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!

Seagate Plans 37.5TB HDD Within Matter of Years

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the lot-of-pr0n dept.

Data Storage 395

Ralph_19 writes "Wired visited Seagate's R&D labs and learned we can expect 3.5-inch 300-terabit hard drives within a matter of years. Currently Seagate is using perpendicular recording but in the next decade we can expect heat-assisted magnetic recording (HARM), which will boost storage densities to as much as 50 terabits per square inch. The technology allows a smaller number of grains to be used for each bit of data, taking advantage of high-stability magnetic compounds such as iron platinum." In the meantime, Hitachi is shipping a 1 TB HDD sometime this year. It is expected to retail for $399.

cancel ×

395 comments

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

Call it The Big Johnson (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472894)

So one hard drive will serve all of the porn ever made? Cool.

Great! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472896)

insert joke about porn here

Pr0n (-1, Redundant)

supersonicjim (1043458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472904)

I could have so much pr0n on a hard drive that big.

w00t! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472914)

300 TB! That's enough to store a full 1 percent of all the pr0n ever created!

I for one.. (-1, Offtopic)

tommten (212387) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472918)

welcome our new terabyte overlords!

Terabits??? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472926)

It's bad enough that hard drive manufacturers are dead set on confusing people with 1,000,000,000-byte GBs. Do they really need to start throwing around figures in Terabits? Seriously, enough is enough...

Re:Terabits??? (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473020)

Is that where the difference comes from? The title of the slashdot article says 37.5 TB then in the summary it says 300 terabit.

Re:Terabits??? (5, Funny)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473108)

Through the magic of math: Tb / 8 = TB and so (300Tb)/8 = 37.5TB

/GASP

Aikon-

Re:Terabits??? (0, Redundant)

Novus (182265) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473422)

Or, in less confusing notation, 8 b = 1 B, therefore 8 Tb = 1 TB (or 1 Tb = 1/8 Tb if you prefer) and 300 Tb = 37.5 TB. The parent is apparently trying to say (x/Tb)/8 = (x/TB) or (1/Tb)/8 = 1/TB, which simplifies to what I said.

Re:Terabits??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473502)

The simplest would be B=8b. I don't think it gets any simpler than that.

For the confused, B=Byte, b=Bit.

Re:Terabits??? (2, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473236)

The kilo/mega/tera/etc comes from metric, not the computing industry. A kilometer is 1000 meters, not 1024 meters.

I do agree on the "bit vs byte" part, though.

Re:Terabits??? (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473344)

bits&bytes is NOT COVERED BY the metric standard ! SO : 1 Kilobyte = 1024 bytes !

Re:Terabits??? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473558)

actually they are. according to IEC 60027-2 [wikipedia.org]
1 kilobyte (kB) = 1000 bytes
1 kibibyte (kiB) = 1024 bytes

come on, the original specs date back from 1999.

Re:Terabits??? (2, Funny)

lewscroo (695355) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473630)

Yeah, the HD industry really needs to stop doing this. I mean, with Terabit drives, you are going to be loosing huge percentages due to that stupid 1000 = 1024 logic they have. 1000 GB is going to end up really being closer to 930 GB

Backup Solution? (5, Funny)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472940)

I want to see the tape drive for that thing, Bitches.

Re:Backup Solution? (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473052)

Easy. Delegate the backups to your worst enemy.

At $399, you could buy a bunch of them and use them in a rotating backup, periodically sending one offsite. Or use it as the destination for nearline backups of everything else on your network.

Re:Backup Solution? (5, Funny)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473304)

I swear to God this is true. I had a client ask me to create two partitions on a 500G drive, which was loaded with 200G of medical insurance claims. When I asked why, he said that although he didnt want to buy another drive, he understood the importance of having a backup for his data.

I sprained a rib, choking back a laugh.

Re:Backup Solution? (1)

lonechicken (1046406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473446)

I wouldn't want to wait for the defrag time or the spyware/antivirus scanning times on these drives.

Re:Backup Solution? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473706)

um, you could use linux/macosx/bsd/solaris

Re:Backup Solution? (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473460)

Backup tape density grows as well. LTO 2, which my company uses can store 200N/400C GB per cart. The truth is, our source code is so easily compressed that we get 500N/1000+C GB per cart when dealing with it. LTO4 should be out soon. I can only assume that in 5yrs tapes will be easily dealing in 20TB uncompressed.

