Slashdot Mirror
WD's Monster 2TB Caviar Green Drive, Preview Test
MojoKid writes "Today Western Digital is announcing their WD20WEADS drive, otherwise known as
the WD Caviar Green 2.0TB. With 32MB of onboard cache and special power management algorithms that balance spindle speed and transfer rates, the WD Caviar Green 2TB not only breaks the 2 terabyte barrier but also offers an extremely low-power
profile in its standard 3.5" SATA footprint. Early testing shows it keeps pace with similar capacity drives from Seagate and Samsung."
What the hell do you do to back up your 2TB drive?
That much storage in a single unit seems kind of dangerous.
The cache on this drive is 8x larger than the capacity of my first hard drive.
Hard drive capacity is no longer exponential. They have hit some limits that are pretty hard to overcome. They're still making progress but not nearly as fast as in years past. Additionally, drives larger than 640 GB or so seem to have some reliability problems. I just recently upgraded my RAID arrays and went with smaller 640 GB drives because they have proven more reliable even though it would have been cheaper for me to go with newer larger drives.
The OP was wrong about it being one year anyway.
I hate hard-drives. I wish SSD technology would improve. It's not just price, the current drives are unreliable as hell. I trust regular old mechanical spinning devices a lot more than the current SSD crap.
Yeah... nevermind units that fit in with what's being measured
or are computationally convenient. What we really need are
arbitrary metrics created by beaurocrats on a power trip.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Your argument would carry more weight if the manufacturers were doing this for the benefit of humans. In fact, they mix units - using the 1024-standard units for cache.
RAM specifications use the 2^x numbering because the device is physically constructed as a square grid of cells with power-of-two numbers of rows and columns. There's a direct mapping between bits on the address bus and the cell that is selected.
In the early days it was convenient to say that 1024 was close enough to 1000, so RAM sizes were quoted in "KB". However, the error in this increases with each step up in size. By the time you get to the TB scale it's no longer a reasonable approximation.
Magnetic storage does not have this constraint. The sector size is (arbitrarily) set at 512 bytes and hard drives usually have an even number of read/write heads, but apart from that there are no powers of two. The number of cylinders on the drive, and the number of sectors per cylinder, are arbitrary.
Communication speeds (e.g. "9600 baud", "100 Mb/s") are also not specified in power-of-two sizes, because they are natively dealing with individual bits and not power-of-two-sized chunks.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with saying that a drive is "1 TB with 32 MiB of cache". As long as the manufacturer uses the SI and kilobinary notation correctly, users should not complain. Save your anger for the marketroids at WD who come up with features like "IntelliSpeed" in order to sell you a 5400-RPM drive and make you think you're buying a 7200-RPM one.
tl;dr version: Just use the damn GiB/GB notation consistently and get over it.