High Density Storage 123
Charlie Engasser wrote
in to tell us about 216 gigabytes
hard drives over at Seagate. Uses "Optically Assisted
Winchester" (OAW), which "augments traditional magnetic read/write
techniques with a laser to allow positioning so precise that
it can store over 100,000 tracks across one inch of drive
surface". I guess it just means in a few years we'll be
able to do with video what we do today with sound.
From this page.
wow (Score:1)
36 gigabytes on a two-sided disc, eh? Think M$ will make these a requirement to install Windows 2000?
What about the seek time? (Score:2)
Re:terabyte servers (Score:2)
EIDE is not going to be able to handle 100MB of access a second in random 4k blocks across all of the drives.
Re:That's a spicy hard disk! (Score:1)
What a fscking big drive! (Score:1)
Re:What about putting the FAT in hardware? (Score:1)
If you did that you couldn't have nifty optimizations of file structure, including the nifty ext2 or hpfs file systems. There's also a new file-system out there that looked pretty cool (you can undo changes to files... nifty!) that would be broken too.
Amazing implications for cheaper computing (Score:1)
The price of storage for most of us is rapidly declining. The typical 6-9 GB that most users need is soon going to be going for next to nothing.
Of course, then we'll need more!
Re:Few Comments (Score:1)
if you're running linux, you wouldn't have a defrag problem, and since it rarely crashes, you wouldn't have to go through all that junk that most OSs go through to scan the drives for errors. The only case i can think of would be the power going out, and if you have a backup power supply you should have a sufficent amout of time to restart.
Re:Gigs to go... (Score:1)
Any non-laptop drive can be removable. Just get a removable hard drive bay from any of the myriad sources, for example computergate.com. I do that with my Linux drive -- it makes sure my Windows partition doesn't mess with it!
Re:What filesystem to put on a 216GB drive? (Score:1)
--Troy
Re:XFS (Score:1)
Cool, but I'm not running IRIX. Linux needs a successor to ext2.
Did you miss the announcement [sgi.com] that SGI's porting xfs to Linux? Apparently the only reason they haven't released code already is that their lawyers are still haggling over the license.
Re:Did anybody read the Seagate press release (Score:1)
Re:Uh oh. (Score:1)
Re:Few Comments (Score:1)
Only 216? (Score:1)
We've sure come a long way! (Score:1)
Re:Memory Lane (Score:1)
Yup, right here.. TRS-80 Model I with 16k and Level II Basic. I've still got the beast in a public storage facility.. all of the cassette tapes for it have long since turned to dust, but you can find large archives of TRS-80 software on the net that you can use in an emulator.. some of the emulators even have the ability to write out the programs to tape using a SoundBlaster.
Gotta love that 500 baud tape squeal. ;-)
Re:Now that's what I call bogus (Score:1)
I've heard that people who take "memory booster" courses eventually have to learn how to intentionally forget things, or else they have difficulty remembering new things.
Re:That's a spicy hard disk! (Score:1)
You need to upgrade your imagination. Don't think about textual information or programs. That stuff may grow, but not so much. Think about *video*, recordings of your videophonecalls, recordings of your favorite tv shows and movies. What do you think comes after collecting mp3's? Collecting music videos, of course.
--
Just wondering... (Score:1)
Today's English Lesson: Oxymorons
Re:Uh oh. (Score:1)
video for everything.
Your desktop background suddenly becomes a nice five minute long video loop of some waterfall, buttons sparkle prettily, nothing on your screen will EVER HOLD STILL! Thankfully, there will always be a command line.
Huge amounts of data, and it'll suck up all that "extra" CPU power too.
It'll be an Attention Deficiet Disorder nightmare.
I have to agree (Score:1)
Put it this way: whatever sort of lossy compression is going on, you have to be storing enough visual information to do some pretty amazing pattern recognition. You can recognize objects based on very small visual clues: you can distinguish similar-looking people's faces by small differences in their eyebrows, cheekbones, noses, etc., including people that you've just met and ones that you haven't seen in years. There are a lot of gold-colored 1997 Toyota Corollas on the road (look around), yet, even, when one is parked right next to me, I can usually tell at a glance which one is mine, probably by almost-subliminally noting differences in trim, scratches on the fender, seat covers, etc. This process has got to involve a lot more than 100 bits per second.
