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!

Hard Drive Shortage Relief Coming In Q1 2012

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the better-than-alka-seltzer dept.

Data Storage 205

MojoKid writes "According to new reports [note: source article at DigiTimes], global HDD production capacity is getting ready to increase to 140-145 million units in the first quarter of 2012, or about 80 percent of where it was prior to when the floods hit Thailand manufacturing plants. HDD production was sitting around 175 million units in the third quarter of 2011 before the floods, after which time it quickly dropped to 120-125 million units. Since then, there's been a concerted effort to restore operations to pre-flood levels."

cancel ×

205 comments

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

Market pressures. (4, Interesting)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155313)

It's great that HDD production is about to increase again, but I think the recent "crunch" was also a good thing in a way. Perhaps it encouraged some end users to get more creative with data storage techniques, resulting in more efficient systems that can do more with less bulk storage capacity. At least I can hope so.

Re:Market pressures. (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155331)

Most end users never noticed. People that needed the storage paid the higher price. People that didn't actually need it just held off until prices went down.

Re:Market pressures. (2)

jrmcferren (935335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155663)

I waited until prices went back to late 2012 levels before I bought my new drive today. Now I can get my camcorder out and not worry about losing frames (MiniDV captured on DV mode).

Re:Market pressures. (5, Funny)

sjwt (161428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155749)

Oh sweet, let me know what late 2012 levels are(will be?), I'm looking to upgrade then and do not want to be ripped off!

Re:Market pressures. (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156475)

âo you have an advanced camcorder that senses how much free space is on a target drive and drops frames to fit the video onto it?

Re:Market pressures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39156543)

"MiniDV captured on DV mode"

1998 called, they want their camera back.

Hmm, stange, 1985 just called me, and wants its bad jokes back.

Re:Market pressures. (5, Interesting)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155727)

we had server purchases seriously delayed, in the end we had to go with some more expensive and larger disks just so we could get our desperately needed servers delivered, otherwise it was expected up to a further 3 months of delays.

Re:Market pressures. (3, Informative)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156353)

We had to provision 2 new 16 disk storage arrays for network backups, and ended up paying about 3x what it should've cost for the storage. Needless to say our department's budget isn't looking as good as it could.

Re:Market pressures. (5, Informative)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156573)

We make systems that have up to 200+TB storage and had to do emergency qualifications of replacement disk drives because the drive vendors told us "sorry, can't deliver." That must be because we have long term purchasing agreements, i.e. prenegotiated prices. I think the bastards rather sold at 3x prices to Newegg & co.

Re:Market pressures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39156583)

We've had a few million dollars worth of server and SAN orders held up for months. Certain drive sizes - particularly SFF SAS 10K and 15K are constrained. Some customers are opting for more expensive larger capacity drives.

SSD has gotten a much bigger boost than it otherwise would have - and that's a good thing from my point of view. Spinning rust drives are a hideous bottleneck for a modern server and the sooner we get away from them the better.

Re:Market pressures. (1)

Walter White (1573805) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155341)

Efficient? With drive prices where they were it is not efficient to spend a lot of time minimizing drive space usage.

Re:Market pressures. (4, Insightful)

PatPending (953482) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155361)

Well, according to the article, "Due to increased costs of components and materials, HDD prices are likely to rise 30-40% from the level before the floods by the end of 2012, the sources indicated."

A 30-40% increase is A LOT, esp. given the present and foreseeable economic conditions.

Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

Re:Market pressures. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155389)

Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

rm -rf /music/Whitney_Houston

Re:Market pressures. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155453)

I believe you mean

rm -rf ~/Music/Whitney\ Houston

my good sir.

Re:Market pressures. (1, Offtopic)

sidthegeek (626567) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155497)

I like underscores, you insensitive clod!

Re:Market pressures. (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155511)

ka-CHING!

Re:Market pressures. (5, Funny)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155403)

Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

You can recover up to 50% of your drive space by switching your collection over to midget-pr0n.

