Slashdot Mirror
IBMs 73Gig Drive
goon wrote in to point us to this bit at news.com about the new
UltraStar 72ZX which has a 4.9ms seek time, is an inch thick, and can store a comfortable 73 gigs. Its supposed to be available in 2000, and will make porn webmasters and MP3 addicts alike very happy.
I'm afraid that the next drive for my mp3 player may need to be one of these.
Since getting into mp3s, I've evolved from a 2G, to a 2G + 6G, 6G + 13G and that's now full!
73G would keep me out of trouble for another year.
Cheers,
GRH
FLAMER!
Actually, this seems to be a good time to ask.
Can you actually install Linux on those huge harddrives? My understanding was that Linux (on Intel systems) was limited to 8 Gb, but this seems wrong since I've read about people who had 9Gb drives and running Linux.
Note, I'm not talking about the boot partition (which has to be inside the first 2 Gb), but rather whether Linux can "see" past 8 Gb. Anyone know before I plunk down money for a 20 Gb harrdrive?
Thanks...
Je ne parle pas francais.
Amen brother! Why use lossy compression with that kind of space. Simply digitize the sample raw and, at most, bzip2 it ... absolute clarity. Resample as mp3 for the car unit as required ...
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
73 gig = ~140 cds, depending on how long they are.
I've got ~ 200-250 in my collection, half of which are of dubious listening value. (What was I thinking when I was in college).
Add some LP's in, copied to magnetic media to preserve their condition, and the good parts of my collection would fit on one hard drive.
Now I just need a computer that has halfway decent sound and I'm set.
eds
I almost bought one last week when I got my new PC. In the end I settled for a 22G coz of the price. It's fast :-)
My system can only handle 8.4G. :(
But when I buy a new computer I will like one of these!!
Just a note, with a 70+G drives, thats a lot of data to loose if one were to crash. What is the best media to use to back these suckers up?
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Does that mean m$ will be removing the 2G limit for partitions then ?
You'd be nice to all of us and write a modified MP3 compressor for somewhere around 168 or 256 Kbps with focus on full range of sound quality ... less data loss, especially in classical, etc. music. With that kind of space you'd want to store every CD you own in MP3, not just store the MP3's you've got bigger ... :)
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
69 gigabytes? I can definetly see why the marketing people might want to change it :)
Just this morning I as supposed to 'upgrade' my computer to Office 2000, etc.
The upgrade program told me I didn't have enough room on my C: drive, and aborted. I have 180MB free - what do they want?
I guess I need one of these IBM drives...
IBM's 36.4GB (SCSI) is available for about US$860.
Yeah, but, come on, man!!! You can have about 7 and a half WEEKS worth of music on that drive! acckkk drool ugg heart attack
And imagine if you put four of these in a RAID... music for a lifetime. wow.
:/
MP3: not just an addiction -- a way of life
So... how long before we get terrabyte storage for under $300? I don't think magnetic media will ba able to store this much so what is the next tech that will be able to do that? Holographic memory?
You could get Windows 2000 AND Office 2000 on the SAME drive!
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
The only mention of size of the 36G version, and it's not clear:
Arriving this year, though, will be new 36GB drives. The drives are based on the same innards as the 73GB model, but will be only 1 inch thick. Current 36GB drives aren't as thin.
It's not clear whether the double capacity version is also 1 inch thick.
--
Infuriate left and right
forget MP3, with 73GB i'd keep my audio in 44KHz AIFF files!
--
Rare Window - free your photos
Like, WOW.
Any price point information anybody? I could do with one of these, but I have a feeling that I'd need to go SCSI to take advantage of it.
Anybody have any more technical specs?
Then again, I doubt I could sleep in a house with this damn thing. Probably sounds like a jet taking off!
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
I didn't see a cost mentioned... wonder what its gonna cost? The fact that it is an inch thick is mind boggling... but the biggest ever? Wasn't there a three terabyte refrigerator hard drive?
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
It would be sort of nice to not have to do a "make distclean" ever again ;-)
I'd say we're about three weeks away from conspiracy theorists deciding that Magnetoresistative technology was Alien Derived.
