what was that (checks permalink)?

  17. A chance to take a breath... by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I somehow doubt that HD manufacturers have pre-announced all of their little secrets. That said, there comes a time with every technology when things mature - there are a limited number of bits you can fit into a finite space. My feeling is that solid state drives will be the next extremely big thing. 1GB flash memory is no longer a "big deal" and I suspect that with a few significant innovations, solid state might dominate. It would certainly reduce power and space requirements (I can just imagine Steve Jobs demoing the headless Mac Shuffle right now: Smaller than a stick of gum, except for the port adapter...)

    1. Re:A chance to take a breath... by bob65 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I, for one, can't wait until solid state drives replace the current hard drives. The big advantage I see would be noise and vibration elimination. Combine that with a cool-running processor with a passive heatsink, a fanless power supply, and videocards/motherboards without fans, and we might just be able to have a truely silent computer that does not get louder over time. Given that we can find a good case design with appropriate convection of course...

    2. Re:A chance to take a breath... by brutus_007 · · Score: 0

      there are a limited number of bits you can fit into a finite space

      As soon as the right disk manufacturer joins up/merges/acquires ACME, they'll have access to those Bugs Bunny type portable black holes, at which point bit density and the laws of physics which currently apply to disk storage development shall no longer be relevant.

      --
      I have 1 million monkeys on a million year contract to make me a better sig.
    3. Re:A chance to take a breath... by addaon · · Score: 1

      Or you can do that today. My main system (which often, but not always, acts as a terminal) is a 533MHz mini-itx box, passively cooled, with a passively cooled power supply and a small solid state hard disk, all built into the cardboard box it came in. Total price was ~$250, total noise is zero.

      My only complaint is that, if the monitor's off, it's entirely impossible to tell if the computer is on or off.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    4. Re:A chance to take a breath... by md81544 · · Score: 1

      I am (at this very minute) replacing my aging hifi PC with a mini-itx system based around the VIA EPIA Nehemiah M10000 LVDS 1Ghz Motherboard, with the fan ripped off and fitted into the passive cooling E-Otonashi Case (both available from http://www.mini-itx.com/store/).

      Not one fan. The ONLY thing that makes a sound is the hard disk (and THAT's a quiet one). It's freaked me out a couple of times, where I think it's died, until I see the light's still on. With a decent-sized solid state drive, this would be totally silent.

    5. Re:A chance to take a breath... by bob65 · · Score: 1

      How small is the solid state hard disk though? It seems that, compared to regular hard disks, you can't get something like an 80GB drive for a reasonable cost.

    6. Re:A chance to take a breath... by bob65 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand if you're using it has a terminal I suppose it doesn't matter...

    7. Re:A chance to take a breath... by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that when 20GB of flash memory is cheap enough, you'll start seeing a lot more palm-sized tablets. /me is still waiting for the iTablet to show the world how it's done.

    8. Re:A chance to take a breath... by addaon · · Score: 1

      Yep. It's 128MB, because that's what I could get for free in the formfactor I wanted (the stub of an IDE plug, rather than an ide->cf converter and a cf card). Along with 128MB of ram, to balance things out. No swap, of course, and none needed.

      The same thing could be done with 2GB/2GB affordably today, especially if you were willing to use cf instead... talking maybe $300 total difference, probably much less. But do you really need it, locally?

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    9. Re:A chance to take a breath... by corngrower · · Score: 1

      I'll agree. Because of limited write cycles with flash, it won't completely eliminate the need for hard disks. But for things that aren't rewritten all that often, executable programs for instance, flash will be just the thing. Several Gigs of flash, along with your 200 Gb drive may be just the thing in the not too distant future. Later as flash prices fall, I'm sure that the ratio of flash to hard drive capacity will increas.

    10. Re:A chance to take a breath... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not familiar with this IDE stub flash, could you elaborate? I am familiar with the ide->cf converter with flash setup.

    11. Re:A chance to take a breath... by addaon · · Score: 1
      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
  18. dud? by froggero1 · · Score: 0
    How can it be a dud for the storage industry? Hook up a couple of these and you won't have to buy more for a while, I'd hope.

    But seriously, how are they mesuring the quality of year that it will be? By just size, maybe you're right, but then again, you could just hook up as many SCSI drives as you'd like, and when you run out of those, create yourself a SAN.

    --
    ~/.sig: No such file or directory
  19. Yes, size does matter. by astebbin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that what the industry should focus on in this point in time should be the miniturization of such memory storage devices so as to fit them into smaller devices such as cell phones, PocketPCs (ugh), etc... most of the technology is already out there, it just hasn't been utilized to its full potential on a widespread commercial level. The most notable exception that comes to mind would be Apple, with their 40gb iPod.... if only we had as much storage on our Palms as well!

    1. Re:Yes, size does matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can fit an awful lot on a palm.

      Just write really small. :^)

    2. Re:Yes, size does matter. by jZnat · · Score: 1

      That would be nice, but you must remember that the iPod and other HDD-based media players are just that: based on hard disk drives. The battery life decreases dramatically when something such as a disk must be constantly spun at high speeds during read and write.

      In fact, I think it would be more interesting to see these SSD's be used (with high storage capacity) in media players.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  20. storage industry? by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 1

    "...about desktop hard drive developments in 2005. It looks this year is going to be a dud for the storage industry."

    "The storage industry" can hardly be categorized by desktop hard drive sales. I can assure you that high-end fibre-channel RAID controllers, FC fabric switches, and 15k rpm FC drives are the big profit makers.

    Besides, in the personal desktop PC segment, current IDE and SATA technology provide way more than enough capacity to satisfy even the most MP3-hungry 14 year-old, and the most email-crazy grandmas. The vast majority of personal desktop PC buyers out there are not going to spend extra money to get a 600GB drive instead of the 400GB model - they just don't need it.

    --
    I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    1. Re:storage industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The vast majority of personal desktop PC buyers out there are not going to spend extra money to get a 600GB drive instead of the 400GB model - they just don't need it."

      *Yet*.

      Back in my day, nobody needed more than 416 MB.

      Sooner or later, 400 GB, 600 GB, 1 TB will be so ridiculously small it isn't funny. If not for even bigger and better quality media files, think Windows, heh.

      Even if Windows Shiva (Destroyer of Disk Space) doesn't come out by the end of the year, there's still plenty of room for expansion on the desktop market. Tack on more RPMs, and consumers will love the HD companies for it - geeks have been ripping out their hair while explaining that hard drive speed has a huge effect on overall system speed for years, now, remember!

    2. Re:storage industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. I don't ever think I've heard e-mail-crazy grandmas described before as high-end users of storage products. :)

    3. Re:storage industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More RPMs is overrated. There's just not much point to spinning drives faster and faster for marginal performance benefit (the top of the line is 15,000 RPM, which is only 2x as fast as your standard 7,200 RPM desktop model, and that hasn't changed in years), when you can get better performance improvement with striped multiple drives. The main problem with multiple drives is the space/cost issue.

      Perhaps what you'll see is drive manufacturers packing multiple drives into a single unit, like CPU vendors are moving to with multiple cores; current drives are manufactured with one or more platters (increasingly just one, though), and a set or two of heads which move together. Allowing more heads to move independently would probably be a big transfer performance win.

    4. Re:storage industry? by mboverload · · Score: 1

      But Dell makes them think they do. Everyone of my "computer stupid" friends are buying these new 3.4ghz dells with huge hard drives, when I have a 386 that I surf and read mail with. Fools.

  21. Drives, hard and otherwise by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of the best news for most HD consumers is price drops, which will probably accelerate. Most of the HD price reflects recouping investment in R&D and retooling factories, not a per-unit cost. So HD companies aren't spending lots more money this year - that means they'll be charging even less, competing on price without other differentiators.

    For consumers, that can mean qualitative improvements through passing quantitative thresholds. Buy 2 HDs instead of 1, make a RAID, and watch both uptime and fault recovery become minor bumps in the road, rather than a job-threatening days-long surprise nightmare. While filling the coffers of the vendors, who can reinvest in integrating that kind of redundancy in the HD unit itself. This year's nonevents might just give sysadmins the chance to become the most obviously important link in the IT chain, eclipsing the usually exaggerated developer rockstars.

    FWIW, HD consumers probably aren't defined by "HDs", but rather storage in any medium, determined by usage. So the real news in "HD" is really Flash memory, which is seeing huge leaps in capacity, cheapness, perfomance and manageability. When will someone ship a $100 SDIO 1GB/WiFi card? With gumpack-sized, 8-SDIO-socketed battery for a pocket-PSAN (Personal Storage Area Network)? Or start sewing these things into hats and sweatjackets?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Drives, hard and otherwise by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      My computer for surfing the web does a very good job, and is very old. I only have a PIII 550 and a 20 gig 5400 rpm hard drive. People had better computers 3 years ago. But it is not slow for what I throw at it. I'v even ripped DVD's for back-ups, and in under an hour.

      I like the idea of price falling. Maybe I'll pull out the mobo, cpu, and update the hard drive. But so far, there is no good reason. The 20 gigs was getting tight, but I spent $60 on a dvd-rw and back up data there.

      I think for most people the #1 important decision is how much they will spend, followed by #2 size of drive and #3 speed of drive. Although 2 and 3 might flip flop; I knew a guy who spent 3 times as much a few years ago to get a scsi drive. I have been wanting to check out those hard drives with the 8meg buffers to see if there is any speed increase over the 2meg buffer ones. I think raid 0 would be good for speed, but only on newer systems with faster bus speeds. Or have hard drives always been the bottle neck?

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    2. Re:Drives, hard and otherwise by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      Hard Drives have always been the bottleneck. The problem is the 10 or so milliseconds it takes the head to seek to another area of the drive. This delay will never go away until they start introducing either multiple heads, or some vastly different mechanism for reading data on the drive.

      By they way, if you were to upgrade to a SATA RAID0 array with 2, 7200RPM drives you would be AMAZED at how much faster your computer is. Loading applications, especially all these 1GB game installs would be at least 250% faster than your old drive. You would notice the difference right away.

    3. Re:Drives, hard and otherwise by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      If read time is your priority, RAID-1 should work just as well; RAID-0 is mainly useful for when you need faster writes and more storage, and don't care about the massively reduced reliability.

    4. Re:Drives, hard and otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have no clue as to the real cost structure for HDDs. As someone who actually works in the industry, the costs are dominated by components and scrap rates. Custom ASICs, heads, disks, base castings, flex assemblies, etc. cost serious money. Second to that is yield; manufacturers scrap a significant number of drives that are unable to pass final test.

      Research & development costs are leveraged across multiple drive families (SCSI, IDE, SATA, etc.) and generations. This work continues regardless of whatever might be in the retail channel today. It is not possible for manufacturers to simply turn development off and on. The level of expertise required in many of the development organizations prevents hiring-on-demand or outsourcing of work. That said, there is constant pressure to operate more efficiently, just don't expect some huge drop in prices because it doesn't 'look' like anything new or exciting is going on.

      As a side note, I always love how people think disk drives are a relatively simple device because they have become commodities. It isn't rocket science, it is a hell of a lot harder than that! HDDs are without a doubt the most complex component in a PC. This is one of the reasons that they fail so frequently. Try flying a 747 a couple of inches off the ground at mach 10+ with 25,000 course corrections a second in gale-force winds and you might start to get a feeling for the difficulties involved.

    5. Re:Drives, hard and otherwise by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You yourself talk about how those R&D costs are leveraged aross many product lifecycles. Those costs include the custom ASICs, as well as custom heads etc. So your figures and models are consistent with the ones I mentioned. I expect huge drops in prices anyway, even with more R&D expenses, because that's what the primary R&D product is: lower price:capacity. Assuming the story we're discussing is true, that there's less R&D this year, that means lower expenses, which allows more price competition across all those drive families/generation. Perhaps the real story is that the R&D just isn't announcing any new product results this year, because they're getting the last juice out of an old paradigm (spinning discs a few inches diameter, a rack of heads, etc). But the model I described still seems appropriate, even if it's not being fed by the lowered R&D activity I assume from the article. But I don't know how we draw such opposite conclusions when we agree on so much.

