Terabyte Drive to Debut Later this Year 131
mytrip writes to mention the news that Hitachi will be releasing a terabyte storage drive this year. "These large drives also will get incorporated into televisions and personal video recorders. Hitachi, among others, already sells TVs with integrated hard drives in Japan and other markets. While large drives start out expensive, the price drops relatively quickly. Computer makers pay something in the 30-cent range for a gigabyte when buying hard drives, Healy said. The price at retail is around 50 cents or less."
Discs should catch up (Score:1, Informative)
Finally we can start backing up our entire hard disks. Even these new ones!
Re:Discs should catch up (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Discs should catch up (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Discs should catch up (Score:1)
Re:Discs should catch up (Score:2)
Gezzz. (Score:1)
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Gezzz. (Score:4, Insightful)
SATA is just starting out and will have may years ahead of it - but it will have to prove it's self
there hasn't been a worth wile SATA disk on the market long enough to prove the reliability of them above scsi.
on top SATA lacks alot of the higher end functions that SCSI offers.. this is why for large amounts of storage via SATA to data centers you will see the SATA drives in a box that is then connected to the servers via iSCSI and fiber chanel.
sure for the desktop/workstation/small server market yes scsi is going away but when you use the true abilitys of what makes SCSI great SATA drives have a long way to go.
Re:Gezzz. (Score:3, Insightful)
What? I've got some pretty old SATA disks in some of our ACNC RAIDs. No failures out of 32 disks. Seagate 7200.7, Date code 04-167, 167th day of 2004 I guess. That's over 2 years old.
The great part about SATA is that since they aren't a complete rip-off like SCSI, you can replace them every 3-4 years instead of running them until they fail and are stupidly small compared to modern disks.
this is wh
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2, Insightful)
You buy a SCSI/SAS drive because you need the spindle speed to support the increased number of I/O's per second that the faster spindle speeds SCSI gives you. Do you need that on the desktop, probably not. Is it essential for large percentage of enterprise loads, a
Re:Gezzz. (Score:1)
Re:Gezzz. (Score:4, Insightful)
2 years isn't that long of a time compared to SCSI drives - life span is important, sure SATA drives are cheep compared to SCSI and can be replaced more often but do you account for the man hours and/or loss of production do too having to replace drives at the end of their life cycle.
give SATA 5-6 years being stable in the market and i am sure that they will evolve and take over - i like the ideas that drive SATA but it has not yet proven it's self over SCSI yet, so when required to put something into production that needs max reliability people still use SCSI and they will.
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2)
The only reason to stick with SCSI is if you already have a huge investment in the infrastructure and cannot afford to transition to SATA. The increased capacity available and reduced cost makes a pretty compelling argument.
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2)
SataII is by far the best youll get in your desktop, massive drives, good prices, and if you realy need it, a solid hardware raid controler for them (at the moment my favourite is an 8 way sata2 raid controler that uses a PCI-e 4x slot
In an enterprise situation though. these drives, havent been available lon
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2)
manhour costs are far higher than drive costs
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2)
eSATA.
But for the disks themselces, it's stupid to buy SCSI or SAS disks and pay 3 times more just for a name.
Less stupid to pay 3 times more for speed and reliability.
Re:Gezzz. (Score:1)
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2)
Re:Gezzz. (Score:1)
I deal with alot of Enterprise hard drives and its intresting to note that if you put a 300gb U320 Segate and a 300gb SAS Segate, they look exactly the same except for the interface.
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2)
That's likely because they are exactly the same except for the interface.
Now, the reason you haven't seen any higher-capacity SAS drives is because they likely don't bother to make them in 7200 (or even 5400?) RPM versions, like the high-capacity SATA drives are.
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2)
...you might as well use SATA drives if you want high capacity (at the cost of performance), even in an otherwise-SCSI setup. Is that what you're getting at?
What's wrong with IDE? (Score:1)
Re:What's wrong with IDE? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with IDE? (Score:2)
I've been using SCSI since before IDE existed, and now everything new that I have is IDE. Why? Because UDMA came along and erased my major objections. The only thing SCSI has going for it over anything else today really is the number of devices you can have per controller. SAS is pretty compelling, simply because you can use these newfangled SATA drives in such a system. (After all, even modern PATA systems have command queueing, and some of the other nifty features.)
My only sorrow is that firewire has
Re:What's wrong with IDE? (Score:2)
Re:Great comment! (Score:1)
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2)
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2, Informative)
SCSI/SAS/FC drives typically spin at 10k or 15k RPM, compared to 7.2k RPM for ATA drives. The higher rotational velocity means more work to keep the heads on track, so the data densities aren't quite as high. Higher rotational velocity also causes more aerodynamic turbulence at the platter edges, which can make the platters vibrate. Most enterprise 3.5" disks actually use 2.5" platters in order to keep the disk edges farther away from the c
Re:Gezzz. (Score:3, Informative)
From what I've read over the past year, perpendicular recording supposedly will offer densities somewhere between 2x and 5x over existing longitudinal recording methods. That puts 3.5" SATA/IDE drive somewhere in the range of 1
Re:Gezzz. (Score:2)
Enterprise drives are optimized specifically for low access time which requires higher rotation speeds to lower latency and smalle
Idle speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
What a waste of space. This is not about a product to be released, it's just a way to fill some space so that maybe someone will click on some ads.
