×

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 Launches 3 Terabyte HD

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the more-please dept.

Data Storage 313

MojoKid writes "Today, Western Digital announced the world's highest density hard drive, as they reach the 3TB mark with their newest, 5th generation Caviar Green product. The Caviar Green 3TB serves up a super-sized combination of reduced power consumption, lower operating temperature, and a quieter operation. Unfortunately, if you're still using Windows XP, don't expect your system to make full use of any 3TB drive (yet). The problem is that older operating systems, in combination with a legacy BIOS and master boot record (MBR) partition table scheme, face a barrier at 2.19TB. Existing motherboards utilizing BIOS (non-UEFI), GPT ready operating systems like Windows 7 64-bit, and appropriate storage class drivers, can address the entire capacity of hard drives larger than 2.19TB. Another issue is that a number of host bus adapter (HBA) and chipset vendors don't offer driver support for these types of drives. To provide a solution for this compatibility issue, Western Digital bundles an HBA with the Caviar Green 3TB drive that allows the operating system to use a known driver to correctly support extra large capacity drives. This solution is reportedly just temporary until the rest of the industry catches up."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

313 comments

orly? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945834)

Into space?

Re:orly? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946632)

into uranus

The industry can take all the time it needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945888)

Combined storage in my house is maybe ~2.5TB. That's 4 machines + external storage. I'm no where near filling it up and my wife has been torrenting all our television for over a year.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (4, Insightful)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945944)

Good for you. In the last year, I've put about 8.5 TB into my house (without a single torrent) and I could use another 3 TB. Running a small recording studio digitally has it's upsides and downsides.

A 5x 3TB Raid 6 sounds just about right for a nice 9TB assembly. (And yes, I know, Raid isn't a backup, there's tapes for that.)

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946196)

Good for you cocksucker. What fun you must be with the smug, asshole attitude.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946234)

better to be an asshole than a pussy

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946356)

better to be an asshole than a pussy

Well, they say you are what you eat.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (0, Offtopic)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946692)

better to be an asshole than a pussy

Well, they say you are what you eat, Dick

Let me help you with that.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (2)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946474)

What I want to know is: how can you justify the cost of tape? And why isn't a raid6 array a valid backup location?

What, exactly, does tape provide you in terms of archival veracity and longevity that current drives do not? Assuming no significant sunk cost for tape hardware, you're still looking at similar if not greater costs per GB of tape storage as you would be disk, whether you're looking at LTO 3 or LTO 5. Throw in $1,000 to $3,000 for your standalone chassis tape drive... you'd have to burn through hundreds of single-use 1.5TB hard drives to justify tape on cost (and even then, questionably - tape is more expensive per raw GB than drives).

The whole 'raid isn't backup' argument seems a misnomer to me these days. Yes, bad backup practices make tape less reliable, but it's much more difficult to put good practices in place for effective tape backup than it is for hard disks. With filesystems like ZFS (with CoW and a number of other nice features that make tape further irritating in comparison), I don't see the point at all.

No, raid isn't a backup in and of itself - but neither is a single tape. A raid5 live copy of your data with periodic/daily/whatever diffentials to external drive, however, seems like a pretty good backup to me.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (2)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946614)

Because it is very possible that 2 or more drives can fail at the same time. Not probable but possible. If the data loss is not an issue then by all means do not have some other kind of backup. To many people the data loss is bad, so they do a backup.

Speaking from my own experience I have seen drives just go bad. They were not even hooked up. They worked one day, and were dead the next time they were used. I tried the hard drive as a backup solution. The hard drive (which was kept in an anti static bag when ever it was not being used) just died. Instead of one backup, I now have at least 3 external backups of important things.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

anUnhandledException (1900222) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946642)

The issue is most people saying "I got a RAID" ONLY have a raid.

So maybe it is better phrased that ONLY a RAID isn't a backup. The issue is if you only have a single copy of your data no matter how redundant the method of storing that single copy can become corrupt.

Having a drive (or RAID) and a backup RAID provides a high level of fault tolerence and may make sense where cost of tape storage is simply not warranted.

Even better would be:
storage RAID
backup RAID
offsite backup (via cloud)

The problem is many users will take a 2TB drive RAID it and the files stored there are the only copy. That isn't a backup it is merely a more fault tolerant method of primary storage.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (2, Informative)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946678)

What I want to know is: how can you justify the cost of tape? And why isn't a raid6 array a valid backup location?

