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!

Review of Seagate's 750Gb Hard Drive

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the raid-array-in-a-box dept.

414

Zoxed writes "The Tech Report have a comprehensive review of Seagate's Barracuda-7200.10 'perpendicular' drive, including a primer on the technology. They ran performance tests against 10 other drives, checking the noise and power consumption levels. The Seagate fared pretty well, even on cost (per Gigabyte)." From the article: "Perpendicular recording does wonders for storage capacity, and thanks to denser platters, it can also improve drive performance. Couple those benefits with support for 300 MB/s Serial ATA transfer rates, Native Command Queuing, and up to 16 MB of cache, and the Barracuda 7200.10 starts to look pretty appealing. Throw in an industry-leading five year warranty and a cost per gigabyte that's competitive with 500 GB drives, and you may quickly find yourself scrambling to justify a need for 750 GB of storage capacity."

cancel ×

414 comments

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

GREAT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428311)

This will provide ample space for my collection of GAY NIGGER PORN!

The justification for more space (5, Funny)

Dude McDude (938516) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428321)

One word: PORN

Re:The justification for more space (-1, Redundant)

ericdano (113424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428343)

TWO WORDS: Porn Music

Imagine a RAID of a couple of these..........whoa........

Re:The justification for more space (2, Funny)

Skroggtar (940321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428636)

I must question why one would actually enjoy listening to porn music. What a silly world we live in.

Re:The justification for more space (4, Funny)

ericdano (113424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428658)

I meant Porn & Music not Porn Music.........yikes.

No no....no no. Well. No. Absolutely not. Porn Music no. Porn AND Music, yes.

Re:The justification for more space (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428363)

"Get perpendicular!"

Re:The justification for more space (1)

thelonestranger (915343) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428370)

Where? I cant see it.

Re:The justification for more space (4, Funny)

lakin (702310) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428438)

Well duh, you dont own one of these drives yet!

Re:The justification for more space (5, Funny)

I Like Pudding (323363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428584)

I wonder if there is a correlation between hard drive size and blindness

Scrambling? (4, Insightful)

_Hellfire_ (170113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428328)

"...and you may quickly find yourself scrambling to justify a need for 750 GB of storage capacity."

With the amount of media stored on my server I can already justify a disk this size. The only downside is of course that you're going to need two of these for your mirror :(

Re:Scrambling? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428371)

Same here, but wish I could afford a "6-pack" of these instead of just wanting one! Oh well, with second paycheck from new job, one of these WILL be mine!

Re:Scrambling? (4, Interesting)

ericdano (113424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428456)

Which bring up the question, do existing RAID controllers support this drive?

And, do firewire enclosures support them?

Not just RAID controllers... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428617)

...but how do these 300MB/s SATA NCQ drives actually fare against U160/U320 SCSI drives for sustained thruput in something like a database server that normally benefits from the multithreaded i/o capability of SCSI? The "300MB/s" is pretty close to the "U320" rating of peak data xfer rate, but as we all know, the absolute very best and fastest disks themselves can generally only stream a continuous ~ 80MB/s due to mechanical limits of the hard drive regardless of the electrical interface, and most commodity-grade disk drives on the market today actually do well to reach and sustain ~50-60MB/s continuous stream rate, with ~30-40MB/s being common for low-end cheap drives.

I'm betting that in a situation where you need the utmost in high-traffic-load, direct-attached storage like on a heavily loaded transactional database server running Oracle or similar, that the U320 SCSI disks connected to a good hardware-caching raid controller card still are the unbeatable king daddy paw-paw of sustained thruput.

Whiney Mac Fanboy is a hippie hobo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428332)

Whiney Mac Fanboy is a failed journalist and a hobo Microsoft-basher. For your sake, add him to your foes list immediately. Whiney fanboys, go back to digg.

Now all I need... (1)

smaerd (954708) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428335)

...are perpendicular STRIPES.

Actually, a think two in JBOD would work as well... until I lose 750GB of data in one fell swoop.

Re:Now all I need...is a backup perhaps? (4, Funny)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428383)

You've never heard of this thing called a "backup", I take it?

Seriously, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to lose any data. Even if it means forking over the money for a tape backup and tapes, if you lose any data due to a drive failure you have no one to blame but yourself. If it's important, build a RAID. If its critical, build a RAID with some kind of tape or other backup.