Re:Market pressures. (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155705)

"Let the joyous news be spread." --Munchkin Mayor

Re:Market pressures. (1, Informative)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155415)

Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

That largely depends on how many copies of such items you're storing, or in some cases how similar blocks in various files are, even if they're not exact copies of one another. For organizations with large storage requirements and a fair amount of duplicate data being stored for various reasons, things like ZFS [slashdot.org] with deduplication can go a long way toward more efficiently managing those requirements.

Re:Market pressures. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155797)

and a fair amount of duplicate data being stored for various reasons, things like ZFS with deduplication can go a long way toward more efficiently managing those requirements.

Yeah like backups ;).

Re:Market pressures. (4, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155779)

Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

Start burning stuff to DVD or putting it on cheap flash drives and hand them out to your friends. It's just like saving stuff to the Cloud, except they appreciate the music and movies and you can drink with them.

I call it "Sneaker-cloud".

I am learning more and more that the answer to life's questions often comes down to the people who are around you, physically. Family, friends, neighbors. Internet is good for lots of things, but I'm re-discovering all the value hidden in these non-virtual relationships. Salut!

Re:Market pressures. (3, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156563)

Start burning stuff to DVD or putting it on cheap flash drives and hand them out to your friends. It's just like saving stuff to the Cloud, except they appreciate the music and movies and you can drink with them.

I call it "Sneaker-cloud".

So I take it you use Air Jordans for the physical layer? (or is that considered the data-link layer)?

Re:Market pressures. (1)

jkflying (2190798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156649)

The latency is kinda high...

Re:Market pressures. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155351)

Nope. The people qualified to make that kind of efficiency decisions already do it.

Your average Granny-user remains clueless and storing gigs of uncompressed bitmaps on their system.

 

Hey, now... (5, Funny)

Lose (1901896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155375)

Your average Granny-user remains clueless and storing gigs of uncompressed bitmaps on their system.

It's not all their fault, really. MSPaint doesn't have JPEG support in Windows 98.

Re:Market pressures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155461)

It doesn't matter.

What does that Granny user do?
If she's like the vast majority it will be email, facebook, general internet, and maybe MS Office. Any media that is consumed is streamed. My parents can't work the DVD player, much less manage downloaded media. They can work Netflix though.

Essentially, it's gotten to the point where the only thing they have to store is what you create. And its hard to fill more than then 300GB that comes with a modest computer that way.

Re:Market pressures. (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155545)

hm... I dunno, with digital images coming in at over 3MB on an entry level camera these days, and SD cards at stupid prices which mean you can cram nearly 3,000 full resolution images per 16GB card (so deleting images is an exercise in timewasting more than saving limited space!), plus HD video at 8GB/30min, I don't think it's be that hard filling 300GB of /scratch space/.

Re:Market pressures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155733)

It's been my experience that most users who grew up with film treat digital in the same mentality of "Each shot has a cost associated, so I'm going to take as few as I can". Whereas the younger generation will leave the camera running the whole time, or take a lot of shots.

Re:Market pressures. (3, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155473)

I think it had more of an impact on SSD adoption.

Before the floods, SSD prices were 10x higher than hard drives, per gigabyte. When the floods hit, hard drive prices nearly doubled, while SSD prices continued to slowly drop. That added up to SSDs being only 4-6x the per-gigabyte price of a hard drive, at least temporarily.

I've certainly noticed a lot more people buying and using SSDs. I'll probably do so myself at some point, once I have a computer that's primarily disc-latency-bound instead of CPU- or GPU-bound in most tasks.

Re:Market pressures. (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155581)

I'm curious about your workload. If it's more disk latency bound than CPU or GPU bound, would you possibly benefit more from the addition of more RAM, instead of moving to an SSD? RAM is extremely cheap these days, and I've found that many workloads benefit much more from extra system memory than faster disks, which is why I'm interesting in hearing more about your particular use case.

