Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WD's Monster 2TB Caviar Green Drive, Preview Test

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the what-would-this've-cost-in-1999? dept.

Data Storage 454

MojoKid writes "Today Western Digital is announcing their WD20WEADS drive, otherwise known as the WD Caviar Green 2.0TB. With 32MB of onboard cache and special power management algorithms that balance spindle speed and transfer rates, the WD Caviar Green 2TB not only breaks the 2 terabyte barrier but also offers an extremely low-power profile in its standard 3.5" SATA footprint. Early testing shows it keeps pace with similar capacity drives from Seagate and Samsung."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Powers of 2 (3, Informative)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624779)

It's really only 1800 Gigs.

Re:Powers of 2 (5, Funny)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624867)

It's really only 1800 Gigs.

Ah, the drivemaker's kilobyte... [xkcd.com]

Re:Powers of 2 (5, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625163)

Yes. Curse those evil companies, trying to replace our God-given units—like Furlongs, Hogsheads, and Binary Thousands—with evil, communist SI units. The fiends will stop at nothing to pollute the American way of life!

Re:Powers of 2 (4, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625289)

Yeah... nevermind units that fit in with what's being measured
or are computationally convenient. What we really need are
arbitrary metrics created by beaurocrats on a power trip.

Re:Powers of 2 (2, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625817)

Congratulations. You have just stated that powers of 10 are "arbitrary metrics created by beaurocrats[sic] on a power trip."

Let me explain this in simple terms:

Powers are two are convenient for machines.

Powers of ten are convenient for humans.

It's bad form to present data in an inconvenient format for the user (which, presumably, is human) no matter how "computationally convenient" your algorithm may be. You can use binary calculations all you want behind the scenes, but convert it to a format designed for human comprehension before displaying it to a human.

Re:Powers of 2 (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26626009)

Your argument would carry more weight if the manufacturers were doing this for the benefit of humans. In fact, they mix units - using the 1024-standard units for cache. Tell me mixing units is friendly! :)

Re:Powers of 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26624903)

Its nice they have that 32Mb of cache. way to go mixing your references.

Re:Powers of 2 (1)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625059)

The capacity hasn't changed -- only their definition of a terabyte.

Re:Powers of 2 (3, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625153)

You mean 1800 Gibibytes?

Re:Powers of 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625433)

Err, no.

The new standard replaces kibi, mebi and gibi with cabbage, mofo and giblet.

Or do you think that's silly? Well, so does everyone else. Overloading the SI prefixes worked well for years (pedants and idiots notwithstanding) and we don't see any reason to change.

Re:Powers of 2 (3, Funny)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625735)

The funny thing is both of my home computers have drives smaller than the missing 200GB from this 2TB drive. I really need to upgrade soon...

Re:Powers of 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625975)

Or about 1.21 jigobytes...

That was quick. (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624791)

Wasn't it only about a year ago that 1TB drives hit the market?

-jcr

Re:That was quick, but normal (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625005)

Storage generally doubles every year. Exponential growth is a wonderful thing.

Re:That was quick, but normal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625083)

Isn't that only geometric growth?

Re:That was quick, but normal (3, Informative)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625203)

Apperently they are the same [wikipedia.org] . I was a little bit surprised, too.

Re:That was quick, but normal (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625231)

Hard drive capacity is no longer exponential. They have hit some limits that are pretty hard to overcome. They're still making progress but not nearly as fast as in years past. Additionally, drives larger than 640 GB or so seem to have some reliability problems. I just recently upgraded my RAID arrays and went with smaller 640 GB drives because they have proven more reliable even though it would have been cheaper for me to go with newer larger drives.

The OP was wrong about it being one year anyway.

I hate hard-drives. I wish SSD technology would improve. It's not just price, the current drives are unreliable as hell. I trust regular old mechanical spinning devices a lot more than the current SSD crap.

Re:That was quick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625045)

Actually it has been two years. I believe it was a Hitachi in early January 2007.

just what I need (4, Funny)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624799)

I was worried I would have to start deleting from my *cough* adult movie collection *cough* to make more room

whatcouldpossiblygowrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26624855)

That's a lot of bytes on one platter!

backups (4, Interesting)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624863)

What the hell do you do to back up your 2TB drive?