IBM is pretty much owning price/performance and raw storage curves--it's insane how fast storage expectancies have dropped. $10/GB is the magic number now, and I'm pretty sure we have IBM to thank for that.
64MB of RAM now costs more than a 12GB IDE drive. The mind boggles.
I believe this is the same technology jump, incidentally, that means 2GB on a one inch Microdrive platter. Personally, I'd prefer a third party reverse engineering of MiniDisc, but a 2GB swappable drive would also work fine.
I must say, I'm enjoying the storage (r?)evolution. The media server we're building into our stereo cabinet will store more music than we'll know what to do with...;-) And yes, the code will be nice and GPL.
Here's to mindless abuse of technology...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
I ran into that problem myself, when I bought a new 13GB disk for my Linux server awhile ago. I solved it by changing the disk geometry settings in fdisk (under "advanced", IIRC). Apparently it's now handled using 1644/255/63 as C/H/S -- I forgot what I changed it to, but that's from the kernel boot message. Works fine.
No pr0ns and no mp3s for me, just a lot of CT scans and them again processed one way, and another way, and yet another way.... that's a lot of space!
I'm not that scared about the server crashing 'coz I keep my results up to date on DLT (this is a research server I'm talking about, not an actual hospital database server), but if I were to upgrade to bigger disks, I'd be skeptical about their reliability, and 73Gb sounds far too much to be 110% reliable...
I know I'm too paranoid to be running free, but I'd still be interested about what you people think... what do you think the reliability threshold is these days?
---
"Hasta la victoria siempre!" El Comandante
leave more room for Windows, and mount its partition under Linux. Dunno if Solaris can read Win filesystems.
I've always had best luck with 1OS/1drive myself.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
12.1 IDE problems with 34+ GB disks
Drives larger than 33.8 GB will not work with recent kernels. The details are as follows. Suppose you bought a new IBM-DPTA-373420 disk with a capacity of 66835440 sectors (34.2 GB). Recent kernels will tell you that the size is 769*16*63 = 775152 sectors (0.4 GB), which is a bit disappointing. And giving command line parameters hdc=4160,255,63 doesn't help at all - these are just ignored. What happens? The routine idedisk_setup() retrieves the geometry reported by the disk (which is 16383/16/63) and overwrites what the user specified on the command line, so that the user data is used only for the BIOS geometry.
The routine current_capacity() or idedisk_capacity() recomputes the cylinder number as 66835440/(16*63)=66305, but since this is stored in a short, it becomes 769. Since lba_capacity_is_ok() destroyed id->cyls, every following call to it will return false, so that the disk capacity becomes 769*16*63. A patch is available - probably it will soon get into some official kernel.
I can vouch for this first hand, since I've got one of the IBM 37GB drives. Andreas' patch certainly seems to fix the problem. But it'll be nice when it does officially get to be part of the kernel.
--
Too stupid to live.
Too stupid to live.
Too stubborn to die.
And don't think formatting comes for free either!
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
Saw an interesting article in Scientific AM regarding extremely large drives that was questioning their reliability. I wonder how accurate this article is. http://www.sciam.com/1999/1099issue/1099cyber.html
Another 70 Gb drive. Otherwise you're going to be changing DATs all night...
...as a hard drive? $150 gets you a 15 gig, a zip disk .1gig costs $10???
Remember this...no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn....(jim morrison)
That's why the article mentions that the drive is late, and was supposed to be shipping now instead of 2000. IBM is still behind Seagate in the high end, a (small) source of embarassment to IBM.
Heh.. 69GB ? .. this thing really IS a drive for porn ... :>
Delphis
(I'm assuming this was 1989/90 or so?)
Size:
MS-Word 4.0 for DOS was 4 megs.
Wasteland (the game) ran off a single 720k floppy.
DOS itself was less than 3 megs.
The 5.25" floppy was not only still in production, but you usually got software on BOTH sized disks!
The 28.8 modem had JUST come out.
I had an long term, ongoing project when I was an undergrad. Had to document readings off of a server every week regarding logins. It was in WordPerfect.
In 5.1, it was 168k.