The thing about counting yes/no questions probably means that they were trying to determine hoe many bits it takes to identify a concept, and hence how big the "address space" of concepts is, but this seems pretty ridiculous. The "space" of things that someone might pick in a game of "20 Questions" is surely a tiny portion of that of all human thought. The 100-baud figure has got to be based on the rate of speech, which is far from being our fastest, let alone our only, "I/O device". That said, I do believe in the concept of "mind uploads", and it might even be possible in our lifetime, but not with Jaz disks.
Back to how to fill a 200GB drive: a (probably almost) TV-quality music video in MPEG 1 format is about 40MB, or about 10 MB/minute, or about the same size as uncompressed CD audio. DV format would be even better. Passing those around on the net like mp3s would be kind of prohibitive, but they could be distributed on CDs or DVDs. I could definitely see having a big collection, which would slurp up the disk space pretty fast.
David Gould
Re:That's a spicy hard disk! (Score:1)
limits of physics and human biology (Score:1)
Re:Real Time Speach (Score:1)
Re:The mind boggles (Score:1)
Get in to digital video editing. it's not all that new, and it will use up your 11G drive very, very quickly.
200Gig is a heck of a lot of MP3 or Word files, but it's really not all that much video.
Re:Video and massive hard drives (Score:1)
D
----
Re:Did anybody read the Seagate press release (Score:1)
--Bricktoad
Death of MP3 predicted! (Score:1)
Combine that with a backbone built around the new 1.6TB network technology, and MP3 becomes obsolete as a transmission format.
Which makes MP3
Re:holy SHIT (Score:1)
'/dev/hda1 has reached maxmimal mount count'
just when you want to use ya computer quickly?
and don't mention windows sodding scan-shit
Lovely to have the storage though.. and I don't believe the 'you could never use it all' lines.. you ALWAYS do
Games! (Score:1)
Anyway, even if the common user doesn't have a use for 216GB, it'll put downward pressure on the price of 108GB drives, and that has to be a good thing
--
archiving MP3s and pornography and... (Score:2)
You know, the one with 30fps, truecolor video clips and CD quality SurroundSound renderings of a Gerraud (sp) shaded, texture mapped digital assistant.
Remember back in the days when a harddisk was a commodity/expensive option? My XT had two 20MB drives - I was hot sh!t. I ran WP off of a floppy and was quite content.
What's the size of a full install of MS-Word2k?? 100MB? Giv'em ample resources, and the kids in Redmond will run out of them.
Re:When I get a cable modem... (Score:1)
Re:limits of physics and human biology (Score:1)
For smell and taste you may need the ability to do real-time
molecular simulations, then produce arbitrary chemicals faster
than a human can percieve.
I personally am fascinated with the idea that given enough
memory and system speed, one could digitize every atom in
a human body. Then, a molecular simulation of such a set of
atoms will render a full living human being inside a computer.
That'd be the most straightforward pathway to true AI.
Re:32KBytes ram, 64 KB ROM extension (Score:1)
my first computer...let's see, not counting that toy robot thing, was an ibm model 30 286 with a 20 meg hard drive...i still had it working up til last year, when i got mad and destroyed it. until 5 years ago, or perhaps before...20 megs still seemed pretty big, especially when you express it in bits...(i know the computer isn't that old...but i'm only 15.)
Video (Score:1)
Movies, Babylon 5 episodes, Hogan's Heroes episodes, etc. If you're like me, you have a bunch of videotapes. Point and click is easier than finding and loading a tape. Random access is nifty too. Think of all the neato things that could be done with a database and an index into a collection. Type "Schultz tunnel collapse" and click on "I'm feeling lucky" -- a second later computer starts playing clip of him walking in the compound and suddenly falling into a hole created by a collapsed tunnel. Run a voice recognition scanner to build text database of everything said. Now you can do dialog searches or view a montage of clips comprising every single time that Klink was threatened with being sent to the Russian front. Oh, to have them all at my fingertips with instant random access! That would be wonderful!
Alas, since hard disks aren't forever, I would of course have to back that stuff up, so the tape manufacturers are necessarily out of business...