That much storage in a single unit seems kind of dangerous.

Re:backups (5, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624913)

What the hell do you do to back up your 2TB drive?

2 other 2TB drives?

Re:backups (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624969)

Probably from the same manufacturer, with the same failure rates.

Re:backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625287)

Meh. There are at least three or four different manufacturers that sell big, cheap drives. So what's the problem?

Re:backups (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625435)

Just in case anyone is confused that this imitator is me, this is NOT me making this stupid comment. :)

[it's stupid because having the same failure *rate* does not mean they fail at the same time. Sheesh.]

Re:backups (4, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625513)

hmm, nope.

No one was confused. Nor would they care if they were.

backups-Blowups. (3, Insightful)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624981)

Unless they're all the same model made in Thailand.

Re:backups (1)

Domint (1111399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625431)

I think it's worth pointing out that what you suggest as a solution implies RAID 5, which is not a backup solution. There was an article on slashdot in the recent past about someone making that same mistake, and losing their entire hosted blog site (if someone could link the article that would be great - I'm having a heck of a time finding it).

Re:backups (2, Informative)

dougmc (70836) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625655)

No, he didn't imply raid 5. (You did seem to infer that, however.)

Raid 1 would only require two drives. But having three lets you do raid 1, and then periodically remove one of the drives and store it safely offsite and then replace it with the other drive and let the raid rebuild itself. That *is* a proper backup -- though personally I'd just periodically update one backup drive with rsync or something similar with the other backup drive being kept offsite.

Re:backups (1)

Domint (1111399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625847)

Ok, maybe I did leap to my nearest conclusion, but I've seen it happen enough where people assume that because they have RAID, they don't need to think about anything else for backup - your solution is a valid one though, since you are periodically ensuring that the data is stored outside the live array.

Re:backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625885)

Wasn't there something on TheDailyWTF.com that this method killed the main drive real quick?

Re:backups (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26626003)

That's a horrible idea. If you do that, there's a window where you have no RAID protection of changes to the filesystem. If you really want to safeguard that data, you need 4 drives. 2 in a RAID mirror, and then 2 more so you can be sure that all your data isn't at the same location, and you can keep your mirror of new data.

Re:backups (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625733)

If you were replying to me, no, I don't agree with what you said. It does NOT imply or require RAID5 at all.

For instance, maybe those two drives are in a mirroring configuration. Maybe they are in two separate computers. etc.

That's how I run our small business backup. It's by no means perfect, but it fairly well guarantees minimal data loss in case of a catastrophic main server failure, main office burning down etc. It's also not prohibitively expensive...

Main office has a server.

Owner's house has a 24/7 backup server with two drivers in a mirror configuration rsyncing from the main office every night.

Office warehouse has another backup server (no mirror in this one) that also rsyncs every night.

The weakness of this is that if somebody accidentally deletes a file, and wants it back the next day, tough luck. We DO supplement this system with most workers having portable USB drives they take home. Obviously this is not possible or desirable for many offices...

Re:backups (1)

Domint (1111399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625907)

If a file gets deleted and is not recoverable, then it is not backed up. Period. If you are just replicating data to another drive, you replicate errors and corruption as well. I don't know about where you work, but if one of my coworkers came in and said "hey, I seem to have lost file such-and-such, and need it back" and I told them it's gone for good since they didn't come to me within 24 hours, I'd lose my job.

Re:backups (1)

AntEater (16627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625479)

Well, based on my experiences, I would strongly suggest that you purchase some non-Western Digital hard drives for your backups. That is, unless you like being on a first name basis with their technical support agents.

Re:backups (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625751)

I've had worse luck with Seagate...

But given that I'm dealing with small numbers of drives, I don't think there's any statistical significance to my experiences.

Re:backups (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625941)

I've always had good luck with WD, and found Maxtor to be unreliable. I've also seen /. posters claim that Maxtor is the shit and WD is just shit.

