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!

The Limits To Perpendicular Recording

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the moore-was-a-piker dept.

Data Storage 222

peterkern writes "Samsung has a new hard drive and says it can now store 667 GB on one disk, which comes out to be about 739 Gb/sq. in. That is more than five times the density when perpendicular recording was introduced back in 2006, and it is getting close to the generally expected soft limit of 1 Tb/sq. in. It's great that we can now store 2 TB on one hard drive and that 3-TB hard drives are already feasible. But how far can it go? It appears that the hard drive industry may start talking about heat-assisted magnetic recording again, soon."

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

Heat-assisted magnetic recording? (4, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130670)

When the only tool you have is a HAMR, everything looks like a nail.

Re:Heat-assisted magnetic recording? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33130734)

When the only tool you have is a HAMR, everything looks like a nail.

I nailed your mom last night, perpendicularly.

Re:Heat-assisted magnetic recording? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131384)

The HAMR is my penis.

Re:Heat-assisted magnetic recording? (2, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130748)

No..
When the only tool you have is a Hammer, every problem looks like a hell of a lot of fun....

Or the Murphy version (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131016)

When the only tool you have is a hammer every problem requires a screwdriver.

Re:Heat-assisted magnetic recording? (2, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130986)

When the only tool you have is a HAMR, everything looks like rust.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Heat-assisted magnetic recording? (3, Funny)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131290)

My laptop's hard drive already utilizes heat-assisted magnetic erasing, though it tends to work on an entire drive at a time.

Re:Heat-assisted magnetic recording? (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131906)

oh no. I can picture the marketing now...

HAMR time! [youtube.com]

and now I can't get it out of my head...

Get Perpendicular (4, Funny)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130688)

A simple video to explain perpendicular recording!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb_PyKuI7II

Re:Get Perpendicular (1)

MikeMayer (1529821) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130778)

Love it.

Re:Get Perpendicular (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131160)

Clicky link [youtube.com] for the lazy.

Re:Get Perpendicular (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131176)

"I'm dancing! I'm dancing!"

I wonder if the guys who made Borderlands had seen this video.

TFA is unreadable. (4, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130716)

However, more density also provides a way to higher capacity 3.5" drives, which means that Samsung is now able to build 2.7 GB and 3.3 GB hard drives with four or five disks, respectively. Such drives are rather unlikely however, as we would expect the density to grow to 750 GB per disk, which could enable 4-disk 3 GB drives.

Oh, wow, a 3-gigabyte drive! How futuristic!

Seriously, what sort of monkey messed the article up this badly?

Re:TFA is unreadable. (3, Insightful)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130740)

However, more density also provides a way to higher capacity 3.5" drives, which means that Samsung is now able to build 2.7 GB and 3.3 GB hard drives with four or five disks, respectively. Such drives are rather unlikely however, as we would expect the density to grow to 750 GB per disk, which could enable 4-disk 3 GB drives.

Oh, wow, a 3-gigabyte drive! How futuristic!

Seriously, what sort of monkey messed the article up this badly?

This is slashdot, in the 12 years I've been wasting time here, I am more surprised when they get a story with all of the facts, spelling and concepts correct!

Re:TFA is unreadable. (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130968)

This is the internet. Facts, spelling, and concepts are all optional.

Re:TEA is unreadable. (3, Funny)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131270)

This is the internet. Facts, spelling, and concepts are all optional.

Nah. TEA is unreadable. Especially the leaves.

Re:TFA is unreadable. (1)

dclozier (1002772) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131898)

So what your saying is that you've never been surprised. :D

Re:TFA is unreadable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131182)

To be fair, not many people are used to writing GB yet. After a decade of writing GB getting them to start using the abbreviation GB will take time.

Re:TFA is unreadable. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131448)

To be fair, not many people are used to writing GB yet. After a decade of writing GB getting them to start using the abbreviation GB will take time.

I see what you did there,

Re:TFA is unreadable. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131236)

kdawson posted TFA. This explains everything.

Re:TFA is unreadable. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131398)

Oh, wow, a 3-gigabyte drive! How futuristic!
Seriously, what sort of monkey messed the article up this badly?

Yeah, seriously. I thought we agreed on using Gibibytes from now on, right?
I actually make the TB/GB mistake regularly, and people either don't catch it, inserting TB because they know I'm talking about a low (<10) number or they just don't bother to mention it because they can reason out what I meant. That's one of the nice things about having 1000 or 1024 as a separation point in the naming hierarchy.