Yeah, I know, this is "Well, no shit, Sherlock" territory, but it always irks me when someone talks about losing data because there's no real need for losing any data, particularly if it's important.

Of course, if getting that data back is a simple task of downloading (again) from alt.binaries.multimedia.erotica, that's a different situation. :)

Re:Now all I need...is a backup perhaps? (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428404)

"Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it." - Linus B. Torvalds

I suppose the same principle applies to newsgroups and eMule, etc... :P

Re:Now all I need...is a backup perhaps? (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428510)

I use my gmail account for that. Encrypt it, mail it to yourself, and let Google back it up. I can fit almost all the really important stuff in 2 gigs. As for the rest of it, I'll just have to hope my house doesn't burn down.

Re:Now all I need...is a backup perhaps? (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428537)

If you need more, just give yourself another gmail invite?

Have two accounts for storage then...

I've got a pair of gmail accounts, one for more business stuff, and one for family, friends, and fun. I don't see why you couldn't have storagemule1@gmail.com and storagemule2@gmail.com if space is an issue for 'the rest of it'

Re:Now all I need...is a backup perhaps? (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428627)

I like to think of it as my safety deposit box...I do some thinking about the stuff that I absolutely have to have...Everything else stays on my home network, which is pretty solid. I don't worry too much about home stuff. I'm not a video/music/graphic guy, so my stuff is low-bulk enough that I can burn a cd every month or so to back up important stuff, and not really worry about losing much.

Re:Now all I need...is a backup perhaps? (4, Insightful)

gid13 (620803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428481)

"there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to lose any data. Even if it means forking over the money"

Psst... Money is a reason.

Lame excuse. (2, Insightful)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428588)

Then you shouldn't be buying such a large hard drive if you can't afford to lose the data that's on it without redundancy or archiving capabilities. That's like buying a luxury car when you can't afford insurance for it.

Re:Now all I need...is a backup perhaps? (1)

graemecoates (592009) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428567)

Seriously, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to lose any data. Even if it means forking over the money for a tape backup and tapes, if you lose any data due to a drive failure you have no one to blame but yourself. If it's important, build a RAID. If its critical, build a RAID with some kind of tape or other backup.

Personally, I would not want to be doing tape backups of a 750GB drive that is even a quarter full (unless I/company have serious wads of cash to spend). A tape drive with enough capacity to handle the entire drive in one go will cost about 20 times the price of the hd (Seagate is ~400USD from TFA). If you go for smaller tapes, you're probably still talking multiple times the cost of the Seagate for the tape drive itself + media costs. And there's the time for doing the backup, swapping discs, etc.

If you're serious about backing up your files/music/pr0n, then you are probably better off buying multiple drives and sticking them in a mirrored RAID array of some sort (RAID 1,5,51,etc) and hoping they don't all kark it at once if you're protecting yourself against failure.

If you want to protect against stupidity and the bad luck of having multiple drives die at once, then having another removable drive as a mirror that won't get blown away if you do a "rm -rf /" is helpful...

Of course, as you say, if it is critical, it's likely the data belongs to someone else and they'll pay for the kit to back it all up ;)

Re:Now all I need...is a backup perhaps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428661)

Side note: rm -rf / will wipe out all the mounted drives too, make sure you unplug the backup drive when you're done with it.

errrr (-1, Redundant)

scenestar (828656) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428339)

and you may quickly find yourself scrambling to justify a need for 750 GB of storage capacity.

warez?

Get perpendicular :D (5, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428341)


http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_h ead/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html [hitachigst.com]

Watch out for the superparamagnetic effect though.

Re:Get perpendicular :D (1)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428373)

oh man, I just posted the same link. my question is, how did the funding for that animation get approved?

Re:Get perpendicular :D (1, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428422)

my question is, how did the funding for that animation get approved?

Note how the story is about a Seagate product, but the link everyone is posting is for Hitachi. I don't know how it got approved, but whoever pushed for it deserves a raise.

Re:Get perpendicular :D (2)

svkal (904988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428447)

Seeing as approximately 75% of the comments on this story seems to be links to that very advertisement, I'd imagine funding that animation was a very good business decision(unless the animation somehow appears to have been very expensive to make; though I find that hard to believe, I'll leave the possibility open as I haven't got Flash or whatever plugin the animation uses installed on this computer and thus I haven't actually seen it).

Re:Get perpendicular :D (0)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428470)

Look at the sibling comment to yours, he points out that the animation isn't even from Seagate!

my head feels like its gonna explode.