Re:backups (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624947)

Another 2TB drive. They're cheap enough to keep a spare around. If you're paranoid about leaving it in the case you can pick up an external SATA or USB rig and only plug it on when you're running backups.

Re:backups (2, Insightful)

Xemu (50595) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625089)

Another 2TB drive. They're cheap enough to keep a spare around.

The problem with that is of course that mirroring simply mirrors problems on the primary drive to the secondary drive. So you end up with two working drives with broken data on it.

It's the data you want backed up, not the drive.

Re:backups (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625217)

A second drive doesn't necessarily mean mirroring.

Re:backups (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26626011)

Though if your primary drive is spitting out bad data, it doesn't matter what backup media you are using.

Re:backups (0)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625081)

I've got two 1 TB drives in my home server. I use software RAID to keep my data safe and happy. You pretty much have to buy these things in pairs if you care even a little bit about the data. Unless, of course, you're buying this to use as a back up.

Re:backups (4, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625195)

Except RAID isn't a backup, so your data isn't that "safe and happy".

Re:backups (1)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625511)

What a thunderous grasp of the obvious, Captain obvious - I assume that's why it's not called BAID. I do, however, contest the second part of your statement as my data on my personal RAID-6 array has been very "safe and happy" for a couple years now and survived a few catastrophic drive failures without the use of an expensive backup solution.

Re:backups (1)

Domint (1111399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625669)

Then you are just biding your time until something really subtle happens that screws the whole thing up. For example. what happens if the filesystem becomes corrupt? That corruption is propagated across your entire RAID array, leaving you with 4+ fully functional yet useless drives and you'll be left kicking yourself for not performing routine backups.

Re:backups (1)

Domint (1111399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625591)

If I had mod points, they'd be yours. It boggles the mind how many people equate RAID to backup - RAID only ensures data availability, not integrity. If the bits get fubar'ed on one drive, that will propagate across the rest - leaving you with no data.

Re:backups (1)

Lord Jester (88423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625779)

Depends on the level of RAID. I have yet to see this in any of my RAID 5 arrays.

Not arguing about the declaration that RAID is not a backup, but it is, by definition, redundant.

If I have critical data, it is stored in two (or more) locations (both electronic and physical).

Re:backups (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625851)

Depends on the level of RAID. I have yet to see this in any of my RAID 5 arrays.

sudo rm -rf /

Doesn't matter how many levels of RAID you have, in that case your data is gone pretty quickly.

I have had something similar happen to me on a RAID 1 array. The ReiserFS partition got really messed up, luckily I had just backed up everything in that array, but the RAID didn't do anything to save my data.

Re:backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625375)

It's amazing how this comment, in some form or another, is inevitable when RAID enters into any discussion.

Re:backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625421)

that's because same troll is trollin'. "Doo doo doo look at me, i'm an expert, i'm going to argue semantics with you hurr derrr durrrr."

Re:backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625471)

Well, its a relatively safe comment to make right now.. especially since a blogging site thought mirroring was enough... until their drives were blanked and the blank was copied to the mirror (It was on /., just can't find the link anymore). The thing with raid is that it really isn't a backup solution unless you are running something like raid 5+1 or similar.

Re:backups (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625673)

And it's amazing how many people don't understand why.

Re:backups (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625791)

I've got two 1 TB drives in my home server. I use software RAID to keep my data safe and happy. You pretty much have to buy these things in pairs if you care even a little bit about the data. Unless, of course, you're buying this to use as a back up.

RAID is not a backup!

RAID protects you from a drive failure or two, sure... But what if you delete something you shouldn't have? Or something important gets corrupted? Or you get a nasty virus? Or your house burns down? Or you get some kind of nasty lightning strike that takes out your entire RAID? Or you run one of Seagate's firmware updates?

A backup is a periodic snapshot, preferably stored off-site, that you can go back to if something horrible happens to your data.

You can certainly use HDDs as backup... Or even a RAID... But you need to move your data to those drives and then take them offline and put them someplace safe. Just simply RAIDing your working set doesn't give you a backup.

