Slashdot Mirror
Seagate Acknowledges Problems With 1.5-TB HDD
AnInkle writes "Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda has been available for a couple months from multiple retailers. But shortly after release, reports of random freezes appeared on several sites. The hang apparently occurs in Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows Vista when streaming video or transferring files at low speeds. After a couple of weeks of silence, Seagate has finally officially acknowledged the problem. In a response to The Tech Report, they say they're investigating the 'issue' affecting 'a small number of Barracuda 7200.11 hard drives.' Acknowledging the 'inconvenience' is a start, but most users expect at least average performance and prompt service from the capacity king of data storage." In a related story, reader Lucas123 plugs a ComputerWorld piece examining the question of Seagate's plans to stay relevant at a time when SSDs increasingly capture OEM mindshare.
I don't know. Third base!
I think it shouldn't matter the definition, either way Seagate has no excuse. That out of the way..
But the whole theory of RAID doesn't dictate anything about price nor, in my opinion, even require them to be 'disks'. Maybe 'inexpensive disks' is the term coined by the originator, but I think the originator should recognize the more general applicability of the concept.
For ultimate wrongness with respect to the declared meaning, how about a RAID-0 of high-capacity SSDs. A non-redundant array of expensive non-disk things.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The problem appears to manifest itself in lockups for 30 seconds or so at a time which kills music streaming, video streaming, etc.
Maybe they got their firmware from Comcast...
Inexpensive has no meaning in RAIDs of today, if it ever did.
I can't believe that even after being shown incontrovertible proof by the guys who created the acronym and described in detail how the first 5 levels work, we still have some dipshit here saying "if it ever did".
"I'm the type that can still make out on a 250GB drive "
That must require pretty awesome balance!
Regardless of whether the disks are inexpensive or not, wouldn't you agree that an array of disks are going to be independent no matter what?
Redundant Array of Codependent Disks?
This is not the funny you're looking for.
I prefer to calculate biting satire...
WD6401AALS = 640GB (I'd recommend this drive)
I agree -- 1TB seems like overkill today. 640GB ought to be enough for anybody.