      Including the complexity of HDs. That's one reason I'm so amazed at their continuing improvements. And why I welcome our move to simpler Flash storage, when it catches up with the capacities, persistence and performance of HDs. I've been tracking HD development as a user, as an equity analyst, and an "industry barometer" reader, since we mounted 40lb disk tubs in our VMS datacenter. I also had a fulltime job reconditioning discards from Silicon Valley 10 years ago. They're really the finest engineering in the PC, and are actually the "world inside the computer" that is just being processed by the CPU that most people consider the "heart" of their virtual environment. With your expertise, why do *you* think there's "Not Much Happening in Hard Drives This Year"?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Drives, hard and otherwise by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Having the stuff sewn into clothing is pretty useless. The last clothing convergence device I saw that looked like it was worth a shit was the oakley mp3 sunglasses. Better to just put a thinner, shorter cable on IEEE1394 and string everything together with it, including power, and require ALL devices to have a pass through. Then let people decide what they want to do with their kit. I wouldn't mind if jackets and such more commonly had those conduits for cables and whatnot but I object to fixing anything into a garment unless the clothing is highly disposable. It's unnecessary and doomed to failure.

      We have the technology for the kind of connectivity you're looking for but for the most part we aren't using it because everyone's got an agenda... so we end up with all these competing standards. SCSI, USB, IEEE1394, Appletalk, and to a limited extent FC, ATA, and SATA are all attempts to do basically the same thing: To replace all other types of communication for a specific range of purposes. Of them all 1394 has the most potential to provide a wide range of functionality yet no one is significantly using it (for anything other than DV or portable or temporary mass storage,) instead opting for crap like USB - which may have its place, but that place has nothing to do with storage devices.

      Anyway, what this rant is leading up to: I want to know when manufacturers will start selling native firewire storage devices and when people will build a bridge and get over USB. I figure the answer to my own question will have something to do with IEEE1394 proliferation, they do seem to be putting it in more systems these days by default.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Drives, hard and otherwise by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I've got a little portable amp/speaker, headphones and some SD cards of MP3s in my winter jacket. I also sometimes carry extra batteries. I'd like all of that to be permanent in the jacket, so I don't lose stuff, or take up pocket space, or have these unsightly geek bulges. And I'd like the weight, especially of a lot of batteries and a charger plug, to be distributed across areas inaccesible while I'm wearing it. If they pulled that off, I might consider adding a GPS, maybe even a printer - if I can forget about all the gear until I need it. Until those devices are all really cheap, so I can have another set in my summer jacket (or hat), they'll have to be in snug (eg. spandex mesh lined) pockets with unpluggable standard cables. I'm not looking for a jacket that talks (and prints ;), so much as I'm looking to always have my gear up and running without even thinking about it. The jacket also adds features, like modesty protection and warmth, while distributing the weight so that weeks of battery life can be added without caring about it.

      As for the myriad cables/buses, "the nice thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from". Many of the legacy cables we have could be dropped if they merely had the same physical dimensions / form factors, like the idiocy of sub/mini headphones which require adapters bigger than the submini plug. When "wireless" is so common that it's as redundant as "wireless TV", we'll just have different frequencies and protocols. The former might even be transcended with the "universal radios" now being tested, and of course protocols are all software - at worst firmware for FPGAs. Macs are already going this route with Bluetooth and WiFi in every Mac. Don't worry, soon enough we'll leave cable incompatibility behind, and focus on even stupider problems invented by "not invented here" proprietary *cough* MemoryStick *cough* media companies.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  22. 2004 was also a dud for PC HDDs by PenguinOpus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ever since Maxtor announced (but didn't ship) a 320GB drive in August 2003, things have moved too slowly in the PC (3.5") drive market. Maxtor finally shipped 300G and that was king for a while before Hitachi (and now others) shipped 400G. The lack of motion is very unusual compared to the historical size increases we've seen over the last 20 years.

    I think the article doesn't make it clear that manufacturers' focus has moved to several other areas:

    - 2.5" drives for use in servers (density of machines, not data)
    - 1.8" drives for iPods (now up to 80G)
    - 1" drives for mini-iPods and CF cards
    - sub-1" drives (Cornice...) for CF and cell phones

    Even though some of us need TBs of storage, most of the CE world would be happy with 10G for their music/video-recording.

    1. Re:2004 was also a dud for PC HDDs by zonker · · Score: 0

      exactly what i was thinking. when the market is saturated with big fast cheap drives, why bother? go into the mini drive market where the real action is and where there is money to be made.

  23. Re:Disk Drive: End of an Era by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I won't touch the "Chinese are barbarians" thing.

    But you left out Canada of the list! Consider that 50% of the total population of the country gave something of their own pocket, that the federal aid amount to 425 millions (CAN, but still) and that were only 10% of the US population... I think we made our effort! :)

  24. Re:Disk Drive: End of an Era by boomgopher · · Score: 1

    I realize you're trolling, but Indonesia also has a history of treating the Chinese living in Indonesia like shit, so it's not surprising if the Chinese didn't do as much. (Note, I'm not defending this reaction, but it's not surprising.)

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
  25. Well I heard this rumour: by RobertTaylor · · Score: 1

    "Yes, I shat in woods," admits bear

    Just looking on the news channels but no one is confirming it....

    1. Re:Well I heard this rumour: by SILIZIUMM · · Score: 1

      Try Netcraft...

    2. Re:Well I heard this rumour: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in! Rabbit confirm that the Bear actually shat in the woods!

      And it seems the Bear apparently wiped his ass with the Rabbit. When the investigators later questioned the Bear about why he did it, the bear said - "When I asked the Rabbit if he ever got shit stuck in his fur, the Rabbit answered No".

      The evidence so far is a steaming pile of a yet unidentified substance and a brown Rabbit who used to be white. The trial is scheduled to begin early next week and the bear has already hired David Boies as his defense attorney.

  26. Notebook hard drives not a dud by Guspaz · · Score: 2, Informative

    This year we're expecting the max size on 7200RPM notebook (2.5") drives to jump from 60GB all the way to 100GB, a huge jump.

    And I'd also expect to see a jump in 5400RPM storage capacity from the current 100GB.

    My ideal notebook drive for 2005 would be a 100GB 7200RPM drive with a 16MB cache, SATA(2?), and NCQ. But who knows when that will happen. The best drive available today is a 60GB 7200RPM drive with 8MB of cache, though as I mentioned earlier that will jump to 100GB this year.

    1. Re:Notebook hard drives not a dud by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see better technology than faster technology. I want a laptop hard drive that doesn't use any battery power at all and emanotes no noise or heat. I want a truly portable machine that has a full-size keyboard but no wasted space for a trackpad (e-Clit is more efficient, both for use and for space), no wasted power on 7200RPM drives or 17" displays, and about 36 hours of battery life on a 1-hour charge.

      I want something that doesn't tie me down with wires, alert the room that its hard drive is now spinning faster than the main turbine of an SR-71's engine, or heat up my nuts so bad I can't have children later.

      IBM has something along these lines, but with their sale of their laptop business, I don't know what will happen with that.

    2. Re:Notebook hard drives not a dud by CajunArson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I want a laptop hard drive that doesn't use any battery power at all
      Well if we are going to avoid rewriting the laws of physics (no they don't only exist to make money for the evil batter manufacturers) you had better tell me which non-battery source you want to power your non-existent harddrive. I hate to break it to you, but even if I could encode data at the quantum level using some insanely advanced storage technology.... it would still require some power.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    3. Re:Notebook hard drives not a dud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he was just thinking of a drive that doesn't use any power in standby mode. Although initially I had the same reaction as you: no battery power? What does he think electronics run on, elves?

    4. Re:Notebook hard drives not a dud by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Well duh -- that's why you miniaturize your storage device until you can fit a small RTG into the space you save ;)

    5. Re:Notebook hard drives not a dud by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I was intentionally setting an unattainable goal, the closer to which we can come, the better. 500GB drives running at 7200RPM do not come very close, and that's the point I was making. I apologize that my sarcasm missed its mark.

    6. Re:Notebook hard drives not a dud by corngrower · · Score: 1
      Well if we are going to avoid rewriting the laws of physics (no they don't only exist to make money for the evil batter manufacturers) you had better tell me which non-battery source you want to power your non-existent harddrive. I hate to break it to you, but even if I could encode data at the quantum level using some insanely advanced storage technology.... it would still require some power.

      Maybe he was thinking of hand-cranking. Or maybe spring-wound? Of course he'ld be kept busy winding or cranking them.

  27. Mop your brow and head on home... by Marko+DeBeeste · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everything worth inventing has been invented. We've hit the ceiling. No more unexpected advances. Have a nice day. Smoke if you've got em.

    --
    Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
    1. Re:Mop your brow and head on home... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right...

      And man will never fly.

  28. 400gb @ 35cents/gb by purduephotog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thats what I'm waiting for.

    I have 3x200gb, 2x160gb, 2x120gb, 4x80gb (and more down the line).

    The 200gbs are running at 83% full because... they all mirror each other.

    Yup I know it's particularly anal, but I'll agree with the first post: We need more reliable drives. All of my photos are backed up 2x on DVD- one goes into a jukebox, the other goes onto a spindle, and all are stuffed into something called CDStorageMaster (fun proggy).

    The HDs mirror each other but I've not yet had time to test a catastrophic failure of this. I had a manual raid before and, when my system crashed due to a bad PSU (note: Antec replaced it free of charge) I was eventually able to get all the drives back up and running, but I was left with a very nasty taste of bad-dynamic disks in my mouth.

    So please... more storage at 35cents/gb and I'll be happy. Or 3.5 cents/gb would make me happier, but one can hope.

    1. Re:400gb @ 35cents/gb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If your 3 mirrored drives & DVDs are all in the same building; you're really not protecting yourself more than having 2 drives.


      Any failure likely to wipe out 2 of your drives simultaneously (bad power surge/lignthing/fire/flood/burgler) is likely to hit the third at the same time.


      A far better strategy would be to have a mirror on a removable drive that you at least store in your car, or better, a bank safety deposite box. Pesonally, I have a single mirror & home (about 750GB), one in an external drive in the car (about 240GB - yes, it's on an encrypted filesystem) - and about 10GB is rsynced nightly to a remote server.

    2. Re:400gb @ 35cents/gb by AJWM · · Score: 1

      If you're really serious about crash recovery, take one of those drives and just keep it on the shelf.

      I just had a serious PSU-related crash. Aside from frying the MB, memory, and one of the processors, it fried my drive electronics. The old Seagate Barracuda literally had a couple of chip leads vaporize. I had a spare of that model drive though, and swapping the electronics boards let me recover the data. Unfortunately I didn't have a spare of the WD800BB-32BSA0, so I'm still waiting to recover the data from that (aside from what I had backed up -- not enough); the current generation WD800BB is physically different and the boards aren't swappable.

      Either that, or make sure the drives in your RAID set are on separate power supplies (which still won't help if a PSU failure drops 12 (or more) volts across a nominal 5V data line -- that's another advantage of fiber).

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:400gb @ 35cents/gb by purduephotog · · Score: 1

      Oh I do kepe it on the shelf ;)

      I know a guy that has 3.5tb of off-the-shelf data recovery. I thought I was nuts ;)

    4. Re:400gb @ 35cents/gb by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      All of my photos are backed up 2x on DVD- one goes into a jukebox, the other goes onto a spindle, and all are stuffed into something called CDStorageMaster (fun proggy).

      Aya carumba! I assume the DVDs in the jukebox are the backups for spindles? The dirt that's stuck between the discs will create more scratches than UFO sightings over Area 51. Really, if you're going to go through all that trouble, at least put the discs somewhere a bit more protected than a spindle. Spindles are fine when they're clean from the factory (although I've still seen some scratched discs on occasion), but once you introduce dirty (normal) air, the contamination from dust is unavoidable.. And every time you handle the spindle, the discs spin a little, decreasing the odds of actually being able to recover your data when you need it.

  29. Re:Hard Disk Drive: End of an Era by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Informative

    The reality is that the hard drive, in addition to the floppy drive, is reaching extinction. The density of flash memory is increasing so rapidly that, within 10 years, the hard drive will not be necessary. IBM saw this inevitable demise of the hard drive and sold its hard drive business to a competitor.

    Flash memory has still a lot of improvements to do in the write cycles department (the number of times you can write to it before it fails), which basically hasn't changed a lot since it was introduced to these days. The exact number dpendens on the manufacturer, but it ranges between 10k and 100k. It's also still very slow.