Re:Market pressures. (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155819)

Unless you have a battery backed up RAM drive you wouldn't be able to write something "permanently".

And you'd still need it as a "drive" because operating systems etc treats drives differently. Drives aren't normally wiped on reboots, bluescreens, application crashes.

Re:Market pressures. (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155879)

Oh, I'm not referring to using RAM drives. I'm mostly referring to in-memory filesystem cache, which has a serious effect on performance. That said, using a RAM disk (notably things like /dev/shm on Linux, other platforms have different implementations) for temporary data instead of a disk (whether HDD or SSD) can provide fairly ridiculous additional performance improvements without having to modify any application code.

Put simply, I've got systems where the addition of a few GB of RAM essentially tripled overall performance.

Re:Market pressures. (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155903)

First, understand that my "workload" is primarily gaming. That means relatively GPU-heavy loads, compared to what you might expect.

Second, understand that my primary gaming computer died recently, so I'm currently on a machine that is... not designed for gaming. Dual Xeons (dual-core each), 5GB of (fully-buffered, ECC) RAM, yes, very good for a server or such, and absolute overkill for any game I've found. I have no complaints on that end - even Minecraft, a game legendary amongst gamers for choking up most CPUs, is easily handled.

The Radeon X1900 powering the graphics? Not so much. 256MB of VRAM, 48 shader units. Ouch. (For comparison, the card I'm looking at for my replacement has 3GB of VRAM and 192 shader units (at about triple the clock speed)). It's even slower than you'd expect from a 5-year-old card, and it even lacks enough features that I can't even try to run certain games on it.

So yeah, my hard drive isn't under much stress. Gaming-wise, hard drive speed mainly matters for loading - and since I don't have the VRAM to load high-res textures or models, it's not a major bottleneck. 7200RPM is fine. Even as a boot disk, an SSD is unnecessary, since I'm running a proper, Unix-like OS that boots in under 30 seconds, instead of the five minutes Windows would take.

So for now, I'm ogling replacement computers. I've got my eye on one particular beast, and the only weakness I can find in it is the storage. I'll probably order it with a 64GB SSD to use as a boot/app drive, since the extra $100 isn't a big deal when ordering a $1,500 computer.

Re:Market pressures. (1)

voodoowizard (1557839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155549)

Yeah it was great when my HD failed and I am now still limping along with a stupid noisy drive I had for back up. Can't wait for the prices to drop. Yay, what a good thing.

Relief Already Here (3, Interesting)

DakotaSmith (937647) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155365)

This is kind of old. I'm a college professor in a computer science department. Our students were affected at the beginning of this term (we offer free external hard drives on which to keep their work). About four weeks in, the supply opened back up. We initially issued 16GB flash drives, and now they all have their 320GB USB drives.

Re:Relief Already Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39156333)

Those external drives have interestingly been a cheaper way to buy a 500GB of storage for some time already, in some markets. Internal OEM drives have been about 20-30% more expensive than a USB drive of equivalent size.

Price relief to come some time later. (3, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155371)

Granted, the drop in supply was more abrupt than the restoration of supply, so one would expect prices to follow the same curve.

It may be too much to hope that this leads to more geographic diversity in manufacturing, but I hope it's at least produced some lasting acceleration toward solid-state storage.

Re:Price relief to come some time later. (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155491)

"If and when an SSD fails, the failure is likely to be catastrophic with total data loss. HDDs can fail in this way too, but often give warning that they are failing, allowing much or all of their data to be recovered." (source: Comparison of SSD_with hard disk drives [wikipedia.org] ).

Yes, everyone should have backups. That said, the ability to restore a small amount of data very quickly from a backup sure beats having to restore a very large data set in its entirety, and I've witnessed many more instances of total data loss with SSDs than I ever have with legacy HDDs.