I knew this was a kdawson post... (4, Insightful)

elohel (1582481) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130728)

Most of the time I never comment on how dumb a synopsis is...but HOLY SHIT. I had to log in and comment to just complain about how terrible this is. NEWS FLASH: Technology has finite limits! In other news, fire is hot and humans eat food. More at 11. "It appears the industry may start talking about heat-assisted magnetic recording again, soon." Thanks for actually saying nothing. Your comments to the article are completely useless. This is one of the reasons why slashdot gets on my nerves, what useless junk.

Re:I knew this was a kdawson post... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33130966)

This is one of the reasons why slashdot gets on my nerves, what useless junk.

Then don't read it.

Re:I knew this was a kdawson post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131090)

Dawson is that you? Could you pretty please stop sucking? Or at least take it out of your mouth long enough to read what you write?

Re:I knew this was a kdawson post... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131262)

Bullshit. He's right. Slashdot is a sack of shit sometimes. And instead of simply not reading it, he's complaining in the hopes they get a small message eventually and maybe strive to be better.

In the long run, people talking about what a declining news site Slashdot is should have some effect.

Kdawson should never have been allowed to speak here. Slashdot was supposed to filter out this type of garbage.

Re:I knew this was a kdawson post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131590)

In the long run, people talking about what a declining news site Slashdot is should have some effect.

The best plan so far to bring this place back from the dead!

Re:I knew this was a kdawson post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131796)

If you don't think that an article about:
A) A new hard drive featuring the highest storage density ever
B) The physical limits of current hard drive storage potential
C) Potential solutions to those physical limits
is worthy of Slashdot, you don't belong here, so let me be of some assistance: www.digg.com

Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (4, Insightful)

MankyD (567984) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130730)

Stop making it bigger! Start making it faster!

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130750)

That what she said.

only visa versa..

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130774)

That's what the SSD market does.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (0)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131358)

That's what the SSD market does.

No, the SSD market makes it faster to read, slower to write, shorter write life, and ~10 times smaller. What we need is slightly faster read and write, longer life, the same capacity.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131462)

I don't think we need that much faster write speeds - once your installation and setup is done, you're dealing with peanuts in size of writes, kilobytes, maybe a few megs.

SSD's do exactly what PC's need - a much faster read, at a much smaller volume, with decent enough capacity. Lifetime is something that they aim to mature with development.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (0, Redundant)

cynyr (703126) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131718)

start ripping bluray movies... 30-40GB per...

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131808)

Thats what Hard drives are for!

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130874)

The real performance boost comes from higher capacity drives. If you want fast, just get two.

Oh wait..

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (3, Funny)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130894)

Stop making it bigger! Start making it faster!

What about harder and stronger?

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131390)

They're already hard.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (4, Interesting)

EdZ (755139) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130916)

No, make it bigger! Bring back 5.25" form factor drives!

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131478)

No, make it bigger! Bring back 5.25" form factor drives!

If they made them cheap enough, I would buy 6TB quantum bigfoots for archival purposes.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131872)

With the surface area of a 5.25" drive and today's densities you could probably fit 10-20TB in them. I'd definitely buy several if they had an attractive price of around 30-50% of 3.5" price/GB. Speed isn't much of an issue and if it were I'd go with striped SSD's or simply more RAM anyway, but sheer storage capacity is never enough, and if it ever becomes enough, I can certainly use up even more by expanding redundancy.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131510)

You joke, but I would love to have a slow 4200RPM half-height 5.25" drive able to store 10-12 terabytes for mass storage. It would be perfect for home media servers where access time isn't all that important, and it would be more than fast enough to handle HD video.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (2, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131704)

You say slow, but at that density the throughput will still be quick.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131022)

Hard drives can already read/write around 50 MB per second, the real problem is programmers who insist on scattering all the data for one program around in 1000 different files. Zip that shit up so it can all be read at once, damn it.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131402)

Right, because zipping up 1000 files into 1 compressed file, and then decompressing it to find the file the app is looking for makes it more efficient. I see now. Good work!

No, but i sort of agree. Too many files fragmented over the capacity of a hard drive makes things slower. less files would speed things up. but just build a bigger circuit board for higher capacity SSDeez! And make them consumer-affordable already bitchez!