    But i agree, hard drives will be phased out in the short term, probably by new technlogies like MRAM memory, which doesn't have the limited write cycles problem and is as fast as DRAM.

  30. In other news... by GLowder · · Score: 2, Funny



    Generalíssimo Francisco Franco is still dead!

    --
    I used to have a good sig...
    1. Re:In other news... by new+death+barbie · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Spanish government is reporting that the General is in very, very, serious, but stable condition.

      --

      It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...cars still require gasoline. ...no new developments in Nuremburg trials. ...Whig Party platform unchanged in past 170 years. ...paleontologists declare dinosaur evolution has reached a dead end. ...geologists claim Earth has cooled enough for crust to solidify.

  31. price by dickens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So the only way for them to move is lower prices.

    Sounds like a good year for consumers. Who needs more than a couple hundred GB anyway ?

    1. Re:price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs more than a couple hundred GB anyway ?

      Me! I got 520GB and I am already running low.

  32. except... by Legato895 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
  33. I want IDE drives that don't lie about fsync. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A big reliability problem for databases is that many IDE drives like about when data actually gets written to disk (as opposed to just written to cache).


    Bigger caches will only worsen this problem; but the drive makers "need" to keep up these lies to win benchmarks. Aargh.

  34. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hard drives besting Moore's Law? What are you smoking?

    Reading your post was 1 minute of my life that I can never get back. Amazingly, mods gave it 5 Interesting. sigh.

  35. Storage market slowing down? by SpamMonkey · · Score: 0

    I think we're looking at this the wrong way. yes the amount of technological jumps that hard drives have made has slowed down but how can this be anything but a 'pause for air'. With the advent of more and more personal devices (mobile phones getting smarter, Sone PSP, PDA's, Palmtops, USB Storage, USB wireless etc. etc. ) people are getting more comfortable with hand held digital devices and will be looking at storing more data.

  36. Bullshit... by killa62 · · Score: 1

    What about the-
    109.5 GIG RAPTOR!!!

  37. have we reached the limits of spinning bits? by ZuggZugg · · Score: 1

    15K RPM drives have been around for a long time, does anyone know if this is the fastest they can spin them from a physics perspective, do the bits start to fly off? Seriously what is preventing them from ramping up the speed further? I would think in the server world where fast throughput could be used that they would at least be pushing 20K+ RPM drives by now...

    1. Re:have we reached the limits of spinning bits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not until the ends of the platters are supersonic. That won't occur until around 35k RPM at sea level.

    2. Re:have we reached the limits of spinning bits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heat is a limiting factor. Have you ever placed your hand on the surface of a drive spinning 10K plus? Hot. I personally worry about the faster spinning drives as I've had issues with them overheating, even with case fans blowing directly on them. After having the second 10K RPM SCSI drive fail on me (IBM Deskstar) I've had enough of the so called high RPM drives. All I care about is data transfer throughput. In my mind with the higher bit densities it would be preferable to spin them all at 7200 or slower, just read and buffer more for each disk/platter revolution.

    3. Re:have we reached the limits of spinning bits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as a rough estimate, take the circumference of a 3.5" drive platter, calculate how fast it would be moving at X RPM. The absolute maximum is when the edge of the platter is moving at the speed of light. Obviously, it'll fail well before then, because the material in the platter itself won't be strong enough to keep the disk together--so you can instead compute the amount of force required to tear the platter apart (easily doable from empirical tables of material strengths), and compute at what speed the edge of the platter is going to tear itself away. Divide by two for an engineering factor of safety.

      After doing all this, you'll find that there isn't really much you can do with pushing more RPMs, mainly because the focus is on increasing storage density. Big servers don't need high absolute performance (they can just throw gobs of cache at that problem), they need to be able to efficiently store and access large amounts of data 24/7. Higher RPM doesn't do that for them. Media creation probably has more of a demand, but that's another example of an application which can just use lots of drives in arrays (RAID).

  38. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Speare · · Score: 1, Insightful

    obviously completely ignorant of the fact that the storage industry has consistently bested Moore's Law for at least a decade

    Can you please tell me how you think that Moore's Law is supposed to relate to the capacity of persistent, non-volatile data media? Or could you please just stop suggesting that it applies?

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  39. Re: Chinese Society by [cx] · · Score: 0

    I don't think you're exactly an expert on one of the eldest still surviving cultures in the world. The amount of money they are donating is in no way evidence of them being barbaric one way or another.

    I didn't donate any money to the tsunami relief at all, I suppose I'm inhumane as well. 50% of Canadians or more donated money almost $450,000,000 in federal money as well, I guess that means Canadians are not as barbaric as Americans or Norwegians.

    Nobody cares about compassion, if they did the Americans would have spent the 80 billion on Africa instead of Iraq and could have saved lives instead of ruining cities and killing people.

    I think starting senseless wars that end up in tragedy is better evidence of being a barbaric culture, rather than not donating to a relief fund.

  40. Solid State Drives by hsmith · · Score: 1

    is all i care about, until we see these i could care less about movable drives.

    1. Re:Solid State Drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares what you care about.

    2. Re:Solid State Drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you like solid state, but your post is goo

  41. FREE MINI MACS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
  42. Re:Disk Drive: End of an Era by WoBIX · · Score: 1

    So you're basing the entire society on the actions of the current government in power.

    Seeing as the current government doesn't apprise it's own people of disasters within it's territories, why would the people be any wiser about the situation following the tsunami, and how would they be able to donate.

    Just what country do you happen to be from? Is it Utopia?

    Go back under your bridge, stupid little troll.

  43. Re:Disk Drive: End of an Era by killa62 · · Score: 1

    50 percent funny?
    What's so funny about that?
    and also, how much did you donate? .000000001 million?

  44. SLC flash is more durable than MLC flash by tepples · · Score: 1

    Flash memory has still a lot of improvements to do in the write cycles department (the number of times you can write to it before it fails), which basically hasn't changed a lot since it was introduced to these days.

    I agree that the 10K figure for multi-level cell (MLC) flash memory is a bit low, but with modern wear leveling, sector remapping algorithms, and file systems, 100,000 writes per sector for single-level cell (SLC) flash isn't too bad. In practice, the only things you can't put on flash memory under a typical workstation work load are 1. a swap file (get more RAM instead) and 2. a database (but for this, you're already RAID 5ing your drives and, if you're serious, mirroring transactions off-site).

  45. News Shortage Grips Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has always been the headline I've wanted to see.

  46. TFA not up to date by imnoteddy · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    Hitachi and others will continue to push the limit and introduce a 500GB model to the market very soon.

    I guess very soon means last week, since the MacMall catalog that hit my mailbox last week offers a 500GB drive.

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
  47. one TB? by mattthateeguy · · Score: 1

    What happened to the Buffalo TeraStation? I would call 1TB of storage (though overpriced) an improvement. http://www.cnet.com/4520-10602_1-5618710-1.html?ta g=hot

  48. Re:Hard Disk Drive: End of an Era by mod_critical · · Score: 1

    Hmm, then I wonder why the largest compact flash cards are actually just containers for micro hard disks...

    Flash memory density is increasing rapily, but so is the cost. Look at solid state drives from M-Systems

    -- They are rediculously expensive. I have used them for storage in hostile environment experiments, as that is what they are made for, but they are wayyy to expensive for consumer use. Obviously, the prices will come down. However, the prices to make postage stamp size hard disks with many gigabytes of storage are very low. Lower cost will win in the end, no matter how dense flash memory is.
  49. except, you know by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    size increases, but that doesn't count as an improvment..
    I mean, if they would put neon on them, now THAT would be an improvement.

    sheesh

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:except, you know by floateyedumpi · · Score: 1

      You mean like this?

  50. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by UID1000000 · · Score: 1

    This is a good point that you bring up. The author of this article leaves a lot of angles out. Such as the development in smaller hard drives such as 1.8" and less. The increase in speed for 9mm 2.5" drives. The fact that more corporations would like to remain on drives that don't impact images when changed. Compaq plans on offering their 15K 146.8 GB drives until mid-07 that's production. They'll be around for longer than that. Desktop side too - the bandwidth hasn't really increased - the new Intel chipsets are pushing for SATA drives which means higher capacity too.

    Where did this author come from? He probably attended a roadmap for Hitachi and decided that there wasn't anything useless for the people who read is articles? Screw that.

    A lot of the major drive makers are focusing on the next generation of the DVD media too.

    --
    UID 1000000 is just around the corner.

  51. Serial attached SCSI isn't here yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so we can start using drives like the savvio without those bulky cables. The 2.5" form factor is supposed to allow higher speeds w/ lower power consumption.

  52. HD tech doesn't move at the same pace? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My first computer was a 14MHz 80286 in 1988. It had a 60 MB hard drive. I now have a AMD 2.1 GHz chip and 4 drive RAID of 75GB drives plus a couple of other drives. In other words, my speed has gone up less than a thousand times, while my storage capacity has gone up almost 10,000 times.

    Sure, they aren't as exciting as CPUs, but hard drive tech seems to have a pretty good track record.

    1. Re:HD tech doesn't move at the same pace? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your speed has gone up much more than that - you need to look at how many clock cycles are needed per operation (or nowadays, how many operations are done per clock cycle).

    2. Re:HD tech doesn't move at the same pace? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversely, your speed has gone up much less than that--increases in clock rate almost never translate into equal increases in performance, because other subsystems are the bottleneck (the main memory system, in particular, has become significantly slower relative to processor performance).

      What you need to do is compare how much a $1 will buy you in terms of storage and processing power. It's not necessarily fair to compare an older system to a 4-way RAID setup unless they have the same price.

    3. Re:HD tech doesn't move at the same pace? by SaltLord · · Score: 1

      Your first comp. had að hard drive? Not even my second comp had one.. Damn I'm getting old!

  53. Re:Disk Drive: End of an Era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So you're basing the entire society on the actions of the current government in power.


    Uh, that does seem fair, doesn't it? Isn't it the people's responsibility to make sure that the governing system they live under is reasonable?
    Societies choose what governments they tolerate. Not he other way around.

  54. No News For Nerds. by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    Stuff that doesn't matter.

  55. 300GB SCSI drives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh. I disagree.

    SCSI drives have started to get bigger. 146gb's are $500. 300gb are $840. These are for ultra320's screamin' fast drives.

    I've been waiting YEARS for that...

    http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp? Pr oductCode=100104-1

  56. How about a drive that lasts longer then a year? by sideshow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've had three drives in a row that fail to spin up after 12 months.

    --

    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

  57. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hrmn... 1985ish.. 20MB HDs, 4 Mhz Procs 5:1 Ratio.. Today: 400,000 MB Procs, 4,000 Mhz (Not quite, but close) Procs: 100:1 Ratio... So tell me, Mr. ass clown, which one is advancing faster?

  58. Re:Disk Drive: End of an Era by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 0

    ...and also, how much did you donate? .000000001 million?

    It would be impossible to donate that particular amount of funds, if it were donated in US currency (I'm assuming you are speaking in $US, because apparently the world has adopted it as its universal currency). Banks will not accept a sliver of a penny for any reason.

    You could likely donate a couple Italian Lire which would likely amount to US$0.001 (one tenth of one cent)...

    Just bugging. :p
    Inject

  59. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    well, in fact, the speed increase HAS slowed.
    They guy is just spoiled because the introduction of GMR read-heads started a storage density explosion that now is slowing down to normal levels.

    The biggest hd you can buy now is 400GB. 250GB hds have been availabe more than 2 years ago.
    Thats A LOT slower than doubling every year...

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  60. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by coupland · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What's your IQ, like 2? It's called a comparison. I merely said that the storage industry bests Moore's Law. Yanno, helping people understand a concept by comparing it to one that they're familiar with? Dullard.

  61. This is not good news... by FridayBob · · Score: 1

    ... since hard disks are still the worst performance bottleneck in just about any PC. Over the years as CPUs and RAM have become faster, this bottleneck has just become more pronounced. Along the way we've heard about all kinds of amazing, alternative mass-storage technologies entering the pipeline, but nothing ever comes out the end. What's the status of that non-volatile nanotech memory they were talking about a while back? If that stuff ever hits the market and performs even half as well as they were saying, my machines would be zillion times faster than with these ancient, unreliable, revolving magnetic disks, large as they may be.

  62. Multiple Heads by Dan9999 · · Score: 1

    That's a feature I'd get a new drive for. There's power, noise and reliability to work on as well but it's not really up to me is it?

