Slashdot Mirror
Terabyte Drive to Debut Later this Year
mytrip writes to mention the news that Hitachi will be releasing a terabyte storage drive this year. "These large drives also will get incorporated into televisions and personal video recorders. Hitachi, among others, already sells TVs with integrated hard drives in Japan and other markets. While large drives start out expensive, the price drops relatively quickly. Computer makers pay something in the 30-cent range for a gigabyte when buying hard drives, Healy said. The price at retail is around 50 cents or less."
Some of these much-slower latency discs should catch up and overtake hard-disks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile _Disc mentions "a demonstrated maximum of 3.9 TB for 3 micrometer separation on a 12 cm disc."
Finally we can start backing up our entire hard disks. Even these new ones!
Will there ever be an upper limit to hard drives? I know we just started using perpendicular technology, but there must be some kind of physical limit to the platters. Another question is why is it hard to find SCSI drives in these high capacities? Or at least in newer SAS drives.
What a waste of space. This is not about a product to be released, it's just a way to fill some space so that maybe someone will click on some ads.
The only thing of interest in the entire article is at the end, when it mentions that the hard drive is reaching its 50th birthday/anniversary/whatever you want to call it. More interesting might have been a brief timeline showing hard drive advances over that half-century.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Regardless, I know as soon as I get one, I'll have it filled within 8 months.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I could've sworn that...oh, that's right: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/ 30/2124225
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
...but at not quite 0.91 TiB, I couldn't help feeling gypped if I bought one of these.
Are they referring to a terabyte as 1000 or 1024 gigabytes?
"SCSI is basically dead. It's just a scam to get more money out of people that are stuck in 1992. Just ignore it and go with modern technology like SATA."
Oh lookie everyone. It's a SATA vs SCSI flamewar post. Line right up for your turn.
10e12 bytes of pr0nographic goodness.
I remember seeing a 500GB drive at Fry's a few months ago. As soon as I saw it, I knew that terabyte drives weren't far off.
Looks like the typical user is going to have to learn some more terminology soon.
SCSI causes nothing but trouble. When I had a SCSI drive it caused all sorts of weird failures--so much that I had to reinstall Linux about 30 times because the drive would report itself as full even though I had barely used it. Now I'm using an 80GB IDE drive which never has any problems whatsoever for me.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
We always hear about AMD and Intel giving out tons of information on roadmaps and what we're expected to see in the near future but hard drive development is a relatively silent business. Does anyone know what we can expect to see in tomorrow's hard drives? What's scheduled for the next two years?
Measuring the amount of TB in future disks is easy. The capacity doubles every x months and so and that's probably not going to change for some time, so I frankly don't care too much about hard drive space as it has never been an issue to me. What I do care about is the other technology inside of a hard drive. Seek times, write/read speed and throughput. How's that going? Are we eventually going to see some major difference between SATA150 and SATA300? If so, when?
I am not sure about you guys but I am growing increasingly dependent on fast hard drives rather than a shitload of space. My workstations are usually bundled with a fast Raptor disk combined with a Seagate at some 250 to 500 GB, so I put the big who-cares-about-speed files on the big one while my operating system, applications and games rest on my Raptor.
So once again, does anyone know what we're going to see in 2007 and 2008?
Full Tilt
"Regardless, I know as soon as I get one, I'll have it filled within 8 months."
That's a lot of semen.
Good, good... Now I can save all the text files I want.
we all refer to GB as gigs... "I have a 300 gig drive." What do we call the Terabyte drives? Ters? Tbs?
"I have a 2 tera drive" does not have the same flo?
"So once again, does anyone know what we're going to see in 2007 and 2008?"
:)
TerraPorn were the entire drive is consumed by one extremely high-poly model. Were one can fly in and out of various openings (ala descent), and guys regularly get lost because they don't stop and ask for directions.
--
My confirmation word is "inject".
Is anyone else tired of hearing about yet another x00Gb extra storage capacity while the the RPM remains the same as it has for the last 5/6 years, ie. 7200rpm. When are we going to see affordable 10,000rpm disks fer kreissake? The 150Gb WD Raptor at £175 is not what I call competitive pricing. We have more than enough storage. What we need is faster, energy-efficient disks.
We're starting to reach the point where hard drives are so large we're not sure what to put on it. Well, lots of people will; they're a boon for people doing video editing and they'll keep you in episodes of the Sopranos for months. But drop one into a regular desktop PC and your typical average user simply won't be able to fill it up; or if they do, they'll already have reached a point where they don't know what 80% of the data on the drive is.