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (2, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131456)

Theoretically, for many applications, zipping up the 1000 files into 1 compressed file and decompressing it on-the-fly really is faster, and has been for quite some time. Disk speeds haven't changed that much in the past 10-15 years, but CPUs and memory buses have become far, far faster. Since disk seek time and latency is so long, compared to the amount of work a modern (esp. multicore) CPU can do in that amount of time, it frequently makes more sense to compress data and archive disparate files into single larger ones.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (2, Informative)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131114)

Why not do both in separate product lines? Kinda like what they're already going right this very moment. If I want a lot of stuff in one place, I buy hard drives. If I want a small amount of stuff accessed very quickly, I buy SSDs. One division increasing capacity doesn't stop an entirely different division from increasing performance. And those SSDs are increasing in size pretty quickly. The Vertex 2 Pro is up to 240 gigs for under $700. Wasn't long ago that the tiniest, crappiest-performing SSD cost that much. Now that's the price of the biggest and fastest. In another year, the $/gig ratio will be even better along with performance.

So I think fast storage is coming along just fine and I'm happy to have the slow spinning stuff for my "access occasionally" data like audio, video, backups, etc.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (2, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131372)

The Vertex 2 Pro is up to 240 gigs for under $700. Wasn't long ago that the tiniest, crappiest-performing SSD cost that much. Now that's the price of the biggest and fastest.
I can't comment on fastest but it's far from the biggest. You can get 512GB and 1TB SSDs (though the 1TB ones are desktop form factor) now but the price is insane.

In another year, the $/gig ratio will be even better along with performance.
I sure hope so

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (2, Funny)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131212)

That's what She SaiD.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (1)

tknd (979052) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131416)

No, keep making it bigger. When we had floppy disks, it easy to fill up your floppy disks with documents. With hard drives, that became much harder so hard drives made document storage nearly infinite. As computers got faster, we started listening to mp3s and taking pictures. But it was still possible to fill up your hard drive with mp3s or pictures. The drives kept getting bigger and now at about 2TB, I'd think it would be pretty hard for most people to fill that up with mp3s or pictures, so now for music, pictures, and documents, hard drives are nearly infinite for most people.

But let's not stop there. It is still easy to fill that 2TB hard drive with video like dvds and bluray. So let's keep going to petabytes and maybe then a single drive ought to be enough for anyone.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (2, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131664)

There should be factors of human proportions that limit the need for exponentially increasing growth at some point.

Human perception in audio has already been passed both in frequency and dynamic domains. Static images are reaching that threshold, and we do already have lossless encodings that pass it. Motion pictures will be the next threshold, and then I suppose holography. So there goes my argument that we can limit the need for exponential growth, oh well.

I think it's funny that you can probably store all known pre-17th century literature and a decent representation of art, music, and architecture of the whole pre-industrial period on a pocketable medium.

Re:Stop Making It Bigger. Start Making It Faster! (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131614)

Forget both those, how about more reliable?

Kikocracy is Kakocracy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33130738)

He was described as “undoubtedly the notional head of British Jewry” by the Jerusalem Post. He was arrested by the British police on Wednesday. He is Michael Abraham Levy, aka “Lord Cashpoint”, one of the sleaziest of the many sleazy Jews swarming around the open sewer that is modern British politics. Levy has been selling honours in the long tradition of the Jewish spiv: a fast-talking conman who makes his money from trash. It’s been possible to see the present scandal coming for over a decade:
Levy's importance to Blair can hardly be overstressed. The two first met at a dinner party in 1994, given by senior Israeli diplomat Gideon Meir, and Levy soon became the politician’s tennis partner. After financially backing Blair’s leadership bid from his own pocket, the following year he was entrusted with setting up the so-called Labour Leader's Office Fund blind trust to finance the Leader of the Opposition’s private office. Although not a trustee, Levy had the job of bagman. No press release was issued proclaiming the fund’s establishment. Its existence only became public knowledge with an article in the Sunday Times in November 1996. The Blair camp was quick to defend its integrity. One unnamed spokesperson argued: “It is not a secret fund, it is a blind trust, which means that no one in the office knows who the donors are. Certainly not Tony.”
Certainly not Tony? Given that details of four prominent businessmen backers were published in the newspaper, that argument hardly passed muster. Among those named were the late Sir Emmanuel Kaye and Sir Trevor Chinn. The other two persons named by the Sunday Times as Labour Leader’s Office Fund donors – printing millionaire Bob Gavron and Granada Television’s Alex Bernstein – both subsequently secured peerages. That all four of the backers, as well as Levy himself, were Jewish was a point picked up on by commentators as diverse as the Jerusalem Post and the British National Party.