    1. Re:Multiple Heads by corngrower · · Score: 1
      You mean per surface? I think they used to have this type of thing back in the old days.

      Would this be called a Medusa drive?

  63. There's more to "storage" than hard drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is going to be a huge year for SANs, NAS, and the software surrounding them.

    It kills me that people still think storage is all about hard drives only.

  64. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus christ you're a fucking loon. Apples and oranges? You might as well compare hard drives to SUV gas mileages, what would be the POINT of this "comparison", you pinhead?

  65. The main problem is that by adlaiff6 · · Score: 1

    You can get an external Firewire drive that's faster than an internal.

    1. Re:The main problem is that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you can't. You're a fucking moron.

  66. No surprise. by NNKK · · Score: 1

    Traditional HDDs make great workhorses, and they'll be around for a long time to come, but I doubt if we'll ever see any huge improvements over the current top-end drives. Their basis is fifty-year-old technology, and conceptually they do very little. There comes a point when you're pretty much tapped out of revolutionary improvements.

    Prices will continue to improve, and I'm sure we'll see gradual space and speed improvements for a while, but the future lies elsewhere.

  67. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we'd have professors in the tens of gigahertz today.

    Uhh, we already have.

  68. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Saeger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, it would be more accurate to refer to it as The Law of Accelerating Returns, as it's more general, but unfortunately most people are only aware of the popularized Moore's Law as it applies to transistor count, so it'll continue to get used in its stead. It makes the same point (unless you're a pedant).

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  69. and Taiwan? Put up or SHUT UP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Do you have evidence to suggest that the Taiwanese are not receiving information about the disaster? Put up or SHUT UP.

    Taiwan has 23 million people. Norway has 4.5 million. Norway's economy is a tiny fraction of the Taiwanese economy.

    Yet, the Norwegians donated $183 million. The Taiwanese coughed up $7 million.

    You tell me what is "going down" here. The Chinese are barbaric.

  70. There's not going to be much of anything this year by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure we'll see one or 2 fantastic things but nothing like 1999 -> 2002 for hardware innovation.

    Incase anyone here hasn't noticed the tech industry IS still slowing down in advancements, especially the desktop PC.

    Anyone who put a tiny bit more effort into buying a PC within 18-36 months ago (should) still find their machine runs most things today perfectly well.
    There's simply nothing to upgrade to worth the $ / performance ratio of 2 or 3 years ago.

  71. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by MagnusDredd · · Score: 1

    Actually Hitrachi just announced a 500GB Unit to be on sale before too long....

  72. Re:How about a drive that lasts longer then a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you should try a different manufacturer

  73. Why bother? by uberdave · · Score: 1

    We need to move away from mechanical drives, not seeing how much we can push rotational speeds.

  74. Greetings from a 6 yr old HD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm posting this after booting from a 10GB HD made by Western Digital. I got this HD back in 1999. As for shoddy stuff, I don't know what you've been buying.

    1. Re:Greetings from a 6 yr old HD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know.. just upgraded my parents PC, and moved them off their 4GB WD, which was stil working fine, to a 20GB WD, which again, has always worked fine. But, heat can kill drives, and I suspect the GP is packing drives, in a shit little case, like sardines. I have the first drive I purchased seperate from my PC (80 MB WD.. to replace a dead 20MB seagate) still sitting in a box. It's been run in different computers over the years, and every once in a while I throw it into one to see it still working. Sometimes I get the idea to send it back to WD, and ask why it still works.

    2. Re:Greetings from a 6 yr old HD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still use a floppy disk every once in a while too, but I still wouldnt want to boot my computer from it.

  75. $/GB by Saeger · · Score: 4, Informative
    Just thought I'd chime in with a quick report on the value of various hard drives.

    The best bang/buck EIDE hard drive you can get today is ~40cents per GB for a 160GB drive; any smaller capacity and you'll be paying more for less. For a little less than 50cents/GB you can get a 250,200, or 180GB drive where the increased storage density might be worth the extra few pennies per GB. The 400GB and 300GB monsters are under $1/GB, but still aren't a very good value (unless you have money burning a hole in your pocket and value bragging rights).

    So, IMO, the best bang/buck for your average guy is putting two to four 160GB or 250GB drives in RAID 1 or 5.

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
    1. Re:$/GB by value_added · · Score: 1

      "the best bang/buck for your average guy is putting two to four 160GB or 250GB drives in RAID 1 or 5"

      I recently picked up two 300GB Seagates from Fry's. The price IIRC $139 each, which would make the per GB cost less than 50 cents.

      Also, anyone considering the benefits of 2-4 drives in a RAID array may not want to underestimate the heat generated. Not to mention that if any/all the drives start to develop eletronic whines, you'll have a storage system usable only if (a) you're deaf; or (b) you have a basement.

    2. Re:$/GB by Saeger · · Score: 1
      300GB for $139 eh? After rebate you mean?

      Place the HDs in the bottom 3-1/2 bay and they'll be cooled by most case front-fans just fine; if not an option, and you're paranoid about heat reducing the life of your drives, then go for 5400rpm or simply buy some cheap HD bay cooling fans. And noise hasn't been a problem for me in quite a while, especially with those fluid dynamic bearings.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    3. Re:$/GB by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      300G 7200.8's are going for about £140 in the UK; a 1:1 $:£ ratio is quite common, so $140 could easily be the cost before significant discounts.

    4. Re:$/GB by Saeger · · Score: 1

      I go by the best price you can get without special deals. @ pricewatch

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    5. Re:$/GB by corngrower · · Score: 1

      Comapred to the $1 / MB as it was back about 1992, any capacity these days is a bargain. The price for disk space in the late 1970's was about $1000 / MB. That's more than a million times more expensive back then than it is today. So to buy 200 Gigs of space back in about 1978 you'ld have to spend $200,000,000.00.

  76. Because by papasui · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They've been focusing mainly of storage space and not performance. The hard drive is still the bottle neck on most machines. I can barely dent my 240 gig HD. I'd much rather have a 80 gig HD that was 4x as fast. Yes, there are pratical uses for a 400 Gig hd, file server, AV, etc. But for the majority (read: regular consumers, not slashdotters) of people it's just unneeded at this point in time.

  77. Re:Disk Drive: End of an Era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    25 000 children die each day due to starvation.

    150 000 people die from a tsunami.

    Since the tsunami, over 300 000 children have died from starvation.

    The tsunami victims -- who many lived to become adults -- get billions of dollars. The starving children get nothing close to that.

    Says a lot about our priorities when we consider children to be sacred.

    An adult dies, not a big deal.
    A child dies, that is a big deal.

    An adult dies from a tsunami, that is a big deal.
    A child dies from starvation, not a big deal.

  78. Western Digital needs to by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    go out of business for making TRASH..
    I have a 120g I bough last year that sounds like a 767 is cranking up for takeoff. I've padded the case with felt pads to absorb some of the noise but it's still intolerable.

    I've also had a LOT of problems with WD drives going into a power on/off cycle, 'clunking' on and off rapidly and of course trashing data..
    I've owned about 20 WD drives over the past few years and now they sit in my drawer, trashed, because they were just cheaply made crap.

    I'll NEVER buy another WD again, I won't even take one if it's offered to me free of charge.

    I've installed several Maxtor's for people and they are damn near silent, the PS fan is usually louder than the drive. In most cases I have to pick the drive up and feel it gyro in my hand (during initial install) to be sure it's working!

    Well, if this is going to be a slow year for them, they can lower prices to move inventory.
    I would like to stock up on a few big Maxtor's this year. I also hope blank DVD prices come down too.. Gotta back those bad boys up ya know!

    1. Re:Western Digital needs to by s7uar7 · · Score: 1

      I've owned about 20 WD drives over the past few years and now they sit in my drawer, trashed

      20!? If I had any more than 3 from the same manufacturer fail I'd have looked elsewhere

    2. Re:Western Digital needs to by robogun · · Score: 1

      I've never had any trouble with WD's. I have had a lot of them, them going back to 400mb. & now have a stack of four 250gbs, never a single failure. OTOH Deskstars have been nothing but trouble. I don't trust Hitachis either, after a new 160 gig unit to which I had ripped several hours of dv tape to lost its format all by itself. I don't know anything about Maxtors. This Seagate 300 gig I just got is really quiet & if it proves out I'll start using those. For laptops, Travelstars have proved to be less than reliable for me, but at least they die slowly enough I can get my data off in time. Hitachis are annoyingly loud on thermal recalibration -- people will actually look at your machine like there's something wrong. Toshibas seem to hold together though this 60gb unit sometimes reads slowly.

    3. Re:Western Digital needs to by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      "20!? If I had any more than 3 from the same manufacturer fail I'd have looked elsewhere"

      I doubt you own or deal with the quantity of systems that I do.. Most of them were came from bulk purchases.

      At this very moment, I have 10 systems running, within arms reach of my desk and 100+ systems in the other room.

      You deal with what you have.

    4. Re:Western Digital needs to by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to agree, I've got various WD HDDs from 30gb -> 160gb and have never had issues with them. Nor have I heard any sort of noise from them.

    5. Re:Western Digital needs to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a matter of target audience. They sell cheap stuff. If you want to buy cheap stuff, you have to live with the repercussions - early death and (in older versions), buzzsaw like acoustics. In constrast, they also sell 10K RPM drives which are polar opposite of their standard products. If performance is the main issue, and price isnt, Raptors are definitely on the short list.

      Additionally, Maxtor targets the cheap/high-performance market. I've had issues with Maxtor drives dying if they are bumped around too much, but otherwise they tend to be the leader in performance/price.

    6. Re:Western Digital needs to by LuckyStarr · · Score: 1

      If I were you, I would stop installing Maxtors. All Maxtor HDs I own (all of them!) are now dead. And I handled them witch care. All (whatever model) make repetitive noises when powered up. My Samsungs (which btw are very quiet) do not seem to have that problem.

      --
      Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
    7. Re:Western Digital needs to by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      Bulk purchases might be your problem...from what I understand about hard drive manufacturing (which is to say, very little, all from online research), if one drive from a lot is bad, chances are all the drives in that lot are bad. And bad or not, all the drives in a lot tend to fail at almost exactly the same time.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
  79. Re:There's not going to be much of anything this y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly.

    I was looking to upgrade my 13 month old laptop. It's a Fujistu Amilo 2.6 GHz P4 w/ 512 Ram. Seems the "best" laptop I can get my hands on is a 3.06 Vio (all the others seems to be 1.8 GHz with extra cache). There seems no incentive to upgrade (from a speed perspetive).

  80. I think it's all about cost by digitalgimpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Think about it... storage is pretty fast already. The average consumer doesn't need any faster. Those who need speed are using Serial ATA, SCSI, RAID, and other acronyms.

    What is really *necessary* (marketable)? Size? Do consumers care about the size of the HD in their computer? Nope. Accoustics? Modern drives are pretty quiet. Consumers are used to noisy fans anyway... most don't care.

    What consumers want is cheap. That's why dell makes money. That's why Apple released the mac mini.

    IMHO the thing HD companies need to figure out is how to get the fast large drives they have now, at a lower price.

    *THAT* is the forecast for 2005. Cheaper drives.

    I do think though we'll see marginal improvement in flash storage, and small HD's... for mp3 players, PDA's and other devices. But nothing groundbreaking.

    This year's economy is about *price*. People want more for less...

    the company that delivers it, will be rewarded with customers. The ones that fail: will not succeed.

    1. Re:I think it's all about cost by kschawel · · Score: 1

      The ones that fail: will not succeed.

      That's deep ;)

    2. Re:I think it's all about cost by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      If your short... you'll always be lower than the others.

    3. Re:I think it's all about cost by davecb · · Score: 1
      digitalgimpus writes: storage is pretty fast already. The average consumer doesn't need any faster.

      Average developers tend to notice when their compile speed drops by a factor of four, because they or their sysadmin replaced a 4-disk stripe with a single larger disk.

      Even average users might notice if their programs and data files load four times slower...

      --dave

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    4. Re:I think it's all about cost by tshak · · Score: 1

      The average consumer doesn't need any faster.

      Show a machine booting up from a solid state storage device vs. the typical 7200rpm 8mb crap in most desktops today and they'll chose the 2 second boottime anyday. Application loading, booting, and overal system responsiveness is being bottlenecked by the HD. Whether you're on a 1.4Ghz Athlon or a 3.2Ghz Athlon64, the performance is negligable for most use because the HD is the bottleneck.