The only thing of interest in the entire article is at the end, when it mentions that the hard drive is reaching its 50th birthday/anniversary/whatever you want to call it. More interesting might have been a brief timeline showing hard drive advances over that half-century.
HDD 50th (Score:2, Informative)
INFORMATIVE??? (Score:2)
Re:INFORMATIVE??? (Score:2)
regardless (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, It's Big... (Score:2, Informative)
It's all relative (Score:2)
Of course, this is even less critical when you transfer within orders / 1 GB - 999 G
Re:Sure, It's Big... (Score:1)
Plus, something tells me we might just need those 0.09 TiB for the Vista SP1 update.
Terabyte? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Terabyte? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Terabyte? (Score:4, Funny)
> really make a difference anyway?
Yes. Yes it does.
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2)
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2)
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Terabyte? (Score:1)
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2)
The formal Metric definition of Tera is 1,000,000,000,000 - or 10^12
Please ignore the "artistic license" that computer scientists have taken with regard to 1,000 almost equals 1,024.
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2)
It's not artistic license. It's about even powers of two and not wasting any bits/having anything which has a logically valid ID but no physical correlation that you have to remember to prune.
You'll notice people haven't started rounding down memory sizes.
Cheers
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2)
It's about using base-ten prefixes to describe base-two values. It's not "artistic" license, just the etymological kind.
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2)
And are those gigbytes 1000 or 1024 kilobytes? And are those kilobytes 1000 or 1024 bytes?
Since it's probably the former, this drive is likely 10^9 bytes rather than 2^30, shortchanging us by 73,741,824 bytes (or 73.7 GiB)!
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2)
Doh! Make that 10^12, 2^40, and 99,511,627,776 (99.5 GiB) respectively. (Stupid exponents...)
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2)
Re:Terabyte? (Score:2)
Are they referring to a terabyte as 1000 or 1024 gigabytes?
I really hope they mean 10^12 when they say terabyte, because it'd be confusing as hell if they meant 1024 * 10^9.
Just for clarification:
Inevitable (Score:1, Redundant)
Looks like the typical user is going to have to learn some more terminology soon.
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
The advent of perpendicular recording from multiple vendors (Hitachi has been dragging their heels on a 3.5" PR drive) will hopefully drive prices down on the 500GB and 750GB drives. Or at least accellerate the price drops.
TB is fine but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Measuring the amount of TB in future disks is easy. The capacity doubles every x months and so and that's probably not going to change for some time, so I frankly don't care too much about hard drive space as it has never been an issue to me. What I do care about is the other technology inside of a hard drive. Seek times, write/read speed and throughput. How's that going? Are we eventually going to see some major difference between SATA150 and SATA300? If so, when?
I am not sure about you guys but I am growing increasingly dependent on fast hard drives rather than a shitload of space. My workstations are usually bundled with a fast Raptor disk combined with a Seagate at some 250 to 500 GB, so I put the big who-cares-about-speed files on the big one while my operating system, applications and games rest on my Raptor.
So once again, does anyone know what we're going to see in 2007 and 2008?
Re:TB is fine but.. (Score:3, Informative)
When the OS is aware of the flash and ram caches on the drive, it will instruct the drive as to what to cache so when the computer is started up next time 50% of the boot code is in the flash and starts running very quickly while it loads the rest of the boot code into ram and feeds it out. Beyond that there isn't much the hard drive can do di
Re:TB is fine but.. (Score:2)
good (Score:1)
RPM more important (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RPM more important (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted, access times probably haven't declined like transfer rates.
Re:RPM more important (Score:2)
Access time is closely coupled with the rotational velocity of the platter (how long before the sector comes under the read head) along with how fast the head can move from track to track (seek time). Not exactly sure where the latency term fits in (whether it's coupled with the rotational velocity of the disk or a combined value of seek time + rotational latency).
The 10k Raptors have a pretty decent seek time (I think they use the 2.
Re:RPM more important (Score:1)
Re:RPM more important (Score:2)
The 15k drives that I have are very quiet. I'm only rarely more aware of them than my Seagate 7.2k drives, and those are pretty quiet too.
Re:RPM more important (Score:2)
The 15k drives that I have are very quiet. I'm only rarely more aware of them than my Seagate 7.2k drives, and those are pretty quiet too.
How hot are they? How much cooling is needed?
Re:RPM more important (Score:2)
Re:RPM more important (Score:2)
Re:RPM more important (Score:2)
The newer FDB gets rid of a lot of the whine of the older drives. But you still have the head chatter which seems to be a bit sharper (noticable) on the WD Raptors.
