Slashdot Mirror
Review of Seagate's 750Gb Hard Drive
Zoxed writes "The Tech Report have a comprehensive review of Seagate's Barracuda-7200.10 'perpendicular' drive, including a primer on the technology. They ran performance tests against 10 other drives, checking the noise and power consumption levels. The Seagate fared pretty well, even on cost (per Gigabyte)." From the article: "Perpendicular recording does wonders for storage capacity, and thanks to denser platters, it can also improve drive performance. Couple those benefits with support for 300 MB/s Serial ATA transfer rates, Native Command Queuing, and up to 16 MB of cache, and the Barracuda 7200.10 starts to look pretty appealing. Throw in an industry-leading five year warranty and a cost per gigabyte that's competitive with 500 GB drives, and you may quickly find yourself scrambling to justify a need for 750 GB of storage capacity."
"...and you may quickly find yourself scrambling to justify a need for 750 GB of storage capacity."
:(
With the amount of media stored on my server I can already justify a disk this size. The only downside is of course that you're going to need two of these for your mirror
"And then I visited Wikipedia
"Throw in an industry-leading five year warranty..."
Wow, thought those days were gone.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Some keep saying that there's no point to ever-increasing drive storage numbers. I disagree. Huge drives will always be appreciated in media PCs, where good-quality video (even if compressed) takes up a good chunk of storage space. Since these devices are preferably low noise, low power, and small in size, you obviously can't just keep throwing more drives in the box: a single drive is the best solution.
Keep the size increases coming, I've got a mountain of content on DVD and VHS that I'd love to be able to rip to an online media library!
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
7x100GB is not 7 times more reliable than one 750 GB drive. It is 7x more reliable at not losing ALL of your data, perhaps, since you could only lose 100GB at a time. But it is not any more reliable for retaining ALL of your data, either. The big advantage in reliability to high capacity drives is the ability to RAID them in a relatively small enclosure - RAIDing 7 or 8 drives would be quite a task, while doing 2-4 drives is relatively easy.
-Daniel
"there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to lose any data. Even if it means forking over the money"
Psst... Money is a reason.
As in getting TWO of them, and mirroring them. When you get into 100s of Gigabytes, it doesn't make sense to use DVDs (right now, unless you have BluRay or something) to make backups. Get another drive of the same size, or two of them, and mirror them.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Did you notice that the ipod-like mp3 player the character was holding said 1 of 30,000 songs. 30 thousand! Does anyone else get the feeling of overload with this avalanche of content? I have noticed that the more music I have ripped on my pc the less I listen to each song. If consumers are said to empathise with their purchases - for instance it has been noted that people value items more when they own them - then having 30k songs or 50k episodes of the daily show surely means that each will get less attention. In these circumstances I find it hard to believe that these items will still hold their value.
This drive increases the ever widening gap between available storage and backup media. Great I can buy a 750GB drive...however how the hell am I gonna back this thing up...actually even with many many dics how am I gonna backup 750GB. There is a huge disparity in the amount of data we can store these days and the stuff we have to back it up. There is no afforadable backup solution for this much data.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Well... 750GB (let's say 700GB once we remove the overhead) holds:
200 DVD movies (3.5GB each) or 100 DVD9 movies
500 days of music (128kbps)
1400 TV episodes (44 min, MPEG4)
500 HDTV episodes (MPEG4, 1.4GB/show)
So yes, we're probably getting past that point with music, but not with video yet.
And, IIRC, Project Gutenberg has something like 300-400GB of text files in their library.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
I have noticed that the more music I have ripped on my pc the less I listen to each song.
Duh. Especially if you have it on random play, the odds of it being hit, are, well lower with the more content you have.
There is the 90/10 or 80/20 or 99/1 or whatever rules, depending on the situation, but what those guys say is that 90% of the time you will be listening to 10% of the material you have.
Its generally true. However, its still good to have those other 90% laying around for those times when you "really need them".
Other rough examples. You read 10% of your books 90% of the time. 99% of the world's money is owned by 1% of the population. 90-95% of the alcohol consumed in the US is drank by 5-10% of the population. 95% of my complaints/problems/issues from my users comes from 5% of them. Etc, etc, etc.