As a sometime hardware tech, I'd really love to see the manufacturers using some of this capacity for redundancy, rather than sheer space. Run the drive as a RAID unit, with each surface being one "drive", and use two of the surfaces for parity. You'd lose up to 40% of the capacity of the drive but it would become much more reliable. Sealing off the platters from each other might take up so much space you'd lose one platter, and might mean more expense since you'd need multiple head units, but again, the reliability would improve enormously. While this still isn't quite as reliable as having multiple separate drives RAIDed together, it would be convenient and transparent to the user, and make dead drives (mostly) a thing of the past.
Spoken like a true person that's never stepped foot inside a data center.
It would suck royally to have one of these crash when near capacity. Even with a backup. That would be a long restoration process.
IIRC most drive failures are not in the platters but in the controller. Would you duplicate the controller as well? Would disk makers start offering new control boards to fix broken drives?
Not the ones that I have seen. There are basically two main failure modes on a hard disk. Either the bearings on the motor give out, or the reserved area for mapping out bad sectors fills up and you see bad sectors. Controller failer is *much* rarer than either of these two events. If you ask me controller failures are more likely to be down to people not taking proper ESD measures.
Why do I care if it's 1TB or 0.91TB? I mean, really I'm going to be comparing it to the 200-300GB drives I've got now and seeing if I can replace them. Hmmm....three 300G drives will easily fit on TB drive. Two 200s and two 300s will fit, too. Why? Because somewhere across those four discs, there's probably going to be 2% of space that's not used. If it were, I'd probably have more than four drives, so I'll need 2 TB drives.
.gif porn collection you still store on the 300MB drives you got with your Gateway2000. If you're crossing two 1000/1024 barriers, I'm guessing you don't have to worry about "enough" storage on the new drive.
Of course, this is even less critical when you transfer within orders / 1 GB - 999 GB has no loss, just as 1TB to 999TB doesn't, so we won't have to worry about it until we hit PB drives. And don't even think about bitching about your
I think its time to get over the 2^10/10^3 debate, and realize the most people are getting relative storage, and nobody is getting cheated.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
With hard drives getting this much capacity, which term would most accurately describe them - a truck or a series of pipes?
Prove it.
Right here: http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=1018 8. Sure, it's probably not a real 1TB drive, but it's in an external box and plugs into a USB port, so what's the difference between it and a single-drive solution? For most people, probably none at all.
Anybody know if a USB 2.0 drive is fast enough to keep up with video playback? If so, then I may have to pick one of these up for the HTPC...
Just junk food for thought...
When the controller/circuit board is mated to the platter assembly it is programmed for that specific set of platters and any anomolies on those platters. This is why you cannot take a circuitboard/controller from one drive and put it on another one.
USB 2.0 is faster than FireWire 400 (which is generally used for DV content), so I'd say that it is fast enough.
Of course, it all depends on how fast the data needs to be consumed. I don't know if it would be fast enough for high-definition content.
"Sure, it's probably not a real 1TB drive, but it's in an external box and plugs into a USB port, so what's the difference between it and a single-drive solution? For most people, probably none at all."
It's twice as likely to fail.
USB 2.0 is faster than FireWire 400 (which is generally used for DV content), so I'd say that it is fast enough.
That's arguable (and a bit of a holy war). Looking only at the 480Mbits of USB 2 vs Firewire's 400Mbits glosses over the differences in the two protocols. In reality, both are usually constrained by the speed of the disks, which are identical for both implementations.
But if you're a determined fence sitter, go with a dual-interface external enclosure such as the BYTECC ME-835U2F enclosures. They offer both USB 2 and Firewire 400 and include a fan inside that moves air directly over the hard drive (which will extend the life of the hard drive). This enclosure also has an internal PSU so there's no special wall warts to lose or misplace.
(We've got 8 of these enclosures in service and we haven't heard any complaints in the past few months.)
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
The primary mode of failure that I've seen is heat death. Which probably means that the controller chips have baked themselves due to inadequate airflow. (All it takes is a minor amount of forced air movement across the surface of a drive to keep it cool.) I'm pretty sure that the platters are not affected by heat or are at least resilient enough to handle temperatures higher then what would kill the controller silicon.
Do newer FDB drives suffer the same issues as the older ball bearing designs? (Not that I've ever seen a drive die because the bearings on the motor gave out.)