The bigger issue, I'd imagine, with 10k drives is heat. Which requir
Re:RPM more important (Score:2)
Raptors are more or less enterprise drive mechanisms with a SATA connection, which doesn't help the cost. With proper use and some air flow, they are probably going to be more reliable than consumer drives. The platters are smaller on 10k+ drives, so that helps the seek times. There are supposedly issues with "wobbling" on drive platters when spinning so fast, what I've heard is that this is why the 10k and 15k drives use small platters.
proper use (Score:2, Informative)
As a sometime hardware tech, I'd really love to see the manuf
good idea! sadly the faiure point is something els (Score:2)
Re:good idea! sadly the faiure point is something (Score:4, Informative)
Re:good idea! sadly the faiure point is something (Score:2)
Do newer FDB drives suffer the same issues as the older ball bearing designs? (Not t
Re:good idea! sadly the faiure point is something (Score:2)
Re:good idea! sadly the faiure point is something (Score:2)
You didn't know that data recovery services do take platters from a dead drive and mount them in an identical make/model that works in order to recover the data? While you may not be able to arbitrarily take platters from designs other then the same model li
Interesting... (Score:2)
-Mark
Re:proper use (Score:1)
But a good friend of mine is a pro photographer. He shoots 10 GB worth of photos in a day easily. 20 GB some days. Plus he touches up a lot of the shots and saves the
He just finished building a system with ten 300 GB sata drives all in RAID 1 for easy recovery from a failure. This sits beside his system with more than a terabyte o
Re:proper use (Score:2)
Second, write performance of RAID 5 is certainly adequate for the application and larger spindles would have been a far better choice. He could h
Re:proper use (Score:2)
A RAID 6 array with two hot spares would be better...7 drives in RAID + Parity + 2 SPAREs, means the catastrophic failure situation is the same as his 0+1 array, but he has 2100GB instead of 1500GB of available storage space. H
Re:proper use (Score:2)
Hot spares only make sense in a system that can tolerate little or no downtime. Such would not be the case in a workstation so drives dedicated to that would be wasted.
Assuming 1500GB
Re:proper use (Score:2)
You're right.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, a better way availability wise against 0+1 would be 1+0. Drive failures wouldn't destroy all of the redundancy and there are better odds that the next drive failure would not bring it down.
Re: (Score:2)
RAID 1 (which includes RAID 0+1 and 1+0 except for the unintelligent) can tolerate precisely 1 arbitrary drive failure, no more and no less. It can tolerate perhaps more than one non-arbitrary failure but you can'
Re:proper use (Score:2)
(Versus racing the clock in degraded RAID5 where one more disk going will take out everything.)
Re:proper use (Score:2)
It would be INCREDIBLY stupid to implement RAID parity across platters of a single drive. The result would be entirely
Re:proper use (Score:2)
In the consumer market 2.5" drives are already "winning" since notebook sales are outpacing desktops. I suspect that unobstrus
One thing article left out... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:One thing article left out... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One thing article left out... (Score:2)
Tomorrow? I can buy a 1TB disk today! (Score:2)
Anybody know if a USB 2.0 drive is fast enough to keep up with video playback? If so, then I may have to pick one of these up for the HTPC...
Re:Tomorrow? I can buy a 1TB disk today! (Score:2)
Of course, it all depends on how fast the data needs to be consumed. I don't know if it would be fast enough for high-definition content.
Re:Tomorrow? I can buy a 1TB disk today! (Score:2)
That's arguable (and a bit of a holy war). Looking only at the 480Mbits of USB 2 vs Firewire's 400Mbits glosses over the differences in the two protocols. In reality, both are usually constrained by the speed of the disks, which are identical for both implementations.
But if you're a determined fence sitter, go with a dual-interface external enclosure such as the BYTECC ME-835U2F enclosures.
Re:Tomorrow? I can buy a 1TB disk today! (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, USB allows one device to talk on the wire at a time. So if you have a USB 2.0 HDD and a USB 1.1 mouse on the same bus, they get equal time, but the mouse wastes 99% of the bus for 50% of the time, for an overall loss of about 49%. So you only get half the speed you're supposed to get.
Firewire's isochronous mode allows devices that use more than their fair share (they max out the bus and beg for more) to "borrow" the unused bandwidth during the time slot belonging to a device that doesn't use the full bandwidth. So while a FW scanner might only use 50Mbps, a HDD on the same bus might be transferring a file and "borrow" the other 350Mbps, even during the scanner's time slot. This is why Firewire outshines USB in raw data transfer in all but the most scripted of Intel's tests (Intel invented USB).
So, the moral of the story: If the HDD is the ONLY thing connected to that USB bus (that port and probably the one next to it on the PC), then, yes, it might be a bit faster than FW400. If it's sharing a USB bus, it's going to be much slower, and may not be fast enough for video.
Re:Tomorrow? I can buy a 1TB disk today! (Score:2)
Re:Tomorrow? I can buy a 1TB disk today! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's twice as likely to fail.
Re:Tomorrow? I can buy a 1TB disk today! (Score:2)
I suppose it comes down to form factor and connectivity - if you can connect to it by SCSI, SATA, IDE etc and it fits in the space a current drive occupies then it gets called a hard drive no matter how many platters it h
warning about Lacie (Score:2)
Having backups of stuff on a drive is essential,
Re:new names? (Score:1)
Re:new names? (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re:new names? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)