Re:Uh oh. (Score:1)
Fear of death?!? The bloat (or rather, the economy of scale created by the bloat) is absolutely joyous to exploit! If Win2004 uses 200 Gig, then that means millions of people will need 200 Gig hard disks. That means they will eventually get cheap. You'll be able to buy storage at a dollar per Gig whether you run a bloated system or an efficient one.
My Amiga isn't complaining about her huge, fast, and inexpensive disks. :-)
Re:What a fscking big drive! (Score:1)
Maybe that's what it will take to finally push you fsckers into getting a modern file system.
Cache it with a conventional hard disk? (Score:1)
Most of your comments (cluster waste, frag, scandisk/fsck, formatting) are addressable by using/inventing better filesystems. But as for the seek time, I have a goofy idea: Use an "old style" fast hard disk as a cache (itself cached by RAM). ;-)
What took them so long? (Score:1)
you'll need a 216 GB HD just to run Win2000 ;-) (Score:1)
Lot's of data, how to push it fast (Score:1)
While it's cool that storage technology is getting so much better, it still doesn't completely help when that sea data has to pass through a straw. I'm hoping that advances in bus technology and communications will jump ahead in the near future to meet the requirements for pushing such data.
it's all coming together (Score:2)
Ultra-high speed backbone technologies... CPUs too fast for most common tasks... ADSL... Now super-duper-humongous harddrives...
I expect that within 2 years, we will have computers more powerful than we know what to do with -- most of our current programs simply do not use the available CPU resources already, and the same will happen with the storage and bandwidth. At that point, some totally new paragidm will spring up -- for nature abhors a vacuum. We will foigure out a Totally New Thing to do with our computers.
What will it be, that will be able to tax all of those resources? True VR? Totally wired environment, with the computers as the master controllers? We have those things already... Heck, I wish I knew what it will be! (I'd probably become very rich if I did). One thing I am fairly certain of -- we are at the edge of a paradigm shift in computing.
The New Thing (tm) is coming! The New Thing (tm) is coming!
--
Re:The mind boggles (Score:3)
I think there is a cruicial difference: Always before, the technology was playing catch-up with demand. We always needed MORE space, memory, speed! The technology has now overtaken popular demand (not the specialized computer needs, of course).
Let me tell you this: Since I got 11G drive a few months ago (in addition to my old 6G) -- rather cheaply, too! -- for the first time in my life, I have actually had free storage. LOTS of it. I have the content of a half-dozen CDs on my disks, a bunch of programs, some CD-games with full installation (you know, the kind which installd 500M straight onto the harddrive) -- and I still have space left. I am now trying to INVENT new uses for that space, whereas before, I was always trying to invent new ways to reduce my space usage.
My point? The existing computer paradigm has nearly exhausted itself. We will need to figure out something radically new to do with our computers, in order to actually use all the power we are getting.
--
That's a spicy hard disk! (Score:1)
Not to specifically target Microsoft, but Windows is perhaps the largest application that immediately jumps to mind that a consumer might run. In the *worst case* scenario, Windows and commonly bundled applications might take up 2G of space. Yet the average drive size today appears to be 10G to 12G.
It gets even more absurd when you consider alternative operating systems. I have BeOS installed with all the applications I need, and it takes up about 500M total. I have an 8.4G drive. I've installed Linux (Slack 3.6; 4.0's in the mail) in the not-too-distant past, and the installation indicated that even a complete full install would only hit ~370M.
216G is an awful lot of space, but I can't seriously imagine that most of the "commoners" need anywhere near that. Can anybody provide me with a legitimate example where Joe Blow is going to need even half that space? (Beyond archiving MP3s and pornography, that is.
Video Games! (Score:1)
Video and massive hard drives (Score:1)
However, with the new hard drives that are currently available (18 GB or so), digital VCR's are starting to look very promising. I would really love to be able to tell the VCR to simply record certain shows at preset times, after which I could leisurely watch whatever shows I like in whatever order. Zero hassle, except of course if you don't have a good antenna.
Re:That's a spicy hard disk! (Score:1)
So no the average user doesn't nessecarily 'need' it. But businesses can definately use it.