And if you get the chance watch the animation, its very clever and explains the storage capacity issues very nicely.

Re:Get perpendicular :D (0)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428472)

I'm not saying it's a bad business decision, I just can't imagine the project proposal... *picture businessmen gathered around a cliche table with big leather chairs acting all serious, then imaging them talking about "getting perpendicular"*

Re:Get perpendicular :D (5, Insightful)

edzillion (842353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428532)

Did you notice that the ipod-like mp3 player the character was holding said 1 of 30,000 songs. 30 thousand! Does anyone else get the feeling of overload with this avalanche of content? I have noticed that the more music I have ripped on my pc the less I listen to each song. If consumers are said to empathise with their purchases - for instance it has been noted that people value items more when they own them - then having 30k songs or 50k episodes of the daily show surely means that each will get less attention. In these circumstances I find it hard to believe that these items will still hold their value.

Whoah (4, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428344)

"Throw in an industry-leading five year warranty..."

Wow, thought those days were gone.

Re:Whoah (4, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428448)

You just have to look for them a bit. I just picked up a 300GB Maxtor SATA-2 with 16MB cache and NCQ that has a 5-year warranty, and it only cost me about $6 more than the 3-year warranty version with identical specs. Other companies may also offer them. (Of course, Maxtor is now a part of Seagate.)

They left out... (-1, Redundant)

dreadpiratemark (450962) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428347)

The review seems to have left out the important "disco ball" and "actuator man" features of perpendicular drives. More information is available from Hitachi here: http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_h ead/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html [hitachigst.com]

Re:They left out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428507)

holy shit, Hitachi's completely on acid!

The perfect excuse... (-1, Redundant)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428359)

to watch "Get Perpendicular [hitachigst.com] "

Myth boxes and the like (4, Insightful)

debest (471937) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428364)

Some keep saying that there's no point to ever-increasing drive storage numbers. I disagree. Huge drives will always be appreciated in media PCs, where good-quality video (even if compressed) takes up a good chunk of storage space. Since these devices are preferably low noise, low power, and small in size, you obviously can't just keep throwing more drives in the box: a single drive is the best solution.

Keep the size increases coming, I've got a mountain of content on DVD and VHS that I'd love to be able to rip to an online media library!

Re:Myth boxes and the like (1)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428440)

I remember 7 years ago when I got 20 GB harddrive and thought "I'm never going to fill this up"... needless to say, 3 and a half years later I had a nice big 80 GB drive. Again, I thought to myself "I don't think I'll ever fill up 80 GB -- even with all my music and games, if I ever run out of space I can always just uninstall something". 2 years ago I bought a second drive for my main machine (160 GB) to act as a music/movie/game storage device... The 240 GB of space on my main machine are about 70% used, in addition to the 750 GB of harddrive space currently on my file server being almost 85% used, it's safe to say that a 750 GB drive could be extremely useful to me (then I could throw 4 of them in my file server). "If you give them the disk space, they will fill it... with pr0n!".

Re:Myth boxes and the like (5, Funny)

brianosaurus (48471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428611)

Geeks fit into hard drives like goldfish fit in bowls; they grow to fill the space...

why not? (1)

Skadet (528657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428539)

Since these devices are preferably low noise, low power, and small in size...



Um...preferred by whom? I work in media and I can tell you, space is preferred, period. Nobody cares about the power draw of one more drive or the whirling of another disk.

Of course, if you're working with a lot of video media, you're probably not storing it locally, anyway. In fact, we don't even store our audio locally.

Re:why not? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428572)

He's talking about PVRs in people's homes, not anything for professional use.

"Myth boxes and the like" (1)

debest (471937) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428578)

It was in the subject, and the body. I was referring specifically to "media PCs" (as well as DVR/PVR boxes), where size, noise, and power DO matter! I don't have a data centre, I want a solution appropriate for my home.

Re:Myth boxes and the like (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428576)

In addition to flat out larger hard drive storage sizes, using the perpendicular method will also allow physically smaller hard drives of decent storage ability. The potential benefit to laptops, mp3 players and all other manner of portable devices is quite real.

Re:Myth boxes and the like (1)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428591)

Some keep saying that there's no point to ever-increasing drive storage numbers.

Yes, well some people are just fucking retarded. To be honest, I had kind of suspected that before today.

Re:Myth boxes and the like (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428596)

The Seagates aren't very loud, I think their noise is negligible except for the fussiest people, and improving case accoustics helps a lot more than reducing the number of drives.