There are further Jewish connections. The trust’s books were handled by London accountants Blick Rothenberg, which also looks after many major Israeli companies operating in Britain. The Conservatives allege that Maurice Hatter, chairman of IMO Precision Controls, also gave to the trust. Hatter is known for certain to have given £1m [$1.8m] to government education initiatives, £10,000 to Labour election funds and £25,000 towards Frank Dobson’s abortive London mayor campaign.

Late publisher Paul Hamlyn was already a substantial Labour donor and is also likely to have given to Blair’s blind trust. He was friend of both Gavron and Levy, who later extracted from Hamlyn a £2m donation to the party proper in 2000. But in this case there is no need to resort to anti-Semitic conspiracy theory to explain all this. (“Taking It On Trust”, Labour Party PLC: New Labour as a Party of Business, David Osler, 2002)

That’s right: there’s no need to resort to a conspiracy theory. These Jews were just doing what comes naturally: paying traitorous White politicians to run the country for Jewish ends. Bliar, like Margaret Thatcher and Harold Wilson before him, knew that Jews weren’t helping him out of the kindness of their goy-loving hearts. They expected something in return and they got it. Massively increased immigration and the war in Iraq are two of Bliar’s payments on his permanent debt, but I don’t think he’s going to receive the protection of the Jews-media for much longer. Jews may be planning to use him as the fall-guy as JuLabour begins to crumble. On the very day “Lord” Levy was arrested, the Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland rushed to his keyboard to turn out a heart-felt “Cherchez le goy!”:
This is lazy scapegoating
Levy can surely look after himself, but his critics should bear two things in mind. First, Levy has been a convenient personification of what is, in fact, a wider phenomenon: a New Labour weakness for corporate power. Whether it was the willingness to take Bernie Ecclestone’s cash or the sweet deals granted in the name of the public finance initiative, this Labour government has displayed a wide-eyed eagerness to cosy up to big money that has no precedent. We’ve seen it again in John Prescott’s desperation to make nice with the US casino tycoon Philip Anschutz [yet another sleazy Jew]. This is a defect of New Labour itself; it is lazy to make Levy the scapegoat for it.

If Labour has been in the wrong over loans-for-peerages, it is a delusion to think that the blame should rest solely with Levy. He has reportedly warned that he will not play the fall guy; if he is taken down, he will tell the truth of others’ roles. Put succinctly, there is no way that Lord Levy could have been selling honours without the blessing of his boss, the prime minister. (The Guardian website, 12th July 2006)

Jonny the Jew’s up to those usual Jewish tricks of misdirection and misinformation. Hebe who pays the piper calls the tune. Levy’s the hebe, Bliar’s the piper, and who looks like the boss in this picture?

Levy is indeed a “convenient personification” of Labour’s love of big business, because he’s a sleazy sheeney like so many of the businessmen. Although Jonny the Jew may be doing his best to pretend Levy’s race is incidental, other journalists on the Guardian have been much less helpful to the kikish cause:

The scandal has also thrown a rare shaft of light on to the private world of Lord Levy and his web of connections with business and charities. They show that many of the Labour lenders had initially been donors to Lord Levy’s favourite charities, such as the Community Service Volunteers, Jewish Care and the NSPCC [the highly politically correct and anti-male National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children]. Three of the 12 who gave Labour loans – Andrew Rosenfield, Barry Townsley and Sir David Garrard – are also patrons of Jewish Care. (The Guardian, 25th March 2006)

Garrard, Townsley and Rosenfeld are at the heart of the scandal with Levy and Bliar, proving once again that simple but oh-so-important truth: You can take Jews out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of Jews. The rat-like cunning and ruthlessness they forged over the centuries there are at work as hard as ever in Western politics and business, and like rats Jews have introduced deadly diseases: multi-culturalism, feminism, anti-racism. They’ve also been careful to select and train the dregs of the White race to serve them. In a healthy society, rats like George Bush and Tony Blair would have no chance of winning power. But our Jew-created government isn’t simply kakocracy, or rule by the bad: it’s kakistocracy, or rule by the worst. In other words, only rats like Bush and Blair can win power. To keep it, they have to grovel hard and often before their masters:

