Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

100gig HDs Coming 106

Posted by CmdrTaco from the big-yummy-technology dept.
ensor writes wrote in to send us a link to a bit talking about denser HDs from Seagate. 16 billion bits of data per square-inch on a HD platter with 5 platters per disk for a total of about 100 gigs. Supposedly will be available before the end of the year. This is pretty cool- I like the idea of having enough MP3s locally so I can go long stretches of time without reruns. Long stretches like... March.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

100gig HDs Coming More

100gig HDs Coming

Comments Filter:

  • For how much ? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    DLT IV can do 35GB (70 compressed)

    Just as an FYI, the "compressed" number is a total WAG. It, like the 2.5/5GB tape drives, all base their estimates on some rediculous, mythical 2:1 compression ratio. If you back up fluffy things like Oracle databases you can get >100GB of disk data onto a DLT 4000, much less DLT 7000 (the IV part really means CompacTape IV, which is the tape format that DLT 4000 and 7000 drives use). OTOH, if you back up stuff that's already gziped, even if you use the hw compression you won't get nearly the 2:1 they imply. All you can be sure of if that you'll get at least as much as the uncompressed data size.

  • I don't WANT big.... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Higher density means higher transfer rates. Whatever interface you choose (aren't there 7200 rpm IDE drives out there yet?), you need density and/or high rpms to get high transfer rates.


    Some simple maths shows that a 3600 rpm drive with twice the density of a 7200 rpm drive will have the same transfer rates.

  • My only question is.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Probaby cost the same as hard disks always have.

    They'll come out around $3000. A couple years later,
    they'll be $900 and you'll buy one for your home machine.
    Then six months later you'll see an ad selling them for
    $350 and you'll cry.
  • > THere are of course only 4380 housr in a year

    Try double that. You don't have 12 hour days, do you?

  • Hey - I've never had a Quantum fail on me - ever...

    Come to think of it, I've never had any hard drive fail on me, ever. I've dropped them, duct taped them to the inside of cases, run them on bad power, run them continously with heavy use for long periods of time, left them on for years, powered them on and off all the time, I've never had any drive die on me.
    What do you people do to get drives to fail on you? Hammer them into place? Nail them to the motherboard?
  • of...err....something...on our 18 Gigs of drive space....

  • Uuuh.... these aren't targeted at end users, dude. And 5.25 full height disks don't fit well in arrays. Nope, you'll want to plug fourteen of these into a Sun Storage Array with Fibre going to your enterprise server. 2 storage units x 4 arrays x 14 drives x 100GB under an Enterprise Server x000 == 44.8 TB of data. Actually it'd be less than that, because you'd want to do RAID-5. So you get 3 or 4 of them for companies with somewhat-large storage needs. I think we'd of needed two or three to house the data where I used to work...
  • I think a journalling file system is on the wish list for 2.3.

    Anyway, the time it takes to fsck the thing shouldn't be a problem. I mean, having to do a fsck implies that your file system may have gotten corrupt, and the most likely cause for that is that your system may have crashed. And, as we all know, Linux boxes don't crash. :) An hour-long fsck once a year when you accidentally trip over the power cord doesn't seem too bad, considering what you'd get in return.
  • Is that an IDE hardware limitation, or a kernel IDE support limitation?
  • Interesting

    Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the holodeck to be invented. Unfortunately, it'll probably cost even more than the holographic storage.
  • What about EIDE?
  • Posted by Charles Bronson:

    how much will it cost?

    Your soul, perhaps?
  • Posted by Mr. Assembly:

    This hard drive will not be big enough for Windows 2000 when it is released in 2004. I suspect that I will only have room on this drive for a couple of apps, maybe a wordprocessor and a game.
  • Posted by Asa Durkee:

    For sale: Mac SE, 1MB RAM, 100GB HD...

