×

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!

Terabyte Hard Drive Put To the Test

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the where-did-the-missing-69-gigs-go dept.

376

EconolineCrush writes "As a technical milestone, Hitachi's Deskstar 7K1000 hard drive is undeniably impressive. The drive is the first to pack a trillion bytes into a standard 3.5" form factor, and while some may argue the merits of tebi versus tera, that's still an astounding accomplishment. Hitachi also outfitted the drive with 32MB of cache—double what you get with standard desktop drives—making this latest Deskstar a leader in both cache size and total capacity. That looks like a great formula for success on paper, but how does it pan out in the real world? The Tech Report has tested the 7K1000's performance, noise levels, and power consumption against 18 other drives to find out, with surprising results."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

376 comments

Test? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209465)

Now, my porn collection, THAT is what would put this drive to the test.

Re:Test? (5, Funny)

Hydryad (935968) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209581)

Why am I not surprised at all that porn is the third word in the comments about a terabyte hard drive. Pushing forward innovation since the dawn of time, hot steamy sex.

Re:Test? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210091)

Pushing forward.... and back... and forward.... and back....

Re:Test? (-1, Offtopic)

monk.e.boy (1077985) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210133)

Pron is directly related to moores law.

But who cares about that! I have MOD points and have also finished Harry Potter so I can finally browse at -1 again!

And what is the first thread I read about? Terabytes of pr0n. Why am I not surprised?

forgive me for using an old meme, but: w00t!

monk.e.boy

Re:Test? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210069)

Well what would people store on a tb hardy anyway? RESEARCH PAPERS? x-D

kanashhk shhk shhk (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209469)

ge ge ge kanashhk shhk shhk fzzke kek shhk shhk

I love the sound of head crashes in the morning. Smells like... a coffee break.

RAID 5 Please (5, Funny)

FF8Jake (929704) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209493)

I'm not losing my 1.5TB of porn to a single Hitachi Deathstar.

RAID 6 Please (3, Interesting)

the_doctor_23 (945852) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209705)

Make that RAID-6. With consumer grade drives I would not want to see a second drive die during a RAID-5 rebuild.
For example a 3ware 9650SE-8LPML can be had for as little $520.

Re:RAID 5 Please (4, Funny)

tibike77 (611880) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209725)

Only 1.5 TB of porn ? That's like what, 350 DVDs worth ?

That's 85-125 USD for your entire collection in one single copy.
Or make that a nice round 200$ for two sets of copies.
So, where can I get two 1.5 TB HDDs for 100$ each ?

Sure, the "seek time" would suck, but then again who cares, it's porn, not like you'll die if you wait 15 more seconds before you start looking at it... or are you ?

Data loss (2, Interesting)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209501)

I feel bad enough when one of my 500GB drives goes tits up, I would hate to loose that much data on one drive.

But on the other hand, a full-tower case loaded with those in a raid5 is enough to make me drool.

Re:Data loss (-1, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209507)

"I would hate to loose that much data on one drive."

I would hate to loose that much data onto one drive.

Re:Data loss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209563)

I would hate to lose that much data from one drive.

Re:Data loss (-1, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209577)

That makes so much more sense!

Re:Data loss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209683)

How exactly do you loose (sic) data?

Re:Data loss (0, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209697)

The same way you'd loose horses or loose the dogs of war. Well, figuratively, of course.

Re:Data loss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209847)

Your horses and dogs of war too tight for you? Figuratively speaking?

Re:Data loss (0, Offtopic)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209953)

The same way you'd loose horses or loose the dogs of war.

You're suposed to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

Are these drives belt-driven?

Re:Data loss (5, Funny)

ipooptoomuch (808091) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209631)

500GB of data loss?!? I CRIED for a half hour over a filled 160GB drive after it got killed by an electrical storm. Even though it wasn't technically covered under warranty, the fine folks at best buy still took it back after I said a defective flux capacitor on the drive started it on fire.

Re:Data loss (5, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209681)

RAID 1+0 is the way to go for redundancy. Unless you're unlucky enough to lose both drives in one of the pairs making up the array, you can survive more than one drive failing.