Jewish Care, the largest health and social care provider for the UK’s Jewish community, received lavish praise from the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Tony Blair MP, who spoke at the charity’s fundraising dinner at the London Hilton on Monday 15 May [2006]. Addressing a 900-strong crowd, Mr Blair described Jewish Care as “one of the most remarkable organisations in the voluntary sector, right at the cutting edge of delivering care to the community. The way that you break down the barriers and tailor services to individual needs and the humanity that reaches so many people – this is something very special, quite remarkable and unique. Jewish Care is not just Jewish values in action; it is actually the best of British values in action. You can be really, really proud of the work that you do,” the Prime Minister said.
Mr Blair was introduced by Jewish Care’s president, Lord Levy, who said: “Thank you for the whole of our community – from the whole of Anglo-Jewry for the support that you have given to this community over so many years, which I am sure will continue.” He also thanked the Prime Minister for his “solid and committed support of the State of Israel.” (www.jewishcare.co.uk)

Israel: where the living is sleazy and the Arabs are blown sky-high. Jews like Michael Levy in Britain and Jack Abramoff in the United States work to keep two floodgates fully open for Jewish pleasure and profit. One lets immigrants in to weaken Whites and the other lets money and technology out to strengthen Israel. Funded and equipped by American goyim, Israel is the only superpower in the Middle East and the present trouble there may be preparation for an attack on its Islamic rival Iran. Whites don’t need Jews or Israel in the slightest, but Jews and Israel desperately need Whites, and they’re quite happy to risk our destruction in their war with Islam. After all, what have they got to lose?
But I don’t believe that I’m alone in the journey I’ve made over the past five years: from sympathy for Jews to fully-fledged anti-Semitism. The more obvious it becomes that the West is dying, the more obvious it also becomes that Jews are the chief executioners. The Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the Israel Lobby in the United States was a very significant development and the appearance of sleazy sheeneys like “Lord” Levy in scandal after scandal, from cash-for-honours to the lies that created the war in Iraq, must be opening the sleeping eyes of many other Whites. If Jews are moving against Iran now it may be because they know that time is running out fast.

SQUID's next? (2, Interesting)

Tisha_AH (600987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130742)

There is only so much you can pack into little magnetic domains. It is dependent upon how small of a grain (dust speck) you can individually magnetize, signal/noise ratio to read back that magnetic field and the sensitivity of the pickup head. I can see the day coming when there is a small near-room-temperature superconductor (SQUID) pickup head to do read/write operations. The tradeoff is going to be when you get that small, a single cosmic ray particle can flip a 1 to a 0.

Re:SQUID's next? (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130856)

I thought the downside was the need to keep a tank of liquid nitrogen nearby to cool the heads down to superconducting temperatures?

"Near room temperature" superconductors typically still need to be well below zero to operate. Until we get one that can operate at 100C, this idea is a nonstarter for all but maybe some kind of industrial or scientific application.

Re:SQUID's next? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131066)

100C is awful hot.

Re:SQUID's next? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131446)

Given that HDDs in underventilated cases sometimes reach 60 or so and you want some safety margin it sounds like you'd want one that would work up to 80 or so.

So while I think 100 is higher than needed it's not completely out of whack.

Re:SQUID's next? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131544)

I didn't realize it got that hot in there. I figured they were at most no more than 10 degrees above room.

Re:SQUID's next? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131730)

I've had a drive burn me when I tried to remove it. Yes, it actually burned me.

I then proceeded to slap the idiot who built that server into the stone age.

Re:SQUID's next? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131686)

You can use small, localized cooling systems to keep the temperature down, such as Peltier coolers.

Re:SQUID's next? (1)

JustinRLynn (831164) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131070)

You could always attach a cryocooling apparatus to the head and head area. If it's small and lightweight, it could potentially be miniaturized to fit inside the drive's casing itself. If not, well.. you remember those people who put in massive refrigeration systems in order to over-clock their systems? Well, they're still out there.