I have five Seagates in my workstation here, 1x 15kRPM and 4x 7.2kRPM, and the sound really isn't objectionable.

I have one single 10k RPM drive in my HTPC, and it's not a problem, and wouldn't mind adding more. My refrigerator and video projector are both louder.

Big HUGE warnings (2, Funny)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428367)

1. The more data you pack in a volume, the higher the risk for data loss due to mechanical breaks.
2. 7 100 Gb disks (that would cost less than USD 430 [techreport.com] ) will be at least 7 times more reliable than the 7200.10 with possibile similar performances.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428387)

How much physical space/heat would those 7 drives produce as compared to a single 750 gig drive?

Re:Big HUGE warnings (2, Insightful)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428389)

Or, you can get three 750gb hard drives and RAID them for security. Put it this way, 3 drives will fit in your box, 7 won't.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428393)

Maybe yes maybe no. If the likelihood of disk failure is .01%, just an example, then the risk of a failure in any of your 7 disks is .07% so instead of a 99.9% reliability you have 99.3%.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428521)

Do you really believe that disk failure rates are anywhere near 0.01%? In my admittedly small sample over the years, it's more like about 5% over five years - and that's without ever buying Maxtors. If that is anywhere near the true mean of the disk failure distribution, then you could expect a 30.2% probability that at least one of those 7 disks would fail within five years.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428597)

I wasn't claiming it is or isn't. They're just examples for numerical purposes. I tend to think that some people seem to have much worse experience than others, for whatever reason. I can tell you that in 15 years of home computing and 20 years of at-work PC's I've never lost a drive completely. I've had some bad sectors but I've never crashed a drive. I've blown out CPU's and motherboards and had several CDRW's crash and burn but never a hard drive. Maybe it's that I don't use particularly high performance drives ever - I always go for cheap.

you failed prob and stat didn't you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428637)

then the risk of a failure in any of your 7 disks is .07%

You failed statistics didn't you.

If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 98 times what is the probability it will be heads on the next flip?

dumbass.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428641)

No, the risk of failure in any of the seven drives is .01, the risk of losing all the drives is 0.1^7 - the drives are rather independent events.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (2, Insightful)

muhgcee (188154) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428403)

With 7 100GB disks, we have that little problem of power consumption to deal with. And noise. And heat.

Re:Big HUGE warnings - Not quite true (4, Insightful)

drhamad (868567) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428405)

7x100GB is not 7 times more reliable than one 750 GB drive. It is 7x more reliable at not losing ALL of your data, perhaps, since you could only lose 100GB at a time. But it is not any more reliable for retaining ALL of your data, either. The big advantage in reliability to high capacity drives is the ability to RAID them in a relatively small enclosure - RAIDing 7 or 8 drives would be quite a task, while doing 2-4 drives is relatively easy.

Re:Big HUGE warnings - Not quite true (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428488)

RAIDing 7 or 8 drives would be quite a task, while doing 2-4 drives is relatively easy.
On the other hand, more drives would give better performance and capacity, since you could use fancier RAID levels (e.g. 5 instead of 1).

Re:Big HUGE warnings - Not quite true (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428531)

RAID 5 isn't necessarily faster, but it's a lot better for data redundancy, so you can keep going when a drive fails. I wouldn't bother with RAID 0 unless you have a heavy backup system (like 0+1), and mirroring is a bit inefficient.

I just set up a 4x400GB drive array because Best Buy had the Seagates on sale, and then bought an old PCI-X 3Ware Escalade and put it in a 64bit / 66MHz PCI slot, giving me a pretty fast 1.2TB volume.

Re:Big HUGE warnings - Not quite true (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428573)

RAID 5 is typically pretty slow on writes, but about as fast as a RAID 0 on reads. As you likely know, it also sacrifices one drive's worth of space for parity information regardless of the number of drives in the stripe. Anyway if you are running a multiuser environment with a bunch of ordinary users, most of whom are reading more than writing, a RAID 5 makes sense. If you have a database with lots of reads and few writes, likewise. If you are doing video, where you are reading in a lot of data, and writing out a lot of data, it makes more sense to use a RAID 0, and make backups. If you cannot afford to drop back to the last backup, then you need a RAID 0+1.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1)

BillyBlaze (746775) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428412)

How will having lots of smaller disks be more reliable? If they mirror each other, yes, but if they are striped, they'll be a lot less reliable. Plus who has room (and power) in their case for 7 drives? Datacenters, sure, but not home users.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (2, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428513)

Plus who has room (and power) in their case for 7 drives? Datacenters, sure, but not home users.
I've seen cheap ($30) mid-tower cases that had about 8 internal 3.5" drive bays -- they just had the mounting rails go the entire height of the case. Combine that with a decent power supply and you're set.