The whole 'raid isn't backup' argument seems a misnomer to me these days.

You're actually arguing with yourself. 'RAID' isn't a backup, it provides fault tolerance for uptime.

A separate and off-site storage target is a valid backup. In fact, most tapes are being replaced with "virtual tape" which is nothing more than disk backed RAID storage located in a different area than the source data.

Stop confusing RAID (within a single storage array) and a separate storage array that also happens to be RAID.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946478)

You're backing up 8+ TB onto tape? What kind of tapes and drive? I always thought the only practical way of backup up multi-TB drives was with other multi TB drives.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (3, Interesting)

KuNgFo0 (519426) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946792)

Unfortunately these are Western Digital "Green" drives. Speaking as someone who works at a company that sells RAID devices, their Green drives suck for RAID. They're slow (they're usually not even 5400 rpm), and they like to timeout and drop out of the RAID frequently. We saw this same scenario when 2TB drives were released and only the low-speed/low-power drives were available at the beginning. We'll have to wait a few months before proper 3 TB drives are out there.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (4, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945966)

Combined storage in my house is maybe ~2.5TB. That's 4 machines + external storage. I'm no where near filling it up and my wife has been torrenting all our television for over a year.

All depends on your needs. The combined storage space in my house is close to 12TB. Most of the drives are full and I'm constantly having to copy things around to make space for new stuff. The fact that my entire DVD library has been ripped to AVI files (including television season/series sets) helps eat up a lot of that though.

Helps a lot in that I have a 1.9-year old niece who comes over all the time wanting to watch Elmo, Charlie Brown, and various other Disney movies. She actually knows how to work the DVD player herself, but she's not exactly careful with the discs (my Finding Nemo disc is now completely unplayable :'(), but in the interest of making sure my discs don't all die horrible deaths, they're now being streamed from a MythTV server . . .

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946420)

that is what is eating up my 1TB drive atm, except it's my kids, not my niece.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

franciscohs (1003004) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946878)

I'm on the same situation. I wonder why no one build big fat drives with lots of capacity, I would definitely buy a 5 1/4 bay hard drive of, say, 6 TB or more.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946084)

I think Ken Thompson said, "The steady state of disks is full". No matter how big drives get, you'll eventually fill it up. At which point you'll need a bigger one, or you'll be spending an inordinate amount of time (any really) moving shit around and deciding what to delete.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (0, Troll)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946214)

I once thought that as well, but I put a 320 GB secondary drive in my PC at home about 4 years ago, and it is still only about half full.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946434)

rip your dvds let me know how fast the storage goes then.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

netsuhi.com (1867770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946528)

rip your dvds let me know how fast the storage goes then.

OK Just ripped all my DVDs and they take up 0GB. I do not want to re-watch anything enough for it to be worth buying.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (0)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946640)

Once upon a time, I used to have a nice, but small DVD collection. Then I realized I was never watching them and so I got rid of them, both physical and digital copies.

With Netflix, Hulu, Redbox, a DVR, and 1000 channels of satellite TV (and other sources I'm sure), I'm never at a loss for something to watch. I understand that people who collect movies and cork-sniffing videophiles may want to curate a personal video collection, but I don't think most people will.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946626)

I think that's almost entirely due to everybody storing their own copies. Searching the BluRay store at amazon.com I get 9352 titles. If we assume 50 GB/disc - some are smaller, some are duplicate versions and some are multi-disc sets but not too far off - then that's 500 TB. Is that much? It's 133 of these drives, and that'd store pretty much all high-def content produced to date. It's out of the league of a home server but if there was such a thing as Spotify for movies it would be a piece of cake. If we'd all stream our video the reason most people buy TB-size discs would be gone. Yes, I know there are exceptions but those are exceptions.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946302)

and what do you do with these torrents? hoard them?

i DVR a bunch of cartoons for my eldest son and keep the 3 latest ones. my wife DVR's a few shows and erases them after she watches them. i also have netflix for a few other cartoons and stuff to watch.

what exactly is the point of hoarding TV shows? most of them you watch once and don't want to watch again. stuff like Friends and Everybody loves Raymond is constantly playing reruns

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946436)

My DVR alone has 2.5TB of space dedicated to it just for storing recordings.

It stores those recordings in h264, so I get much more recording time than with MPEG2.

Once you get into HD video, 3TB really isn't that much. Individual recordings can be 35G.