Coming Soon: The LTO-48! (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473572)

...the tape will be in a cartridge that holds a spool 65cm in diameter, holds approximately 600TB (1200TB w/ compression) and will require an autoloader that eats at least one rack for the entry-level 8-tape kit. /dev/nst0 will weigh in at 38kg, and cleaning will require a tape w/ 6000-grit sandpaper in place of media.

All BS aside: you do bring up an excellent point. I'm a guy who has to do backup/recovery, and I've found that even a fully compressed LTO-3 will barely --just barely-- hold up to 1.2TB if you rig it right (by combining hardware/software compression, and the love that Bacula gives it (though admittedly sparse file handling most likely has inflated the reported amount of stuff).

Anyrate, that boils down to --maybe-- two full HDD's if the two are 500GB SATAs.

The good news is, after you pare down the crap you really don't need to backup, it usually isn't all that much for most companies. You can safely exclude out most of the OS itself for starters... w/ kickstart on RHEL and a .ks file that replicates what you've got on a given server (partitions, packages, etc), you can cut a LOT out.

Even more good news - if you get up a monster RAID array of similar drives (full SAN kitting or just attached to a big ol' server, no biggie), you can use it instead of tapes for most of your day-to-day backup. Then latch your tape drive or autoloader onto it and only commit to tape the reallly vital stuff that requires a long retention period. Most backup software suites (even Bacula) support writing to file as well as tape, so this shouldn't be too big of a problem for a sysadmin if s/he knows what s/he's doing.

Adaptation and all that.

But then, most of the servers in my care consist of a pile of RAID5'ed SCSI drives that range 36-140GB in size... and I doubt that most of them will get much bigger before it's time to replace the servers themselves. Just because you can get monster capacity on a single drive, doesn't mean that you need to or even want to.

Now if I already had a monster robotic multi-drive tape library running 24/7 now, and the boss wants to up the HDD capacity on a given pile of servers because he pretty much has to? Yeah. That would require a lot more thought and planning, and at that stage of the game a disk backup solution similar to what's been outlined above would be big and ugly, but would pretty much be what you're stuck with having to do.

...at least until they come out with the LTO-48 ;)

I Cannot Believe (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473650)

that you stupid fuckers STILL don't know the difference between bits and Bytes. What kind of geeks are you?

bit = b
byte = B

and while I'm on the subject

m = milli (1/1000)
M = mega (1000)

Christ on a fucking bike.

Funny you mention that. (4, Insightful)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473664)

The cost, longevity, performance, and capacity is completely inferior to making backups of disks onto other disks, and has been for quite some time. I have no idea why people ever stick with tape at all these days other than for nostalgia. Does it feel good to have a cartridge using a remarkably old fashion approach to data storage or are people just ill-informed?

Backup Solution and a question (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473700)

Here you go.

http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/Systems/C2/C2 .html [sun.com]
http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/Systems/L8/L8 .html [sun.com]

Now, whether or not the home user will be able to afford one of the damned things is another issue :) but one of these bad boys fully loaded will back up that drive.

Although you were being a smart ass -- and I can appreciate that :) -- you do bring up an interesting question. With drives increasing so rapidly and for such inexpensive prices, you'd think that the tape drive manufacturers would be scrambling to keep up and make appropriate backup solutions more affordable for the home user. I don't mind using a mirror to keep the data redundant, but I'd still feel more comfortable having a mirror and a tape backup.

Obligatory NOLF reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472950)

Remember what H.A.R.M. stands for!

"Within a matter of years" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472956)

That's nothing, I'll have one of those suckers within a matter of nanoseconds!

(Seriously though, thanks for the meaningless headline.)

HARM (0, Redundant)

Xebikr (591462) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472974)

Wow. That is not an acronym I want associated with my hard drive.

Re:HARM (3, Interesting)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473062)

Although amusing, HARM is not an acronym for "Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording." Looks like Zonk didn't even read the summary again, much less the article...

Re:HARM (1)

abrinton (590891) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473072)

Actually, it's HAMR. Which isn't much better.