    :-)
  • either that or they really meant 5000 platters.
  • My back of the envelope calculation runs as such:

    110GB
    * 1024 (get MB)
    - 1024 (allow a GB for the OS (excessive, but it's a nice, round number))
    / 2 (rule of thumb is 1MB/min. I'll assume 2MB/min for 256 bit MP3s)
    / 60 (get number of hours)
    / 24 (still a big number; let's see how many days)
    = 38 days (that's continuous playing. subtract 8 hours a day for sleep, and you get 51 days, or almost two months. Encoding at 128 bits gives you about three and a half months of continuous, non-repeating music during your waking hours.)


    --Phil (I hope you have something powerful enough to encode all that, though.)

  • Pity (Score:1)

    by tjones ( 1282 )
    Pity the poor 'doze user, trying to defrag one of those monsters. :)
  • Windows 2000 will have a journaling file system. (It's based on NT)

    No, it doesn't. At least its not based on NT. (Read the press release!) Except you mean the thing that they say comes out '01 or '02...

  • Try man tune2fs! (And don't forget to look at the time between checks!)

  • You got the wrong SCSI if you want speed. The Ultra-2 has many drives past 9 gigs at 7200 RPM, and the throughput is 80mb/s.
  • Not unless you use SysV init and you shut down daily. It fscks when a maximal boot count is reached even if it hasn't crashed.
  • Could definately make a poll question. I'd probably vote IBM, though my experience is limited.

    --Lenny
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • If by "scoring with women", it means getting them to agree with your plan to shoot the wad on a 100G HD instead of on them....
  • And how can you ever backup something like that
    Ok, in parts...


    Am I the first commenter?
    -------------------------------------- ------------------
    UNIX isn't dead, it just smells funny...
  • Most drives today are built to be 'interface agnostic': you can pretty much bolt an identity onto the drive hardware.

    Though I bet Ultra2-LVD and FCAL are definite, and when IBM's storage division catches up, I bet you'll see an SSA flavor.

    Are there any limitations in EIDE for this size? I'm only familiar with SCSI, and I use IDE because it's necessary in some applications (laptops, mostly)..
  • backing up 100GB? Easy.. Just snag a 20-tape 2+ drive DLT robot.. Or even one of those fun IBM 349x mega-libraries which store hundreds of terabytes in cabinets 10-meters long..

    I said easy, not cheap.. ;)

    Besides, anyone interested in these drives is probably interested in running them in RAID configurations, and I can see a nice 12-drive setup with mirrored 5-disk RAID5 and a hot spare for each mirrorset.. 400GB and if you put them in separate cabinets you're close to fault tolerant..

    Sweet!

    (If you haven't already guessed, one of the main differences between Sun fans and IBM fans is Sun fans like high-speed and price performance, while uptime and high-availability give IBMers chills..)
  • And how can you ever backup something like that

    Buy another identical disk to back up onto!

  • Your post reads like a zippy cartoon. Are we having fun yet?

    Enough Said,

    Cimarron Taylor
  • I suspect the "obsession" with platters is because it works, the technology is understood very well, they have manufacturing plants already set up to make them in high volume, and the limits haven't been reached yet.

  • Drool. (Score:1)

    by Seumas ( 6865 )
    I thought I was happy with my two newly aquired 17gig drives. I've already filled 21gig and a 100gig would sure be tempting.

    Of course, backups would be a bitch.

  • Of course, none of that matters because Microsoft will soon seek to patent Life, The Universe, and Everything... Not to mention the 'idea' of storing stuff.

  • By my calculations you should be able to get about 1800 to 1900 housr of music one one of these. THere are of course only 4380 housr in a year. Subtract sleeping time and you could go all year and never have to hear the same song twice. Of course it would take a while to accumulate that much music.

    It is in the neighborhood of 25 full length films in mpeg2 format.