Re:Price relief to come some time later. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155533)

I actually thing that SSD's should be for the Operating System and applications. General user storage should be on standard HDD. This provides the best speed benefits with reliability. It also is a more cost effective solution for most people. I am much more likely to be able to afford a 30GB or 60GB SSD than a 512GB SSD. But that's all most people would need for applications and the Operating system. It also helps compartmentalize potential damage, etc...

Re:Price relief to come some time later. (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155637)

That is how I do it. I have Windows 7 and my programs on a SSD and then a hard drive to which I created two folder junctions: one for unusually large programs (video games) and the other for user data.

Re:Price relief to come some time later. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155941)

Hell, for my MacBook Pro, I have my entire OS X setup and applications on an SSD. - Data is on a 1 TB hard drive stuffed in the DVD slot. I also back up the SSD to the HD so if the SSD goes tits up, I hold down an extra key and boot into the slower hard drive.

An SSD can make even a sluggish 3 - 4 year old laptop feel like it's a spring chicken. Better than Geritol. I just wish I had access to a similar upgrade.

Re:Price relief to come some time later. (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156383)

more instances of total data loss with SSDs

There's a reason that Intel costs a little more...

Re:Price relief to come some time later. (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156527)

Two of the SSDs I've seen suffer catastrophic failure were Intel. Maybe nobody ever got fired for buying Intel, but the drives became instant paperweights anyhow.

Re:Price relief to come some time later. (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155977)

I agreed up until the SSD bit. Yes, there does need to be some geographic diversity in manufacturing. I'm still not 100% sold on SSDs for Terabytes of information.

Ahhhhh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155481)

relief!

im just glad those hippie protestors (0)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155489)

got their heads beaten in back in 2010. i mean, if they had unions or labor laws, there's no telling how high hard drive prices might be.

oh by the way, fight sopa! its about freedom.

Something wrong here... (0)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155499)

...how does a production shortfall of less than 50% result in a price hike of *over 300%*??

Re:Something wrong here... (5, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155609)

...how does a production shortfall of less than 50% result in a price hike of *over 300%*??

This curve should explain it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand [wikipedia.org]

Re:Something wrong here... (1)

matty619 (630957) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155775)

I wish I had mod points. I was practically screaming at my monitor about parent being modded +4 insightful. I'm holding back on making a political statement regarding economics at this point.

Re:Something wrong here... (5, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155917)

Just to elucidate, a x% reduction in amount of HDDs does not translate into an x% increase in price (which is impossible since the units are different). It results in an x% reduction in number of people who can buy HDDs.

Pretend that 100 people want to buy one HDD each. If there are only 50 identical HDDs, that doesn't mean that the price goes up 50% (or 100%). It means that only 50 people can buy HDDs. The other 50 have to go without.

Sort everyone by how much they're willing to pay for a HDD, from lowest to highest. Then the highest price that the 51th person is willing to pay for a HDD is the new market price. If he's willing to pay just 10% more, then the price for HDDs goes up 10%. If he's willing to pay 300% more, then the price for HDDs goes up 300%. His price is higher than the first 50 people are willing to pay, so they choose simply not to buy a HDD at his price. Consequently there are only 50 people left who want to buy HDDs, and only 50 HDDs for sale.

Re:Something wrong here... (1, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156213)

Thanks for a great explanation. BTW, this is also exactly why markets are fundamentally unfair and flawed systems. When there is a resource shortage, the richest person can *always* get an item, and the poorest person can *never* get an item. It's just a system of entitlement and privilege based on numbers in a bank account.

Re:Something wrong here... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39156303)

unfair and flawed? Everything is limited... what other way do you know of that's more fair to divy 50 drives between 100 people?

Re:Something wrong here... (2, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156457)

There are plenty of alternative ways to allocate resources.

For example, there's the round robin method. Put 100 people in a queue. The person at the front gets served and must go to the back of the queue afterwards. So the first time there's a shortage, people #1 to #50 get the drives. The second time there's a shortage, people #51 to #100 get the drives.

