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."
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?
Are they referring to a terabyte as 1000 or 1024 gigabytes?
not true.. SCSI is still alive an working and will continue for along time..
SATA is just starting out and will have may years ahead of it - but it will have to prove it's self
there hasn't been a worth wile SATA disk on the market long enough to prove the reliability of them above scsi.
on top SATA lacks alot of the higher end functions that SCSI offers.. this is why for large amounts of storage via SATA to data centers you will see the SATA drives in a box that is then connected to the servers via iSCSI and fiber chanel.
sure for the desktop/workstation/small server market yes scsi is going away but when you use the true abilitys of what makes SCSI great SATA drives have a long way to go.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
there hasn't been a worth wile SATA disk on the market long enough to prove the reliability of them above sc
What? I've got some pretty old SATA disks in some of our ACNC RAIDs. No failures out of 32 disks. Seagate 7200.7, Date code 04-167, 167th day of 2004 I guess. That's over 2 years old.
The great part about SATA is that since they aren't a complete rip-off like SCSI, you can replace them every 3-4 years instead of running them until they fail and are stupidly small compared to modern disks.
this is why for large amounts of storage via SATA to data centers you will see the SATA drives in a box that is then connected to the servers via iSCSI and fiber chanel.
Yes this is a fine idea. I have no problem using iSCSI or fiber channel or even old SCSI for RAID->Computer interfaces. SATA doesn't have any sort of standardized external cabling standard for that use.
But for the disks themselces, it's stupid to buy SCSI or SAS disks and pay 3 times more just for a name.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
So when I need a disk that spins faster than 7200RPM and has a capacity bigger than 150GB which SATA drive do you suggest that I buy? Or perhaps I need a drive that spins faster than 10K RPM, which SATA drive do you suggest I buy in that scenario?
You buy a SCSI/SAS drive because you need the spindle speed to support the increased number of I/O's per second that the faster spindle speeds SCSI gives you. Do you need that on the desktop, probably not. Is it essential for large percentage of enterprise loads, absolutely.
As a side note at the moment SAS drives are still quite a bit more expensive than your old fashioned U320 SCSI drives, so I am still buying U320 SCSI drives as I cannot justify the increased cost of SAS. I am sure it will change once the SAS volumes start to increase though.
"That's over 2 years old"
2 years isn't that long of a time compared to SCSI drives - life span is important, sure SATA drives are cheep compared to SCSI and can be replaced more often but do you account for the man hours and/or loss of production do too having to replace drives at the end of their life cycle.
give SATA 5-6 years being stable in the market and i am sure that they will evolve and take over - i like the ideas that drive SATA but it has not yet proven it's self over SCSI yet, so when required to put something into production that needs max reliability people still use SCSI and they will.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
"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.
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.