HAMR those terabits. All 8 of 'em.

Re:HARM (2, Funny)

slashbob22 (918040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473874)

You can keep your HAMRs away from my HDD as well.

Re:HARM (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473080)

If they could prepend somthing that started with C, I think it would work like a CHARM.

Re:HARM (0, Offtopic)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473112)

Damn you Zonk...

Re:HARM = Anti Radar (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473154)

High Speed Anti-Radar Missile - Run for the hills!

Re:HARM = Anti Radar (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473426)

It always seemed sensible to me to assume that they just sort of added "High Speed" to that to make the acronym cooler. I would imagine that while some missiles surely move faster than others, they all tend to move at what someone would consider to be a high speed.

 

Re:HARM (1)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473252)

If you've ever had to use Seagate hard drives, you'll know that HARM is an extremely appropriate name for them.

We had a batch come in for some IBM e-servers, and a third of them died within 6 months. Absolutely disgraceful. The ones we have running Hitachi hard drives are all still going.

Re:HARM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473626)

I'll be sure to give your semi-anonymous anecdote all the weight it deserves in my future decisions.

terabit or byte? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472994)

I'll hold out for the Teramegs.

That's great. (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472998)

That's a great amount of storage and a great price, but what about some REAL information: Speed, heat, power consumption. If for the same price I can run 4 250gb drives and save on heat and increase speed, this doesn't make sense to do. If I can run 6 and RAID them, and gain security, it really doesn't make sense.

The largest drive in the world isn't any use to me if it's slower than a 3.5" floppy or I can use it to replace my space heater.

Re:That's great. (5, Informative)

ImdatS (958642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473106)

Just quickly, the specs I found for the Hitachi Drive:

- 5 discs, two heads each, rotating at 7200 RPM
- 1070Mbps transfer rate
- 8,7ms avg seek time
- 4,17ms avg latency
- around 9 watts power consumption while in "inactive-mode" (NOT reading or writing)

Hope this helps

Re:That's great. (1)

mseidl (828824) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473796)

if I did my math...

300tb = 37.5 TB?

I hate how people switch up the bits and bytes. It's very misleading. Remember /. kiddies that 1 bit = 8 bytes.

Since this being /. , you wont RTFA or RTFWP(Wikipedia)

Re:That's great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473148)

heat = power consumption, so you really only have 2 questions.

Re:That's great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473372)

1TB (Single Drive) != 250GB x4 (Multiple Drives)

You can use multiple 1TB drives too.

Re:That's great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473442)

I want to see how long it last.
  As it is now, my small 20 Gigabyte drives last the longest, the bigger ones seem to die faster ,

One thing cannot change., As the size of the data increase and the size of the physical magnetic bit decreases one need not be a Rocket scientist to see that it is far more likely to have an error as the drive gets bigger.
The question is:
  Did / can the make a drive that has good long data longevity equal to or better than a 20 GB model??

I use a small HDD on my machine and keep the hard disk data and programs external and off of the small internal hard disk. which I reserve for the OS
, Sometimes Software manufactures make assumptions about where the data must be found it is only these exceptions that i put application programs on the small internal Hard disk

Re:That's great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473884)

If it were as slow as a floppy drive, you (and probably the rest of human civilisation) would be dead before you could even finish formatting the drive.

Reliability (1)

nten (709128) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473032)

They mention using HAMR to increase stability. Does anyone know if it could be used without bit patterning to increase the reliability of current large drives? You know, the ones with 2yr life expectancies or less.

Fragmentation? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473036)

Defraging that baby should be fun.

Re:Fragmentation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473452)

Use a real filesystem...

More p0rn (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473046)

Woo man, That's a lot of p0rn.......

37.5TB HDD (0, Troll)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473054)

Seek time 8 minutes.

This could be great for disk to disk backups, but could you actually use something like this for normal everyday use? The seek time would be outrageous.

Re:37.5TB HDD (2, Informative)

Zenaku (821866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473264)

How does the capacity of a drive have anything to do with its seek time? Seek time is a function of how quickly the read arm can cross the radius of the platter, and to a smaller degree how fast the platter spins. The article claims they will be increasing storage density using this HARM thing so that more bits can be stored on the same amount of surface area. Seek time should not change significantly unless they make the platters larger, or spin the drive at lower RPM.