In WordPefect 6.0 for win, it was 821k.
In WordPefect 8.0 for win, it was 5 megs.
I doubt I added more than a half a dozen pages between version upgrades...
...so size is relative.
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
Definitely ... Windows is FAR more innefficient for storage that Linux so it eats up all it's share while Linux still has masses free. Best to give Windows more space for game installs as well .. as they can be insane.
....
Well, my Linux partitions were fairly free until I started turning CDs into MP3s
Delphis
Actually, Windows drives have the following characteristics (you can see that when you mount them): rw, noexec, nosuid, nodev. That means that it's stupid to put stuff other than MP3's on them - it's an "all or nothing" access mode, sort of like mounting FAT16 from Windows NT.
Visit
Actually, I had a couple people tell me RAM prices were on their way up a few days BEFORE the earthquake.
... (I'll spare you the rest of this progression)
The earthquake increased the effect, but prices were already on their way up. I've seen this repeatedly -- something happens some place that has something to do with semiconductor production, and RAM prices shoot up before the pipeline has a chance to go dry, and hang there as long as possible. That's the way a market economy works. You charge what you can get.
Observation (getting further off topic): We always seem to need to add $100-$150 worth of RAM to our computers:
Back when 48K was common, we paid $150 or so to up it to 64k.
When 64k was common, we paid $120 or so to up it to 128k.
Now, we want to add another 128M to our systems, but I'll wait until the price drops back down to $150... 8)
Hard disk prices just seem to drop.
Nick.
I'm impressed by the engineering that produces computer hardware, recent Intel goofs notwithstanding. I'm not impressed by Jolt Cola software "engineering." Netscape crashes daily. Window managers crash weekly.
Hardware is not the reliability bottleneck. The author's best statement is his last:
Robotic Library. Cost: $2500 (for an Exabyte 10H, 140GB compressed) and up
Well even if you like watching movies 5 minutes at a time, it would take hours to delete all 24 2 gig files such a movie would take.
Has anyone actualy worked with large FAT32 partisions. I would think that as a FAT32 approaches 100 Gig or so, it would become such a mess. What do you peaple that have FAT partisions on those 20+ gig drives see. Is it slugish. I quit using FAT partisions when a 3.2 Gig drive was average. Currently I use Ext2 on a 9 Gig disk.
Sounds like it will make a nice server drive. I know, SCSI is preferred for servers, but a 4.5ms ~70Gb drive is nothing to sneeze at; just think how much cheaper two of these puppies with a PCI RAID-0 controller would be than some nice UW SCSI drives with a raid controller...
--------- Webmaster, http://www.cpureview.com and
O.k., 73G (or more accurately, a lot less!) on one drive is cool, but what about backup?
Virtually all backup devices are measured using "compressed" capacity, which is bogus, at best. Fraud might be a better word. Usually, on a big drive, you have either huge databases (which typically compress well) or lots of graphics and sound files, which compress hardly at all. Selling a drive based on its compressed capacity is kinda like measuring the interior space of a car by including the roof rack and the potential trailer you could tow.
I'm a little concerned that backup technology isn't really keeping up with HD technology. I'm even more concerned that hardly anyone pays attention to backup technology around here -- I only saw one person ask how you would back the thing up, and the one reply was to another drive. Having one on-line backup is NOT a backup strategy!
It scares the heck out of me to see people buying 10+G drives without a thought to backup. Even if it is all programs, trying to rebuild a system after a data loss is very, very time consuming.
I'm also a little ticked off over the quality of backup devices. I've replaced far more tape drives in my client's servers than I have hard disks. Really pathetic. A friend has assured me DLTs are much better than the DATs I normally recommend, and that may be true, but $3000 for a drive and $100 per media, well, that's a few DAT drives. I gave up on Travan drives on servers -- I've had astronomical failure rates on both drives and tapes, but curiously, they seem to do o.k. on Windows 9x workstations.
Nick.
I just did that in System Shock 2. The adventure was neat, but the running out of ammo and stuff sucked, so I used UltraEdit (Great program) and gave myself 32K nanites and 32K modules. It might have worked with higher numbers, but I didn't need any more...