-cpd
Now that's what I call bogus (Score:2)
And top speed of storing data?? 100bps??? Close your eyes. Do you remember what you've just seen? How many bits per second is that? Aw, geez...
Kaa
I still call it bogus (Score:2)
Well, I don't know about you, but I have a reasonably good visual memory and frequently remember things by visualizing in my mind a picture of what I need and then scanning it for the specific detail/item I want. Lossy compression -- sure, but the quality is not as bad as you make it. There is *huge* amount of visual information stored in the brain, the problem is retrieving it. If I briefly think about my last vacation, for example, I can remember some stuff, but not all that much. But if I stop and really think about it, immersing myself into that experience, so much stuff that I actually remember pops up...
And didn't say anything about the methodolody -- measuring the brain's storage capacity by checking how many yes/no questions you need to guess what an average moron thinks about? Gimme a break.
Kaa
Re:It's VR. (Score:1)
Mind Uploads.
You know, I think the average AC could use a 5.25" floppy for the mind upload thing...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:32KBytes ram, 64 KB ROM extension (Score:1)
Of course, you know what the first thing we'll do with 200GB hard drives is. Fill them up, then complain that we only have 200GB hard drives and even cheap new machines come with 50TB. I mean, 200GB is hardly enough to store Windows 2005, let alone any applications...
Re:Where does the number 216 come from? (Score:2)
Duh, that's it, of course. ( 36 x 6 = 216 )
So that assumes the existing drive configurations with this new density. Seems more likely you'll see different configurations at smaller capacities, at least in the near-term. There seems like a natural barrier to this being competitive with 14-25 gig drives for individual users until something over 50 gig is needed on a wide basis (read: by your average 3d gamer, not your 3d graphics designers).
I wonder at what price/gig this new type of HD becomes practical for non-commercial applications, and an attractive and/or only alternative two 25+ gig drives?
Where does the number 216 come from? (Score:3)
Was this number derived by extrapolating current platter sizes and density? Someone questioned what we would ever do with 200+ gigs in a consumer device, but I wonder if the real potential of this might be to make smaller drives with very large capacity that might go into other devices besides multi-purpose home computers? Devices where even a half-height, 3.5" are too big (portable digital audio/video devices, little electronic dogs, etc?)
Re:The mind boggles (Score:1)
When everything starts to get come together, and networked. Imagine your "VCR" being hooked up to your computer w/Firewire or Gb-ethernet. Already there are video-storage systems by TiVo and ReplayTV that store video on an HD.
Imagine this going the next step... hooking up phones and tvs and your security system and...
Re:What about the seek time? (Score:1)
I suppose it should also be examined that a higher density doesn't necessarily mean they'll build a hard disk of that capacity - they could just make existing hard disk capacities, 9 gig, 20 gig etc. on hard drives that are physically a whole lot smaller! Of course, I wonder what the new system for aligning the heads does to power consumption... it would be nice to get 20 gig laptop hard disks. :) Hmm, it'd be nice to have a laptop, period. :)
Something I've thought about as drives get larger would be dividing the FAT and data segments. Use solid state circuitry to store the fat - instantaneous lookups - and then the platter holds only data. This way, the heads don't have to scan back and forth while doing lookups. But, what do I know? :)
Obasan
terabyte servers (Score:1)
That's a good analogy (Score:1)
So what you're saying is Seagate shoudl concentrate more on expanding the "gate" and less on the "Sea"?
Re:Memory Lane (Score:1)
At our school we started with one Apple II with a tape drive - programmed in machine language for fun but I'd just type in the hex each time. It was faster than loading from a tape. Later came the Commodore PETs - 8k and 16k I believe - with tape recorders.
I remember the suspense of waiting a few minutes to see if our programs would finish loading up okay.
oh yeah, and the sound of FFing, REWing and listening to the tapes to find where to start loading if you had a bunch of programs on the same tape! Nowadays I gues I listen to 56k modem connect sounds instead.
The more things change
When I get a cable modem... (Score:1)
a cable modem.
I want to automate my web research.
I'll need a cable modem so I can be connected
24/7 and disk space to hold the information
I collect.
Like yesterday, I read speculation about why
we bombed the crap out of Serbia. I started running searches for background material. Would
love to automate that kind of thing.