A few years of saving what you would have watched on cable can easily fill up several TB. This could be torrents or "purchases" from iTunes.

Apple really should have a home server of it's own by now just for this reason alone: DVD Jukebox for iTunes purchases.

Defaulting to network storage for other iTunes stuff would make a lot of sense too.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946778)

Yeah, but why? It sounds like you have hundreds of hours of video stored locally. Do you really watch that much tv?

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946908)

Yeah, but why? It sounds like you have hundreds of hours of video stored locally. Do you really watch that much tv?

Buying a few terabytes of disk space is much easier than convincing your girlfriend that she really didn't need to watch that episode of CSI Milton Keynes from last March that you just deleted.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946464)

well with a DVR the content is playable before it finishes. With torrents it isn't. Also depending on your tracker there may be ratio requirements, which makes it a good idea to simply hang on to them for a while and let them seed.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946468)

I personally grab entire series of re-runs, put them up on TVersity, and watch them at my leisure via the 360. This is stuff I already have on DVD, but physical discs and finding the episode I am after is a PITA. The DVR is used for new TV.

Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946802)

and what do you do with these torrents? hoard them?

i DVR a bunch of cartoons for my eldest son and keep the 3 latest ones.

Now that he's 30 he should consider moving out of your basement and getting his own DVR.

Cool (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945898)

Definately cool. Seems like we were stuck at that 2TB size for way too long. On the other hand, it DID result in a rare case of the largest drive capacity being your best bang for your buck. I'm sure for a while these 3TB drives will be more expensive. Still, I was looking at building a new RAID6 NAS box using 2TB drives pretty soon. If the prices are reasonable, I might opt for the 3TB drives instead. 5 of these setup as a RAID6 should yield enough storage space to tie me over for quite a while.

Re:Cool (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946368)

i've been sticking to 1.5 TBs for the past year, those 5400 rpm green drives simply are unbeatable BFTB wise for the storage server, if 2 TB drives had a better price/size ratio i would have switched in a heartbeat.

Currently at 8,25 TB of storage in the server, allthough over 50% of that is empty currently, but at the present rate, that will take about a year to fill up.

By then i'll look into building a new server, it'd be nice if these 3 TB disks were common good by then

Re:Cool (1)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946698)

The only deal breaker is that non of WD-TVs have wireless network inside. Even version 0 of Apple-TV for example included wireless connection. You should either buy on of those USB wireless adapters (and use a USB port on the device which you could use to attach a USB drive) or you should wire up your home.

Neither for me.

short-sightedness (5, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945952)

If you make SATA controllers, and you didn't see 3TB coming coming years in advance, you need to get the hell out of the hardware business. You are incompetent. Go find another line of work.

Re:short-sightedness (4, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946036)

I would counter that if you make any hardware and you waste time and money making it handle things that don't even physically exist, you need to get the hell out of the business business. You are inefficient. Go find another line of work where the free market doesn't exist.

Re:short-sightedness (5, Insightful)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946046)

If you make SATA controllers, and you didn't see 3TB coming coming years in advance, you need to get the hell out of the hardware business. You are incompetent. Go find another line of work.

On the other hand if you saw 3TB coming, built SATA controllers that only handled 1TB AND charged an early-adopter premium, THEN conned users into upgrading to the 2TB version later, AND NOW can get them to upgrade again for 3TB you're brilliant and if not rich at least living comfortably.

Re:short-sightedness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946324)

This is the way of all tech products. Obsolescence built-in. It's been that way since the 80s. You must be very young to have never noticed this before.

I call bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33945960)

There are terabyte 2.5" drives and their volume is about 1/4 of that of a 3.5" drive.

Re:I call bullshit (1)

anUnhandledException (1900222) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946506)

volume is kinda meaningless given data is stored on flat platters. Only the surface area on platters are used.

A 2.5" platter has about 40% of the surface area compared to 3.5" platter.

If data was stored 3 dimensionally then maybe volume would matter.

3TB (1)

celardore (844933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945962)

That's even more data loss to worry about when it goes wrong :) I like my RAID array, but if I didn't have it I'd be afraid of using a single huge drive.

Re:3TB (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946052)

A) Raid is not backup.
B) Oh noes, I lost all my torrented tv shows and my mmorpg installs! How can I ever replace those!?

Besides, if the data does matter, like the recording studio guy, these days the best backup strategy is still an external/removable drive. If you're filling a 3 Tb internal, you have a 3 Tb external to copy to. Size really doesn't matter.