:)
And the game was great. Go up to a dispenser and get 100+ clips, auto-repair tools, etc.
Then it was just a matter of running around and doing stuff.
BTW, was I the only one who couldn't find all the display panels for the uplink code?
I had three numbers, for four digits, out of five. I didn't know the order, but the 6 had a ] next to it hinting it was at the end. So I tried all the combinations and hit it fairly quickly. Luckily the program didn't start auto-failing all password attempts after three failures in five minutes.
Cool game. Too bad you couldn't actually interact with anybody. And you didn't meet any NPCs, just heard messages. And, like most games, you're the only one to survive. Too bad some of the 'cool' people who left the neat messages didn't make it.
But, definately playable. The only drawbacks were the engine (yuck) and the clumsy hand-to-hand weapons.
My 10G IBM drive died too. Didn't have it for a couple days till after the in-store warranty ran out.
Since mine was an OEM, I'm stuck with it...and bought a Western Digital 13G drive as a replacement.
yes you'll go for higher bitrate files cause you have so much space. Those almost-DVD quality movies will fill up your drive.
I got the IBM UltraStar 9zx back when it was a pre-release.. The one problem was that it got way to hot, but it was IBM's first 10k rpm drive, and Seagate was definately in the lead in solving minor problems like that (they had worked the kinks out then, as they had unleashed their 2nd generation). The drive did die, sadly, but not horribly. It died because I was to slow finding a solution for heat, and even though I had, months later it gave up. It tried, failing to spin up. It was still in good enough shape that I saved all the data I needed... which is the good thing about networks/2nd hard drives.
:) Course, now with the 72/34 gbs.... (BTW.. people never noticed its Ultra3 / Fibre only. Hard to find a cheap (~$200) scsi card for that...)
IBM's tech support didn't even care about hearing my problem.. they just said, sure, well send you a new drive, it will be there in 3-7 days, and you have 2-3 weeks to get the defective drive to us. That was it... an having two 9gb UltraWide SCSI 10k rpm drives.. when both working.. you feel a bit bad about sending one back.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
The data sheet for this is now available at IBM's web site http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/diskdrdl/ultra /72zxdata.htm .
So when's Slashdot going to evolve into a porn site? Cowboy Neal would have a totally different connotation!
Anyone notice that this is a Fibre Channel drive? I doubt even the hardest core MP3 junkies will be adding a FC controller to their systems.
Better of with a pair of 50GB LVD drives, more space and less $$ (when you take the conrtoller into account)
-Pete
The capacity goes up because the recording density increases. This increases the transfer rate too, but only by the square root of the capacity increase (because reading speed depends on the linear, rather than area, density).
So unless spin speeds increase further (which is a problem because of heat), a disk of double the capacity takes 41% longer to copy.
CDDB the online CD database claims
"still the world's largest CD database with over 390,000 titles and 4,500,000 audio tracks".
Estimate an audio track to be on average 3MB, and you are looking at 12 terabytes
of music right there. From my experiences CDDB has pretty good coverage of english
music, but it's lacking some foreign titles. So add 10-20% more to the estimate. They are
currently working on a version with international character sets, so it might be a lot higher
if they don't have any Asain titles. Also you add maybe another few TBs for new
bands and old bands that are not available in CD form.
I wonder how many years it will be before 16TB is easily affordable? Less than 10 if moore's
law holds for storage. hmm.. it would take you ~64 years to listen to it all though. course
there is very little of that which you actually *want* to listen to. that's where group filtering comes in.
Anyhow, my prediction is that within 10 years an ordinary person will have a complete collection of the world's published music in their home. Legal issues aside, I think this is pretty exciting.
-- Virtual Windows Project
Does anyone know the max partition size in windows 95 and 98? I'm pretty sure that solaris is in the terabyte range.
73Gigs wimpy they have already developed a 2300 Gig HD
that's some serious space for MP3s.