      HD's are pathetically slow and I'd much rather performance be the area of focus than size.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    5. Re:I think it's all about cost by lemon031 · · Score: 1
      The ones that fail: will not succeed.

      Indeed.

    6. Re:I think it's all about cost by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The ones that fail: will not succeed.

      Ah crap, now you've gone and done it. Who's going to want to fail now? Now that they know the consequenses? Thanks. Thanks a lot.

  81. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    A RAID5 terabyte with only three physical disks. Anyone else being blown away by this? Holy crap. }:)

    -Z

  82. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by fnj · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Die, you drooling moronic forehead-less pig-eyed insult-to-cockroaches clueless idiotic pseudo-pedantic brainless hairy armpit-scratching tongue-hanging-out witless immeasurably-low-IQ waste of protoplasm.

  83. I want my 700GB HD this year!! by doormat · · Score: 0

    Whats this market-not-demanding shit? I want more capacity. I want a 2TB RAID-5 system with 4 drives. That would be great, just get a 3ware 4-port controller and 4 HDs and have enough space to rip 250DVDs.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  84. Exactly right by beavis88 · · Score: 1

    My PC is just about 2 years old now, but an Athlon 2200, 1GB DDR266 ram, 7200RPM 8M cache drives, and a GF4600 really do just fine. Even Doom3 and HL2 didn't really beat the system as badly as I had figured -- if I can play those two OK, why the hell would I bother upgrading for anything else? :) I'd like a DX9-capable vid card, but it's hard to justify another couple hundred bucks, especially considering I put well under $1000 into it originally...

    I figure in another year, my system will be showing its age, and I'll be able to put together an PCI-E + SLI system for decent money...rar!

  85. Article is completely wrong by Arch_dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) Disk perforamnce gains have outpaced CPU performance gains for at least the last decade. 2) The author simply does not understand HD design constraints. For a given RPM, the data transfer speed increases as the density per platter increases. This is constrained by the Magical electronics that read and write the bits on the disk. So, twice the density also implies twice the bulk data transfer rate (not the burst rate.) 3) SATA. SATA is now being sold at (or very near) the price of EIDE. Last A year ago SATA sold at a premium of $20-$30/drive. By the end of 2005, SATA will be cheaper than EIDE for otherwise-equal drives. 4) Price. Price/gig went from $1.00 at the beginning of 2004 to $.50 at the beginning of 2005, at the "sweet spot." The current "sweet spot" is 250GB. There is not reason to doubt that the price/Gig will reach $.25 by the end of the year. 5) interest in 10K and 15K RPM is misplaced for most applications. Speed affects rotational delay and nothing else. Bulk transfer rate is more important in most applications (point 2 above.) If it spins twice as fast but has half the density, it has the same bulk transfer rate. 6) interest in SCSI is outdated. SATA with one (competent) controller per disk has better characeristics.

  86. Cornice isn't sub 1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cornice is 1". And it isn't used in CF. Cornice's (supposed) advantage is that you can remove a lot of extra hardware to get the cost down. If you want to put it in a CF slot, you need to put all that hardware back. So you might as well use a Hitachi/Seagate/MagicStor drive instead.

    Sub 1" platter drives seem to be dead in the water at the moment. I know companies announced them, but none is going forward with their plans right now. They are instead working on making 1" drives smaller.

  87. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Teun · · Score: 1
    completely ignorant of the fact that the storage industry has consistently bested Moore's Law for at least a decade

    I have not calculated if Moore's law applies but I distinctly remember using 2 Mb Winchester drives that were horribly expensive and then a large department store in town announced they had 10 Mb 'Hard Cards' for sale...

    It's probably 15, not 10 years ago but still.
    The external 2.5" 60Gb USB2 drive I have in front of me is indeed a world away from those large 2 Mb HP drives.

    What has not changed is the time it takes to fill 'em up :-)

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  88. pretty funny you mention the bottleneck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and RAID0 in the same post.

    RAID0 increases latency.

    I do agree that latency is the key. And thus most people should stay away from RAID0. And given the crappiness of what people call an on-mobo RAID controller, stay away from RAID1 if you want speed too.

    A high-density (200G) 7200rpm drive will have a transfer rate 3X than a 40G 5400rpm drive easily and a lower latency. Use that. Skip RAID 0.

    RAID 0 latency discussion

    1. Re:pretty funny you mention the bottleneck by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      If you read that link you just posted, the reply explains how RAID0 is still faster than RAID1. You forgot that if command queueing is used along with caching, that RAID0 should read the data just as fast, on average. I haven't done a random seek benchmark yet, I should probably try that.

      There is no reason why RAID0 should increase latency compared to a single drive though. For those who don't really care about redundancy (make regular backups onto other drives), RAID0 is nice because you have twice the space of RAID1.

  89. Re:How about a drive that lasts longer then a year by bogie · · Score: 1

    I have to say that's not really Insightful since that's hardly commmon. I have 6 drives in my house all over 24 months old and haven't had a single issue yet. Some of these, 30GB ones, are like 4 years old and run constantly except for when I go away for a weekend or week whatever. If these are from different vendors then there is Definitely something wrong with your setup, like your Power supply or mobo is killing them. Hard drives don't keep dying in less than a year unless something is wrong with their environment. Stop buying drives and replace your PSU and/or mobo.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  90. Re:How about a drive that lasts longer then a year by Phosphor3k · · Score: 1

    No offense meant, but perhaps you are doing something wrong? Maybe a cheap PSU?

  91. Drives? How about some backup media? by russotto · · Score: 1

    Drives have been getting bigger and bigger for years, it's backup media which has lagged. How about some solution to that? Like portable and reliable backup media which doesn't cost an arm and a leg, is big enough that you don't get tendonitis from switching the media out, and is fast enough that you are actually willing to do the backups.

  92. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moore's Law applies to everything, silly.

  93. Multi-armed drives to go with multiprocessing ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CPUs on the desktop, i.e. the volume market, seem to be headed firmly to single-chip multiprocessing.

    If you have two processes executing, you have may a problem with simultaneous reading from different areas of the disk, which may heavily thrash performance.

    Wouldnt this be a market opportunity for a fresh try on multi-armed drives that move independently ?

    Especially if there is a move to 2.5inch platters, then why not use the space in an 3.5inch form-factor for extra arms ?

    Are drivers in common OSes a problem here ?

  94. The glass is half empty! by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    What a bunch of cowners!

    It's all about perspective, no? Hell, we've nearly got 80 gig disks in our pockets, cell phones will get hard drives this year, SATA and SCCI 2.5 inch drives...

    Nope nothin's happening!

  95. could care less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly how much less could you care? A lot?

  96. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy: Moore's law observes that the number of transistors you can pack on to a chip doubles every 18 months. Any flash RAM device is a persistent, non-volatile data media that uses transistors fabricated in a semiconductor process, and so should have their storage capacity double every 18 months. FRAMs and MRAMs should also benefit similarly from increasing densities, whenever they come out. You could also argue battery-backed SRAMs and DRAMs count as non-volatile persistent storage (which is a bit redundant to say, BTW).

    Or did you just mean hard drive manufacturers using magnetic platters? Either way, you could still draw the case that the hard drive folks have been besting Moore's law at the flash RAM folks' factories.

  97. CompactFlash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CompactFlash uses an IDE interface, and behaves like a hard drive (has the standard register set). The actual memory technology used is NAND Flash.

  98. How about notebook features? by BobPaul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I want a drive with more features for notebooks...

    Sure 4200rpm may save battery life, but they're so god aweful slow. Why don't they make a drive that has variable rpm? You could even have the OS control the speed: 4200 when on battery and 7200 when plugged into an outlet. Maybe even have an override so you can make it fast at the expense of battery life, should you want to.

    1. Re:How about notebook features? by danbuhler · · Score: 1

      i second this. i love my laptop and can't live without it. but since i've switched, i really miss my desktops for that issue alone. i find i can help some of the problem by making extensive use of network drives, but they aren't portable...

    2. Re:How about notebook features? by ceeam · · Score: 2, Informative

      Remember guys - RPM per se means virtually nothing. I have 5400 Samsung drive and it has sustained read/write speed (>50 Megs/sec from Windows filesystem) more than all the 7200 Seagates I've seen (at similar volume). Also - don't forget than notebook drives are 2.5" and since have much smaller platter radius. Even if you have 7200 RPM drive with the same density you will have (much) lower data xfer rate than with the "big" drive. Actually, it mostly comes down to the density (roughly you may say that it increases with drive volume div number of working platters) and seek quality. All 7200 gives you for sure is increased heat and more noise. It's a pity that 5400 drives that are perfectly runnable without any cooling are extinct.

    3. Re:How about notebook features? by IncohereD · · Score: 1

      Why don't they make a drive that has variable rpm? You could even have the OS control the speed: 4200 when on battery and 7200 when plugged into an outlet.

      Two factors possible:

      1) The drives are smaller, right? Might be harder to design hardware for that small space.
      2) Thermal death. Just because it's plugged in doesn't mean all those parts aren't still living right next to each other, trying not to kill each other.

    4. Re:How about notebook features? by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      Two factors possible:

      1) The drives are smaller, right? Might be harder to design hardware for that small space.
      2) Thermal death. Just because it's plugged in doesn't mean all those parts aren't still living right next to each other, trying not to kill each other.


      You can buy a laptop HD with 7200 rpm. Why can't you buy one that spins at both speeds at different times?

    5. Re:How about notebook features? by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      "You can buy a laptop HD with 7200 rpm. Why can't you buy one that spins at both speeds at different times?"

      Aerodynamics. Drive heads need to run at a certain (*exceedingly* small) height from the platter, and they achieve this by being aerodynamically shaped as to use the air flowing over the platter to remain in flight. Change platter speed -> change the height the heads will fly at. It's not a simple case of making the motor variable-speed and modifying the controller.

    6. Re:How about notebook features? by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      Aerodynamics. Drive heads need to run at a certain (*exceedingly* small) height from the platter, and they achieve this by being aerodynamically shaped as to use the air flowing over the platter to remain in flight. Change platter speed -> change the height the heads will fly at. It's not a simple case of making the motor variable-speed and modifying the controller.

      I wouldn't doubt that's something that they do, but do they really rely on it that much? What of drives that tout huge shock tolerances (like 225 g's over 2ms) while operating. I always thought that that meant while that impulse, the head wouldn't hit the platter. Does it mean the head can hit the platter that hard without causing damage?

      What you're saying just seems too probable, though... I guess I'll just sit here and hope R&D can solve this for me.

    7. Re:How about notebook features? by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      "do they really rely on it that much?"

      They fly at a few millionths of an inch above the media (~4000+ times thinner than a human hair) -- you better believe it :)

      There is some leeway of course; otherwise your drives would die every time you had a bout of high or low pressure. I'm pretty sure the 25%+ between 7200RPM and even 5400 will put them well outside of those limits :)

      "What of drives that tout huge shock tolerances (like 225 g's over 2ms) while operating. I always thought that that meant while that impulse, the head wouldn't hit the platter. Does it mean the head can hit the platter that hard without causing damage?"

      The closer to the platters the heads fly at, the greater the aerodynamic forces keeping it away from the platters; this gives you fairly impressive shock resistance (comparitively; 225g over 2ms isn't hard to create in the slightest), but I doubt any manufacturer will guarantee the disk won't skip a beat while it waits for the heads to settle :)

  99. Re:Drives? How about some backup media? by beavis88 · · Score: 1

    How about some solution to that?

    How about external FW/USB2 drives for ~$1/GB? It's perhaps not quite as economical as DVD-R, but as far I know, it's still quite a bit cheaper to do backups to external fixed disk than it would be to go tape/DLT or similar.

    If you are doing long-term archiving (like saving one tape per week permanently, for example), then HD backup is probably not for you -- but if you just want to keep your stuff from going bye bye, grab a couple external drives and use them in rotation.

  100. What about the sales? by t'mbert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wanted a bigger drive back in June, and the prices were really quite high. I finally bought one in September, by then the prices on a 160GB drive had dropped to a respectible $130 (with rebates). Now the same is on sale for $59 in the latest BestBuy flyer.

    The point? Something is happening. Why are they selling off drives like this? Oversupply? Switch to SATA?