Someday.
Memory Lane (Score:1)
a TRS 80 and a tape recorder?
Re:Did anybody read the Seagate press release (Score:1)
Re:it's all coming together (Score:1)
you sure about that one??? I installed a "Preview" on my Gateway/win PC nd i'm sure it only took up 300mb or so. Albeit thats still a lot of space but... anyway, maybe i didn't install everything, but i installed most of it, all of the main apps (The Premium Edition) and most of the optional crap (the launcher-bar ect)... oh well..
Faster disks instead, please? (Score:1)
Re:I still call it bogus (Score:1)
First off, I'd like to point out that brains are fundamentally different in every way from digital computers: storage, processing, etc. Estimated about brain capacity in computing terms tend to be based on enormously flawed concepts, like guesses about how many bits are stored per neuron. (Short answer: none. The information is stored in the network, not the nodes.) I can't imagine what playing 20 questions has to do with memory; as for 100bps I/O, consider that you're brain is processing (and storing, though perhaps not permanently) everything in the environment, not just what you consciously perceive. (This has been studied, but I can't find the references.)
Second, even assuming you could measure brain capacity this way, would it be meaningful? Is audio stored at
Anyway, a few months ago I heard (several times, can't remember where) that the capacity would have to be more like 10 to 100 terabits, based on how much people can recall over a lifetime. I don't believe this either, but it seems much closer than a couple gigs.
Few Comments (Score:1)
2. Seek Time? Random Read Time? Not mentioned...
I really don't want something in my computer spinning at 200k rpm
3. Defrag??? It takes me the better part of a weekend to defrag my 4 hd's. (~30 gigs). There goes February.
4. Scandisk. Fstab. Imagine accidently shutting the computer down instead of a proper one. Say goodbye to the work day.
5. Formatting?
You get the idea...
RB
Re:Few Comments (Score:1)
RB
Re:Bet they said the same thing (Score:1)
I did that with 5 meg PC HDs - Just call me an OLD Geek
Re:Imagine what you can store!! (Score:1)
Forgot to carry the 0.
It was a rant, that's all.
Would have used CALC.EXE if
I were serious.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Imagine what you can store!! (Score:3)
About 4,236 MP3's.
I'm thinking about 3684 hours of music!!
You can start a playlist and listen for
153 straight days!
MP3 has taken over sex as the #1 search in search engines.
Imagine the sex that can be stored.
All those pics.
Let's say you store in JPEG format.
Let's say at the high end, they average 200k each.
(All us pervs know this is definitely high.)
Over a million JPEGS!
Imagine that slideshow!
Man would you get hair on your palms and go blind.
I had enough ranting.
Re:The mind boggles (Score:1)
Re:That's a spicy hard disk! (Score:1)
ttyl
srw
Re:What about the seek time?...and network backup! (Score:1)
Re:Uh oh. (Score:1)
Re:Where does the number 216 come from? (Score:1)
[pulls out napkin and pen]
1 Gbit = 1024 bits x 1024 bits = 1048576 bits
25 Gbits/inch^2 = 1048576 bits x 25 = 26214400 bits/inch^2
26214400 bits/inch^2 = 3276800 bytes/inch^2 = 3200 Kbytes/inch^2 = 3.125 Mbytes/inch^2 = 0.003 Gbytes/inch^2
Ok, so if we know that this thing can pack
[furious scribbling ensues...]
36 Gbytes / 2 sides = 18 Gbytes/side (duh)
PI x r^2 = surface area of a circle
So let's try a 5 inch platter (for a 5 1/4 inch drive):
3.14159 x 5^2 = 78.540 inches^2
78.540 inches^2 x
OK - I suck at math - can anyone see my error?
Help me, people...
Re:Where does the number 216 come from? (Score:1)
This should be the following:
78.540 inches^2 x
Sorry...
Re:Where does the number 216 come from? (Score:1)
OK - I suck at math - can anyone see my error?
Should be:
OK - I suck at math - can anyone see my error?
Man, I suck...
Re:216? See PI: The Movie (Score:1)
I think you're on to someth
Re:Where does the number 216 come from? (Score:1)
Mistake #1: Yes, this could have been done, but I wanted to try to avoid using any of the "published" numbers and work toward them...