I just wish they made high-quality cases with that many drive bays, but I haven't found any for some reason.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (5, Informative)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428413)

No, this isn't true. If the failure rate of drives is constant (pretty close to reality), then
if you've got 7 drives and I've got 1, you're seven times more likely to lose a drive than
I am.

Granted, you only lose 1/7th if your drive fails, and I lose all of it, but since we're both
making backups (you ARE making backups, right?), you're paying 7 times the space, electricity,
heat, and noise costs for less reliable storage than I am. Assuming that we both run out systems
long enough for drives to fail, you're also paying 7 times as much of your time replacing drives
than I am.

What sense does that make?

Bad math.. (5, Informative)

JMZero (449047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428461)

If you've got 7 drives and I've got 1, you're seven times more likely to lose a drive than
I am.


Let's say each drive has a 20% chance of failing. So if you have seven of them, do you have a 140% chance of one failing? Of course not. What you really have is 80%^7 percent chance of them all remaining OK. 80%^7 = 21%. Thus you have around a 79% chance of failure with 7 drives (if they all have 20% failure rate).

Your point still stands - but I noticed pretty much all of the replies to this guy used the same bad math.

Re:Bad math.. (1)

LFS.Morpheus (596173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428533)

Uh, you're still 7 times more likely to lose a drive.

Re:Bad math.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428579)

Er, you're not. As the post you replied to showed you, you're ~4 times as likely to lose a drive.

Re:Bad math.. (1)

Zathrus (232140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428608)

I noticed pretty much all of the replies to this guy used the same bad math

Except that your math only stands if you're calculating the loss of the entire drive (or drive set) as opposed to any data loss. The chance of data loss (of any kind) is greater with 7 drives than it is with a single drive. The difference is merely how much data is lost. Which is of little comfort if the drive that fails is the "really important" one.

You're still playing Russian Roulette, but this time you're aiming at various body parts instead of just your head.

Why do airplanes only have 2 engines? (2, Informative)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428421)

Because with only 2, there is *less* risk of engine failure.

Having 7 drives increases your risk of failure by a factor of seven. Unless you mirror every drive, but then, you now have 14 disks v 2...

Re:Why do airplanes only have 2 engines? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428503)

Ummm, WTF are you talking about? The phrase "Why do airplanes only have 2 engines?" doesn't make a bit of sense. SOME planes have 2 engines. Plenty have just 1. Some have 4. Some have even had 8 of them. And towed gliders don't have any (though they're not technically considered an airplane).

A plane will have multiple engines because it needs additional thrust, and that's often more efficiently gained by hanging on extra engines rather than just increasing the power of a single one.

Re:Why do airplanes only have 2 engines? (1)

jizmonkey (594430) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428522)

Because with only 2, there is *less* risk of engine failure.

You aren't serious, are you? ETOPS ("engines turn or passengers swim") standards are only met by certain of the newest twin-engine airplane designs. Historically four-engined airplanes were allowed to go much further away from diversion airports than two-engined airplanes.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1)

ID000001 (753578) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428425)

Only if you assume the new drive, with new technology, is still just as reliable as those older drive in smaller sizes.

And only if you discount the fact that, while it is 7 times as likely to fails at once, it is also 7 times more likely to fail at all.

Also, 7 x 100 is less then 750. If you want some back up in place you will need the the extra controller and hardware to configure it into a RAID, which, even if in software mode, still take times to set up.

Lastly, I doublt 7 100 gig drives can consume just as much energy as 1 750 gigs drive, nor will they get the same amount of heat, or noise, or, density. I fail to find any consumer case that can take 7 drives comfortably, that means hold it, make it small, and cool them quietly.

As you can see, there are many many benifies to one bigger drive.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428430)

7 times more reliable? Seems awefully simplistic to me. Most people are going to want to put those drives in an array. With RAID 5 (to get the performance you talk about) you'd have 6 disks worth of space and could only afford 1 drive failure. How do you get 7 times more reliable out of that? It is no more reliable than 2 mirrored 750GB disks. Besides, what does your average user put 7 drives in?

