Fujitsu Announces World's Largest Capacity Storage 59
Adam Eliason writes to tell us that Fujitsu has announced the world's largest capacity storage array. From the article: "the ETERNUS 8000 and ETERNUS 4000 storage arrays. Weighing in at 1.36 petabytes, or 1.36 million gigabytes, the ETERNUS file storage arrays push the envelope for enterprise data storage systems. Fujitsu uses 2,760 nearline fibre-channel 500GB disk drives in its flagship ETERNUS server (model 2100) and can be configured with up to 256GB of cache."
Boring (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Boring (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Boring (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Boring (Score:1)
Re:Boring (Score:2)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16822148073 [newegg.com]
But you could just get a normal 3.5" drive and shove it in a USB case.
For that matter, you could have one 160 gig laptop drive inside, and one outside in a USB case, sometimes laptop hdds dont need externally powered USB cases, they can be powered by the USB port. And they are pretty tiny and easy to carry. Using two 160 gig drives would be over your 2
Re:Boring (Score:2)
If anything put the drive in the option bay in place of the DVD.
-nB
Re:Boring (Score:2)
Re:Boring (Score:2)
With the Eternus [fujitsu.com] you get a disk array that you attach to your SAN.
They are two completely different products for totally different jobs.
You'd run you financial database on a Sun attached to a Eternus.
You'd run your Google clone off of a PetaBox.
Re:Boring (Score:2)
Re:Boring (Score:2)
You're right that there's not that much new here, but the first half of your comment indicates you have no idea the level of complexity involved in building an array this big.
Re:Boring (Score:2)
You kids (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You kids (Score:1)
My power bill is crying... (Score:2, Interesting)
So, what would be the highest AFFORDABLE capacity storage ?
(I'm currently using a Buffalo TeraStation, a bit slow but not full yet)
Re:My power bill is crying... (Score:1)
One of them could easily replace the 30ish EMC systems current running here - with 75% space left over - and save a fortune on service and power. 256G of cache isn't something terribly impressive, though, as both EMC and HDS has had that option for many years.
Re:My power bill is crying... (Score:1)
Can't they have some sort of Power-up-on-demand? Running only those needed at the moment shouldn't be to difficult or time-consuming I believe.
Re:My power bill is crying... (Score:2)
1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
I'm not mathematician, but isn't one gig 1024 MB? And one MB 1024 kB? And one tera 1024 GB, etc.. you get the picture...
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:5, Informative)
But they've only been around since 1998, so you're forgiven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix [wikipedia.org].
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
have you EVERY purchased a hard drive? have you EVER seen the disclaimer on the side of the box?
here is seagates take
http://www.seagate.com/products/discselect/glossar y/index.html#cap [seagate.com]
Capacity:
Capacity is the amount of data that the drive can store, after formatting. Most disc drive companies, including Seagate, calculate disc capacity based on the assumption that 1 megabyte = 1000 kilobytes and 1 gigabyte=1000 megabytes.
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
Gigabyte [wikipedia.org]
1,073,741,824 bytes, equal to 10243, or 230 bytes. This is the definition used for computer memory sizes, and most often used in computer engineering, computer science, and most aspects of computer operating systems.
Well alright, it only half proves my point, mostly that it says right above that that "1,000,000,000 bytes is the decimal definition used in telecommunications (such as network spe
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
What does matter to me- and the element I responded too, was that the original poster has COMPLETELY wrong a claim that "hard drive manufacturers call it like it should be at 1024 per K"
anyone who works with Hard drives (the small 3.5" or 2.5" or smaller elements that require power and ribbon cables as opposed to
'Cletus, you know the hard drive of a computah is what doesn't mean a monitor or keyboard" )
KNOWS
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
I think you're short a couple decimal places there on your "giga" value. Where byte=1, a kilobyte would be 1,000, a megabyte would be 1,000,000, and a gigabyte would be 1,000,000,000.
For sake of this argument (and not to be extended outside of this conversation), kilo==kebi, mega==mebi, and giga==gibi.
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
Face it, the hard disk industry pulled a real cheap shot by shipping 1,000,000,000 bytes where the user expected 1,073,741,824. You can quote me SI standards up and down but I assure you that they didn't give a flying fuck about that, except as a convienient excuse.
Yes, I'm in favor of usi
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
And if you buy a 1Mbit DSL line here you will get 1024kbit.
Not on any DSL I've ever seen. Can you provide evidence for this claim? In general, data communications speeds have always been measured with SI prefixes (powers of ten, not powers of two).
Face it, the hard disk industry pulled a real cheap shot by shipping 1,000,000,000 bytes where the user expected 1,073,741,824.
Umm, if the user expected that, it's because the user didn't know anything about hard drives. The first hard drive ever, in 19
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
Well, I can't definitely say that DSL uses 1024kbit to mean 1mbit, but I do assume they operate on powers of 2, as my DSL (before it was upgraded) was 384kbps down.
It would be nice to hear from someone who actually works on ADSL technology, but I've done a lot of data comms work with other technologies, and it's always been base 10. I would expect that 384kbps actually means ~384000 bits per second, including overhead bits for framing, etc. I agree that 384 looks suspiciously power-of-two-ish, though,
Re: 1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
So am I, as long as it doesn't confuse the steel industry and their units of kips (kilopounds of force (1000 lbs)), and the computer industry and their MIPS (millions of instructions per second) and KIPS (thousands of...).
Meanwhile, don't confuse the musicians. (1.36 million gigs? How many sets is that? And how many songs per set?)
Finally, to Stephen Colbert [imdb.com]: Megamerican? Keep kicking it up and what do you get? Gigamerican, Teramerican, Peta
Re: 1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
So, it's a marketing thing.
Actually, it's a historical thing. The first hard drives were measured with base 10 units, because the storage technologies that had preceded them -- punched cards and magnetic tapes -- had also been measured with base 10 units. Those devices had storage measured in base 10 units because it was the most convenient and logical way to count. Early in the history of computing, memory was also measured in base 10 units, too, but that changed because it was significantly easier t
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:1)
A 3.5 inch, high-density floppy disk is 1440 binary kilobytes (or kibibytes, for you wierdos who like the term.) Or 1,474,560 bytes. Yet floppy disk manufacturers (and most consumers) refer to them as 1.44 megabytes. That would imply 1.44 * 1024 * 1024 = 1,509,949.4 bytes, which is incorrect. (Or 1.44 * 1000 * 1000 = 1,440,000, which is also incorrect.) So the commonly accepted terminology is a bastard base-10/base-2 multiplication mix.
Then there are the
Re:1.36 Petabytes? Or 1.36 million gigs? (Score:2)
My favorite is the inconsistent floppy disk usage.
Yeah, those were the "power of 10 multiples of 1024" I mentioned.
Consider yourself lucky... (Score:2)
First look.. (Score:1)
Re:First look.. (Score:2)
Not Larry Flint's?
Nice (Score:1)
no clusters (Score:1)
Now what would be really cool... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now a Beowulf cluster of those would be cool.
Overcompensating (Score:1)
This is news? (Score:1)
--
So who is hotter? Ali of Ali's Sister?
How long to boot up? How much power? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How long to boot up? How much power? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:How long to boot up? How much power? (Score:2)
I don't even want to think of how much audio (Score:2)
Based on the highest quality of standard definition video on a 4.7 GB DVD (one hour), this thing would store just a bit over 33 YEARS of video. I don't even want to think of how much audio that would hold in MP3 format.