    Of couse with that much space you might as well stor ethe music in aiff and not lose the dynamic range.
  • Large hard disks have always come out in SCSI
    first, with some IDE flavour a bit later.
    SCSI still utterly dominates the large server
    market.
  • Large hard disks have always come out in SCSI first, with some IDE flavour a bit later. SCSI still utterly dominates the large server market.
  • The average windows user won't have to worry about having 100 gigs to deal with it, because by the time they come down to their price range, the next version of Windows will fill most of it up anyway.
  • MP3 is the way a lot of us store our music. As for CDs they're cheap, its the CD-R drives that are too damn expensive.

  • I hate to rain on everyone's parade here, but am I the only one who finds the ever-larger client disk drive to be much more of a curse that a blessing?

    it's gotten to the point nowdays that I can't buy a machine without at minimum a 4GB disk in them. For most of my compute servers, they need little more than a 1GB boot disk, so the other 3GB goes to waste. WTF am I supposed to do when it comes with a 100GB drive?

    On a much more practical note, increasing client HD sizes are a royal pain for data integrity. backing up that kind of distributed data is totally impossible, even if you had a fully GigaBit Ethernet network. Backup technology is far behind, and I really wish that storage vendors would spend alot more time working on making better archive/backup media.

    As a previous post on NASA's data migration problems stated, the general solution for long-term data storage these days is simply keep it all online, spinning, since disk price/space keeps sinking. However, that doesn't obviate the need for nightly backups and disaster-recovery plans.

    I second the guy above who wanted better performance, not more space. Sustained throughput on drives is really only inching up (maybe 18MB/s now). This is a killer. If you double the space on a drive, that means twice as many people are trying to access the data on that drive. Yet, throughput is up maybe 10%. This sucks. RAID helps, but the general problem persists. Given that memory bandwidth is up to 800MB/s now (in a PC), and expecting to go to 1.1GB/s with Rambus RSN, having a disk subsystem that putzes along at under 100MB/s is pathetic. If the vendors can't get the throughput up NOW, we need to start investigating other technologies to help. Like maybe massive NVRAM cache disks (on the order of a 50-100MB) to help I/O.

    And, for all you folks, a nice reminder: when was the last time you did a backup of your machine? I know DVD-RAM/-RW will help this, but still, backup costs are out of control. A good-sized (10GB raw) consumer-grade (eg Travan TR5) drive runs $350, and the tapes are $30 each, and well, lets be honest here, they're good for using a couple of times a month if you don't want them to break soon. DSS-3 DATs are $700+, tapes $20+, and the big DLTs (required for serious backup) start at $3k, with tapes approaching $100 each.

    We don't need bigger drives, WE NEED BETTER BACKUP!!!!!!

    -Erik

  • so its 2 Gb/in^2. Makes it 50 in^2. 10 in^2 per platter. Double sided makes it 5 in^2 per side. and since A=pi r^2, r is roughly 1.26 in. roughly a 3 inch diameter... sounds right to me... perhaps you just forgot how to read and do trivial math for 2 minutes? Or perhaps you are used to the big 1.5 ft diameter drum drives?
  • Hell, at the 40 hours I've got in my playlist currently on a normal basis I still don't hear a repeat for days on end (depending on how much I'm listening). That much HD room would make it so I would forget the song lyrics by the time I get back around to them.. :^).
  • Hmm I still haven't been able to fill up my 1 gig drive! :)
  • The average Windows user would format the whole disk as one "drive" if given the chance. The average Linux user would not partition the whole drive as one filesystem.
  • How about a movement to notify Todd, the webmaster for the site, that he is not using standards compliant HTML?
  • I want FAST. So hard drive size seems to be growing exponentially. So what? I personally don't need that much space. That's not to say that I never will, of course. But I'm much, much more interested in speed than size. So you've got a dual Xeon P3 450 system. Or a Quad. You've still got a bottleneck on your harddrive. Any time you do anything disk intensive (say, compiling the latest kernel), away all your clockcycles go. People always seem to be so worried about memory accesses and small, slow caches bottlenecking processors. But those type of memory accesses are still way faster than harddrive access. 30 megs/sec is about what the fastest drives throughput. I really wish we could get something faster. That's why I spent $200 on a 7200 RPM UW SCSI drive (4.3) gig, instead of the same amount on a 10 GB UDMA 5400 RPM IDE drive. I want SPEED!!!!!!
  • I remember about two and a half years go, in a PC Magazine I read about holographic storage techonology. It used a laser mirors, and essencially stored data on light.