Re:37.5TB HDD (1)

archen (447353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473440)

Assuming you have two drives and one is twice the density as the first and both are at 50% capacity, then assuming the data is on the first half, the head should have to travel half the distance where the density is twice as high. That should affect latency as well as twice as much data will pass under the head per revolution.

I'm pulling that explanation out of my ass though :)

Re:37.5TB HDD (1)

Zenaku (821866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473866)

Unless I'm misunderstanding your example, that would make the seek time less, not more, as the poster I responded to was implying.

However, your example isn't quite right -- if you have two drives of the same physical dimensions (number of platters, size of platter, number of read heads, RPM) and one is twice the density of the other, and both are at 50 percent capacity with that data assumed to be on the "first half" of the drive, then the distance the arm needs to travel is the same in both cases. The arm travels half the radius of the disk.

It doesn't matter that it is passing over twice as many bits in that distance, the distance is the same. Similarly, the latency is the same. The average amount of time that the read head must wait for the data it is seeking to appear under the read head is still half a revolution. The fact that twice as many bits fly under it while it is waiting doesn't change that.

The fact that twice as many bits fly under it while it is reading the data means that the read time should be faster, but that is not seek time.

Heated platters? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473058)

Well, I like my pasta primevera on heated plates but I am not so sure I would put 37 TB of my data on platters that get heated repeatedly, till some independant testing shows the durability of the data.

Re:Heated platters? (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473414)

HARM uses highly localized and short-term heating. I doubt the platters as a whole are noticeably affected.

Reliability? (0)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473092)

I'm wondering about the reliability.
I mean... writing to my HD with a HAMR... just sounds iffy.

Re:Reliability? (4, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473184)

Well, if it doesn't work, just use a bigger HAMR...

Re:Reliability? (1)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473424)

Well, if it doesn't work, just use a bigger HAMR...

Tim Taylor would be proud. :)

I hope your backup strategy is in place (1)

MisterSquiddy (905066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473122)

There are going to be some tears when that baby goes tits up.

Unit of measure (1, Informative)

sphealey (2855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473156)

If this is to be a tera_BIT_ drive then I believe the headline should read "Tb" rather than "TB".

sPh

Re:Unit of measure (2, Informative)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473266)

37.5TB = 300Tb. TB is a "rounder" unit and as such is more suitable to a headline, although it's still a bit confusing.

Re:Unit of measure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473312)

It says this is a 300 Tb drive, which is 37.5 TB.

OS/BIOS (1, Interesting)

s31523 (926314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473222)

I hope OS and BIOS manufacturers are listening... I'd hate to drop 400+ on a hard drive to have it seen as 1/3 of the actual size by either BIOS or the OS.

"Within a matter of years", but still significant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473260)

No, this is not technology you can order off NewEgg anytime soon, probably not even this decade. This is still very cool, however -- they have a roadmap of where they want to go, and (roughly) how they're going to get there.

product looking for a market (3, Interesting)

cliffski (65094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473272)

Ok, so on the more general point of high capacity 3.5 inch drives, Does anyone really need these? In my experience, PC hard disks are already way too big. A friend of mine uses his 100 gig drive for some emailing, websurfing, playing a few games, and music playback. Last time I checked his PC it was over 85% empty. And most of the space that was consumed was the O/S.
All a bigger drive gives joe average is a longer defrag time, and longer search time. I'd hazard a guess that 80% of current domestic end-user drive space is currently empty.
Sure, many slashdotters will have filled their disks with all manner of stuff. I'm a developer, and the obj files alone for games stretching back 10 years certainly take a up a huge chunk of my disk, but we aren't average joes.
I'll get a new PC next year for vista (I need it for checking games compatibility) and no doubt it will come with a 500-1000GB drive as standard. I'd rather it didn't, I've got by for years with my 80gig friend here. If theyt *really* want to innovate on disks innovate here:

Power consumption (esp with electricity prices going menatl as they ahve in the UK)
Seek Time
Cost

Why innovate on capacity? it's the one major metric that most people have stopped caring about. I'm not being a luddite, for a long time disk capacity *was* a major issue, and we regularly ran out of space. I think that time is over.