Mistake #2: Yep! That could be a problem - thank you for this correction...
Mistake #3: Very true, very true...
Once again, thank you...
Re:That's a spicy hard disk! .... Not really (Score:1)
With digital movie distribution we're beyond needing 200 gB hard drives already! (Hell, a digital VCR could probably do with a bit more....)...
Ehhhh... Did anyone say HDTV???? --- Ahhhh!!!! A 400 gB HD wouldn't be enough....
Greetings from London
Re:Few Comments (Score:1)
Removing tongue from cheek..........100%
Re:Few Comments (Score:1)
Re:Where does the number 216 come from? (Score:1)
Mistake #1: You should have realised that 25 Gbits/in^2 * 1byte/8bits = 3.125 Gbytes/in^2, and saved your conversion from Gbits/in^2 to bits/in^2 to bytes/in^2 to Gbytes/in^2.
Mistake #2: 1 Gbit = 1024^3, not 1024^2. So your calculations were off by a factor of 1024.
Mistake #3: You didn't account for the spindle on the platter...
My calculations...
They said 105,000 tracks/inch, and 25Gbits/in^2, so that means we have 0.25Mbit/in linear density. If we assume a 3-inch platter has a half-inch spindle and a 1/4-in outside border, that gives us a 1-inch wide recording surface, with track radiuses ranging from 0.25-in (410Kbits) to 1.25 in (1.96Mbit), with an average radius of 0.75in (1.18Mbit), and 105,000 tracks, or 123700Mbits/side, or 15.1 GBytes/side. Close enough for me.....
(going the other way, from 18Gbytes/side and 3.125Gbytes/in^2, simple division will give you 18/3.125 in^2/side, or 5.76in^2/side. My geometry assumptions give me 4.71in^2/side, so my answer being low is reasonable -- my geometry is also low...)
holy SHIT (Score:1)
Gigs to go... (Score:1)
Re:it's all coming together (Score:1)
Bet they said the same thing (Score:1)
Re:Imagine what you can store!! (Score:1)
That's 5 months of 24/7 music before you hear a repeat.
Hmm, W2k will take up about 600 meg. Figure the next version will take up an order of magnitude of more space as MS adds AI to the little paperclip. So 6 gig for the OS, still plenty of room.
We are reaching the limit of magnetic-platter tech. The first work around I see is going back to 5 1/2 inch drives. Add more platters. Then they will have to stop using Magnetics to save information. Unless they figure out a way to write to a platter in layers like a DVD.
Later
Erik Z
Uh oh. (Score:1)
I can see all the M$ engineers scrambling furiously for their (overclocked???) PalmPilots to call meetings together to figure out how to devise a Windows that'll eat up 50 gigabytes or so of hard drive space.
The thing that scares me most of all is that I think, if they were really motivated to, they could probably find a way to do it, too.
Re:The mind boggles (Score:1)
Exactly.
The problem is, the software needs more space just because it's available. Noone will pay more money to get a smaller/faster program if the hardware is big enough.
Re:What filesystem to put on a 216GB drive? (Score:1)
micro$oft must be happy (Score:1)
Every time a bigger hard drive appears, M$ must be thankful, since the size of their OS's are rising so fast that storage technology has a hard time keeping up. Will the new win2000 install disk have to be a DVD rather than a CD?
Who would have realized that bugs and blue screens take up so much room?
Re:it's all coming together (Score:2)
Personally, I think we've long since surpassed the amount of computing power that we would know what to do with. Why else would we have screen savers?
Every day I ask myself what is really worth doing with a computer? Games are fun. Email is just a way to circumvent the post office. We are truly stuck on this constant search for a cool application of computers, but we have a harder and harder time trying to do it.
Personally, the times when I first saw Wolfenstein, civilization (I), and scorched Earth, I got a lot more excited about computers than I ever do now. Now I just take ever expanding resources for granted - almost in a fatalist way. I refrain from buying new hardware now, knowing that hardware is just going to go obsolete long before I can get my money's worth out of it.
The fact is, 95% of the computers out there are far overpowered for what any of their owners use them for. E-mail is not a CPU intensive task!
Which brings us to SETI@home - go team Slashdot!