Fools say it's DANGEROUS! (3, Insightful)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625173)

Every time a new, larger drive comes out, people say, "That much data in one drive is dangerous!"

So here's what you do. Go buy ten 200GB drives. RAID them together. Who do you think will lose data, you, with ten times the possible failure points, or me with only one?

Just back it up, biznatch!

I'll lose less data (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625225)

My RAID setup would use drives from different manufacturers and production lots, and contain hot spares.

Re:Fools say it's DANGEROUS! (2, Informative)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625929)

Every time a new, larger drive comes out, people say, "That much data in one drive is dangerous!"

So here's what you do. Go buy ten 200GB drives. RAID them together. Who do you think will lose data, you, with ten times the possible failure points, or me with only one?

Just back it up, biznatch!

Well, of course backups are the solution. And anyone with half a clue and some important data has nobody to blame but themselves if they don't have a backup.

But if you've got 10x 200 GB HDDs, and one of them fails, you've only lost 200 GB. And in a RAID setup you might not even notice that single drive failure...which means you can easily slot in a new drive and never lose any data.

While if you're running 1x 2 TB HDD, and that one drive fails, you're pretty much hosed. In this situation you'll be rebuilding your working set from a backup, which might very well take a while. It's certainly more disruptive than slotting in a new drive while your RAID keeps everything up and running with no downtime at all.

The part that concerns me is that live storage seems to be outpacing backup capacity. Sure, LTO4 can hold about 1.5 TB with decent compression... But that isn't even the full capacity of a single one of these drives. RAID a few of them together and you've completely exceeded that tape's capacity. It's getting to the point where the only solution is going to be dumping data to more HDDs, or selling robotic tape libraries to everyone.

Re:backups (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625185)

That much storage in a single unit seems kind of dangerous.

I never understood this argument. Say you have N drives each with capacity C/N (e.g. C=2TB, N=1 for this new drive, or C=500GB, N=4 as you prefer) and probability P of each drive failing in a given time interval. Your expected data loss is N*P*C/N, which is independent of N. So what's the gain from more drives?

Heck, assume you don't want the hassle of multiple partitions so you use logical volume management to concatenate the drives (simulating the larger disk). Since any failure kills the whole thing, it's even worse - N*P*C.

I guess maybe your are thinking of RAID5? But is this an enterprise-class hard drive? I'm not buying (or buying electricity for) 3x 1TB drives instead of 1x 2TB drive just to protect my PVR recordings. And since RAID (regardless of level) is not a backup, if the data is any more important than PVR recordings, you still need backups with or without RAID. So all RAID5 gives you is decreased time to recover from a broken drive, by making you buy a spare up front. Obviously decreased downtime is critical for an important server, but not for the vast majority of home PCs.

Re:backups (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625523)

Actually a multi terrabyte RAID 5 drive is a nice bit of the backup solution. No, it's not the be all and end all of backups. You still need separate completely off line and off site backups. But since modern RAID boxes can tell if a drive is bad, you get to look at the blinken light, go "oops", pull the drive and plug another one in. Wander off to Slashdot for a few hours and poof. Your data is back. No muss, no fuss. I like that part.

You can never be too rich, too thin or have too many backups. At least I get the chance to do one out of three....

Re:backups (1)

Domint (1111399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625803)

If you don't have the data replicated periodically outside the RAID, it's not a backup solution at all - I could, within the OS & filesystem, delete files arbitrarily and the RAID will happily remove those bits from all the drives. Thus, it is not a backup solution. If those bits aren't anywhere else, they are gone for good.

Re:backups (1)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625691)

If N=16, you lose one-sixteenth of your data. If N=1 you lose all of your data.

You are right the first scenario is sixteen times more likely to happen, so mathematically there is no difference.

For practical purposes I'd take the small dataloss...

Re:backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625829)

Its not only smaller it is also more frequent, you lose less data 16 times instead of all the data once. 1 instance of downtime is a lot better than 16.

Re:backups (2, Funny)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625223)

Bittorrent?