    Obviously, its not consumer grade yet, and the price is bound to be phenominal but the storage capacity will be well in to the TeraBytes
    -Michael J. Lu
  • Can't wait to sell a kidney for one of those... I'll need a 20 terabyte drive in a year or 2 though :/

    When is the 50G laptop drive going to come out so I can plug it into the EMPEG that I also will never have?
  • Maxtors don't fail much. They're not that wonderful, tho the 17.2giggers are cheap.
  • ...and just yesterday, I added 20gb to my system, for a total of 30gb, and now they go talking about the 100gb'rs!!! Where does it end?!
  • I don't know about the rest of you people out in computer land but I don't think think i could ever
    use a full 10 gigs even with two gigs of mp3's, 2 gig of mp3's is about 48hours worth and if you don't keep every file you have ever got I don't think that there is much use for 10 gigs other than keeping lots of games and movies on your hard drive.
  • I use to live with one of the lead R&D folks over at IBM's HD group. They've already achieved 552 Gigs in a 3.5" form factor. Basicly they are slowly feeding us bigger storage as to propetuate the market share. It's not that worth getting excited over (the new 100G drives), because quite frankly, in another year, as per allways, it'll just be the same goddamn thing happening over again (ie: "Oh crap, you have a 2TB drive? all i have is this pathetic 100gig")..

    Can we say... Johnny Mneumonic? :)
  • So what's current MBs per platter record?
    If these drives had, say, roughly 5 times as many MBs per platter, that's 5 times as much data loss when they start making the famous "Seagate Sound"(TM). (i.e. clang, clang, clang)
    I agree, Seagates are at the bottom of the heap. Then again, I know many people who swear by them. (and can't stand the drives that I use.) Maybe it's just personal experience.
    At least you can fix many Seagates by banging on them with a hammer.
  • I dunno - EVERY maxtor I have owned has kicked the bucket. - an 80 meg, an 814, and a 270.
    I've also had 4 out of 4 wd's go bad (although one was caused by abuse - the owner unplugged the power and then plugged it back in w/o turning off the computer).
    I had 2 out of 5 Seagates go bad (one was dropped)
    I have an ancient Quantum and a Conner that still run great, though.
    I currently have an IBM 6.4 - awesome drive.

    IMHO, I would only buy an IBM. Maybe a Quantum, though not likely.
  • The only HDD's that I've had luck out of are:
    WDC (IDEs, only 2 died, they were 120's. Both were 2nd hand. one came from a highschool, another from someone else.)
    Seagates (before they bought out conner, only had 1, and it's a 210, still going too)
    Quantums (SCSI, only had 1 tho)
    Fugitsu, but I've only used 1
    and Micropolis (I have 8 at work, mostly 2gb's scsi's and still working. Had 9, but one was bad when I started)

    As far as seagates, I've had 4 (1.2 and 1.7gb) go out with in about 2 months. My workplace ordered 36 computers (all with 2.1gb seagates). We had to ship back 4 of those drives, another one I'm feeling will go out.

    I've had problems out of *EVERYTHING* that conner has put out. Used to have a conner 250mb drive, and lost 5mb of my drive when it crashed. Used to have a 170mb conner, 6months went by and bad sectors. Had a 60mb conner, sold it and next day, 512k of bad sectors. Someone I know used to have a 420, about 3mb of bad sectors. I saw a 540mb conner, to my surprise, it looked exactly like a seagate drive... Hmmm

    I'm not trying to flame, this is just personal experiences.

    If I was to recommend a hard drive, I'd say either a quantum or a wdc (also personal experience, scsi's work better than ide's)
  • What is the interface for these monstors, SCSI, IDE... What??

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close