Re:product looking for a market (3, Interesting)

lonechicken (1046406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473338)

I've got two 300GB hard drives on one of my computers. There's "only" 85 Gigs left on one drive and 5 Gigs remaining on the other. And I regularly clean out games I don't play anymore, and have a separate computer for testing out MSDN stuff. So, yeah we're always going to need more.

Re:product looking for a market (5, Interesting)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473356)

Data centers spend millions (literally) on storage. Try pricing a few hundred terabyte solutions, and you'll see.

Besides, if you could store all of music/movies/images that where -ever- created on your home drive (not just those copies of libraries of congress), why not? I'd certainly wouldn't mind having all that storage---cheaply.

Re:product looking for a market (2, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473644)

Datacenters don't necessarily want larger disks. Frequently, they are performance oriented and are more interested in spreading their dataset across a larger number of spindles for increased performance. They end up using terabytes of capacity for gigabytes of data. Seagate in particular has shifted their roadmap from capacity to performance in their enterprise and business class products. High capacity is reserved mostly for end users.

Re:product looking for a market (4, Funny)

William_Lee (834197) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473396)

Two words... p0rn and piracy...

Re:product looking for a market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473934)

Two words... p0rn and piracy...

Interesting that you said that. [cnn.com] Quoth the CEO:

"The biggest issues in our business are security, DRM (How can we unlock the content?), form factor and power.
At a San Francisco dinner on Tuesday evening, he was candid about his company's ultimate mission: "Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn."

Easy answer (1, Insightful)

SNR monkey (1021747) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473400)

Hi-Def pr0n

Adult entertainment always spurs innovation.

Re:product looking for a market (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473476)

Does anyone really need these?
 
This and a quite from the article -

Although 1TB of storage on a single drive will be alluring to some users, IDC's Rydning sees only very specific demand for that much storage. "For consumers, we still think the big hard drives are mainly for niche applications," says Rydning. "There's going to be a certain minority of PC users and video recorder enthusiasts who will want to have the highest capacity available. And in those markets, a high-capacity drive is valued. However, the vast majority of PC users are still serviced by a one-platter, 160GB hard drive."

Consumers' increasing accumulation of digital personal data is, not surprisingly, driving the need for high-capacity storage. "As people amass their own personal memories, either in photographs or video, hard disk drive storage is one of the best, lowest cost ways to store and retrieve that type of data," says Rydning.
- both just remind me of the same shit that people harp on about every time new breakthroughs are made in hard drive (or any other, I guess) technology. I remember them saying the same thing about 80GB hard drives.

People, please! The computing world advances, people use more hard drive space, people DO end up using it.

Re:product looking for a market (1)

z0ot (598478) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473522)

Enterprise environments desperately need better storage density. For example, increasing government requirements for long term record storage mean that IT departments in the medial industry are increasingly stressed. As another example, the explosion of online media distribution (YouTubes, Napsters, and the like) require insane amounts of storage. You can't just keep making the data centers bigger. At some point you must increase the amount of storage each location can hold.

The home user is just one customer for hard drives, and probably not the one targeted for this capacity of hard drive (yet). However, think about the amount of storage required to store large amounts full-quality HD video on a DVR and you might see that in a few years time even the casual home user might require this amount of capacity.

Not so long ago a 10MB hard drive was considered huge and hard to fill to capacity.

Re:product looking for a market (3, Informative)

Zenaku (821866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473546)

It's still a major issue for me. You're right, I'm not an average joe when it comes to storage needs, but does that mean that nobody should produce a product that fills my need? My 1.2 Terabyte RAID array is full, and I am currently wondering how the hell to add more storage and migrate the data without simply building a whole new machine.

The innovation in capacity and density is driven by the needs of enterprise users, and atypical users like me. The advances that come of it are then incorporated into lower-end drives as well. The reason that you start to see 100GB drives being the lowest capacity you can find is not because nobody could get by on less, it is because it would cost more to keep producing drives using the older technology -- each leap forward in drive technology has to be accompanied by retooling of manufacturing equipment and process, and it doesn't make a lot of fiscal sense to keep producing lower capacity drives if they cost as much or more to make as a newer one with higher capacity.