It's also the way to go for speed - your controller doesn't have to calculate the parity bits for every write operation (yes I know the parity sum is simple - that doesn't stop it from adding a bottleneck).

RAID5 is most useful where:

1. You desperately need the space.
AND
2. You can't afford the drives (or, for that matter, power/larger RAID controller) required to acheive the same space in RAID 1+0.

Re:Data loss (3, Informative)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210049)

Some problems with RAID 1+0:

Not all hardware controllers will allow you to do a reconstruct to add more
space and extend the partitions later on RAID 10 or 1+0.

Recovering from a failed 1+0 is ok if it is a "simple" failure.

I have had better luck recovering RAID5's than 10's or 1+0's.

Nothing new, then (2, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209851)

Nothing new, then. At this point 1 TB may sound like "that much data", but then so did a 40 MB drive waaay back. Heck, at one point 1.4 MB meant a hard drive the size of a large washing machine. Nowadays that's called a floppy and already outdated.

What I'm getting at is that it's sorta like "Moore's law" for hard drives. (And occasionally Murphy's law too;) What's "whoa, I'd hate to lose that much data" at one point, is just adequate in a couple of years, and not even enough for your system files and/or swap file in 20 years.

Re:Data loss (-1)

billsf (34378) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209883)

Short of an actual head crash, rare in modern drives, it is possible to get all your data back if you are quick. At the first 'glitch' get a new drive and transfer the old data. Check the old drive. If its not making strange noises, it may still be good. This could be as easy as building a new file system. If this indicates 'bad blocks', write 'all zeros' to at least the first GB or so. (preferably the entire drive) If you don't have 'bad blocks' now, you have a spare drive you can put all your CDs/DVDs on or otherwise use for material that can be replaced.

One bad block: Forget it, more are sure to follow. Cremation or burial at sea is advised. (after saving the data :) Alternately, you may be lucky enough to live in a city that will destroy it while you watch. If I find a computer 'on the street', I go for the drives. Chances are I've been beaten to them! This is perhaps the most over-looked aspect of keeping your data secure. I've seen an ATM repairmen 'just leave a drive on the street'. No amount of passes will completely erase a drive.

BTW: Turn off S.M.A.R.T. This is like the indication of an ink cartridge: When the maker thinks you need a new
drive.

Re:Data loss (4, Informative)

blackicye (760472) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209983)

BTW: Turn off S.M.A.R.T. This is like the indication of an ink cartridge: When the maker thinks you need a new
drive.


In my experience, when S.M.A.R.T. tells you a drive is dead or dying, its not kidding.

Re:Data loss (3, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210077)

Yeah, I've got to agree with you. I think that is one of the worst advices I have read on slashdot... A hard disk died on me a month after the S.M.A.R.T. thing started to annoy... it was on a laptop. Fortunately, I bought a bigger driver and passed all the information before the defective drive went dead.

While I agree that the S.M.A.R.T. heuristics might be a bit sensitive but if you consider what is at stake (yeah... your valuable pr0n collection), then I guess its better safe than sorry.

And, comparing it to the ink cartdriges? I am sure *your life* (or work...) does not depend on printing or not that pr0n picture...

Re:Data loss (5, Informative)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210097)

That's nonsense. It isn't even true in theory. (at some point the remaining charge is below the noise-floor) If it wasn't you could store an infinite amount of data on a drive by simply filling it once with dataset1, overwrite by dataset2, overwrite by dataset3 and so on. You claim dataset1 will always be recoverable, so in this method, you could recover each of the sets and have stored triple amounts of data on the drive. You claim *any* amount of overwriting will be insufficient, so I guess I can store 1000 datasets on the drive then. Cool. Hint: The real world doesn't work like that

Secondly, even if in theory you where rigth (which you aren't), in *practice* most data is not valuable enough that theres much real risk that anyone will recover it, even after something as simple as a one-time-all-nulls overwrite. (which is just about the suckiest overwrite you can do) Yes, in that case an expert lab *can* recover it, but odds are it won't happen.