Re:SQUID's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131870)

Who said anything about having a tank of liquid nitrogen laying about?

http://www.suptech.com/cryocooler.htm [suptech.com]

Maybe other technologies as well (2, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130744)

There are other technologies that I'm sure HDD makers have waiting in the wings. If areal density doesn't go up fast enough, I'm sure that HDD makers will go back to stacking platters, and we will start seeing fatter 2.5" drives. Perhaps even a return of Bigfoot drives, or double-height 2.5" drives as a new form factor. Of course, these drives will have to have some engineering done to keep performance.

I can see a full height 5.25", a monstrosity these days, but inside it would have a bunch of tiered storage with the controller doing the work and multiple caches using not just DRAM, but flash RAM, and wise positioning of data (more commonly accessed stuff closer to the spindle for example.)

This is the last resort of drive makers, but I'm sure if nothing else pans out to keep capacities growing, they will start adding platters.

Re:Maybe other technologies as well (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131534)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why they've been moving to smaller 2.5" drives anyway (except for the notebook market, where obviously small size is important), instead of sticking with larger 5.25" drives. There's a lot more area on a 5.25" platter, plus if you spin it at the same speed, the tracks at the outer edge are traveling faster and thus can be read/written faster, resulting in higher bandwidth.

The main disadvantages I can see are 1) higher materials cost, since you need a bigger chunk of aluminum, and 2) more flexing in the platters due to their larger diameter.

SSDs are the future (2, Interesting)

bzzfzz (1542813) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130784)

I think a more realistic assessment is that the rate of growth in hard disk densities will decline.

We've had a recent article on the shortcomings of SSDs, but I think the maturity of hard disk technology and the minimum cost posed by the complicated mechanical design will make hard disks obsolete for most applications in a few more years. Hey, people thought 3.5" disks would be here forever, too.

Re:SSDs are the future (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130870)

Oh there's no doubt that they'll be obsolete eventually, the question is really just when. Will there be a big breakthrough in the next 5 years? Or will it take 20, 30, 50?

When you look at investing in things like backups - or how to keep up with competitive standards - a timeline is good to know. You might get the cheap hard drive option knowing that SSD's will have matured in the next few years - or if it's going to take a long time for them to overcome hard drives, you might invest in something you know is going to last that long.

Re:SSDs are the future (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130946)

Let me know when you can no longer buy a 3.5" disk at fry's. Look forward to hearing from you.

Re:SSDs are the future (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131592)

Except that no one ever uses them any more, except perhaps for weird old equipment which has built-in 3.5" drives (such as many 10-20 year-old oscilloscopes). Except for cases like that, no one uses them on PCs any more as they are completely obsoleted by 1) networks, 2) USB drives, and 3) other Flash media like xD/SD.

3.5" disks were obsolete long before people finally gave them up in favor of CD-RWs, networks and USB drives, but the industry never standardized on a replacement, and instead had a bunch of format wars with Zip disks (100 and 250MB), LS-120 disks, 2.88MB floppies, and others. Since the industry never standardized on any of these, and none became standard equipment in shipped PCs (as 1.44MB drives were), no one ever bothered buying them, and they all died out when other technologies made it feasible to not bother having removable/portable magnetic disk storage.

Re:SSDs are the future (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131034)

but I think the maturity of hard disk technology and the minimum cost posed by the complicated mechanical design will make hard disks obsolete for most applications in a few more years.

Such has been the claim for easily more than a decade and yet HDDs are still around.

Hey, people thought 3.5" disks would be here forever, too.

Since when did they leave? Floppy drives [newegg.com] and floppy disks [frys.com] .

Re:SSDs are the future (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#33132048)

Not until someone starts pumping some research Dollars into that technology. Right now, SSDs are developing at a glacial pace. If they seriously want to displace HDDs they'll need four times the density, four times the longevity and one quarter the price. Or the same properties as today and one tenth the price.

SSDs are great for certain applications and less great for others. Unfortunately for the SSD makers, the main application many users have is "I need lots of cheap storage", which current SSDs are horrible for.

Hard drive are gone, floppy style (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33130854)

Forget hard drives, currently they are the main bottleneck in your computer, SSDs and the like are the future.