Re:product looking for a market (1)

bockelboy (824282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473588)

Does anyone really need these?

At work, I'm building a 200 TB storage system for a particle accelerator. It is a small part of a much larger grid that will eventually need about 3 - 5 petabytes of online disk space, and about twice that much on tape for backups.

I see myself buying a lot of these when the enterprise version comes out. Heck, with current systems taken into account, I'd only need about 3 SATAbeasts (48-disk enclosure) with these suckers in it.

Rule of thumb in computing: There is *always* someone out there needing more capacity, whether it is CPU, memory, disk, or bandwidth.

Re:product looking for a market (1)

NSIM (953498) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473720)

Depends on what you need to store, I've already got around 2TB of storage scattered around my house, and I seem to be like most corporates in that it's doubling every year. I have no doubt that I'll be looking at 1TB drives real soon and that larger drives are going to become increasingly attractive for me. I daresay much the same arguments were made about 10MB, 100MB drives, 1GB drives, 100GB and so on yet markets for these emerged pretty quickly.

Re:product looking for a market (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473792)

it's the one major metric that most people have stopped caring about

perhaps those 5% of people with odd requirements outspend the other 95% of people who don't need bigger disks?

Re:product looking for a market (1)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473794)

Consumers will want significant capacity once media-center PCs with downloaded video become common, and this day is coming very soon. People want a la carte TV, and Netflix and iTunes and amazon and whoever else are gearing up to deliver it. Your children's equivalent of your DVD collection is going on those disks.

Seagate reliability? (2, Interesting)

michaelvkim (981938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473276)

Gigantic hard drives are great and all, but I'm especially wary of anything Seagate releases that's new.

My first large hard drive was a Seagate 120GB 7200.7 that still works to this day. It's one of my favorite drives and has never let me down.

I needed more space so I buy the then top-of-the-line Seagate 300GB 7200.8. I believe this was the first to use Perpendicular Recording Technology. I backed up all of my precious data on there and went about my business, only to realize that after 8 short months, the drive had completely crashed and took with it all of my data. Slaving the drive did not work, no program I used to recover lost files could detect the hard drive... it simply disappeared from Windows and was never seen again.

There are lots of similar stories if you just do some online searching. Since this isn't just a localized case, I'm justifiably wary of any new technology that Seagate releases. Everytime Seagate implements a new technology in their hard drives, I make sure to wait a few generations before buying it. This way, the price is lower, bugs are fixed, and hopefully I'll be able to keep my data for longer than a few months.

Re:Seagate reliability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473764)

:NEWS FLASH:

Drives manufactured in mass quantity by company have a failure rate greater than 0%!!! :NEWS FLASH:

WORST ACRONYM EVER ! (0, Redundant)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473282)

Lets give it a name people can trust their data to!
How about HARM ? Its an acronym for the actual technology itself, techies love that kind of stuff, like RAID and LOL...
(6 months later, shot of warehouse, sound of crickets chirping.......

Imaging medium deluxe (1)

butterberg (1046750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473364)

I don't even manage it to completely fill my current 120GB HD. But, provided I manage it some day, such a 37.5 TB beast would serve me well to create an image of my HD every day of the year. ;-) Unbelievable!

Does anybody know, how large the current index of Google is? Would such a huge HD be enough for storing it?

I think it's in the Peta or Exabyte range... (1)

tpjunkie (911544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473688)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petabyte [wikipedia.org]

Wikipedia says it was estimated at a few petabytes back in '03, but now their cluster has that much RAM (!!!), so even at google, they could probably use several hundred of these.

Can you say... (0, Redundant)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473384)

Pron, boing!

Jaron Lanier approves (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473504)

He said that it should be possible in the near future to contain the entirety of a human brain on hard drives and be able to download your 'self' to them. Maybe we're close.

Re:Jaron Lanier approves (1)

jrwr00 (1035020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473718)

Then what would really suck is when the hardrive crashed to hell, now that WOULD be killer :)

Re:Jaron Lanier approves (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473924)

Storage space wise we seem to be getting there a couple of hd generations even if were not there yet (in terms of affordability). Brain has around 10^11 neurons (one terabyte is 10^12 bytes, SI standard). Each neuron can make connections to thousands or ten thousands other ones. Even with some clever mapping of connections I'm guessing we would need something in the petabyte scale. (Source for number of neurons and connections: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/brain/d n9969 [newscientist.com] )

Then of course there's the question if having a brain mapped out on something as relativly slow as a hd cluster could be useful.

