Slashdot Mirror


The Hard Drive Turns 50

JHU writes "When the hard drive was first introduced on September 13, 1956, it required a humongous housing and 50 24-inch platters to store 1/2400 as much data as can be fit on today's largest capacity 1-inch hard drives. Back then, the small team at IBM's San Jose-based lab was seeking a way to replace tape with a storage mechanism that allowed for more-efficient random access to data. The question was, how to bring random-access storage to business computing?"

7 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. I predict by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At some point in the future, capacity will take a back seat to recoverability ( for the average consumer ). To that end, I predict harddrive companies effectively setting up a raid 1 array on a single drive; Probably by platter. To the host system, it would appear as a single drive of 160gb ( for example ), but it would actually be two platters of 160gb, with a bit for bit copy being maintained on the fly by the drive itself.

    Access would be through a standard API.

    Extending this further, we could add even more intelligence to the drives, and with the sacrifice of more storage space, would could have the drive taking care of shadow copies ( this operating under the assumption that the host system knows how to handle the drive ).

    This is the direction I predict for future harddrives; At some point we will come to a place where we don't really need the extra capacity. At that point the harddrive manufactures will begin to add more intelligence to the drives.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:I predict by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [automatic internal redundancy]

      The problem I see with this is that (in my experience) there are several single points of failure in a hard drive, and if one of them goes the entire drive is toast. Specifically, the heads, the motor, and the controller board. I've had all three die on different occasions, and for all three the entire drive is dead. If the motor or controller board fails, then your data is fine, but you'll need to spend up to $1,000 (or more) to get the data off the drive. If the heads fail (mechanically or physically) there is a good chance that all the platters can be damaged so you're totally screwed.

      In any case, aside from tons of bad sectors forming on the drive (in which case the entire drive is probably on it's way out) I don't see how an internal mirror can help much. You can't recover the data without going through an expensive data recovery service, so you may as well just buy a second physical drive, something that anyone can swap out and replace.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
  2. A funny memory about hard drive memory by Brickwall · · Score: 5, Interesting
    While a student at the University of Toronto in the late 1970's, my fraternity (mostly engineers) invited a professor for a dinner. We retired to the library afterwards with a case of beer, and I ventured the comment "Won't it be great when you can get a desktop computer with 1 Mb of RAM, and a 10 Mb hard drive?".

    The prof thought this was the funniest thing he'd ever heard. He listed the following "fundamental physics" reasons why these devices would be impossible:

    1. You could never make the magnetic domains small enough to get that density

    2. Even if you could, you could never make stepper motors precise enough to read the data.

    3. Even if you could, you could never make read/write heads sensitive enough to read such small domains.

    4. Even if you could, you could never make a disk which rotated stably enough to prevent head crashes.

    5. As for the RAM, he said we could never make chip densities high enough to get 1 MB on a desktop.

    6. Even if you could, the heat generated by those RAM chips would require a small refrigerator.

    7. And finally, even if you could make the transistors small enough, you would get so many tunneling errors that the RAM would be completely unreliable.

    I wonder if he's seen an Ipod Nano yet...

    --
    What was once true, is no longer so
  3. Re:let the one-upsmanship begin! by eliot1785 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I used hard drives back when they were only 10 bits and the size of two human hands. You had to signal to the computer which bits you wanted to be on and which you wanted to be off, by moving your fingers up and down. It was pretty tough.

    (128 and 4 were also illegal values, a further limitation of this system)

  4. Storage used to be really dangerous. by sporkme · · Score: 4, Funny

    My father talks about his younger days with the US Air Force as a mid-level computer technology worker in Anchorage. He speaks of how dangerous magnetic storage was in the early days, with all that weight in a drum, spinning up to 1200 RPM. We still jokes about the emergency procedures in the event of a catastrophic mechanical failure of operating storage media. The USAF's official line was to take cover in a corner behind other heavy equipment at the first sign of trouble. Techs used to work under constant threat of going three rounds with bouncing betty. Now all we have to worry about are laptop batteries.

    See Drum Memory

    1. Re:Storage used to be really dangerous. by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Funny

      A teacher of mine back in the 70's told us about a hard drive - the size of a large washing machine, early 60's - whose bearings froze up. All of that rotational energy was transfered to the case, which ripped loose and chased him around the room, bouncing off the walls.

    2. Re:Storage used to be really dangerous. by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Information wants to be FREE!