Re:3TB (5, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946116)

That's why I keep all my data on DVDs. That way, if one goes bad, I'll only lose 4 gigabytes!

Of course, if I really wanted to be safe, I should use CDs. That way I'd only lose a few hundred megabytes.

But then again, real safety is in 3 1/2" floppies. Then I'd only lose 1.44 megabytes!

5 1/4" floppies! 360 kb!

Single bits stored as rocks! 1/8th byte!

Or I could wait ten years and be the guy saying "1 petabyte drives!? Ha! I'll keep my nice old 3 terabyte drives, thank you very much."

Re:3TB (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946252)

Yep, you'll like your raid a lot when you get a virus, a fire, your stuff stolen, deleted by mistake, suffer a big OS bug, app bug, a power surge, a RAID board/PSU failure...

OTOH, a couple of off-line, off-site 3GB disks, and you're safe. Fewer bragging rights, though.

Re:3TB (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946408)

I know I will like it just fine. I run a ZFS file server that all of my PCs use to store almost everything. All of my data is checksummed, every hour a snapshot is made of every changed file at almost zero cost in time and only the changed data takes up space, I have multiple drives RAID'ed together and because of the checksums the system can actually tell when a bit gets flipped not just when a sector goes bad or a drive crashes.
It took me 15 minutes to set it up. I wrote up the install: http://petertheobald.blogspot.com/2010/09/zfs-powered-file-server-in-5-minutes.html [blogspot.com]

And every once in a while it ZFS SEND's a copy of the entire filesystem to a drive in my office.

Hard drive crash? Covered by the RAID.
Cosmic ray or bad magnetic spot flips a bit? Covered by the checksums.
Virus takes out files? Covered by the snapshots.
Accidentally delete a file? Covered by the snapshots.
House burns down? I'd be very upset but my data would be ok on the copy in my office.

Re:3TB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946888)

ZFS Metadata corrupted & replicated so the pool is not importable??? (Yes I had this happen on an old version of ZFS...)

Re:3TB (1)

MonoSynth (323007) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946296)

A RAID array won't save you from fire, floods, system faults and your own stupidity (nobody's perfect). You need backups if you care about your data.

Good news (4, Insightful)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 3 years ago | (#33945972)

This means that soon the 1 and 2 TB drives will be cheaper. I was waiting for this to upgrade my external storage.

Re:Good news (0, Redundant)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946210)

Not that I don't like being modded up, but come on guys, this is not Insightful. It's +5 Obvious :)

already cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946342)

They're already cheaper...with a high quality 2TB drive costing $109 shipped, and a 1TB drive costing half that!
Were you waiting for the 3TB drives to come out so you could save $20 on your 2TB HD upgrade?

Never enough? (1)

MonoSynth (323007) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946400)

5ct/GB is too expensive for you?

Prices don't suddenly drop because of this announcement. I can't believe how they manage to make drives as inexpensive as they are.

I'm pretty sure they weren't the first. (3, Informative)

rmadmin (532701) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946024)

Re:I'm pretty sure they weren't the first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946228)

WD has an external 3TB drive as well. AFAIK, this is the first one for actually sticking inside a computer.

Re:I'm pretty sure they weren't the first. (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946246)

Given that Seagate doesn't advertise any internal drives at higher than 2 TB, I am guessing that is 2 drives in a RAID0 configuration. Which is a really bad idea - if either drive fails you loose everything, so you have double the failure rate.

Re:I'm pretty sure they weren't the first. (2, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946334)

No it's a single drive. You can't buy the naked 3gb drive from seagate, but you can buy it already installed in various devices.

Re:I'm pretty sure they weren't the first. (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946322)

Turns out Newegg isn't such a reliable source. Better try wikipedia.

Re:I'm pretty sure they weren't the first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946934)

If it's this one [engadget.com] it has 5 platters. WD has 4 of the 750GB platters that proved reliable in the WD20EARS-00M* disks. I have one of those and so far I'm happy with it (only that it's already chock-full, as always). WD announced the 3TB disk in an external case two weeks ago [engadget.com] and it's already selling for $200 so the internal version will likely get cheaper very soon.

Too bad it's WD (1)

linear a (584575) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946038)

Too bad it's WD - hope these don't have the huge failure rate (2 of 19) that our last bunches have been having.

