Seagate Announces 750GB Hard Drives 532
Hack Jandy writes "Seagate documents have leaked out the two 750GB 7200.10 Barracuda hard drives. The drives are the first desktop hard drives to use perpendicular recording, feature a 16MB cache and 7200RPM spindle."
On Seagate's product page: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:EVERY NERD DANCE (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Great for backups (Score:1, Informative)
Re:As usual wait for the real reviews (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But what about... (Score:4, Informative)
I have friends who have multi-TB raids at their homes using a mix of IDE/Sata/USB in one RAID
While hardware RAID support in Linux is a bit hit or miss the software kernel support works properly and is fairly quick. Certainly the bottleneck for most setups will always be the drives themselves.
Tom
Re:But what about... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great for backups (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah cuz you need 2000dB of S/N to listen to a movie soundtrack... Oh but come on, 30$ per foot of copper is worth it!
Some people are just highly stupid.
At best I can see the drive for 20-bits [and 24 just because it's a nicer multiple of 8] but 32-bits would imply 192 dB of dynamic range which is FAR FAR FAR beyond the average hearing range. Given that the "noise polution" in the average house sits at a constant 30dB or so
Just like pixels the human eye fuzzes out around 10 to 12-bits per channel [depending on the eye and channel, for instance most people are more sensitive to green than red or blue]. Just like the audio case there are masking effects with light. After 12-bits or so of range it's just academic.
Tom
Re:Format this Red Hat! (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow! (Score:1, Informative)
Second, MP3 size varies with bitrate and song length. I have MP3 files that easily consume 30MiB. Third, as storage capacity increases higher-bitrate codecs (Musepack, or lossless codecs like FLAC) become more attractive in the mainstream. 5.1 channel audio, higher sampling rates, and larger samples sizes also become more attractive with increases in optical and magnetic storage capacity.
Third, Moore's "Law" deals exclusively with the observation of exponential growth in circuit complexity every 18 months. It has absolutely nothing to do with magnetic storage capacity.
Finally, video will always serve as a serious space sink for computer storage. Uncompressed, high-resolution, progressive video content will bitchslap current storage capacities. Increased capacities will simply make more things possible in the mainstream, and permits higher-quality media.
But yes, we can all see from your comment history that you're an asshat troll. Good work, sir.
Re:Great for backups (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Informative)
"Conventional Giga " and "Standard Giga SI prefix" (Score:3, Informative)
While your post remind people that different definitions of GB are used, you are actually adding to the existing confusion. Because what you call a "real GB" is not real at all. You should rather call it "conventional GB", as in "conventional Giga prefix used in computing, ie 2**30". The real Giga is the Giga prefix as defined by SI, ie 10**9. Disk manufacturers are just using the standard Giga SI prefix instead of the "conventional Giga prefix". Other people are doing it in the computing industry. Bandwidth and throughput are also typically referred to using standard SI prefixes (e.g. an MP3 file at 128 Kbit/s is 128000 bit/s NOT 128*1024 bit/s).
Re:But what about... (Score:3, Informative)
error in the article. (Score:4, Informative)
Oficially you should add in the controller overhead, and most likely the time to read a sector (it's unlikely they pass-through the sector: in theory you can start to send the sector to the host before you've read it completely, but this complicates things as when the CRC doesn't match, you have to cancel the data sent to the host!), but if you do the math, these are negligable compared to the 4.16 ms.
I don't expect anything "special" to happen in the "seek times" area. They will be within 10% from the slightly older drives. Either up to 10% better because they did find a way to improve seek times a bit. Or up to 10% worse because the higher density requires a longer settling time, but this is less likely than a small improvement.
Re:Why are we still moving heads back and forth? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Backup problem... (Score:2, Informative)
For home use a huge disk is mainly used for pawn, movies, games
Backing up a business system is expensive and time consuming so currently tapes (eg: super DLT's
Even with the potential of 1.6TB/disk (40MB/sec write) for HVD the increase in storage will still cause issues in the future until people learn to tidy up their messes and that I don't see happening anytime soon. The larger the available storage the more it will be filled up with what is most likely junk, although my idea of junk (or goodness) will most likely differ from others.
Re:Format this Red Hat! (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent up! (Score:4, Informative)
Outstanding.
Doesn't have anything really to do with latency, but I've seen several comments from folks who worship at the altar of rotational speed when the true factors that determine a hard drive's speed are aa combination of rotational speed, track-to-track latency and data density. You can spin an old 10mb drive at 200,000 rpm and it still won't transfer data faster than a modern hard drive.
As sector density increases so does data throughput for a given rotational speed. If all other things are equal when you double the sector per track density you *almost* double the drive's throughput. I say almost because in order to double throughput you'd have to cut seek times in half as well.
But - fast drives have dense platters, not just fast spindles.
3Com has good HW support in Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I did wear ear protection while configuring and testing the things.