In practice, if you do the standard wipe, which is usually some variant of all-nulls, all ones, 3 times random, there is -zip- chance that anyone will be able to get at the data that was once on the platter.

Now, what many (clueless people) do are "format" the drive or "delete" the files. These functions don't overwrite even once 99% of the platter, so files removed in this manner are certainly recoverable -- they're there in plaintext, just not referenced from the filesystem anymore. Something as simple as "cat /dev/hda | strings" will recover huge amounts of text from a hard-drive which has been erased in this manner.

Use the freezer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210185)

I've had two hard drives make horrible nasty clicking sounds and become unreadable by the PC. One was actually a friend's computer, and he made several attempts to use the computer (ie possibly causing more damage). In both cases I was able to recover all the important data by sticking the drive in an external USB enclosure, then sticking that in the freezer for 30 minutes. Take it out, plug it into a working computer, and get copying. You could probably even use dd if on a Linux system for an exact copy of the drive.

I don't really know the physics behind it, and there's no guarantee it will work for every hard drive problem, but I've heard lots of stories of people using this method successfully. Besides, what do you have to lose if your drive is already unreadable?

Re:Data loss (2, Interesting)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210041)

I hear all of these stories of people having drives go bad, I don't understand it. I've owned hard drives since about 1981, I've gone through dozens, replacing them as they become obsolete and too small, and I have yet to have one fail on me - except the one I accidentally launched across a room. And even that one I managed to get most of the data off of.

What are people doing with drives to make them fail?

Perpendicular (3, Funny)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209513)

Recording technology: Perpendicular.

Ah, its finally here.
I remember reading about this like 4 years ago.
Cool.

it's been here for a while (3, Interesting)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209547)

There have already been several drive models using this technology. Seagate's 7200.10 line comes to mind. Toshiba released one in 2005, for that matter. And Fujitsu's got some, too.

whoops (3, Insightful)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209545)

FTFA: "Gigabyte drives were only "missing" 24 bytes, and that was easy to swallow."

i think they meant 24 megabytes, which is easy to scoff at now, but wasn't when the first gigabyte drives dropped.

They may have meant 24 k (2, Informative)

FoamingToad (904595) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209737)

But they'd have still been way off.

For a decimal megabyte versus a binary one, there's 48 1/2 KB difference.

For a gigabyte, there's about 70 megabytes difference.

The only case where you'd only lose 24 bytes would be if you had a kilobyte drive.

F_T

The author has some problems with his arithmetic (5, Informative)

Don Sample (57699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209549)

He spends a lot of time talking about the difference between binary and SI terabytes and gigabytes, and then comes out with:

Back in the day, the gap between decimal and binary capacity wasn't big enough to ruffle feathers. Gigabyte drives were only "missing" 24 bytes, and that was easy to swallow.
Um, 24 bytes is the difference between kilo meaning 1000 and kilo meaning 1024. A binary gigabyte is 1,073,741,824, or 73 megabytes bigger than an SI gigabyte.

Re:The author has some problems with his arithmeti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209927)

Incorrect. The difference is 70 megabytes, 333 kilobytes, and 512 byes. Not 73 megabytes.

Surprising? (1)

swokm (1140623) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209557)

I like the tech report's personality better, but not really surprising results, IMHO. Old news from May:

http://www.storagereview.com/HDS721010KLA330.sr?pa ge=0%2C7 [storagereview.com]

Re:Surprising? (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209647)

Different results.

The Caviar SE16 was not included in the storagereview.com article.

That the Caviar SE16 bested the 7K1000 despite the former being of lower density and smaller cache is the "surprise".

Cliff's Notes (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209589)

Cliff's Notes:

Although the drive has higher areal density and a larger cache, it still performs worse than WD's latest 750GB Caviar SE16, which sells at a $0.10/GB discount to the Hitachi 7K1000.