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
When the controller/circuit board is mated to the platter assembly it is programmed for that specific set of platters and any anomolies on those platters. This is why you cannot take a circuitboard/controller from one drive and put it on another one.
You didn't know that data recovery services do take platters from a dead drive and mount them in an identical make/model that works in order to recover the data? While you may not be able to arbitrarily take platters from designs other then the same model line and place them in a different system, platters are not specifically tied to the controller/circuit board that they were originally mated with.
(This is why data recovery companies tout their access to a clean room, so that they can do these transplants without introducing dust onto the surface of the platters.)
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Correction: USB 2.0 has a theoretical peak higher than Firewire 400. The difference in real speed lies in the isochronous mode that USB lacks.
Basically, USB allows one device to talk on the wire at a time. So if you have a USB 2.0 HDD and a USB 1.1 mouse on the same bus, they get equal time, but the mouse wastes 99% of the bus for 50% of the time, for an overall loss of about 49%. So you only get half the speed you're supposed to get.
Firewire's isochronous mode allows devices that use more than their fair share (they max out the bus and beg for more) to "borrow" the unused bandwidth during the time slot belonging to a device that doesn't use the full bandwidth. So while a FW scanner might only use 50Mbps, a HDD on the same bus might be transferring a file and "borrow" the other 350Mbps, even during the scanner's time slot. This is why Firewire outshines USB in raw data transfer in all but the most scripted of Intel's tests (Intel invented USB).
So, the moral of the story: If the HDD is the ONLY thing connected to that USB bus (that port and probably the one next to it on the PC), then, yes, it might be a bit faster than FW400. If it's sharing a USB bus, it's going to be much slower, and may not be fast enough for video.
Excuse me? Read the second post there in that forum - the one attached to the highest poster's comment (If you keep your /. defaults at default, that is,) I've got only 200 gigs of space on an 80 and 120 gig drive. I have the bare minimum CD-burner from 1996 running at 4x (I'm too fucking oldskool, I know, don't bug me about that, I've got reasons,) and even with the games I play (note my last post concerning the main systems I run for comparisons of programs,) I've still not run out of pr0n, games, music, and even stupid fucking LJ full-copies because people are too fucking stupid to keep shit screened/friends-only.
Every disk gets full after 1-1.5 months my mother-fucking ass. I guess this stupid person never ran anything before DOS 6.22?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Do you happen to have a reference you can cite for this? I've done controller board swaps in the past, and been successful in recovering data, but perhaps more modern controller boards are more finicky. I can certainly believe that some amount of the bad sector mapping is done by the controller board, but my impression was that most of that information was encoded in the servo tracks on the platter itself.
-Mark
I suppose it comes down to form factor and connectivity - if you can connect to it by SCSI, SATA, IDE etc and it fits in the space a current drive occupies then it gets called a hard drive no matter how many platters it has or even if it is an IDE flash disk with no moving parts.
I've never seen a Lacie hard drive product that has more than a 1 year warranty. This product you mentions, has a 1 year warranty. I had a 500GB Big Disk die after 1 year. Upon opening it I saw that it was two 250gb drives linked via Raid 0 (sp?). When one drive failed, almost all data was lost. I recovered data from one drive but I was way beyond the warranty so there I was. With a LaCie 1TB drive? You're REALLY screwed if they've got 2x500gb drives in there.
Having backups of stuff on a drive is essential, but even more essential is the ability to replace the drive when it dies: in addition to losing my data, I don't want to have to shell out hundreds of bucks for a new drive.
A 3 or 5 year warranty doesn't mean the drive won't wait until 3 or 5 years to die, but if it is defective it might die in a year and I'll get a new drive for free under MOST hard drive warranties (assuming I don't drop it). I've lost a 500gb Seagate drive and got a new one for free, so yes, these warranties work. A drive with a one year warranty is a recipe for disaster.
Me? I'll wait for Seagate's version.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Frankly, I've moved on to eSATA. I've got an Express/54 RAID-1 card from Siig I use to back up my Lenovo (two 500 GB drives in a hot swap enclosure), as well as a Cardbus card to use on my PowerBook to connect to a 500 GB and a 300 GB drive. Beats the heck out of Firewire and USB.
I think it's IBM working on something insanely large for tapes. 10+ TiB.
Actually, if you assume each individual drive involved has the same failure rate, then the 2 drive setup isn't _quite_ twice as likely to fail, but close.
Hint: If both drives fail, the system only failed once, not twice.