Re:backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625271)

Not dangerous if its part of a RAID array...of like 5x 2TB drives...ooohhh yeah.....excuse me, I have to go change.

Re:backups (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625299)

I'll probably buy 2 when the price comes down a bit. I'll keep data that doesn't really need to be backed up on it, and then periodically clone it to the other drive. Things like my movie collection (have the originals), iMovie projects (have the original tapes), virtual drives. On 2TB, I could fit all of my 13-GB-each iMovie projects and all of my DVDs in whole. I currently archive the iMovie projects to DVD and use a shelf to hold the movies.

My Mozy backup for everything else is just under 300GB and I'm on DSL. If I were on FIOS, I'd have no qualms about backing up the full 2TB.

Re:backups (1)

dlcarrol (712729) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625325)

2 other drives: one in the removable tray, one in the firesafe*. Swap monthly.

*firesafe not included

Re:backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625387)

Stop deleting stuff. Forever.

Buying a game? Watching a movie? Sure, but first I make a copy of it on my drive, so I will never have to meddle with the original DVD.

Re:backups (1)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625741)

Or, the other extreme: delete what you don't need anymore.

Do you really need DownloadedSoftware v0.7 when the current version is 4.2? Do you even need that version stored locally?

Are you really going to see that movie again? Is ripping it so harddisk even worth the time? Deletion is your friend. No worries for data you don't have. Easier (smaller, faster) backups, too!

7 hours? (3, Interesting)

mikeee (137160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625593)

It's worse than you think. Even if you have a place to back it up, the I/O rates on modern HDs aren't increasing nearly as fast as capacity. Reading at top speed, it would take almost 7 hours to pull all the data off this drive, even if you have someplace to put it. Similarly, if you're using it as part of a RAID set, it'll take that long to rebuild if you have a failure.

Pretty soon the MTBF on these drives will be a significant fraction of (capacity)/(read rate); that will make for fun all around.

Re:backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625651)

Lots of tapes.

As for dangerous, dropping six 320 GB drives on your foot would do lots more damage than dropping a single 2TB drive. Perhaps they could use this as a selling feature!

Re:backups (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625731)

Use a Windows Home Server [microsoft.com] ?

Perfect (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624873)

Spindle-drives are inherently slow anyways, so I think the combination of a big, power-efficient drive (never mind the speed) for movies and an SSD drive for everything else is ideal.

Re:Perfect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625553)

Yeah. I plan on building a new desktop system in about six months, and for the first time in many years, the storage choices are quite interesting.

I'm thinking along the lines of one inexpensive (slow-writing) flash drive for OS data and programs that rarely change, a decent (Intel) SSD for stuff that does change (/home, /var, /tmp, ...), and then a 2TB hard drive for music, videos, and everything else where performance isn't terribly important.

Nice (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26624881)

The cache on this drive is 8x larger than the capacity of my first hard drive.

Re:Nice (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625551)

So? I'm sure the onboard controller is probably 8x faster than your first processor as well. ;)

Really Enough (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26624891)

Two Terabytes should be enough for anybody

WD20? (5, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624931)

It'll be so slick when the 4.0 TB WD40 comes out.

Re:WD20? (1)

LUH 3418 (1429407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625283)

Except they'll call it WD4X or something to avoid getting sued!

But how reliable is it? (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26624989)

Agent smith: What good is 2 terabytes of porn if you are unable to access it?
Keanu: (glances worriedly at his zipper)
agent smith: (palm to face, shakes head) The hard drive, you imbecile, the hard drive.

Re:But how reliable is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625357)

Wow, someone needs a lesson in humor. That wasn't funny, just stupid and prosaic.

Green Caviar? (5, Funny)

auric_dude (610172) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625067)

No thanks, looks and smells a bit fishy to me.

Re:Green Caviar? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625205)

Like your mama's pussy?

Re:Green Caviar? (2, Funny)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625515)

I know, it will TOTALLY clash with the rest of my yellow PC.

More room... or backup? (4, Insightful)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625219)

The problem with a larger drive is I fill it quickly. Should I buy a 2TB drive and use it to backup my already full two 1TB drives, or should I just add storage? Oh, the agony!