  101. Re:Hard Disk Drive: End of an Era by aldoman · · Score: 1

    It's not really a problem. With intelligence caching and lots of RAM, for the majority of uses it won't be a problem.

    Most of the files I use such as applications, movies and music are only ever wrote once or maybe 10 times in their lifetime.

  102. Your doing something wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have hard drives from 10 years ago that are still in service and I abuse them constantly with video editing....you need a new power supply buy an antec...either that or you need a power conditioner.

  103. not much happening... that's for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Not Much Happening in Hard Drives This Year

    In other news, I'm just sittin' on my couch.

  104. SCSI is twice the expense for very little extra by good2pets · · Score: 1

    Having worked with both scsi and IDe offerings, It is safe the say the Seagate cheeta is within 5% of the fastest scsi drives and much cheaper and ten times easier to configure. SCSI snobs are going the way of Amiga snobs, seriously Seagate cheata drives are just as good...and scsi is way to difficult to use for the average computer user (believe me I took the phone calls)

    1. Re:SCSI is twice the expense for very little extra by corngrower · · Score: 1

      I do have SCSI drives in my system. They are fast and I do like them. However, I'll agree with what you've said, they're too difficult for the average computer user, and with the newer ATA/ SATA drives, don't offer a whole lot of increased performance. Oh, yes they are considerably more expensive. This probably comes from being sold primarily to companies, which use them in servers. The benefits of SCSI are more apparent in this situation.

  105. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where's the -1 Stupid reply when you need it...

    hte guy merely made a comparison, in no way did he imply that it applied. From what my limited comprehension of the english language tells me, he said the storage industry actually surpassed Moore's law. Now whether that is accurate or not, is a different story...

  106. I don't know what anybody's talkin' about... by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Funny

    my harddrive's had lots of changes this year. I added more memory to my harddrive, I added a new video to it to play them new games. Now my computer, that hasn't been upgrade since I bought it from Viewsonic.....

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't know what anybody's talkin' about... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If I had mod points... LOL.

  107. Indonesians hate the chinese by good2pets · · Score: 1

    Knowing many chinese, they told me that the Indonesians frequently kill or burn down the houses of chinese living in Indonesia, and that goes both ways...but Chinese are the usually the victimized minority in Indonesia (they migrated there as merchants and professionals) Would we be barbaric if we didnt donate money to people who want us dead?

  108. can we survive this? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    What awful news. Instead of coming up with yet another new type of interface for hard drives that cost extra and most of us don't have systems that will support in either hardware or software, the drive makers will have to focus on improving reliability, capacity, and maybe even have to slash prices further. As users how will we survive this?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  109. Indonesians hate the chinese by good2pets · · Score: 1

    Do you know any chinese, well I do...and they say that the indonesians frequently target the chinese there for racial attacks because they are in general more wealthy professionals. Would you give aid to people who have killed your ethnic group for hundreds of years? So believe it or not you dont know everything about world politics.

  110. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Flamebait"? you people even know what a flame BAIT is? the guy is just REPLYING to an ACTUAL flame _BAIT_. this is a fiery reply, he could have not fallen for the parent's moronic bait, but he was not trying to get angry responses. I hope the metamods do justice in the context.

  111. Re:Drives? How about some backup media? by Forbman · · Score: 1

    Hmm... a hot-swappable IDE/SATA carrier would be nice. Sure, you can sort of do it with a few USB/1394 drives, too.

    The cheapest high density backup for home/SOHO is more hard drives.

  112. Indeed by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    Not much happening in hard drives this year.
    The calculated scores don't carry much weight.
    Nothing particularly surprising here.
    Did anything happen today that does matter?

    Yes. Actually, seeing that nothing interesting is happening, I decided to go out and I almost got lucky, if you know what I mean. I kid you not. So, ironically, no news can be good news, if you follow my drift.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  113. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um.... so you're comparing clock frequency and hard drive capacity? every heard of apples and oranges?

    moore's law only talks about transistors.

    fool.

  114. Dear Seagate, by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lets take a break for the quest to be first with a small
    form factor terabyte drive. Instead lets concentrate on
    two things:

    a) faster. much faster

    b) self mirroring (ie raid 1) drives in the same form
    factor.

    The first is obviously a desire everybody wants.

    The second is similar I guess to dual core cpu's vs
    dual cpu's. Take a drive and instead of making it 500GB
    give me 2 200GB drives on seperate controllers and power
    supplies with an internal interface that allows one to
    mirror the other. Seemlessly.

    While fault tolerance should never be confused with a
    'backup', something like this would be very useful. With
    giant capacities now prevalent, most consumers have given
    up on backing up. But by offering a self contained
    fault tolerance you allow the consumer to easily chose
    between giant capacity or smaller size but some safety
    built in.

    For the performance crowd, many who now use raid 10 arrays,
    you cut the drive clutter in half. Two bays, not 4 (or 4
    not 8). Perhaps you could even get better thermal
    peformance than 2 independent drives.

    1. Re:Dear Seagate, by 241comp · · Score: 1

      Good idea but there's a much better solution than building self-mirroring drives. Do you really want to put 2 entirely seperate platter stacks, interfaces, ATA sockets, power connectors, motors, etc in a single drive? You've still introduced a single point of failure in the "internal interface that allows one to mirror the other." Why not just start creating stackable 1/2 height drives? It is essentially the same thing except I can buy just 1 if I want and additionally I can have odd numbers (possibly for RAID 3, 5, 30, 50).

    2. Re:Dear Seagate, by SQL+Error · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dear Lawrence_Bird,

      We have exactly the thing for you! It's called buying two drives.

      Regards,

      Seagate

      Seriously, things like this have been proposed, and even implemented in the past. It's always turned out cheaper, simpler, and more reliable to just buy two standard drives.

    3. Re:Dear Seagate, by descil · · Score: 1

      This is definitely easily available for enterprises in the form of disk arrays and SANs, but when you start looking at the overhead implied by the controllers and connectivity to a separate storage unit, price increases dramatically. None of the major enterprise storage vendors (IBM, EMC, STK, Hitachi) seem to be aiming at the consumer market for these things yet, and for good reason.

      Joebob don't care.

      That said, the solutions are available, they're just going to run you into the tens of thousands of USD.

    4. Re:Dear Seagate, by Triddle · · Score: 1

      So you have your fault tolerant drive, and one stack fails. How do you know? And will Joe Average go out and buy a new drive when the old one still "works".

      Next problem, two stacks, one spindle = one motor. Oh, the motor died and now I can't get my data back. That wasn't the plan.

      If you need fault tolerance, do it properly. If you don't, back up your important data. No, you don't need to back up those movies. Just the stuff that matters.

    5. Re:Dear Seagate, by PSC · · Score: 1

      self mirroring (ie raid 1) drives in the same form factor.
      [...]
      Take a drive and instead of making it 500GB
      give me 2 200GB drives on seperate controllers and power supplies with an internal interface that allows one to mirror the other.


      So tell me... how do you replace the failed "half-drive"? You would have to replace the functional half, since it sits in the same 3.5" housing...

      Added redundancy isn't worth that much if you can't properly act on the failure. Mirroring (or any other form of RAID except for striping) just buys you some time to recover. You don't actually operate a RAID in degraded mode and wait for the next disc to fail. You get it back to redundant mode ASAP. That's why all enterprise storage has hot spares.

      --
      --- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
    6. Re:Dear Seagate, by BayBlade · · Score: 1
      Obviously.

      How the hell are you supposed to replace a failed drive when its integrated with its live mirror?

      --

      The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.

    7. Re:Dear Seagate, by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Actually I envisioned 2 drives within a standard housing
      with an interface between them for mirroring. The 2 drives
      would be independent in regards power, controller and
      motor. So the only point of failure for the system would
      be the mirroring interface.

      Before you beat up on me, I'm not an electronics expert, just
      a long time user(abuser) of self built pc's. So I think the
      go between interface could be very simple - say your standard
      cable plugs into it and just splits like a Y to the two
      drives. There would need to be some electronics on it to
      decide from which drive it will read and to provide an
      alert should one drive fail.

      My original point is that with the continued shrinking size
      of drives that they should be able to fit two independent
      units in what is today regarded as a standard sized bay and
      with minimial extra effort, enable them to self mirror.

      As for the average user and what they do when one drive
      fails - that is a choice they can then make. Get a new
      pair or run in standard mode knowing its possible the
      2nd drive will fail (and all data lost) at any time. But
      at least they have a choice. And the mirroring of data
      to a new pair could be done easily from a program on a
      bootable cd.

      No none of this is earth shattering or not basically doable
      now, but as the original article said users aren't asking
      for anything I thought I'd ask them to make my raid 10
      life a little easier.

    8. Re:Dear Seagate, by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Basially toss it or use it for non critical storage after it
      is replaced with a new paired unit. Personally, the last
      drive I had fail was a Quantum in..heck 1995? I've still got
      a Toshiba 128MB bought 2nd hand in 1991 in a firewall box.
      Maybe my experience isn't the norm for an average user/power
      user. But this really wasn't something directed at
      enterprise users, more the individual workstation market
      where some easy form of redundancy would be better than none
      now that the average user is using 10s of megs for photos
      and mp3s each with no easy (mindless) safety net.

  115. HD dies in less than a year? WTF are you doing ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    " Acceptable my ass. I haven't seen a hard drive last more than a year since, oh, single-digit capacities.
    I bought this box in mid-2001. I'm on my 4th HD and 3rd graphics card. The rest is all very much alive and kicking.
    A hard drive is a critical component. Its emphasis should be on reliability FIRST and then everything else."


    What the hell are you doing to your system that your HD's are dieing in less than a year? I built my current system in mid-2001, and the HD(IBM 60GB) still works perfectly, no warnings from SMART monitoring, and no data lost EVER!

    You must be doing something stupid, like leaving your computer on 24/7, if your HDs are dieing in anything less than 3 years.

    The only thing I need from a new hard drive, is cooler/quieter/faster operation.
  116. My secret by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    Acceptable my ass. I haven't seen a hard drive last more than a year since, oh, single-digit capacities.

    I, on the other hand, haven't seen a hard drive failure on my desktop since the single-digit 1GB drive I fried by changing jumpers while it was connected something like a dozen years ago. My secret is this: always buy the slowest spinning hard drives on the market. My main hard drive is a 40GB drive spinning at only 5krpm, but it has been spinning 24 hours a day and 7 days a week for at least five years with no single problem, outliving four power supplies and six keyboards. Also, it is still very quiet. Maybe I am just lucky but I haven't got any problem with slow disks yet. But I don't buy old models. I buy big, slow disks. And if the seek time is an issue than two 5krpm disks in an array have the same seek time and additionally twice the throughput of a single 10krpm unreliable noisy piece of junk.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  117. Backups? by achurch · · Score: 1

    Let me tell you, when you start recoring video and storing your DVD's on disk for easy access, not even multiterabyte disks will seem enough.

    Add to that storage for backups which doubles or triples your needed space

    Pardon the naive question, but (setting aside self-recorded stuff for a moment) why do you need to make a backup copy of copies of video on your hard disk? Don't the original DVDs--or your hard disk copies, one or the other--already qualify as backups? If your hard disk fails you can always restore from the DVDs, and if the DVDs go bad you can always burn new ones from the hard disk.

    I personally keep my video archive in DVD-R spindles; my hard disk only has self-recorded stuff (serving as a backup to the DVDs) and anything I may have cached there for watching. DVDs are far more likely than hard disks to last 10 or 15 years, at which point they'll have been replaced by a new media with even more storage space and you can shift everything over then.

    1. Re:Backups? by Znork · · Score: 2, Informative

      The original dvd's do count as backups (as long as diskspace is cramped, at least) but I prefer having online backups, as it's much faster to recover from a crash with a backup-to-disk than to re-rip from DVD's. Plus, you usually know when your backup medium is hosed when it's on disk, which you might not on optical storage (altho it's more likely for DVD's to remain intact now that the video is on disk and dont need handling all the time).

      But, yes, the video volumes tend to have to get along without online backup. Until those terabyte disks arrive at least.

  118. Day 1462. by hph · · Score: 1

    Nothing happens. Again.

  119. Re:How about a drive that lasts longer then a year by zCyl · · Score: 1

    I've had three drives in a row that fail to spin up after 12 months.

    And what brand are you buying?