Re:Too bad it's WD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946198)

The sad thing is, that was a good batch. :/

Re:Too bad it's WD (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946286)

I have had a 100% failure rate with WD drives. I've only ever had two, but both were dead in under a year. Haven't bought one since. Never had a hard drive of any other brand fail. Hell, I've got drives from '95 that are still running fine, but the WDs can't make it 10 months!

Re:Too bad it's WD (4, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946418)

Anecdotal. Hard drives have high failure and DOA rates compared to the rest of the stuff that makes a computer. I've had the same experience with Segate drives. The only solution is to not use hard drives. Of the major manufacturers they all have about the same failure rates.

Re:Too bad it's WD (1)

indros (211103) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946716)

I've had the similar experiences. Mine usually make it to just a month outside the warranty period. One had the distinct honor of only lasting 3 weeks. I was able to recover most of the data, but after that incident, like you, I've only bought non-WD drives. I've had 5 WD drives die. All my other drives have outlived the WD drives by a long shot.

Re:Too bad it's WD (1)

BassMan449 (1356143) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946752)

The problem with hard drives is it's all dumb luck. I've had the exact opposite experience. I have almost a dozen WD that have been running great for as long a 4 years, but I have one Seagate that died in 2 months.

Mechanical hard drives have very random failure rates and you just have to pick a company with good customer service.

Re:Too bad it's WD (1)

anUnhandledException (1900222) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946902)

Not much confidence in a sample size of 2. Buy 20,000 drives and let us know.

For the record I have owned 5 WD over the years (2 currently) and none have died.

Still our combined sample size of 7 isn't really meaningful.

Time Capsule? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946058)

Anyone stuck one of these into a Time Capsule yet? I assume it won't have any problem utilizing all 3TB

Re:Time Capsule? (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946230)

Anyone stuck one of these into a Time Capsule yet? I assume it won't have any problem utilizing all 3TB

You don't really have to put it IN a Time Capsule. You can just have the drive in a USB enclosure and attach it to the USB port on the Time Capsule.

You can also attach a drive to the Airport Extreme base station and it will be available over the network for Time Machine backups.

Re:Time Capsule? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946470)

USB is slower than GigE. By putting your storage behind a USB controller you just killed your performance.

Although the Time Capsule might have had crap performance anyways.

Why the space? (3, Interesting)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946060)

Can I please flip a switch to turn that into 20GB of hard-to-corrupt data?

Re:Why the space? (2, Interesting)

psm321 (450181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946248)

make 150 copies of it and take the majority vote amongst the copies when reading? :) (j/k)

Re:Why the space? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946382)

I know you're going for funny, but that's not a bad idea. We need a file system driver that does this.

Re:Why the space? (3, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946644)

Can I please flip a switch to turn that into 20GB of hard-to-corrupt data?

That would be an SSD, which fails on write, thus keeping any original data around. Over time, as an SSD fails, it simply has less and less available capacity, thus proving to be very reliable. As long as you don't fuck it up with a bad firmware update, of course. :)

whats that smell?? SYSTEM FAILURE (1)

duck_run (1915848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946068)

I'm getting the vibe that these things are gonna fail after about 2 weeks because of something melting or catching fire....... ~if you cant fix it with a hammer get a bigger one~

Runaway memory (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946080)

"This solution is reportedly just temporary until the rest of the industry catches up."
But by then, they will have a Petabyte drive and they will have to catch up to that too.

Do they self destruct like other Greens? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946212)

Other members of the Green line have an "Intellitpark" feature that can destroy the drive in a matter of months for certain workloads (like using linux). Any word on if WD has fixed that for these?

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=73573

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2008/4/10/1396844

Re:Do they self destruct like other Greens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946486)

no, drives just fail in a month or two, nowadays.
It's just how it is.

Re:Do they self destruct like other Greens? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946710)

Other members of the Green line have an "Intellitpark" feature that can destroy the drive in a matter of months for certain workloads (like using linux).

I've been running 'Green' WD drives in my MythTV server for years with no problems. The oldest has well over 10,000 hours of run time.

'yet'? (0)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946256)

Unfortunately, if you're still using Windows XP, don't expect your system to make full use of any 3TB drive (yet).

What do you mean, "yet"? XP Pro was EOL'd in April of last year. It's dead, Jim. There will be no updates or upgrades from that date forward.

Furthermore, there is absolutely 0 (legitimate) reason to be running XP on a machine which will recognize a 3TB drive at the hardware level. None. If you can come up with a reason, there's probably a better way to do it than your proposed approach, long term.