Re:More room... or backup? (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625567)

You should buy (2) 15-disk arrays. One for active use, the second for backups. At 15 disks, how quickly could one fill 28TB of space?

Good foil for Seagate (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625361)

It will be nice to have someone besides Seagate in this space.
Perhaps they will be motivated to get their act together. If they
don't those of us that buy these kinds of drives at least have an
alternate vendor now.

Re:Good foil for Seagate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625537)

Considering that Seagate owns WD, I don't think it will have the effect you'd like to see.

Re:Good foil for Seagate (2, Informative)

muckdog (607284) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625631)

Seagate does not own Western Digital. You are likely thinking of Maxtor.

Re:Good foil for Seagate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625727)

Right, my bad.

Mine's Better! (1, Insightful)

andersonEE (1462635) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625425)

I think it's better to have multiple smaller drives than a single big one. My 2 500 gigers were $65 each. I have everything important on both so when one goes, it won't be a major loss.

Re:Mine's Better! (1)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625777)

And do you keep them both in the same closet? :-(

Re:Mine's Better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625849)

I think it's better to have multiple smaller drives than a single big one. My 2 1TBers were $130 each. I have everything important on both so when one goes, it won't be a major loss.

2,000,000,000,000 (0, Redundant)

desmondmonster (863068) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625457)

Seriously, at some point won't all this space be enough for anybody?

Re:2,000,000,000,000 (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26626015)

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/UnderstandingHDFormats.aspx#storageneedsforhdcapture [microsoft.com]

Short answer: hell no.

We will always find something more to store. See above for a concrete example, recording raw HD video. For a more abstract version, see: everyone's DNA, biometrics, IRS/similar, etc. etc. forever.

Great,.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625475)

Now RAID-5 arrays will take 5 days to initialize and resync.

How long till they hit the stores? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625499)

The 1.5TB Seagate drives have only been available from a small
number of online vendors for a short while now and just now
became available from brick+mortar outlets like BestBuy.

Any idea when these drives will hit a shelf at Frys?

The new retail packaging is relatively tiny BTW. You could blink and miss the new boxes.

My 1 TB is already full! (1)

UncleMantis (933076) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625535)

When this sucker comes out, I am buying 2 of them!

failZ0rs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26625677)

use the sling. short of a miracle is also a miserable Rivalry, and we'll his clash with This post brought RAADT'S STUBBORn another folder. 20 Base for FreeBSD

32MB On Disk Cache (3, Interesting)

3p1ph4ny (835701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625813)

I was thinking about this the other day, but, does the 32MB on disk cache really matter?

Think of it this way: the Linux kernel does disk caching with my free RAM (which I generally have more than 32MB of) according to some reasonable locality scheme (LRU or something).

If the HDD does the same caching according to nearly the same principles, won't the data on the disk cache nearly always be a subset of the disk cached in RAM? Meaning: doesn't the disk cache have no effect whatsoever?

I'm genuinely interested in an answer to this question, even if it is a little OT. Please burn a little karma for me :)

Breaks a Barrier? (1)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625861)

the WD Caviar Green 2TB not only breaks the 2 terabyte barrier

In order to break a barrier don't you have to go through said barrier?
2.01 would have broken it. As it is, the WD Caviar Green 2TB stopped at the barrier's gates.

Performance looks surprisingly good! (2, Insightful)

arugulatarsus (1167251) | more than 5 years ago | (#26625969)

This hdd seems to be competing with the spinpoint f1 and the latest of seagate's 7200 RPM hdds. The kicker is this is a "green" series drive. It uses variable RPM technology. It actually spins at 5400 RPM quite often.
I'm still not convinced going green on the HDD will save energy as it drops 10 watts on your total load. In an array of arrays, there may be savings though. Gamers, remember, your power supply/CPU/video card are the biggest culprits. Lower power will generally equate to lower hear and thus less breakdowns though.
I'll wait a few months to see if there are recalls. If there are none, this drive looks like a winner.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?