-matthew

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428543)

With RAID 5 and 7 drives you would probably want to stripe across 6 drives, giving 500 GB useable space and keep 1 hot spare. The performance of a 6-drive RAID with one failed drive would be terrible, so you need to have a spare drive to rebuild your RAID as quickly as possible.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1)

ebh (116526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428462)

I remember thinking the same thing when I heard about the first 1GB drives. "Who would dare trust that much data to a single device?" (This was 1987, the same year that I paid US$775 for a 71MB drive, amazed that disk space was almost down to $10/MB.)

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1)

muhgcee (188154) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428551)

And 19 years later, you remember how much you spent on a hard drive. Impressive.

Re:Big HUGE warnings (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428464)

OK. OK.
If you fill the disk(s), the 750 GB one will have the arms and platters move 7 times more that each single 100 Gb disk.
Even if one of the 7 breaks, you'll loose only a mere 14% of the data.
My box fits 10 disks because I like to play it safe and some 7 times more heat (I blow away) is worth the increase in reliability.
And yes, mine was a joke.

and only 10K rpm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428473)

Nice size, but at only 10K rpms, you're leaving 33% performance on the table.

The 15K drives really do make a difference in many workloads.
Maybe we should compare 7x 120GB drives in RAID0 stripe array?
About the same risk of data loss, and maybe even better streaming performance?

Warranty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428380)

I noticed the warranty(5 years) is still the same as it's predecessor. This is pretty good news as with any new technology, especially 1st editions, there are issues. Plus, I thought I read somewhere that there was a concern because it was perpendicular, there could potentially be more frequent data loss, but don't quote me on that.

Uh... no (2, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428382)

"Throw in an industry-leading five year warranty and a cost per gigabyte that's competitive with 500 GB drives, and you may quickly find yourself scrambling to justify a need for 750 GB of storage capacity."

Maybe I hang around with normal people a bit too much, but I can't see myself getting hot and bothered over a new hard drive. If you need the capacity, then sure - this is great. But c'mon! As far as the "lust after" quotient goes, this isn't exactly in the same league as some new piece of Apple hardware. Heck, it's probably not even in the same league as a low-end Dell box.

Re:Uh... no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428434)

>the "lust after" quotient
what do you think people will be storing 750GB of?

Re:Uh... no (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428446)

Heck, it's probably not even in the same league as a low-end Dell box.
Definitely not in the same league - it is much more exciting than a low-end Dell.

Maybe I hang around with normal people a bit too much
Yes, I think that is the root of the problem here :-)

Re:Uh... no (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428449)

Hot and bothered is right. If you look at the specs, this thing uses more power and most likely gets hotter than its predecessors. I'm starting to care about power consumption with processors, and it seems only reasonable that be applied to other devices like drives and video cards as well. The largest hard drive in my home is 160gb right now. I could use a 700GB disk, but I'd rather have a drive that uses less power at say 300GB.

Re:Uh... no (1)

DrKC9N (895806) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428524)

I can lust after the perpendicular technology alone...how much more for 750GB at $420! Yeah, I think you're a bit too normal to get excited about this one. ;)

only 187 million times cheaper per bit (5, Funny)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428418)

$413 sounds a bit pricey, but then I thought back to my fiurst disk srive, a DEC DF-32. Only 32,768 12-bit words!

Price I don't know, definitely no less than $5000 of 1972 dollars. That's about 78 bits per dollar.

This new disk is about 14634146341.463414634146341463415 bits per dollar that's an improvement of about 187 million times .

but wait those old dolalrs were at least 4 times more studly than today's, so that's about 600 million times better over the last 34 years. An annual rate of about 183% !

Proven technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428432)

Until these drives have been in production longer, I wouldn't trust them.

Some of the early perpendicular storage drives by Hitachi exhibited bit-flipping problems. For important data, I'd much rather use the older technology.

Sure, they have a 5-year warranty - but the warranty doesn't cover your data. If it fails, you will get a new drive, but that won't do anything for your 750GB of TV shows. (or whatever you do with that much space)

I'd like the underlying technology to be at least half as old as I want to trust my data on the drive.

That's a lot of DVDs (1)

waif69 (322360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428436)

If I were to backup a 750GB drive to DVD as I do currently, that would take quite some time and quite a few disks. I am too lazy right now to calculate how man or how much it would cost, but I think I would want to move to a different method of data backup.