  120. command queueing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, no on-mobo controller uses command queueing. Most ATA drives don't even support it. Good SCSI controllers use command queueing though. Anyway, on SATA, there is only one drive per bus anyway, so you don't need command queueing unless your OS is going to post multiple IO transactions per storage device (meaning RAID array or drive as applicable). And yours won't. Even if it did, I don't think there are any ATA drives that would optimize its responses anyway. They would just do them in order.

    And yes, I get so tired of explaining it to people, but yes, there is a reason why RAID 0 increases latency. If you want to read more than your stripe size (lets say 128K stripe, so 129K) you have to read the data off both drives before your read completes. The calculated latency for a drive is the seek latency plus the time until the sector needed passes under the head. If you have a single drive, on average you will have to wait half a rotation until the sector passes under the head. This is because sometimes it is right there when you seek, sometimes 1 revolution away, so on average it is 0.5 revolutions away.

    However, when you read with RAID0 you have to wait until the sectors you need pass under the heads on both drives. So you have to wait the greater of the rotational latencies of the two drives. The only way to get around this is to spindle lock the two drives so that the sectors you'd naturally read at once pass under the heads on both drives at the same time. But, spindle locking isn't possible on ATA.

    Rotational latency is the biggest part of latency, and RAID0 increases it unless you spindle lock the drives. Spindle locking isn't possible on ATA drives. So your latency goes up. There is no way around it.

    Seek tests are even more meaningless on RAID arrays than they are on single drives. The key here isn't seek latency anyway, it's rotational latency. If you want to see the worst case, take your stripe size, add 1K to it, and do random location reads of that size to your array. You'll see the difference, trust me.

  121. Cache by Luthair · · Score: 1

    The biggest speed improvements seem to be related to the cache 2->8mb was a big change in performence. Maxtor DiamondMax-10 drives, 7200rpm with 16mb cache apparently offer similar performance to the 10k Raptors with 8mb (other than seek times), not to mention they have a better GB/$$.

  122. storage improvements i'd like to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how about a drive with two or three read heads, internal raid 0 controller for them and a 512 Mb buffer? (heck, maybe an array of thousands of read heads could be fashioned to span the entire disk surface? )

    how about a new standard for using a full pcix 16 slot for throughput? why do we need ata or scsi anymore, anyway?

    how about a 5 1/4" drive-sized peripheral with 128 pc 2100 DIMM slots, mated to a battery, controller and a SATA plug?

    there are plenty of avenues to explore here.

  123. iPods a.k.a. Mobile Storage + UI by persaud · · Score: 1

    have to be the biggest story in storage in 2004. We're talking a new product category that has been so successful, it is now multiplatform and multi-vendor and has spawned a related line of flash-based products (iShuffle).

    1.8" drives, followed by flash ram eating into the hard drive market, there's progress in 2004.

    Combined with PC virtualization (VMware, UML, Virtuozzo), it's just a matter of app integration before we start using widespread standby/resume that saves our virtual machines to iPod-scale media.

    Compared to Internet Suspend/Resume, this would be more secure.

  124. Holographic storage solutions? by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    Eventually the limitations of magnetic storage will be reached, so I have been wondering, what other storage technologies are avialable that all greater density.

    One technology i have heard of is storing data holographically in perhaps crystalline medium. This has several advantage, it is very reliable since there are few moving parts, the crystal does not tend to degrade much, and from what I have heard there are very fast access speeds. I even heard that due to something to with the holographic nature of the storage it would be very useful for search engines. This technology seems to address many of the issues with magnetic storage. I havent heard much about this technology being applied, unfortunately. I dont know what technical issues have to be resolved for it to be feasible.

  125. Story is wrong. Absolutely. by kerrle · · Score: 1
    While a lot of people have theorized about holographic storage, 2005 is the year the first commercial products are going to be release.

    See here.

    I know people have made this claim before, but seriously - they've demonstrated completely working prototypes and have a product line set for release this year.

    In addition to the other benefits, this will allow small, PC based drives to get into the TB range.

  126. Calendar year? by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    Does anybody really think technology goes by stops and starts, synchronized with the calendar year? And that an industry with a heavy R&D invetment is just going to let all that infrastructure just sit idle? It's more likely there's just a random lull in announcements. It takes years of research to develop each increase in drive capacity, then more time to develop th eindutrial processes to make all those drives reliably and cheaply. As for progress, my first computer at work was a 3MB disk drive, size of 4 PC cases, dimmed the lights when it started up. Almost $22K in today's dollars. I wouldnt say progress has been slow.

  127. what sort of a story is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hard drives are big enough in capasity for most people, but nothing new? The industry is now transitioning into Serial ATA - no not just us geeks who have massive ammounts of money to blow on top of the line stuff, like regular drives for regular people. When was the last time something like this has happened in the hard drive industry? 20 years ago? Aside from that more drives are starting to incorperate fluid dynamic bearings which are pretty cool technology in my opinion.

    1. Re:what sort of a story is this? by robnauta · · Score: 1

      Nothing new in 2005 no, SATA arrived in 2004 (or was it even 2003) ? Going from 2MB cache to 8 MB cache was in 2002 or 2003. Now that SATA is here, there are no real changes expected for 2005, except small price drops and slightly larger drives.

  128. Re:Disk Drive: End of an Era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol, how easy it is to be an "Ignoramus Anonymous" on the internet. By your calculations, since the US has spent BILLIONS of dollars killing people in IRAQ and China has spent almost nil, what does that say about the US? Btw, Canada has donated an incredible amount, which means they are better than you, eh?

  129. wrong.... by Benley · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think that's right. I've got one of those Ximeta thingies, and it just does some USB-over-ethernet trick (I assume) to be attached to any machine. I hear there is multi-write support (for windows only of course) now, perhaps that requires a machine to be the "master" host.

  130. The size increase have slowed down too by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

    The biggest hd you can buy now is 400GB. 250GB hds have been availabe more than 2 years ago. Thats A LOT slower than doubling every year...

    The time span between 32 MB and 30-40 GB being typical mainstream drives was almost exactly 10 years. That is a doubling every year.

    But since then, the size increase has slowed considerably down.

    1. Re:The size increase have slowed down too by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      sorry, i meant size increase, not speed increase.
      The GMR heads and prnl read channel mainly increased track density, not sector density, so the speed increased less then the size.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  131. At $1/GB, victims of their own success by gelfling · · Score: 1

    What kind of massive R+D and capital investment effort could one mount with a price point of $1/GB? Unless you're a Google sized operation, even reducing the cost of DASD by 50% or increasing the price/performance by 50% is not going to matter that much.

    What they should focus on is not more storage, since I can already but a Terabyte, nor network attached storage since that's pretty cheap and all the other hardware wrapped around the drives is the cost component. What they need to focus on is better backup and storage management, secondary and tertiary storage media and better more standardized removable storage.

  132. The article is based on the wrong premise. :) by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    This particular field in the computing industry simply doesn't move at the same pace as other system components

    Given that statement, I'm not sure I'd trust what the article defines as 'newsworthy'. Hard disk performance, cost, and capacity have been advancing significantly faster than any other major system component over the last 10 years, with the possible exception of consumer-level video cards.

    Sure, people blather on about "Moore's Law" and 18-month doubling times for computing power. Very few people realize that magnetic drive performance has been advancing faster than that.

    1980: 5MB HDD in doublesize, extreme cost.
    1987: 40MB HDD
    1995: 1GB HDD
    2005: 500GB HDD

    Doubling times:
    1980-1987: ~21 months
    1987-1995: ~20.6 months
    1995-2005: 13.38 months

    That's right. Hard drive capacity over the last 10 years has been doubled over an average time of less than 14 months.

    Now that is impressive.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  133. Virtual Memory harddrive trashing by tallbill · · Score: 1

    If you are running systems with very large block of memory allocated for very large objects, and I mean very large, then the Virtual memory system may indeed be thrashing your harddrive. How? Because the V-mem system will continuously swap out blocks of memory, back and forth, back and forth, from the swap area to the physical memory.

    I have seen this when we had an amatuer engineer who stupidly made his data-structures 250 meg each. Pretty stupid, but there it was.

    This could be the problem with someone who keeps needing to swap out harddrives. The drive might just be worked to death.

  134. not flash, but dram by tallbill · · Score: 1

    I think that for a very large capacity harddrive if you could get dram prices way down you could set up a screaming psuedo-drive in a dram space.

    The noted problems with flash (sram) is that it has limited numbers of writes. But it retains the data when it is powered down.

    And so if you design a drive that has a continuous source of power, then you could use cheeper dram for a solid state drive. That would mean that the device would have to have continuous power. And so it would need a very reliable batter power system on it.

    All of this seems very doable. Anyone know of such a device?

    1. Re:not flash, but dram by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1
      "The noted problems with flash (sram) is that it has limited numbers of writes. But it retains the data when it is powered down.

      And so if you design a drive that has a continuous source of power, then you could use cheeper dram for a solid state drive."

      Flash memory and SRAM are actually very different. Flash is relatively cheap and does not require power, but has a limited number of writes, slow access times and generally uses block erase. SRAM is pretty expensive (4-6 transistors per bit, like a register), can be fast, does not need refresh cycles, and requires a little bit of power to stay charged (old SRAM memory cards typically included a button-cell battery). DRAM is somewhere in between. There have been DRAM-based battery-backed solid state "disk" products for servers.

  135. Chinese Race Bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Folks, we have identified a Chinese race bigot.

    The Chinese believe the following.

    1. If a Black man kills a White man in 1828, then the White man should hate the Black man in 2005.
    2. The tsunami only destroyed Indonesia and did not affect any other country in South Asia, so the Chinese in Taiwan are justified in contributing little aid.

    #2 is just factually incorrect; the tsunami affected Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc.

    As for #1, most of the affected people were Muslims. The people who have committed gross terrorist act against the West are Muslims. Yet, Westerners (e.g. Japanese, Norwegians, Australians, and others) still donated billions of dollars of aid to South Asia.

    Westerners and Chinese have very different notions of right and wrong. Frankly, the Chinese are sick, barbaric people.

  136. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10 minutes, counting the time used to write.

  137. Hope 2005 is the year for tape by invisik · · Score: 1

    I hope this year tape drives can catch up a bit in capacity and lower prices. Tape is essential no matter how reliable your disks are as businesses need off-site data storage as part of their backup strategy.

    I've seen a few places backup to external hard drives instead of tape (mainly due to large capacity needed). That's not too bad, but you still have the transport factor, which tape can take much more of a beating then a hard drive.

    Online backup to a trusted provider is a great idea as well, but can be limiting by your internet connection's speed. True, you can do incremental/diff backups, but a complete system restore would take way too long.

    That's my wish for the new year!! We'll see how it goes.

    -m

    --
    http://www.invisik.com
  138. speed by m4dh4773r · · Score: 1

    I thought SATA was going to get a large transfer rate boost this year. I don't recall exact numbers, but I remember that it was quite a bump.

  139. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about a number of X.. Doubling every X amount of time... in this case.. number of transistors doubling every couple of years... Hard drive space.. Another Number.. and this is where the brilliant part comes in, fuck twit.. has.. Wait for it... has MORE then doubled.. every couple of years..

    Was that hard? Or are you really that much of a complete fucking idiot that I feel robbed that you're breathing the air that us people with IQs above a stupid rock, could be. Now why don'tcha make yourself useful, locate a gun, load it, and end your pitiful excuse for a life.

  140. Not so by Namarrgon · · Score: 1
    5) interest in 10K and 15K RPM is misplaced for most applications. Speed affects rotational delay and nothing else.

    Hardly. All else being equal, if you double the rotational speed, you double the bulk transfer rate. Also, rotational delay is the major factor in the drive's average seek times.

    Bulk transfer rate is more important in most applications

    I would contend that seek time is more important for most applications (transaction servers, database access, web servers, booting PCs etc) than transfer rate (used mostly by media-intensive industries).

    If it spins twice as fast but has half the density, it has the same bulk transfer rate.

    Why half the density? Why not the same density but 50% higher spin (and transfer) rate?

    6) interest in SCSI is outdated. SATA with one (competent) controller per disk has better characeristics.