Actually 73Gig is nothing. I could fill up a 73Gig drive in no time. I think the way to go is with Ferroelectric Molecular Optical Storage Nanotechnology. Colossal Storage has invented new ways of non - contact reading and writing with non destructive reading of information to a ferroelectric molecule, which not only results in a far larger capacity (4 gigabits/sq.in. maxing at 40 gigabits compared with 40 gigabits/sq.in up to 500 gigabits/sq.in), but also the speed is fantastic; The FE Drive will have much higher disk spindle speeds over 10,000 rpm and higher bandwidth data transfer rate parameters over 500 mbps. What all this means, is that someday we will get away from our present magnetic HD's and break way beyond the 1Terrabyte! And we are not talking 10years down the road! The technology is here today, and wil be available to mass consumers by 2002. Click here for more stuff about ferroelectricity
Just get two and do nightly backups to a friend's house. I don't see what the big deal is, though,
you can get 37 gig ide drives today for a lot less.
Hey, if you theoretically put FAT16 on this thing, the cluster size would be like 1 meg! (If I calculated it correctly)
And I thought 16K was bad.
- WILL NOT BE
1" thick, it will be standard size, the new 36 gig drives based on the same technology the 72 gig drive is will be 1" think. Here's the clip: "Arriving this year, though, will be new 36GB drives. The drives are based on the same innards as the 73GB model, but will be only 1 inch thick. Current 36GB drives aren't as thin. "See the article here (hope this link works!)
James
Actually, I had a couple people tell me RAM prices were on their way up a few days BEFORE the earthquake.
yeah, that's for damn sure... I'm piecing a box together for a friend and made the mistake of holding off on ordering the RAM over the prior weekend.... I'm kicking my self right now.
Fibre Channel is one option... the data sheet for the 72ZX also lists two impls of Ultra3 SCSI - Ultra160 and Ultra160+.
The fact that some marketing schmuck listed FC instead of SCSI on the PR shouldn't surprise anyone... these are the same idiots who use 10^3x instead of 2^10x for their capacity measurements.
Oh, and the height for those that wondered is 41.6 mm. (~2 in).
Bill Silverstein
Disk prices are approaching $10 / gigabyte in local markets, mainly on the 12-20 GB disks. The price of a new box tends to start in the $400s and falls to the $100s in maturity. So thee 70 GB class will enventually send the price to about $2 / gigabyte.
I pay a lot more for a smaller , super-reliable than I would for a huge drive that clacks and sputters in a couple of years. ... but um, i guess that looks pretty small next to this one.
I am deciding what kind of auxillary hard drive to get and I am not so sure about this 20GB drive i found for $220
Juln
A number of digital appliances are limited to two disk boxes for practical reasons. For example personal digital VCRS currently top out at 28 gigs- 25 hours of viewing- or about a week of offline viewing for a typical viewer. The new disks will gradruple this capacity to a month.
Will this hard drive exceed the limit of LBA? I still can't believe that they haven't just created a BIOS efficent enough to hold enough cylinders, heads and sectors for the new drives.
Needless to say, we're still putting a floppy controller on motherboards. Thank iomega for that. Hello? some industry standards here?
but then you need a AI serach engine for your PLAY LIST. "Hel, what was the playlist I heard the other day when I was eating a strewberry? No not before I went to the holloweed party, something like 'lalala -lala la'.... What you can't find it?!?"
What's the different from that to a commercial free radio station. Ever wonder what people go to blockbuster which has the world's choises and pick up a copy of "Superstar"? Because people LIKE to eat up the ads. You can afford to have every phonebook from every city, but you don't need to.
CY
The most difficult problem would be to personally keeping it up-to-date. In comes an automatic update system (bandwidth, esp in the 256kbit range will be damn cheap and common too (how big does a broadcast channel need to be to be able to send out _all_ new music?)), but then why download music you're not going to listen to. So my guess is there will be repositories easy access, much like video on demand, but then audio (or video clips thrown in for free?), and then not on-demand, but automagically tailored to your own personal taste by smart selection, 'buddy'-systems, deejays, and whatnot. A whole new industry I'd say. 1000 million people in the richest countries, each of them their own personal radio channel.
And still we'd have to listen to those ads that pay for it all...