Re:That's a lot of DVDs (5, Insightful)

ericdano (113424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428500)

As in getting TWO of them, and mirroring them. When you get into 100s of Gigabytes, it doesn't make sense to use DVDs (right now, unless you have BluRay or something) to make backups. Get another drive of the same size, or two of them, and mirror them.

Re:That's a lot of DVDs (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428646)

Mirroring provides redundancy, but not a backup. If anything happens to the box itself or the building it's stored in (e.g. a fire), you're still screwed.

You're on the right track with the "buy another hard drive" suggestion, except that you want to put it in a removable cage and store it in a safe deposit box at the bank. (And preferably get two backup discs, so that you can be copying to one while the other is safe in the vault.)

Re:That's a lot of DVDs (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428514)

For home/home-office use there is really only one practical way to back up huge hard drives - and that's onto other hard drives. However, for good security, you really need the backup drive(s) to be in another PC - and preferably in another building - and the network performance ends up killing you there.

So right now - I use sledded drives that I can remove from the PC and put somewhere safe.

Re:That's a lot of DVDs (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428518)

Assuming there is no loss in formatting (which we know isn't true) it would take 160 DVDs (4.7 GB). If you have dual layer disks, it would "only" take 80 disks to back up 750 GB. Because of marketing, this drive is probably closer to 700 GB in size, which would take about 150 (4.7 GB) DVDs. Time to go buy a couple spindles of DVDs, eh? Or...by two of these, and stick the second one in another computer somewhere and pray you have a nice upload speed.

I can't pronounce Bacaruda (0, Offtopic)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428471)

"Seagate's Barracuda-7200.10" Would that be Babararacucudada [ytmnd.com]

Well... (1)

GmAz (916505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428495)

Technically, I already have 830gb of storage, but it consists of a 500gb Raid0 array, a 200gb backup drive and an 80gb external. Personally, I would say to go out and buy two 400gb drives and put them in Raid0. In my experience, it is much faster than a single drive. My boot time is under 20 seconds easy after the CMOS finishes loading.

Re:Well... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428610)

I have two 80GB 7200 RPM disks in a RAID 0 and yes, it's dramatically faster. I did some benchmarks (we all know what those are worth, but...) and I gained about 90% speed by adding the second drive.

Unfortunately, I don't have any way to back up 150GB (actual usable space) and if I lose one drive, I lose everything...

I'm thinking the best idea for the way I use my system is to get like five drives and make four of them into a RAID 5, using the last one as a scratch volume for photoshop and such, until such a time as some other drive dies and I need it for a hot spare.

Re:Well... (3, Insightful)

CharlieHedlin (102121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428642)

So you just doubled your power requirements, heat output and chance of failure. I would much rather have 2 750GB drives with Raid 1.

I just wish there was an affordable removable media alternative. If I want to have 750GB of storage I have to buy it twice, probably 3 times (online raid 1 for reliability, and an offline drive for backups). In a datacenter enviroment, a nice robotic LTO2 system helps, but I can buy a lot of hard drives for the price of one of those.

This will be great for... (0, Redundant)

Go MSFT, stop Linux! (977883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428501)

Microsoft Windows Vista :D

its funny... (3, Funny)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428509)

..but those 5-year warrenties don't really help you much if you FORGET THE BACKUP THE FRIGGING DRIVE!

customer: "my drive failed...i would like it replaced"

company: "sure..here is your new one!"

customer: "uhhh...what happened to my data?"

Re:its funny... (2, Funny)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428632)

customer: "uhhh...what happened to my data?"

BOFH: "You will have to re-enter it all manually. And remember that hard drives store data in binary, so you will have to use only the 0 and 1 keys."

FIVE WORDS : ANIME, MUSIC, PORN, GAMES, MOVIES (0, Redundant)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428616)

And that is the end of that. Keep it comin

Big Big Drives are great...but backup is a problem (4, Insightful)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428634)

This drive increases the ever widening gap between available storage and backup media. Great I can buy a 750GB drive...however how the hell am I gonna back this thing up...actually even with many many dics how am I gonna backup 750GB. There is a huge disparity in the amount of data we can store these days and the stuff we have to back it up. There is no afforadable backup solution for this much data.

Magneto (1, Funny)

OYAHHH (322809) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428659)

Do,

You suppose this drive uses technology similar to that Magneto uses to achieve all of his Mutant feats?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?