ANOTHER LIE (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473562)

This drive will not be 1TB. It's another scam. Rather than actually be a 1GB drive, as in 1,099,511,627,776 bytes it's a 931.32~ GB drive as in 1,000,000,000,000 bytes. Yep, 69GB short of a Terabyte. It's just falsely advertised as a 1TB drive.

Hard drive makers:
Kilobyte = 1024 bytes
Megabyte = 1024 kilobytes
Gigabyte = 1024 megabytes
Terabyte = 1024 gigabytes

Label your fscking drives accurately.

Re:ANOTHER LIE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473844)

69 GB? Oh my lordy lord, what shall we do with only a mere 931 gigs? I say, my grandchildren will be forced to delete their poor, poor Final Fantasy XXXVII because all that space will be gone by the time that computer goes through 3 generations of users. Damn that Seagate for not making their drives big enough.

Re:ANOTHER LIE (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473876)

Better yet I have two differently sized Maxtor DiamondMax9 160GB hard-disks, with one defining 1 GB = 1,000,000 kB (with 1kB = 1024 bytes) and the other 1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes.
Works out as ~152.6GB for one and ~149.0GB for the other. More than 3.5GB difference between two drives labelled with the same size. Suffice to say it annoyed my raid controller when I tried to add a 149GB disk to an array made from 152GB disks.

Pissy mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473628)

My GOD the mods are in a bad mood today! Have a little fun, guys! It's Friday, for pete's sake!

Thank you! (1)

shirizaki (994008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473698)

Thank you Hitachi, for now I no longer have to worry about never having enough porn. With enough of these drives I should just be able to backup the internet.

Only a matter of time (2, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473740)

Here is a Capacity over time [wikipedia.org] chart.

Just eyeballing the straight line, this chart shows capacity doubling every 21-22 months or so. Lately things have sped up a bit.

I don't think someone would announce a drive that was 9 years away. It looks like things are moving at a faster clip, faster even than the 18-month "Moores law" that applies to transistors.

Here is the important question on everyone's mind:

Which is doubling faster:
Drive size or the yearly porn production rate?

stupid headline (1)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473748)

We also expect the sun to turn into a red giant within a matter of years.

300 Terabits. (0, Redundant)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473786)

And ya know how much we'll actually get to use?

Real world KB = 1,024 bytes.
Real world MB = 1,048,576 bytes.
etc...

HD makers fantasy we-can-lie-all-we-want-and-it's-not-called-fraud world.
KB = 1,000 bytes
MB = 1,000,000 bytes
etc...

So your brand new 300TB HD is actually going to give you 273TB. Yaaay.
Yet your 100TB of video will actually BE 100TB... and 300TB of it won't fit. Gee thanks HD manufacturers of the world... you've already united.

Hey quick question. In what year did HD makers pull the ole Megabyte Mibbibyte or whatever switcheroo on us? I remember buying 512MB HDs that really were.

Re:300 Terabits. (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473950)


Real world KB = 1,024 bytes.
Real world MB = 1,048,576 bytes.


No.

Real world KB = 1,000 bytes
Real world KiB = 1,024 bytes
Real world MB = 1,000,000 bytes
Real World MiB = 1,048,576 bytes

Read up on the standard, boy. Heck, even ls supports --si to be correct. :-)

oh crap... (1)

dead.phoenix.616 (948836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473788)

probably a few days for it to complete formatting ;)

teraBIT, not BYTE. (0, Flamebait)

nsanders (208050) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473808)

FYI, the article discusses teraBITs, not BYTES. So don't get your hopes up that we'll be seeing 37.5 terabyte hard drives any time soon.

Within Years.... (1)

gungh0 (1005895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473920)

Within years I plan to become a millionaire, find a cure for the common cold, solve world poverty & end all wars. Just another wannabe news story, wake me when they actually do it.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473954)

Soon I'll be able to store all my pr0n on one drive! Yay!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?