Everything will change, but then again it will all stay the same.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Just a question. But at what point is a hard disk to big? Or will we always find files to fill up any size drive with? If I get a 73gig hard dirve and fill it up with games, OS's, and neat stuff, then it will take me 116 650meg CD's to back up my system. While I'll agree that bigger is better in this instance. The down side is that Other storage form techolngy, like burnable DVD's or the like are not yet availbilty
I wonder if this has anything to do with Micron getting the US government to increase import tariffs on DRAM.
I'm not talking about connections, I'm talking about backup strategies.
There are a few things I insist on with backups:
* Rotation
* Off-site (at least ability to do it)
Rotation means you are not backing up twice in a row on the same media. Why? The most likely time for a drive to fail is DURRING the backup, it is the very time the most intensive disk activity takes place, and the only time the ENTIRE disk system is read. IF the drive fails durring the backup, you have 1) a dead drive and the need for a good backup and 2) just clobbered your only good backup.
Further, the most common reason to go to the backup is NOT drive failure! It is user error (Oops...didn't mean to delete that!) or data corruption (program error). VERY OFTEN, the problem won't be found for days (weeks? MONTHS??). You *HAVE* to have some kind of history to go back to. I tell my barely trainable clients to use a one-week rotation (five media), the more sophisticated will often do a second rotation of weekly backups (for example, four Wednesday tapes), and the truly enlightened will pull a monthly tape for permanent archiving.
Off-site: For serious use, some kind of off-site backup is important. Most people just toss their tapes on top their computer and walk away. In the event of fire, flood, theft, roof leak, whatever, very often the server is lost -- ALONG WITH THE BACKUPS! In many data-oriented businesses, they can set up in someone's basement, but they need their data. These people need some kind of off-site backup to rebuild their business in the event of a site-disaster.
I would argue that an improper backup strategy is worse than no backups at all. If you aren't doing backups, you usually know you are doing something stupid and living on the edge. Doing improper backups causes people to think they are "mostly safe", and that "most" of their data will come back...but that is VERY rarely the case.
By the way, RAID has nothing to do with backups. RAID will keep you running in the event of a drive failure. Doesn't do squat in the event of data corruption, accidental deletion, theft, fire, etc. It also doesn't help you if your system has a controller failure and you can't find a compatable RAID controller to restore your system to operation (people tend to forget that. They rarely have a spare controller in the closet). I yell at any of my clients who mention RAID and Backups in the same sentance.
Part of me keeps having this thought that many of the people here are "hobbiest users", and perhaps this really doesn't apply. Reality keeps reminding me just how long it would take to just set up 60+G of data, assuming you actually have the original data someplace. If you are actually CREATING data, forget it. Hobbiest users need backups, too.
I'm very tough on people using backups. I will and have dropped clients who don't do proper backups. I can afford to have anyone NOT as a client, I can't afford to have them as an unhappy client, and if they aren't doing their backups properly, they will be an unhappy client someday.
Nick.
The Backup Nazi.
IDE will reach its limits soon with the emergence of drives like these.
:)
5 10582097494459 ) 9 95957496696762 ) i ndex.html ) 9 92359880576723 )
From:
Mueller, Scott. Upgrading and Repairing PC's (Sixth Edition), Que Corporation,
Indianapolis In, 1996, pg.761.
drive size limits are as follows:
IDE Drive limits:
The maximum theoretical ST-506/412, ESDI or IDE interface is:
65,536 Cyls x 16 Hds x 256 Secs x 512 bytes = 137,438,943,472 Bytes (128GB)
The limit with ATA-2 LBA (which is a 28 bit number) support for EIDE:
268,435,456 LBAs (sectors) x 512 Bytes = 137,438,953,472 Bytes (128 GB)
IDE BIOS limits:
The limit with Standard PC BIOS:
1,024 Cyls x 16 Hds x 63 Secs x 512 Bytes = 528,482,304 Bytes (504 MB)
The limit with Enhanced PC BIOS:
1,024 Cyls x 256 Hds x 63 Secs x 512 Bytes = 8,455,716,864 Bytes (7.875 GB)
SCSI Drive limits:
The limit for SCSI LBA (Logical Block Address), which is a 32 bit number:
4,294,967,296 LBAs (sectors) x 512 bytes = 2,199,023,255,552 Bytes (2048 GB)
SCSI BIOS limits:
Adapters with Enhanced SCSI PC BIOS:
1,024 Cyls x 256 Hds x 63 Secs x 512 Bytes = 8,455,716,864 Bytes (7.875 GB)
Thankfully SCSI has an absolute max of 2 TB and we won't bee seeing that for a while (1 year)
( pi = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937
( Chris Katscher at spatch@primenet.com )
( e = 2.71828182845904523536028747135266249775724709369
( Web page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Byte/1427/
( g = 0.57721566490153286060651209008240243104215933593
Don't forget, this drive is "only" 69.6 Gibibytes.