Another method is to pick 50 people out of 100 randomly and let them have the available drives. This doesn't require to implement a queue, but has a small chance of overlap in repeated allocations.

The point here is that fairness requires that all individuals are served equal amounts over their lifetimes, which can't happen in a market as the OP showed.

If you think about it, this problem also shows up in all modern operating systems. There are limited resources like CPU, memory, disk, etc, and the process scheduler has to decide how much time to give to each running process. How do they do it? They certainly don't use markets. What if they did? You'd have "rich" processes that hog all the CPU time, and you'd have "poor" processes that couldn't get any CPU time at all. It would be a crazy fun Linux kernel patch, though :)

Re:Something wrong here... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156593)

'Fairness' should factor in importance of the drive. Funnily enough, increasing prices does that quite effectively.

Re:Something wrong here... (3)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156403)

Unfair? How would you like to apportion them?

In a resource shortage, yes, the very wealthy can always get what they want. Here's a hint: the very rich can always get what they want, period. They're rich. In the worst-case scenario, they can bribe whoever is in charge of things. Hard drives, however, are both a consumer product and a business product. Business products are valued much more highly, for good reason - they are the tools you use to make money. Practically, the price increases led me to use a spare 1 TB HD to build a DVR, instead of buying a 2 TB drive. In a year or two, I'll get a 3-4 TB drive for a price I feel is fair, and in the meantime someone's company has gotten a 2-3 TB drive to use for their database.

Re:Something wrong here... (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156523)

See my other comment on the thread.

Another funny thing about markets is how they invariably get replaced by rationing when the survival of a nation is at stake. When the German U-boat blockade of England in World War II prevented supplies coming in, the lowly, suboptimal, rationing method was more reliable and fair than free markets (Incidentally , it also prevented rioting and a civil war. What do you think would have happened if half a million of the poorest British subjects suddenly were unable to buy any food *at all*?)

Re:Something wrong here... (3, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156577)

Your other post approved round-robin. That just pushes the competition into the secondary market, where people realize that they got a hard drive worth $200 for $100. So they resell the drive, the cost to the business remains the same, but the transaction cost goes up. Great! UPS, FedEx, and the Postal Service win!

Rationing for survival is not more "fair" than a market. It means that the state provides goods at a price lower than their actual cost in order for the poorest to be able to purchase them. It's just another form of welfare, and is no more or less legitimate or fair for being so.

Re:Something wrong here... (2, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156663)

Your other post approved round-robin. That just pushes the competition into the secondary market,

Not at all. There's nothing inevitable or deterministic in your suggestion. The secondary market isn't relevant to all the participants of the primary round-robin system. Most participants will use the hard drive they got for their own projects (that's why they joined the round-robin queue in the first place). A small fraction only will decide to defer their projects, and sell their drive on a secondary market.

The secondary market is more expensive, but clearly it's a fallacy to postulate that the secondary market somehow overrides or replaces the primary round-robin allocations.

Rationing for survival is not more "fair" than a market. It means that the state provides goods at a price lower than their actual cost in order for the poorest to be able to purchase them. It's just another form of welfare, and is no more or less legitimate or fair for being so.

Heh. Let me decode what you seem to be saying. The state ensures that all the population is able to obtain access to goods, and that is exactly as fair and legitimate as letting people die in the streets? Moreover, your argument seems to confuse the meanings of price and cost. In a free market, the price is determined by supply and demand, so actual cost is irrelevant. Why should the actual cost be suddenly such a big deal in a rationing system? You can't have it both ways. If you criticize rationing on the grounds that prices don't reflect actual costs, then you *must* criticize free markets on the same terms, namely that the prices determined by supply and demand don't reflect actual costs either. Finally, if *survival* is at issue, I'd say that rationing is a lot more rational than a free market alternative, irrespective of fairness, welfare or legitimacy.

Re:Something wrong here... (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156581)

In a resource shortage, yes, the very wealthy can always get what they want.