Actually we can even see now that ram is obsolete, once SSD catch up in speed (you don't even need current ram speed) why would anyone care about transfering data to ram, work on it then store it back? Just work straight on your data, gone are the days of saving, now will be the days of deleting, temporary working directory...

hard drives, they ain't part of the future me thinks.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (4, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131018)

The fastest RAM available today operates at roughly a thousand times faster than flash (SSDs are only fast because they tend to have many channels (Intel uses 10) in order to improve performance), and RAM speeds continue to increase by moore's law. It's unlikely that flash will ever catch up, and the limitations of flash (wear) would make it completely unsuitable, even with large improvements in number of usable cycles.

What it could be useful for is as a shadow to RAM for fast hibernation support. Imagine a computer with 4GB of RAM and 4GB of flash (with a suitable degree of parallelism for speed purposes). If you do a decent job of keeping that flash relatively up to date with the contents of system RAM such that there is a relatively minor difference between system RAM and flash at any given time, hibernations could be done in under a second, and restoring from hibernation could be done at better than SSD speeds even if the computer is using a cheaper magnetic disk.

If you were smart about it, you could even resume execution almost immediately after you copied a bare minimum of data, and allow the user to interact with the system while the rest of memory is copied from flash to RAM, handling any uncopied data the user requests on the fly.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131574)

Back in the day, machines used to run straight from a ROM, with some RAM available as well. Some embedded systems still do this. In a sense we have taken a step backwards, having to copy stuff onto RAM in order to use it.

Of course, right now the only affordable choices are to use hard drives or flash with DRAM. It's not like we have to live with their limitations forever. Flash, in particular, was never really meant for frequent writing; it is a form of EEPROM. Even getting back its role as a ROM, where you could execute code directly, would be interesting.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131618)

The fastest RAM available today operates at roughly a thousand times faster than flash (SSDs are only fast because they tend to have many channels (Intel uses 10) in order to improve performance), and RAM speeds continue to increase by moore's law. It's unlikely that flash will ever catch up, and the limitations of flash (wear) would make it completely unsuitable, even with large improvements in number of usable cycles.

I wonder how the new PCM (Phase-Change Memory) from Numonyx will fare here.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131656)

Uh no, I don't think so, because Moores law is about the number of transistors (or other features) per dollar. And even if it was about speed that's still not true, because RAM speeds are not increasing exponentially.

Flash storage capacity on the other hand is developing faster than Moore's law at the moment. That helps to increase capacity and lower power consumption. Capacity and power consumption are extremely important factors in many applications today.

And wear is not really a big problem. To the extent that it is, it will be solved by increasing storage capacities. If you have 4 TB of flash it will wear out 1000 times slower than if you have 4 GB of flash all else being the same.

So you're not going to see a system with a 1:1 ratio of RAM and flash.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (5, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131030)

Actually we can even see now that ram is obsolete, once SSD catch up in speed (you don't even need current ram speed) why would anyone care about transfering data to ram, work on it then store it back? Just work straight on your data, gone are the days of saving, now will be the days of deleting, temporary working directory...

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131508)

Actually we can even see now that ram is obsolete, once SSD catch up in speed (you don't even need current ram speed) why would anyone care about transfering data to ram, work on it then store it back? Just work straight on your data, gone are the days of saving, now will be the days of deleting, temporary working directory...

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

You must be new to teh internets.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131892)

Hi, welcome to Slashdot!

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131994)

If it weren't for my horse...

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (2, Insightful)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 4 years ago | (#33132056)

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Welcome to the world of tomorrow!

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131162)

Between my workstation and server I have about 8TB of space in use. Now tell me exactly how I can do that with a few SSD's. By my calculations that's about 23 thousand dollars worth of SSD's (if it were even possible to put 100 of them on one computer).

They have a long ways to go my friend. Besides, my workstation with software RAID10 gets around 400MB/sec write speed and twice that on read which means it's at least as fast as one or two SSD's anyway (with the exception of seek/thrash speed obviously).

Another thing, I have tried a few SSD's myself and know many people that have tried them in development and server systems. Not a single one lasted more than a year. Extremely less reliable for development and database servers.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131684)

Now tell me exactly how I can do that with a few SSD's
Well you can get 1TB SSDs, you should be able to get 8 of them in one machine relatively easilly if you buy the right case and maybe add one extra controller. The cost is indeed pretty insane though (I make it about $25K for 8x1TB drives)

Personally for desktops and servers I think a mixture is the way to go. SSD for things that get heavy random access (e.g. the OS and apps) and HDD for everything else. Even with a fairly heavy app load system drives don't generally need to be massive. Unfortunately for laptop users most laptops either only support one HDD or require you to sacrifice the optical drive to add a second HDD.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131346)

If the hard disk is the main bottleneck in your desktop OS, then you need to get a new OS.