Those funny marketing people.
-TomK
I remember my old 43MB Seagate ST-147A that had to be split in two partitions because DOS 3.30 couldn't handle partitions larger than 32MB. LOL!
And I need more real estate, since my mods/skins/levels outside of my regular on-line games takes up about 3 gigs alone...
porn? Bah. MP3's? ok... yeah.
The Secret Government Ego Project
I have heard rumor that the devistation of the earthquake has been "repaired" (not saying it wasn't devistating as far as personal life/property), and that RAM manufactures were up to full speed already.
The rumor further says that it's the markets willingness to pay over $2/M still that has kept the prices up for the last couple weeks, when not that long ago prices were well under $1/M.
Anyone know of any proof of these "rumors"???
After all, it's only really 73 thousand megabytes. Use a proper numbering system! james
Absit Invidia
How could I forget.. :)
I've been looking at the hard drive industry and for the last two years I've been drooling at their hard drives all this time. First came the Deskstar 8... then the Deskstar 14... then the deskstar 22.... then the deskstar 34... and now the ultrastar 72. yes, we are all excited about these HUGE hard drives, but IBM has a tendency to announce them a long time before their release. And when they do release it, the OEMs such as DELL usually gets it first. Unless you got some inside connection with IBM or an OEM, I don't think you'll be able to get your hands on one of these babies for another six month.
:)
BTW, IBM tech support was kind enough to replace my dead 10 gig with a 14.4 GB
_______________________________________________
There is no statute of limitation on stupidity.
I want. Though it would be nice if IBM would announce a general price range.
And to think those big honkin' 4.3g disks in the RAID at work cost only $1200 a pop five years ago.
I'm running out of hard drive space right now... this is sweet.
Brian's Rule For Hard Drive Space Says:
Actual hard drive space=Total hard drive space/Number of OS's.
I have 5 GB total / 3 OS's (Linux, Windblows, Solaris) = 1.66 GB.
Yuck.
Visit
Ok, for 256kbit mp3s, it's approx 2 megs per minute...that means 512 minutes per gig. So 512 minutes * 73 gigs means approx. 37376 minutes, or just under 623 hours, which is just under 26 days, a few days short of a month.
Now if we're talking 128kbit mp3's, well then you're good for a few months.
Not that anyone would *EVER* hoard that much copyrighted material, oh no, not us, that would be wrong...
IBM always releases fatass drives with 5400 rpm
and speedier 7200rpm drives with less platters,
due to heat production.
Those drives always have the latest interface chips (ATA66), very
impressive sustained read/write specs, excellent price/performance ratio,
and most importantly, space.
IBM also had Drive Fitness Test on IDE first,
that tool used to be for DOS-32bit, but if you
had a drive getting louder, and found out
through this tool that it is likely to fail
and IT DID, you should be glad IBM storage
division engineers are as clever as they are.
Doh of course Mr.Oxford had a backup!
i'm always bugged when a press release garners more attention than real products. seagate makes 50G drives today. you can get them today here .(also they have some drives which are slightly less than $10/G) or read the specs on the 50G here .
cool -- large, but cool.
Of course no one would hoard that many MP3s. That would be wrong :)
Now I just need a really fast CDROM to rip MP3s to store on my 69GB Linux Partiton. But really, now big is too big for one drive? I really dig RAID (5) because it is redundant, but you could lose months of work (or MP3s) if that drive were to toast.
--Evan