Re:Cliff's Notes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209755)

That may be, but chances are the Hitachi will outlive the WD for years.

tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (5, Insightful)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209593)

This marketing BS always pisses me off. For years and years and years we've used 1024 in the computer world, since it's a power of 2, and computers deal with powers of 2. A 931GB drive is NOT a 1TB drive. And we don't need new stupid labels like tebi, we just need storage manufacturers to stop being retards.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (2, Insightful)

ipooptoomuch (808091) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209693)

When the marketing department figured out they could make their drives look 5-10% bigger than what they actually were to all non-techies they took advantage of it.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (5, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210135)

It's worse than that actually, because as the sizes grow, the disparity grows too.
  • When you say 1KB, the difference is 2.4% or 24 bytes.
  • When you say 1MB, the difference is 4.8% or 48KB.
  • When you say 1GB, the difference is 7.4% or 74MB.
  • When you say 1TB, the difference is 10% or 100GB.
So, the higher the capacity, the more difference is there between binary and decimal units. 2.4% difference is significant enough, but it's not as bad as 10%. Lacking 100GB, or a full tenth of the capacity is however quite noticeable.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209717)

Tera is the SI unit for 10^12 so unless you want to introduce special cases for the computer industry alone, we need a new prefix.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (5, Insightful)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209735)

Way to pay attention. Nobody gives a rat's ass about "the SI unit." These are computers. And we've always used kilobyte/megabyte/etc as they applied to computers. You think you're right, but you're not. A kilobyte will always be 1024 bytes. A megabyte will always be 1024 kilobytes. A gigabyte will always be 1024 megabytes. And a terabyte will always be 1024 gigabytes...

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209783)

The revisionists are everywhere unfortunately..

Every time I see a wikipedia page with MiB or mebibyte or whatever the heck, I want to change--fix--it!

e.g..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo2 [wikipedia.org]

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209885)

Just because people have always been stupid doesn't meant they should keep doing so. The definition of Tera of anything is 10^12 of that object.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about you computer geeks and your misappropriation of prefixes. Don't like changing? Then you dumbasses shouldn't have started using it in the wrong way in the first place.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210019)

The definition of Tera of anything is 10^12 of that object.

Let us take your absolutism to its logical conclusion.

Prima: I've got a huge car!

Secunda: Dude, I've got a huge cat!

* SUV-sized cat walks in.

Prima: Dude!

Secunda: (looking to camera) No, you see, "big" is an adjective, and must be read in the context of the noun it describes. A big cat is not the same size as a big car, or a big house, or a big boat. Prima: I see what you're saying. Similarly, a "kilo-gram" is prefixing the gram, a base-10 system, thus 10^3 grams; while a "kilo-byte", prefixing the byte, part of a base-2 system, refers to 2^10 bytes?

Secunda: Exactly! Humans, complex machines that they are, make use of context to bring out meaning.

Prima: But on Wikipedia it says this use is incorrect?

Secunda: Well, Wikipedia has the quality of a scientific journal... assuming submissions to scientific journals were all accepted for publication, and could be edited by anyone at any time.
Prima: So, the individual or group with the most amount of time ends up producing the predominant content?

Secunda: Exactly! The best way to confirm whether an article is likely to be useless is to read its talk page; in fact, you are more likely to learn from this page, as it illustrates the points of contention that one side or the other has tried to suppress.

Prima: So for the past two decades we have called 1024 bytes a "kilobyte", until one standards body associated with manufacturers of hard drives decided to redefine it...?

Secunda: Precisely. Worse, the previously unambiguous (outside of hard drive manufacturing) "kilobyte" is now defined as "1000 bytes". It'd be like renaming the mile to the "iMile", then stipulating that all future uses of "mile" should be based on the origin of the word - i.e. one thousand double paces.

Prima: But paces vary from person to person - it's like you're making an arbitrary change based in a tenuous argument that goes against the principle that language evolves other than by edict!
Secunda: Now you're getting the hang of it. Have you considered becoming a Wikipedia editor?

Tercera: Listen you two, either shut up or get a room.

Prima: Let's get some beer.

Secunda: Word.

* SUV-sized cat disappears in a puff of semantics, replaced with a slightly overweight puddytat.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210039)

"Prima: So for the past two decades we have called 1024 bytes a "kilobyte", until one standards body associated with manufacturers of hard drives decided to redefine it...?