Sorry, I meant to reply to this. That point is somewhat irrelevant. The unfairness I'm talking about isn't that the rich are privileged. To be sure, it's distasteful, but not a fatal flaw on its own. The fatal flaw is that in a resource shortage, the very poor never get anything (in a free market economy). A fair system has to ensure that all the participants regularly get access to everything that's being traded.

Your example illustrates this perfectly. You forego access to a new 2TB drive, which leads you to change your behaviour, while a company with more money to spend on hardware isn't inconvenienced in the same way. But you implicitly accept that because you have faith that the prices will come down, and your projects are merely deferred in time. You expect to get something you want eventually, so you feel this is fair.

Re:Something wrong here... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155641)

Panic?

Re:Something wrong here... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155667)

Depends on the slope of the supply-demand curve.

Econ 101.

Re:Something wrong here... (5, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155711)

1. Big OEM contracts agreed long in advance takes priority, so everything had to be absorbed by the spot market which is much smaller.
2. If you don't have a HDD, you practically can't sell a new machine and for many commercial services not buying is not an option.
3. As smart people in the market realize what was about to happen, they made sure to buy now "just in case" emptying the market.
4. Even OEMs started to fear the shortage and started buying HDDs in the spot market as insurance.

Sum of all of the above = it probably took a 300% price hike until sales dropped 25% to match supply. Spot sales probably had to drop 50-80% for that to happen.

Re:Something wrong here... (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155847)

I did #2 I bought a handful of terabyte Hitachi drives...on sale at some less than agile big box retailer. I repeated that a couple times till the hammer fell.

I like the drives, they are quieter than seagate.

Re:Something wrong here... (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156021)

I.e. a simple hedging strategy.

The other part (which the GP obliquely touched on without calling it this) is Supply Chain Management [wikipedia.org] theory. If you don't know anything about SCM, it's a lot more mathematical and complicated than you might imagine.

Re:Something wrong here... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155869)

How much will you pay for the air you need if there was a shortfall of 20%?

Right now it's free. So it'll be a price hike of infinity percent.

Re:Something wrong here... (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155925)

We wouldn't be in this mess if we had price controls.

Re:Something wrong here... (2)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156407)

Yes, we'd be in a much worse one.

Relief? (1)

It's the tripnaut! (687402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155513)

What's so relieving about:


Due to increased costs of components and materials, HDD prices are likely to rise 30-40% from the level before the floods by the end of 2012, the sources indicated.

-- FTFA

Good News... (2)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155559)

...but, what's keeping 4TB internal drives off the market?

The 4TB Deskstar has been out for a while...where are Seagate and WD?

Re:Good News... (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155957)

Long story short, it's a 5 platter [vr-zone.com] design and generally they've not been good in the past, too many parts to be reliable. The other manufacturers are probably waiting until they can ship a 4x1TB disk instead of 5x800GB. Hitachi is actually shipping 1x1TB disks in the 4K7000.D and 4K5000.B class, but I guess the yield of perfect platters is too low yet.

Re:Good News... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39156137)

Windows doesn't support them (at least not without a lot of messing about).

oh goodie (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155569)

I can't wait til Q1 2012 finally comes!

First quarter of 2012? (4, Insightful)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155589)

Uhhh... unless they're using some new calendar I'm unfamiliar with, the first quarter is about two-thirds over. The fact that they're using the future tense for something which is already mostly gone makes me wonder just how well informed this article is.

Re:First quarter of 2012? (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155825)

If you read the article (not recommended) you'll see that the authors don't have the best grasp on the English language. My guess is that they meant "will have increased", as in, by the time time we finish adding up our production this quarter, it should be around 145 Mu. Considering the writers are based in Taiwan, they can hardly be blamed for not having a complete grasp of the future perfect tense.

Re:First quarter of 2012? (2)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155885)

If you read the article (highly recommended) you'll see that the authors have invented a FREAKIN' TIME MACHINE!!

FTFY

Price Fixing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155651)

Smells like price fixing to me. I don't believe these bulshit excuses about rising component costs. If anything, economies of scale would have seen to the dramatic drop in production costs and not an increase.

We should all be running 2TB SSD drives by now but instead the greedy HD manaufacturers just want to squeeze every bit of dough out of the old mechanical HD market instead. Sure sucks.

Re:Price Fixing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155929)

>If anything, economies of scale would have seen to the dramatic drop in production costs and not an increase.
Have you missed the last few decades of decreasing costs for computer hardware? This price increase is just a blip, and it isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.

>We should all be running 2TB SSD drives by now but instead the greedy HD manaufacturers just want to squeeze every bit of dough out of the old mechanical HD market instead.
This looks like a non sequitur.
Even if all the hard drive companies were fixing prices, what does that have to do with all of us not running 2TB SSDs? If anything rising HD costs would encourage us to seek alternatives.
Solid state storage just costs more per byte than hard drive platters, plain and simple. There is still a huge market for slow HD storage and there will be for years to come. HD companies aren't just going to stop selling hard drives to "make room" for SSDs or whatever when they have huge investments in HD production and willing buyers.

Anyway, eventually we will be running 2TB SSD. I'm on my way there: I have 240GB, at work we just bought 800GB.

Drive reliability (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155661)

Has there been any data published about the reliability of the drives coming off of the assembly line now? When the drive makers reduced their warranties, there was concern that production after the flooding would have a drop in quality. Has this been borne out, or was it unfounded speculation?

That's all great, but.... (3, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155713)

The floods caused, what, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure damage? Who's ultimately going to write the final checks that pay for all the repairs (and likely upgrades)? Don't we know who? It will be every person and company that buys those products and the population of Thailand. Ultimately the entire global economy pays the bulk of the cost. The One Percenters who control those factories damned sure aren't gonna foot much of the bill. So... don't be a fool and expect prices to return to where they would have been otherwise. That will take a decade.

(It's exactly how recessions work: One Percenters feel a pinch in their ability to concentrate wealth, and in a perverse reversal of the Trickle Down theory they make all those they employ suffer instead so that they regain the full extent of that ability. The only difference in this case is that the proximal cause is an obvious natural disaster. Economists have been feeding us lies about such things for decades.)

Re:That's all great, but.... (0, Flamebait)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155803)

I am a one percenter and what you have written is utter hogwash.

Re:That's all great, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155979)

Oh, yeah? Well put up a counterargument, you lousy one-percenter asstunnel you!

Re:That's all great, but.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156113)

Explain precisely how, then, in a fashion that isn't utter hogwash like your first comment here.

Re:That's all great, but.... (3, Funny)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156425)

Shh. We have to keep the 99%ers in the dark.

BTW, are you going to make the baby-puppy-kitten roast next weekend?

Re:That's all great, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155871)

That and the insurance companies. One don't tend to do large business without insuring themselves.

Re:That's all great, but.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156121)

Yep, it's true. They ride on others' coattails.

Re:That's all great, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39156015)

The insurance companies pay?

Re:That's all great, but.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156149)

Those would still be One Percenters profiting at the expense of others, right?

Re:That's all great, but.... (-1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156109)

It's exactly how recessions work: One Percenters feel a pinch in their ability to concentrate wealth, and in a perverse reversal of the Trickle Down theory they make all those they employ suffer instead so that they regain the full extent of that ability

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Where do you get your economics ideas? You have a low enough slashdot id that you should know better.

Re:That's all great, but.... (0)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156195)

Where did you get your ideas? Whose agenda bought and paid for your beliefs? Whose gospel did you accept for no good reason? You could have a Slashdot ID of 1 and still be a brainwashed tool for someone else.

Save your ad hominem for someone who's willing to play that game. Put up or shut up.

Re:That's all great, but.... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156337)

"The economists have been feeding us lies for decades" eh? You talk in the same way as those who deny that we've ever landed on the moon. Great.

Unless you want to actually look at the evidence. Go read something like "A Monetary History of the United States." You will get a taste of what real evidence is like, and when you disagree with the conclusions, you have a way to back it up. It's lot different than the trash propaganda someone has been feeding you so far.

You should also read this [lhup.edu] . You've fallen into the same trap as the cargo cults, probably the same trap that the 9/11 conspiratorialists and the Obama birthers fall into. Learn how to attack your ideas, like any real scientist does.

This is, or should be, education 101.

Re:That's all great, but.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156627)

Well, now we know who authored your gospel. You seem to lack the perspective to recognize that it's just as likely that you are the crazy cargo cultist as it is that I am. That lack of perspective is that way of things with dogmatism and effective self-delusion. Your prison cell is your own mind, regardless how you wallpaper it.

Re:That's all great, but.... (-1, Troll)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156645)

Fool.

Re:That's all great, but.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156651)

I'd like to add that I can't quote any important cult-status figure like Milton Friedman as the source of my conclusions, because the conclusions are ENTIRELY my own. I've been observing and analyzing the economy MYSELF, and drawing MY OWN conclusions, not simply reading some other alleged genius' contrivances and then thinking to myself, "Yeah, it's like that!" That's what you've done. How do I know? Because you quoted him as the source of your own beliefs. Your inability to even recognize it is what dogmatism looks like. Enjoy your prison cell. It's a small one, indeed.

Re:That's all great, but.... (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156155)

I'm sorry, what exactly are you raging about? Just about every pricing theory from monopoly pricing to perfect competition require that costs be passed to you. If raw material costs go up, the costs are passed to you. If labor costs go up, the costs are passed to you. If people shoplift, the costs are passed to you. If the government adds a new tax, the costs are passed to you. If natural disasters cause damage, the cost is passed to you. Every business operates on margins, that more money comes in through revenue than what leaves through cost. That goes for everyone from the 1%ers to the corner shop.

Do you expect it to be like in good years they'll take a profit, and in bad years they'll put the money back? Seriously? I wonder how you'd like it if your salary or your bank account worked like that. No, if I owned Newegg I'd expect it to turn a profit whether disks costs $50 or $300, my job is to beat all the other stores trying to make a business, not fight the market forces. In the long run I expect it to be the same for factories, if risk of flooding is a cost of doing business we must account for that and make sure our prices reflect all the costs, it's the ones that don't that are foolish. In short, I find your idea that 1%ers should "foot the bill" rather absurd.

Re:That's all great, but.... (1, Interesting)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156247)

What exactly are you raging about? I was responding to the post and title's implication that everything will soon be 'back to normal' as if nothing had happened.

I find your idea that 1%ers should "foot the bill" rather absurd.

Quote, please, the exact portion of my comments where I made that statement? You can't. I never said it. What I clearly implied was that One Percenters don't foot their fair share of the bill.

uh, huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155751)

i'll believe it when i see it (i.e. retail availability and prices back to pre-flood levels)

Spoiled and Then Some (1)

StarWreck (695075) | more than 2 years ago | (#39155753)

I was starting to feel spoiled with how low hard drive prices were before the floods. But now, even months after the floors 1TB drives are still more than I paid for 2TB drives before the floods, I don't feel spoiled anymore.

what hard drive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155861)

shortage? i haven't bought one in a couple years

mod do3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39155981)

of businees a8d was Users With Large

But this will be like gas prices right? (3, Insightful)

BLKMGK (34057) | more than 2 years ago | (#39156231)

Skyrocket the moment they think supply is threatened and then fall back down glacially while waiting for the next disaster or crises. Supply may increase as production ramps up but I'm betting that the middle men and manufacturers will keep prices high for as long as they can. Some manufacturers apparently didn't suffer the same losses but jacked prices up too so this should be no surprise at all...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>