At this point, short of a large uniform environment where there are specific applications to support that only work on XP, running XP is a fool's errand. It's rife with security issues. Sure, keep it around until your older hardware kicks it, but by all means you should be upgrading to something that will actually work with, and be able to utilize, newer hardware.

Re:'yet'? (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946320)

But the real question is does Windows 7-32 bit handle this drive? The summary stated Windows-7 64 bit...

Re:'yet'? (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946550)

I suspect not. Why does it matter?

Why would you put a 3TB drive in a 5-year-old+ computer? There haven't been 32bit x86 machines on the market (as 'new product') for several+ years now, and only then on netbooks and laptops. Anything capable of running Windows 7 will, in all likelihood, be using a 64 bit processor.

If you're running 32 bit Windows 7, let me refer you to my previous post where I say "It's dead, Jim." There is no reason to do so unless it is archaic hardware (in which case - does it even have a SATA port?)

Re:'yet'? (1)

soupforare (542403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946904)

If you're running 32 bit Windows 7, let me refer you to my previous post where I say "It's dead, Jim."

While I agree with you on XP- Cheap desktops, and most (all?) current windows netbooks are running 32-bit Win7. It's not going away any time soon.

The More Things Change (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946266)

To provide a solution for this compatibility issue, Western Digital bundles an HBA with the Caviar Green 3TB drive that allows the operating system to use a known driver to correctly support extra large capacity drives. This solution is reportedly just temporary until the rest of the industry catches up

Reminds me of when ATA66/100/133 came out and in order to take advantage of the new larger HDs you needed a new controller. Maxtor kindly bundled one with their drives. Made it very easy to upgrade existing/old machines until enough new motherboard chipsets included support for the updated protocol.

Western Digital (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946346)

At least it's Western Digital, because Seagate drives sure suck lately (looks at the stack of dead Seagate drives).

Re:Western Digital (3, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946504)

You missed where Maxtor took over Seagate and kept the Seagate name on the door. I know it was techincally (businessally?) the other way around, but the end result has been Maxtor quality with a Seagate sticker.

Re:Western Digital (1)

savvysteve (1915898) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946760)

At least it's Western Digital, because Seagate drives sure suck lately (looks at the stack of dead Seagate drives).

I agree with that!!! I have seen so many dead Seagate drives over the last year that are either DOA or only lasted a few months. I was buying them because of the better warranty they were offering but the hassle is simply not worth it. So I switched back to WD and will only buy them for now on for me and my customers.

There is never enough drive space (1)

GoJays (1793832) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946444)

This isn't really news.

I remember when I had a 100MB hard drive and I thought; "I'll never fill this!". Then I had a 1GB hard drive and thought it would be impossible to fill. Now I have a 1TB drive and I am filling it. There will always be bigger and faster hard drives. One day we will look back at that new massive drive 3TB drive and think; "How did I ever deal with such a finite amount of space?"

Nothing to see here, move along...

New technology... making the 2nd gen stuff cheap.. (1)

savvysteve (1915898) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946472)

This is great news for misers like me. I like to wait for the new stuff to show up so I can snatch up good deals on the 2nd or even 3rd gen stuff at great prices. Since the 1 TB drives are already getting really cheap, this just means that I might be able to get some 2TB drives even cheaper and get a deal on those 2TB WD Black drives with the 2 read heads that are supposedly great drives with a great warranty and not spend a ton.

It's my density! (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946510)

With ever increasing densities on the platters, doesn't that just mean if there's a malfunction like a HDD head crash, you lose more data?

2.19TB limit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33946512)

No problem. I still have a copy of EZDrive on floppy somewhere.

The problem is that (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946522)

old OS can't see the whole thing? That's not really a problem. No more then saying my dos 3.3 can't see 1T.

Not that many people need 3T. yeah yeah, save me your 'people will use the space they have' argument. It doesn't hold up to reality.

\

Re:The problem is that (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33946798)

yeah yeah, save me your 'people will use the space they have' argument. It doesn't hold up to reality.

I thought my netbook's 160GB drive would be plenty, but after six months it was down to 8GB free. I thought my laptop's 640GB drive would be plenty, but it's now down to 40GB free, and only after I deleted a few games from Steam. I thought my MythTV server's 3.5TB would be plenty, but it's down to 400GB free.

Most people will end up using most of the disk space they have available, because it's easier than deleting old files.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...