Re:Hard drive are gone, floppy style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131418)

I've heard that 20 years ago when the future was non-removable optical read/write disks.

The latter are nowhere now and hardisks are still around. So are magnetic tape backups from 50+ years ago.

Superstition? (1)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 4 years ago | (#33130930)

I remember when processor MHz ratings went from 566 to 600 to 633 to 667. On this disk when they achieved the 666th Gb, it wasn't good enough to report until the 667th was reached, barely squeaking over the bar.

Re:Superstition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33130970)

Most 567MHz processors are labeled as 567MHz, not 566. They are all rounded properly.

Re:Superstition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131362)

I remember when processor MHz ratings went from 566 to 600 to 633 to 667. On this disk when they achieved the 666th Gb, it wasn't good enough to report until the 667th was reached, barely squeaking over the bar.

Simple rounding - 2/3 of thing gets rounded up to one whole :)

Just use DNA (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131008)

The limits on recording may not approach the Dirac effect, but there is a heck of a lot of information, especially with siRNA, miRNA, mRNA, and other modifiers that allow multiple usage of DNA strands to adapt and record.

Music-playing microbes could store more data than there are songs in the world from the beginning of time until now. In each microbe.

Re:Just use DNA (1)

faragon (789704) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131106)

Ok, and what about random access time?

Re:Just use DNA (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131252)

RNA splicers can run on multiple copies of DNA segments at the same time, churning out segments and proteins in response to the events.

You do realize your OLED TV is a biological device, don't you?

Re:Just use DNA (1)

faragon (789704) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131396)

I don't doubt about organic storage capabilities, I was asking about random access time, capisci?

Re:Just use DNA (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131662)

I just told you that multiple readers can work on multiple strands - how do you think you "think", by the way ... it's a biochemical process and your nerve cells are what let you "hear" and "see".

Buffering is not a big deal with access. You are already limited by your perception limits.

Re:Just use DNA (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131982)

Are you serious? OLEDS are about as biological as a chunk of graphite.

waste.. won't ...fit (0, Offtopic)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131180)

Drive full. It's packed in here dude. Please release some space. Like those potential-evidence 121,000 scanned federal court transcripts from 1972 you found in grandpas basement, but havent read yet to decide if it belongs on some icelandic website... Nobody's gonna read it all.

Re:waste.. won't ...fit (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131378)

Grandmas vacation video in AVCHD will quickly dwarf all of that.

Oh noes!! (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131326)

All that effort spent trying to keep my drives cool gone to waste... Can't we move beyond magnetic.. into subspace or positronic or something?

I thought SSDs were at their limit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131330)

Funny, a week ago there was an article on /. [slashdot.org] which said SSDs won't replace hard drives in the near future because of their limited storage density...

That's about 739Gb/sq more than you need (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33131380)

All that computing power, all those Gigabytes, the big wide screen, and what do you do with it - write a classic novel; edit your latest film; analyse that huge data set you accumulated through your amateur observatory? Nope. You read your email, watch films and play games. Sure you do a bit of techie stuff but that is for your boss.

Never has so much technology been put to so little use as it has during the last fifty years.

The complete works of Shakespeare could fit into 20Mb (or less). If you think you need more than that, you are over optimistic about your likely productivity.

More than feasible (3, Informative)

davmoo (63521) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131496)

From the summary:

It's great that we can now store 2 TB on one hard drive and that 3-TB hard drives are already feasible.

3TB drives are already well past "feasible". Seagate has one for sale in the form of the STAC3000100 FreeAgent GoFlex Desk. Its an enclosure with a single SATA 3TB hard drive. The reason its currently only available as an external drive is because most motherboards will not support a boot drive that large, hence not a lot of reason to offer it as an internal yet.

Re:More than feasible (1)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131702)

most motherboards will not support a boot drive that large

Do you mean it won't boot if the main partition is 3TB or if the whole drive is 3TB? Because if it's the first, then no sane person has just one partition on a hard drive that big so it's a non-problem.

Re:More than feasible (1)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 4 years ago | (#33131968)

So you're saying 2 TB aught to be enough for anybody?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?