    Not according to this article, and others. It's improving, SATA NCQ/TCQ is a big help, but its only advantage is price, still. 10K and 15K SCSI drives have real advantages in both transfer rate and seek times.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:Not so by Arch_dude · · Score: 1

      Based on the links yoiu provide, the 10K drives have a bulk transfer rate of 59 to 118MB/sec and the 7200RPM drives have a bulk transfer rate of 760Mb/s, equivalent to 95MB/s. That is, the 10K drives are at best marginally faster than the 7200RPM drives. Applications that are truly latency-sensitive can generally best be served by using large RAM cache. The "big" 10K disks in your links are still 250GB.

    2. Re:Not so by Namarrgon · · Score: 1
      ...and the 15K drives can do 142 MB/s, which is more than marginal - while both 10K and 15K drives provide much lower seek times than any 7200 rpm drive.

      RAM cache is fine, but it only partially hides latencies (and not for all applications), unless you're caching the entire disk. Best is a faster spinning drive and a RAM cache.

      There is generally a tradeoff between speed and capacity, with the faster spindle drives (both ATA and SCSI) usually being smaller, but still delivering faster transfers and seeks despite the slightly greater density of the larger drives.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  141. What about dual or tripling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actuators and associated heads, that can move independently of the ones you would normally find in a HD? It would be like RAID 0 on a single drive, then mirror it with an identical drive for RAID 0+1, or if you can handle it, 2 in RAID 0. I'd call it 'ROID 0 :)

    I like Norton ghosting or Acronis for backing up the main PC once a night. Usually acronis true image, because being able to do quick incrementals after initial ghosting, with a bootable, networkable CD to restore with, is really, really nice.

    Price, Performance, and (relative) Cost, pick all three! Maybe 2006?

  142. 3-platter 400GB Seagate is a big density advance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I understand that the 400GB Seagate drive only has three platters (down from five, which the 400GB IBM/Hitachi drive has). This implies that Seagate has more than doubled the areal density ( (400GB/300GB)*(5/3) = 2.2 ).

    A three platter drive should have might have some other advantages, but I've never seen or used it, so I can't verify these experimentally. The drive may be thinner, improving airflow and improving internal heat flow because the maximum distance from any point inside the drive to the outside is reduced. External ventilation may be "temporarily" improved in that there may be a little more air gap around the drive, although cases will eventually adjust to cram more things into that space. The total mass of the spinning platter may be less, which may slightly reduce power consumption / heat generation and noise. Also, the drive should be physically a bit lighter.

    There may be other engineering factors that prohibit this, but, conceivably, Seagate might be able to make 4 and 5 platter versions of this drive with capacities of 533GB and 666GB respectively.

    Also, I believe that the Seagate drive is the first SATA drive that does not internally a SATA-PATA translator attached to a PATA disk controller. I think the Seagate may be the first to support SATA native command queuing, but I'm not sure. All in all, it seems like the Seagate drive is a substantial technology advance.

  143. Not good enough by GooseKirk · · Score: 1

    What I want is a little box where you can dump up to 5-6 drives, and it'll do RAID-5, with wi-fi, ethernet and USB2/firewire interfaces.

    That's your safe, easy, convenient, flexible home/office network storage device.

  144. Seagate drive would be 666GB at 5 platters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If I understand correctly, the 400GB Seagate drive is a 3 platter drive, while most 1-inch high 3.5" drives have 5 platters. If Seagate were to go back to 5 platters for this drive (and there may be reasons why this is not technically easy or even feasible right now) then the proportional increase in capacity would bring it to 666GB. I believe that in the previous generation of disk drives, this is exactly what happened with Maxtor. First they introduced ~200GB drives with 3 platters and then, once those had been out for a few months, they introduced the 5 platter ~300GB drives. Perhaps it has something to do with making the drive tolerate more heat generation.

    The IBM/Hitachi 400GB drive is already 5 platters, by the way, so don't expect a similar capacity improvement by that route from the IBM/Hitachi drive.

    1. Re:Seagate drive would be 666GB at 5 platters by doormat · · Score: 1

      5 platters isnt stable in a 7200RPM drives. I expect a 500GB+ version from Seagate using 4 platters, but not 5.

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  145. actual quotes from TFA by calculadoru · · Score: 1

    surprisingly enough users doesn't demand much from the manufacturers. Thus far, companies have delivered what the masses had requested, but much halt is due to customer dependency.

    Someone call the grammar police?

    --
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
  146. Fast, Reliable, Redundant, Intuitive by descil · · Score: 1

    Allow me to toot my own SAN horn. Before you think I'm a kook, realize that the top two lawfirms in the world use these solutions (along with many many others in the know):

    FalconStor designs an appliance which will allow you to do many many things with your data in terms of reliability, speed, and disaster recovery. One of the best features available is -instantaneous- backup and recovery. That's right. Instant. In the blink of an eye your entire SAN drive can be backed up or restored using Timemarks.

    In addition, using a Time'view', we can open up a transparent window to any timemark (timemarks are usually taken on some schedule - one every five minutes, for instance; they only take about 64k of overhead), and allow you to look at your data as it was an hour, six hours, or two minutes ago. This lets you easily mount up a drive and recover a file you accidentally deleted - or an email.

    Our solutions tie into Exchange, SQL server, Oracle, Sybase, and more, to provide instant backup and recovery. We provide an inband solution (that means we get between your disks and your servers) - because of this, we can provide extreme services such as bare metal recovery (mirror your local drive to the SAN, then if your drive fails, just boot off the SAN! Either via IP or FC!)

    We also provide solutions for disaster recovery (replicating your data to a remote location, then restoring it), redundancy (our applications have no single point of failure; on top of that, we use a redundant pair of applications so that if one fails, the other takes over), data migration (move your data from that fast EMC disk onto some slower JBOD disks, or take your local drive and put it on a fast SAN instead).

    We've been doing this for a while! It's nothing new, but everyone is paying attention, especially to our Virtual Tape Library solutions, which allow you to backup your systems to disk, then export those backups to tape - still using your familiar NetBackup/etc infrastructure.

    We provide NAS solutions, too, and much more than I could ever fit in one comment. FalconStor is widely recognized in the storage world as the leader of SAN management and disaster recovery. So don't tell me disk isn't going anywhere. There ARE still customer needs, from backup to virtualization. Take a look if your SAN needs an upgrade - www.falconstor.com. Oh yeah. And it's FAST TOO, with technologies like Hotzone, which will identify the most-used portions of your disk and cache reads and writes to a solid-state disk.

  147. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Something." That's as specific as the author gets. Storage capacity is doubling every 12 months, but we need to see something significant. Nothing in particular, mind you. Just something.

    Perhaps the author of the article was a moron, but he has a point (but perhaps not wonderfuly stated).

    Storage capacity doubled over the last year? Whoopie. You may as well say "we found a great new way to punch holes in twice the number of hollerith cards per hour." Other than fans, the drives are generally the only components with moving parts inside your case... it's about time to change this fault point.

    I personally think it's time for a technological change for the better... solid state drives? Anything other than metal or ceramic platters spinning around at thousands of RPM, milimeters away from a read/write head would be a step in the right direction. I won't be sad to see them go.

  148. Parallel read drives? by Thagg · · Score: 1

    The advance that never seems to happen is parallel read drives. If you have a 200 GB drive, it probably has five or so platters with data on them, and so has five heads -- but it only uses one head at a time. If you could read all five heads together, you would get 5x the data rate. You'd get the performance of a five-disk RAID0 in one disk.

    Why aren't companies doing this? There must be a good reason.

    Thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Parallel read drives? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Wow, I was thinking the very same thing. I'm sure there's an answer somewhere, but I don't know enough to give it, so I have the same question. I was thinking that a drive with 5 platters could have some hardware solution that if it's told to write "1,2,3,4" it will write the "1" on the first platter, the "2" in the same position but on the second, etc., and on the 5th, it will write "0" in that position, which is the last digit of the sum of what's on the first four platters. That way, if there is an error on any of the platters, it can figure out what was there by subtraction and recover the data. (Of course I know this would really be done in binary, the principle would be the same.)

  149. Dear Slashdot... by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    On slow news days it's pretty much traditional to just run a fluff story on firemen rescuing kittens from trees.

  150. Re:so, how is creationism taught anyways? by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry this happened to you, but I'll have to concur with the other posters here and say that my 2.5-year-old 100GB Maxtor drive is doing just fine in my Dell. I think it's 5400RPM. You might want to check on your heat and/or power situation.

  151. Re:How about a drive that lasts longer then a year by SunFan · · Score: 1


    Y'know, paying over $100 on a hard drive isn't a sin or anything. Go ahead. You might like it.

    --
    -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  152. here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A week or two back, there was an article how Moore's Law is breaking. Along with it was a graph showing a curve fit to processor speeds and showing exponential improvement.

    Now we have an article about how hard drives aren't really advancing that much. No really interesting new technology, and capacities increasing, but not by a huge amount.

    I have a theory as to why both of these things have happened. If you look at the graph for the Moore's Law story a few weeks ago, you'll see that the rate of growth dropped a few years back, but before that, it was really going strong for 3 or 4 years, in fact stronger than the historical average. Now, think for a minute if you can think of anything else that has been pretty cruddy the last few years but was really going strong for a few years before that.

    Yes, that's right -- my theory is that this stuff is tied to the economy. When we were having a tech boom, processors were advancing quite rapidly. During the recession of the last few years, processor speeds barely made any big improvement. I believe this is because, quite simply, all these technology companies had it tough and had to cut back. So instead of working like mad to develop some hot new processor architecture, they just tweaked and improved things enough so they don't look like slackers, just enough to keep up with the other manufacturers (who were also doing the same thing). After all, demand was weak: even if they developed some hot new thing a few years ago, nobody was buying. Consumes didn't have enough money in their pocket to buy fancy new crap, and businesses didn't either.

    My prediction is that as the economy continues to slowly improve, we'll see Moore's Law come back into action and processors and disks will start advancing at a faster rate again.

  153. I want a 200GB RAM drive anyway... by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    I'd like a 200GB flash (or whatever it takes) RAM drive with an access rate measured in nano-seconds. THEN we're talkin' storage!

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  154. drive size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even i don't have enough porn to fill some of these drives up. this may be redundant, i haven't checked yet

  155. USB memory stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about using an USB memory stick?

  156. Never suspend improves reliability? by halleluja · · Score: 1

    In my experience harddrives do fail often when you hdparm -S xx them (auto-suspend after xx minutes). Of course I don't access these disks too often (mostly backup). All of the disks are guaranteed to crash after 1 yrs of timeout usage. The WD Caviar disks I purchased over 10 yrs ago still work without problems, IBM disks also. Also, laptop hard drives are very vulnerable in my experience.

  157. 2.5" SCSI Drive Arrays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I'd like to see is a product like this drive cage (fits four 1" drives in three standard 5.25" bays), except built with 2.5" laptop size drives in mind.

    Just eyeballing the space, it looks like you could fit about 8 laptop drives in two 5.25" bays. Seagate already has 37 and 73 GB SCSI models available, so all that's missing is the convenient RAID enclosure for a workstation.

  158. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fucking, fucking retard.

    Repeat after me:
    The fact that stuff is doubling is of no consequence since we're comparing different units (Hz and hard drive space). In the same way, if I double 1mm I get 2mm, and if double 4 liters I get 8 liters, but that doesn't mean I can compare the two because one measures volume, and the other measures distance.

    I have never in my life seen someone so profoundly retarded as you. Please, just go lie down somewhere and die. You are completely worthless. Actually, your worth is negative. Think about that as you're lying down like a good little bitch, waiting to die.

  159. Why do you need a DVD collection? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    How many times can you watch the same DVD?

    How many DVDs that you will watch no more than once you need to keep? Why?

    I prefer to watch a DVD, if it is not memorable it finds its way to Ebay or Amazon. If it is worth watching a second time I keep it, but once I have 10 or 15 of them I know I have too many, most likely I will never watch them all again, so I get rid of 2 thirds of them, rinse and repeat.

    In the unlikely case that you need a DVD again, you buy it 2nd hand.

    So again, why do you need a collection of DVDs?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  160. Most insightful Article Ever! by hesiod · · Score: 1

    Yeah, insightful... "ATTENTION PLEASE!!! NOTHING IS HAPPENING!!!"

    Caps, caps, caps. Sometimes all caps is necessary.

  161. Re:Article? Or usenet rant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah!
    He's probably so stupid that he thinks 'Moore's Law' is a rule of physics instead of a marketing buzzword too! ...

  162. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion