Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

532 comments

Thats a lot of pr0n (-1, Redundant)

jigjigga (903943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170499)

"excellent" :)

Re:Thats a lot of pr0n (5, Funny)

amspencer (472804) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170517)

I suppose that why it has perpendicular recording.

:D (0, Offtopic)

jigjigga (903943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170557)

I see what you did there ;)

Just as boring as "first post" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170541)

Get a life or buy a hard drive and shut up.

Re:Just as boring as "first post" (2, Funny)

jigjigga (903943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170606)

sounds like somebody needs some porn ;)

Is that you... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170632)

Randy? [google.com]

EVERY NERD DANCE (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170504)

Get perpendicular!!!

Re:EVERY NERD DANCE (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170513)

You don't even post a link [hitachigst.com] to it.

On Seagate's product page: (4, Informative)

amcnabb (682951) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170511)

Check out the Seagate Barracuda [seagate.com] for more info.

Re:On Seagate's product page: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170612)

You FSCKING KARMA WHORE! Have you no soul?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Great! (5, Funny)

dcapel (913969) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170514)

We can finally Get Perpendicular!" [hitachigst.com]

Re:Great! (3, Insightful)

AK__64 (740022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170526)

That was actually a very unique form of advertising. I'm curious how many people know about perpendicular because of that effort. The question is, what will the marketers come up with for future forms of storage?

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170547)

Holy crap that was awesome!

Re:Great! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170587)

I see how it works! A magical disco ball is allowed to emit it's soooper groovy radiation over the surface of the disc, which liberates the bits to stand up and boogie! It's so obvious!

Of course, you have to thicken up the dance floor, but that's elementary.

Still, I can't believe that there wasn't a single black bit there at the Super-Para-Magnetic Disco...

Re:Great! (0, Redundant)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170638)

Man do I love that song!

-Rick

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170699)

Damn you! I run FreeBSD you insensitive clod!!!

Sincerly,
  NoFlashForMeDueToCrappyAdobeEULA

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170516)

...oh, I see. Never mind.

Now that's just overkill. (4, Funny)

ScaryMonkey (886119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170519)

We all know 16k of storage is more than enough for anyone.

Re:Now that's just overkill. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170550)

Just shut the fuck up.

How do I back it up? (4, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170520)

Now I have to go to Costco and buy 3 250GB drives!

Re:How do I back it up? (5, Insightful)

Tatarize (682683) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170636)

Oddly enough, the reason it's good these fancy huge hard drives come out is not just to use them, but rather to drive the price of the reasonable drives down. $60 250 gigs here I come.

4.16 ms sounds great, but. . .well. . . (1, Insightful)

Who235 (959706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170527)

I don't know if I believe the claims of an "accidentally leaked" spec sheet.

" &#1085 (0, Troll)

GET THE FACTS! (850779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170528)

" !"

Important Stuff

        * Please try to keep posts on topic.
        * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
        * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
        * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
        * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

wow (5, Funny)

bensafrickingenius (828123) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170529)

that will hold almost half of my porn!

Re:wow (1, Troll)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170720)

that will hold almost half of my porn!

Aaah! Getting modded up on Slashdot, almost as good as having a life :)

Re:wow (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170803)

Make that the perpendicular half!

pron! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170530)

omgz!! more space for my pr0n

Wow! (5, Insightful)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170533)

Wow, and here we thought that 640k is enough for everybody!

Each time the capacity of hard drives goes up a few gigs, I think back to the day in the mid 90's when I got my first "gig" hard drive for $500. Wow, it was the most incredible thing to be one of the first people in my neighborhood to have so much storage... I didn't think I'd ever run out of that much space. And today, the OS won't even fit into such a thing.

But let's put this huge capacity into perspective: Having once had to reverse engineer an obsolete 3.5" floppy drive to repair an obsolete piece of industrial machinery that was down (the customer couldn't afford to replace the whole machine because of a failed floppy drive, and the OS loads from floppy of all things), I learned that this contraption, which was on the market in the 80's, was really incredible, if you take a step back and think about it for a minute. Then, all it takes is a moment to realize that hard disk drives are several orders of magnitude more complex. First, the density of a floppy drive is nothing compared to that of a hard disk even from a decade ago, and secondly, the linear motion of the reading head on a floppy is controlled by a simple stepper motor, whereas the round motion of the reading heads on a hard drive is controlled by servo. I mean, just stop to think about it for a moment. All those gigs of MP3s, videos, and pr0n on someone's hard drive, and what an incredible piece of engineering behind them.

Re:Wow! (2)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170572)

I recall the price of a 1.1 gig Mi(crap)olis drive for 1995.00 USD, yes 2 grand. It was loud, it was 'fast' and we thought it was going to last. It died promptly right after warranty ran out (as I recall was 2 years back then)... That was in 1991 or so, and it went into a NeXT Cube enclosure. The machine itself cost me via the Firesale at BusinessLand, about 3500 USD. So adding an upgrade to a retail item of value at 7000 USD was not a big deal. What if only I could have that money back and have not lined the pickpockets of Jobs and company :) He is good at getting money from people, however that is another story. I can't wait until we get 5-10 Tbyte drives for 100 USD. That day is closer at hand than the 2000 USD 1 gig drive I speak about.

Re:Wow! (2, Funny)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170623)

Whoa dude, you totally blew my mind. It's soooooooo amazing.

Oh man! Have you ever wondered how they get the cream filling in a twinkie? I mean, sure, you can see the holes in the bottom but, I mean, they're empty on the inside! I wonder how they make the space for the cream to go into. I wonder if they sell the part that they take out of the inside,

Oh, man.

(Haha, sorry, your waxing poetic just struck me. It must be all of the Mountain Dew and Bawls that I'm chugging.)

Re:Wow! (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170640)

Haha, sorry, your waxing poetic just struck me. It must be all of the Mountain Dew and Bawls that I'm chugging.

Dude, I don't know what you're chugging, but I just finished pounding six Guinnesses.... So it must be the alcohol talking.

Re:Wow! (1)

Kraeloc (869412) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170673)

I thought the reading head in a modern drive was controlled by a voice coil?

Re:Wow! (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170679)

Floppy disks have an interesting history [wikipedia.org] that goes back even further than the 80's. They were clunky and slow, but they did provide a reasonable alternative to something like this removable cartridge hard drive [pdp8.net] of the same era, especially when compared to punched paper tape or audio cassette.

Re:Wow! (1)

banuk (148382) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170781)

you know when I think about pr0n the first thing that comes to mind is obviously, how fast is the servo chugging away? does it go faster with jenna jameson?

Re:Wow! (1)

toby34a (944439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170782)

There are some things with total hard drive storage... for example, a text file (ASCII character) takes the same amount of bytes to store it, no matter what. Also, the amount of data needed to fill up that single drive seems to go up so much more then it used to. For example, I have a 60 GB hard drive on my laptop (mid-level one year old Dell) that was actually an upgrade from the standard. There will continue to be a disparity of need for that storage in the immediate term (for some reason, I don't remember 60 MB hard drives being shipped still with units when 750 MB was brand new... but I could be wrong)... so data uses keep around the same. Think about it- a MP3 will always be around 5 MB (even at high bitrate). For this drive, that would be 25,000 MP3s on a SINGLE DRIVE. We'll see how Moore's Law pans out... but there is a limit, eventually, with our data (although not for a while) and our ability to fill drives.

But what about... (-1, Offtopic)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170540)

will it run linux?

Seriously, will Vista support a RAID-5 with drives of this size?

For that matter, will Linux?

Re:But what about... (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170706)

I don't see why not. They can handle entire racks filled with drives almost that big now.

Re:But what about... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170733)

STFU. Seriously, are you some kind of retard? I'd really like to know.

Re:But what about... (3, Informative)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170750)

Will Linux support it... hehehe that's cute.

I have friends who have multi-TB raids at their homes using a mix of IDE/Sata/USB in one RAID ...

While hardware RAID support in Linux is a bit hit or miss the software kernel support works properly and is fairly quick. Certainly the bottleneck for most setups will always be the drives themselves.

Tom

Re:But what about... (5, Informative)

onx (956508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170769)

Yes, it should considering that according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] states that the maximum volume size for an NTFS volume is 16EiB. One exibyte is 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 bytes, so 16 exibytes = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes. Since a 750GB hard drive should hold approximately 750,170,112,000 bytes, an NTFS volume should be able to handle 24,590,081 of those 750GB hard drives in a RAID array. Now assuming a RAID array can handle that many of these drives, and that this new 750GB hard drive merely takes the price spot of Seagate's current finest offering of a 500GB hard drive (priced on newegg as $295 each) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 [newegg.com] E16822148108 [newegg.com] rather than debuting at a higher price point, which it probably will, that many hard drives would cost about $6,147,520,250 before tax, and not including any of the massive discounts one might expect to recieve for such a massive purchase. On top of that, at a sales tax rate of 7.75%, the tax on those drives would cost you $476,432,819.38. So I don't know about you, but I doubt this is going to be a problem for either XP or Vista for a long, long time (assuming you use NTFS partitions).

Floppy disks (1)

Joey Patterson (547891) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170543)

750 GB
That's 768,000 MB.

768,000 MB/1.44 MB =~ 533,333

That's a lot of floppy disks

Great for backups (3, Insightful)

mnmn (145599) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170552)

Everyones using USB disks for backups now rather than tapes. So many benefits there. Thats why Lacie and Maxtor are making a killing on selling drive + MCU + USB + casing packages. How many small and medium sized companies have total data exceeding 750GB?

Even more interesting is who will release the first terabyte drive and (this is what I'm interested in) who will be the first to put one terabyte on a single platter. A terabyte is a lot. It will be a lot 5 years later, and quite a lot even 10 years later. Sure I understand Moores law and how 10MB was huge back then. But there comes a time after which we actually run out of relevant data to put on it. Pictures will go upto 10 megapixels but it will stop there. Video might go upto 1024x768x32-bitx100FPS but will not exceed that. Our humans senses will cease to notice any further difference. Games might require 2 blue-ray DVDs but will not require say 32 blue-ray DVDs in the next 10 years. What will you PUT on it?

Maybe this will mean I'll finally have as much space in hotmail as I have in gmail.

Re:Great for backups (5, Funny)

nblender (741424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170574)

When you buy your TB-iPod, it will come preloaded with the entire history of human musical creativity and you will buy unlock codes with iTunes.

(from a co-worker)

Re:Great for backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170688)

It's already on your Mac, if you just cat /dev/random |/Applications/iTunes.app. Might take a while though.

Makes sense to me (1)

BlueBiker (690984) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170795)

Dunno why parent is modded funny. The basic approach is entirely plausible, and it may well be both cheaper and more efficient in the future to ship humongous pre-recorded libraries rather than depend on the constant availability of superwide network pipes.

Re:Great for backups (1)

jigjigga (903943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170575)

well moores law has nothign to do with storage capacity, but regardless I understand what you are saying. I think its certainly true that total capacity isn't in a dire lack of abundance as it was a few years ago. I remember (Im not as old as you guys) 2gb drivers were huge yet still too little. I remember having to uninstall games, to delete other stuff, because I was running out. Now I have 700gb or so in my machine and I have my entire CD collection as flacs and my dvds ripped and i have room to spare. Its nice having this buffer right now, and it will likely be this way for a little bit.

Re:Great for backups (1)

bensafrickingenius (828123) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170629)

Oh! You reminded me of another reason I don't think a TB is very big! I have a half a TB in my desktop downstairs, and it's FULL! That's were I rip all my DVDs to. I just bought a 300 GB drive (for $99 at Staples, btw -- nice!) to add to it -- but that'll only get me another 70 DVD rips.

Re:Great for backups (5, Insightful)

bensafrickingenius (828123) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170603)

"A terabyte is a lot. It will be a lot 5 years later, and quite a lot even 10 years later."


I'm sorry, but I really think you're mistaken. I and those in my field are caught in a seemingly unending storage excalation war. We provide 500 megabytes -- the users fill it up and demand more. We provide 50 gigabytes -- the users fill it up and demand more. We provide 500 gigabytes -- the users fill it up and demand more. Sure, they're wasting A LOT of space, and we could slow down the rate of growth by running scripts to delete MP3s or whatever every night, but that's a stopgap measure, and in the end is probably more expensive in terms of costly technician time than the cost of just slapping more drives in our Promise array. Currently we're backing up all of our servers to a 6.5 TB array via rsync -- and it's getting full. Give me a petabyte disk, please!

Re:Great for backups (1)

slashdot.org (321932) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170811)

Give me a petabyte disk, please!

Here ya go! [google.com]

Re:Great for backups (1)

countach (534280) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170607)

Yes there's a limit to how big one movie will be. But how much limit is there on the number of movies you would like on there? How would you like an entertainment unit with 5000 HD movies sitting on the hard drive and ready to run off the menu??

And then, how would you like the same on a portable ipod or PSP-like device you can take around with you?

I don't see any shortage of uses to which more storage could be put.

Re:Great for backups (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170684)

Unfortunately a 1TB drive can only hold 50 movies at 20 GB each. Now that's hardly a library, is it?

Re:Great for backups (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170616)

Digital cameras have already exceeded 12 megapixels. They are primarily for photographing images that will be used in large signs and posters. People like you and I will likely never need one.

Re:Great for backups (2, Interesting)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170622)

"What will you PUT on it?"

Expect a massive migration away from compressed formats, for example - JPEGs going to PNGs and TIFFs.

Your music collection of MP3/OGG/AAC may be re-sold to you in 32-bit (regular CDs use 16-bit, which was always just barely acceptable to critics of the format).

Re:Great for backups (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170677)

Expect a massive migration away from compressed formats, for example - JPEGs going to PNGs and TIFFs.

Having larger disk doesn't make my Internet go faster so JPG-s are here to stay. As for photos, all mid-range and hi-end cameras already use RAW formats.

Your music collection of MP3/OGG/AAC may be re-sold to you in 32-bit (regular CDs use 16-bit, which was always just barely acceptable to critics of the format).

Yep, DVDA is such a hit! :)

Re:Great for backups (2, Insightful)

pilkul (667659) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170705)

Nonsense; that would only happen if there were great improvements in bandwidth as well.

Vector Graphics (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170715)

So will we ever reach the point that vector graphics will define what we want to see better than bitmaps ever will. Right now the hard part seems to be adding enough vectors to describe the detail of a bitmap, but it seems to me the more detail in the bitmap the easier we can find an equation to fit it. What is holding back vector graphics currently?

Re:Great for backups (3, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170737)

That's just dumb. We won't throw out compression just because we have big drives.

I mean if I install a 750GB drive does that make my network any faster?

And besides, 16-bit is 96dB of dynamic range. Anyone who says that's not enough is just an ass. They're the sort who claim they can see noise at 200fps and the like [especially on 75Hz monitors]...

One good use for this is a relatively cheap huge store. 4x750 in RAID-6 gets you 1.3TiB of storage for $2700 [with tax]. It allows upto any two drives to die simulatenously without losing data. If you're a software shop who needs to have access to large amounts of data and code at once without fear of it dying one day this is an idea solution.

For my personal use I got 3x250GB last year for about $600. It gets me ~465GiB of usable space [RAID-5] and any one drive can die and I won't lose my data. Typically if drives do die they don't die all at once. So for personal use it's an acceptable risk. Currently I have ~50GB of music and 200GB of movies on it. As well a 20GB Windows virtual drive [for QEMU] and copies of my CVS [archived]. Suprisingly it's 62% used considering when I bought it I thought I would never go over 10% use.

Anyways, I can see these being used for small to medium businesses which need large file stores for cheap.

Tom

Re:Great for backups (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170756)

Best Buy will simply "X" out the number 16 in its store displays, and write "32" in bold red figures. Believe me, it works.

Re:Great for backups (3, Informative)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170783)

That's right up there with the Monster cable displays...

Yeah cuz you need 2000dB of S/N to listen to a movie soundtrack... Oh but come on, 30$ per foot of copper is worth it!

Some people are just highly stupid.

At best I can see the drive for 20-bits [and 24 just because it's a nicer multiple of 8] but 32-bits would imply 192 dB of dynamic range which is FAR FAR FAR beyond the average hearing range. Given that the "noise polution" in the average house sits at a constant 30dB or so ... the finer range isn't noticeable even with the best ears.

Just like pixels the human eye fuzzes out around 10 to 12-bits per channel [depending on the eye and channel, for instance most people are more sensitive to green than red or blue]. Just like the audio case there are masking effects with light. After 12-bits or so of range it's just academic.

Tom

Re:Great for backups (2, Interesting)

Compuser (14899) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170624)

I once ran this calculation trying to guess what excess we could
possibly envision and where it ends.
So, let's consider movies. Now, we will assume that people in the future
watch movies on large screens. Let us assume drive-in size 300" diag.
Also let us assume that 300 dpi is enough and 16:9 screen ratio.
That is 3.5e9 pixels. You assume 100 fps. OK, then we get 2.5e11 pixels.
Three channels for color give us roughly 1e12 bytes. Per second.
Of course no future snob will watch compressed movies so we will
assume that this is a fair estimate. Now there are 3e7 seconds in
a year and we will assume average person lives 100 years. So to get
enough movies that you cannot watch them in a lifetime we would
need 3e7x100x1e12 = 3e21 bytes. Let us increase that estimate a bit
since people collect more than they need. We get that an Avogadro
bumber of bytes ought to be enough for anyone for the foreseeable
future until 3D media becomes available.

Re:Great for backups (1)

Compuser (14899) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170634)

Oops, I thought I proof-read it. It should be 3.5e11 pixels (not 2.5e11)
and number (not bumber). Sorry.

Re:Great for backups (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170643)

But there comes a time after which we actually run out of relevant data to put on it.

Video will consume that much space. I shoot a lot of live music footage, and on an average night the storage requirements of the downloaded DV video will be 70-100GB. If I were to take the step up to HD formats, that would increase to about half a TB for a night's work.

The only real question is whether a niche purpose like video production can generate enough revenue to continue driving the research.

you don't get it (3, Insightful)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170663)

You just said that 64megs of memory ought to be enough for anyone, in so many words.

Video might go upto 1024x768x32-bitx100FPS but will not exceed that

Right. Tell that to any gamer running @ 1280x1024. Higher resolutions will always be in demand. Games will continue to have better and better textures, more units, bigger and more maps. I wouldn't be supprised to see 1TB games in the next 10 years.
You make a good point, but just don't put finite limits on things which are likely to change quickly.

It has to be said... (1)

mfago (514801) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170682)

What will you put on [a TB disk]?

After installing Windows and Office, you'll only have room for a few hours of virtual reality porn.

Seriously though, HD video is "already" 1080x1920. Up the bit-depth and frame rate, and an uncompressed video stream is pretty huge. 10 years ago who would have thought of 60GB of (compressed) music in your pocket?

I have no doubt that we'll find a way to fill a TB disk. The more serious question: will one be in control of one's own data, or will the MPAA/RIAA/MSoft charge you $0.02 every time you do a directory listing or open a file?

Re:Great for backups (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170698)

2006:
A terabyte is a lot. It will be a lot 5 years later, and quite a lot even 10 years later.

1996:
A gibabyte is a lot. It will be a lot 5 years later, and quite a lot even 10 years later.

1986:
20 megabytes is a lot. It will be a lot 5 years later, and quite a lot even 10 years later.

Re:Great for backups (1)

Benzido (959767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170717)

Two words: Never Delete.

Re:Great for backups (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170722)

>What will you PUT on it?

A never-delete file system that will let you keep and revert to every version of every file you've ever had on the disk. (Don't run a file system like that if privacy has any meaning for you).

Backups of the the most important 1G of the other 1000 machines on your network while they do the same for you.

A test server farm with a hundred VMWare partitions.

A brute-force solution for any algorithm with a time-space tradeoff.

Every program on TV so you don't have to program your TiVo in advance.

Re:Great for backups (4, Funny)

pcgabe (712924) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170741)

Pictures will go upto 10 megapixels but it will stop there. Video might go upto 1024x768x32-bitx100FPS but will not exceed that.

Haven't you seen Blade Runner [imdb.com] ?

What will you PUT on it?
"You've got a Friend in Porn" by Sean Cullen

When you're feeling blue,
you don't know what to do,
sitting all alone,
waiting by the phone...
The world seems so unfair,
no one seems to care.
When your worlds are ripped and torn
you've got a friend in porn.

Thank you for the porn!
Though other folks may scorn
the constant mindless sex
and the crude special effects,
it gets you through the day
whether bi or straight or gay.
When you wish you were never born,
you've got a friend in porn.

When the night is long,
everything is wrong.
Your heart is on a shelf,
you have to touch yourself.
Reach for your old friend.
The pleasures never end,
and I think you'll find
it's a friend you can rewind!

Thank you for the porn!
porny porny porn
porny porny porn
porny porny porn

porny porno porni
porniddly niddly new
pornography for you,
pornography for me,

You've got a friend in porn
You've got a friend in porn
You've got a friend in pooooooorn!
But there comes a time after which we actually run out of relevant data to put on it.

Trust me, if your "relevant data" includes pornography, you will NEVER run out of data to put on it. Call that "Gabriel's Law" if you will. ^_^

16MB of Cache? (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170554)

For someone who knows all the answers:

Are hard drives becoming cache-starved? 16MB of cache doesn't seem like alot against 750GB on 7200 rpm platters.

Re:16MB of Cache? (1)

AnalystX (633807) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170609)

I would expect the cache size to be proportional to the data transfer rate, not the storage size. It isn't like you can access all 750 GB at one time.

Re:16MB of Cache? (5, Insightful)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170614)

They're becoming IO-bound far faster than cache-bound. It takes literally hours to read an entire 500gb hard drive at this point. The cache, on the other hand, is staying roughly on par with the IO speed, which seems like a more natural combination.

I know I'm just paranoid (2, Interesting)

PrimeWaveZ (513534) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170566)

Because I've experienced data loss before. That's a lot of valuable stuff (at least in my case) in a very small space with little to back it up with except for more of the same. It scares the bejesus out of me.

But I remember saying that about them huge 9GB drives when they came out when I was 12 (or so.)

Re:I know I'm just paranoid (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170713)

RAID-5 ?

You wouldn't buy these to be just plomped in. Unless you are doing lab work and just need bulk short-term storage.

Any home user/developer will need reliability and will need at least RAID-1 if not RAID-5 or RAID-6.

Of course the retail price is $600 CDN here in Canada. So at a minimum you need 3x drives to make it worthwhile. That's like $1800 plus tax or roughly two grand. Though it is like 1.3TiB of storage.

Tom

Keep in mind (4, Insightful)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170578)

this absurd habit of confusing 10^9 and 2^30.

750 (hard drive manufacturer GB) = 698.49 (real GB or GiB, depending on how anal you are).

As these sizes keep getting bigger the need to settle on one method of calculating GB, for both OSes and hard drive manufacturers, keeps getting painfully clearer.

Re:Keep in mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170639)

Also, I don't know how /. readers actually own Segate HD's but they have to be the worst company to give an in-accurate size.

Only good thing about Seagate is their great 5-Year warranty.

Does any-one know what is happening to Maxtor after being acquired by Seagate? will they still exist??

As usual wait for the real reviews (4, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170582)

Come on, there is no way that a 7,200RPM drive will have an average latency of 4.16ms, that's the pure physical latency of the platter! The transfer rate is similarly bogus, it's the burst transfer rate of the interface, not even the outer track transfer speed. Guess we have to wait for someone like storagereview to throw iometer at this beast and get some real info.

Re:As usual wait for the real reviews (2, Informative)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170662)

TFA says that the average seek time will be 4.16 ms. Seek time is the time it takes for the arm carrying the head to swing from track x to track y on average. Rotational latency is the time it takes for a particular sector on that track to find its way around to where the head is waiting for it. Both, along with transfer latency make up the total latency.

Re:As usual wait for the real reviews (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170764)

No, it doesn't:

Seek time information has not been released yet, which has traditionally been considered the problem area for perpendicular recording devices.

Why are we still moving heads back and forth? (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170786)

It's fun reading comments about seek time and rotational latency -- amazing how useful such stats can be.

However, a thought intrudes -- why are we still using movable heads at all? Considering the track-to-track density and small radius disk formats we're using, isn't it about time to shift back to head-per-track? Couldn't we make a fixed-position monolithic RW head to cover all tracks of a disk at once? Can we make multiple RW coils small enough to pack at the same density as tracks on a platter? Come to think of it, we could stagger them a bit; they wouldn't have to be all in a single line...

It just seems like such a waste of kinetic to constantly throw the heads back and forth across the platter.

where are the small cheap drives for RAID??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170592)

I want speed not giggaquads of data storage. why can't they sell 20-40G drives with the latest speed stuff so I could afford 5 or 10 of them for RAID arrays? it's recockulas.

Bigger is Faster (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170652)

Well, part of the reason for the speed is the increased density of the bits. Plus, more platters and heads gets you more speed. Together, more density and more heads and more speed means more capacity.

Re:Bigger is Faster (1)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170728)

Together, more density and more heads and more speed means more capacity.

flip the script a bit, yo!

Together, more density and more heads and more capacity means more speed.

although still not 100%, its a bit more accurate than what was originially set forth.

Flash memory prices dropping (4, Interesting)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170672)

It's getting to the point where you want to keep your OS and core applications in Flash memory and things that are less important on hard drives. I just bought a 512 MB usb key for $25. Scaling up, you could get a multi-GB flash drive for a couple hundred bucks.

Some companies have multi-tiered storage solutions (e.g. fast SCSI RAID, cheap EIDE RAID, optical, etc.). Some of those ideas may make their way into desktop devices. You'd boot off of flash memory nearly instantly (it would cache your OS and core applications), then you'd play your MP3s, surf the web, or whatever on your relatively slow hard drive.

Re:Flash memory prices dropping (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170703)

sure, if you want the thing to be dead within days - what about virtual memory, paging files, etc? the same type of arguement had been made about putting a "portable" slimmed down version of Firefox (iirc) on something like an iRiver in a /. comment quite a while ago...

Re:where are the small cheap drives for RAID??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170681)

They do. They're called SCSI drives.

Whoa Nellie... 750 freakin' gigs? (0)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170600)

... terrabyte hard drives, here we come!

HD rule of thumb (0, Redundant)

peterfa (941523) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170674)

Harddrive space required == Harddrive Space Available + 5 Gigabytes.

Format this Red Hat! (0, Troll)

mwfolsom (234049) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170695)

Since Red Hat in their ultimate wisdom has chosen ext3 and decided not to fully support XFS their Enterprise OS can't format this whole drive - you will have to chop it into a couple of pieces.

Go Suse!

Re:Format this Red Hat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170759)

Odd. I have a 3.8 TB ext3 partition and it works just fine.. granted, e2fsck takes awhile.

Re:Format this Red Hat! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170813)

eh, depending on block size, you should be able to do 2TB to 16TB partitions with ext3 with 2.6 kernel on your x86

Re:Format this Red Hat! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170827)

but yeah, XFS rules for large partitions, mounts and checks go like lightning

Re:Format this Red Hat! (3, Informative)

nairb774 (728193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170816)

A quick look to Wikipedia says...32TiB for the largest volume size. If you are using a partitioning tool - that might be your limitation but it is definatly not in the file system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3 [wikipedia.org]

I can't even fill my 250GB HD (1)

SpecialAgentXXX (623692) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170710)

I know people say the same thing when faster CPUs come out, "who's going to need all that speed?", but I think it can be said of hard drive space. I can't even fill up my 250GB HD, and that includes my OS, development database, latest games, and my, um... "collection." Video games are the largest media out there (unless you are pirating DVDs, but that doesn't count). Oblivion takes 4.5GB on my HD. Valve's Steam w/ HL1, HL2, etc. takes 7GB. What else is there? Unless you are doing high-res graphics work or editting a home-movie, will this hard drive ever make it into the mainstream? Or is it just a niche item?

I would rather than 2 x 350GB in RAID 1 in case of a HD failure instead of 1 700GB HD.

I could, and so could a lot of ppl (1)

Anubis350 (772791) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170819)

Complete dvd rips of my dvd collection: 800GB.

My music, ripped to FLAC: 100GB

2 OSs (Debian and WinXP Pro) + Software for them (incl games): 45-50GB

Yeah, I could use this drive.... And in all seriousness, so could a lot of ppl. With dvd ripping coming standard in Vista and people's growing digital multimedia collections incl. TV and Music (from itms and others), the space is definately needed.

Re:I can't even fill my 250GB HD (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170831)

http://www.archive.org/ [archive.org] has plenty of music and video to fill your hard disk with.

One might argue that http://www.animemusicvideos.org/ [animemusicvideos.org] is piracy, but they haven't been shut down by the RIAA yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_of_the_Underdogs [wikipedia.org] may or may not be down currently, but only over a domain name problem. http://www.the-underdogs.info/ [the-underdogs.info] seems to work at the moment.

http://digihosters.com/~cdosorg/ [digihosters.com] more.

...though the requisite agencies are perfectly capable of shutting down abandonware sites regarding piracy.

http://www.rockstargames.com/classics/ [rockstargames.com] Rockstar makes available older games for free.

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3148013&did=1 [1up.com] 101 best free games.

But does it have Heart? (0, Offtopic)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170712)

Mmm...Barracuda! [apple.com]

Drives need to get faster (1)

speeDDemon (nw) (643987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170788)

I have a 3 x 320Gb RAID5 array in my home server, When i upgraded from my 3 x 200Gb drives it took a very long time to copy the data from the old array to the new (I left it overnight)

We need a way of getting the data on and off the drives quicker.

Its not like I need to access all the 640Gb all the time, but it shouldnt take hours if I need to.

obligatory (1)

santaliqueur (893476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170800)

*insert joke about storing a large amount of internet porn on the new 750 GB hard drives here*

can i have funny points now?

Finally (0, Redundant)

Drakin030 (949484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170801)

Something to hold all my porn...

No need to buy any more drives for backup (1)

dotslasher_sri (762515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170821)

I will juss repartition this drive into smaller ones and use them as backups. :D

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...