Secunda: Precisely. Worse, the previously unambiguous (outside of hard drive manufacturing) "kilobyte" is now defined as "1000 bytes". It'd be like renaming the mile to the "iMile", then stipulating that all future uses of "mile" should be based on the origin of the word - i.e. one thousand double paces."

Lol, you're so obviously clueless. The SI prefixes have been EXPLICITLY defined as base-10 since the 1890's. Long before the comp.sci people ARBITRARILY defined the prefixes to be base-2 in their field.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210149)

Lol, you're so obviously clueless. The SI prefixes have been EXPLICITLY defined as base-10 since the 1890's. Long before the comp.sci people ARBITRARILY defined the prefixes to be base-2 in their field.

The "mile" had been defined as 1000 double-paces since before the supposed birth of Christ. But then its meaning evolved in various contexts - the statute mile, the nautical mile, etc. Or, to use your language, "people ARBITRARILY redefined the mile". I hope that you maintain consistency with the original Roman definition when observing speed limits.

The "kilo", as you say, was defined according to the SI system in C18 to mean "1000 of". But then, as you barely well describe, its meaning evolved in a particular field. In fact, even better, it evolved within a specific context, so all its previous uses stand; and the redefintion was far from ARBITRARY, since powers of 2 make sense to use in binary, and powers of 10 usually don't.

Please try to get to grips with context in understanding language. It's a skill some engineers are very bad at; X in context A is not precisely X in context B. It never will be, because this sort of simplified reasoning abrogates the human brain's fantastic ability to recognise patterns without the need for identity.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209895)

and the correct SI units have always been used by Hard drive manufacturers.

O RLY? (2, Informative)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209923)

http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/hard-drives-hdd/ibm/WD A-L42S-40MB-3-5-HH-IDE-AT.html [stason.org] Hard Drive: IBM: WDA-L42S 40MB 3.5"/HH IDE / AT Cylinders: 1067 Heads: 2 Sectors per track: 39 Bytes per sector: 512 1067 * 2 * 39 * 512 = 42,611,712 bytes 42,611,712 / 1024 = 41613 kilobytes 41613 kilobytes = just over 40.6 megabytes This was sold as a 40MB drive. Not a 41MB, 42MB, or 43MB drive. A 40MB drive. And that's just what it was, a 40MB drive. So, I'm sorry to tell you, but lying about the drive's size was *NOT* always the way it was. This is just one example. And, no, I don't care for finding out exactly when manufacturers started lying about capacity. They did, and that's enough for me.

The value of consistent nomenclature (5, Insightful)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209913)

Nobody gives a rat's ass about "the SI unit." These are computers.
Yeah. Making nomenclature consistent across industries is damned inconvenient! Why bother?

Look, I hate marketing dishonesty as much as the next guy, but borrowing the SI prefixes honestly does nothing but add confusion. Hard drives are easy, because one can safely assume that the marketing 'tards went with whatever number was bigger. But what about my phone's data plan? Aside from the whole kB vs kb thing, how do I know which definition of "kilo" my provider has gone with? Do they consider themselves with the "computer industry" or with the rest of the world? And (this is the best question), will the not-very-well-paid support grunt even know the difference?

Would you like it if you agreed to sell a dozen POS systems to a bakery, only to be told after the contract, "Sorry sir. This is the baking industry. You agreed to give us thirteen systems." Or if you got a $30 bill from your ISP with the explanation, "This is the computer industry. Though our adverts say this plan is $30 a month, that's hex. In base-ten dollars, you owe us $48."

You hate marketing people skewing reality. Good. It is only through fighting ambiguity that they can be stopped from getting away with this.

Do you know the difference between a pipe and a tube? If you get into any business involving either, I hope you don't repurpose the words everyone else has settled upon.

You think you're right, but you're not.
It's that extra bit of humility that really makes your post shine.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209981)

It's a case of retarded comp.sci people having failed to adhere to a set standard adopted in all other fields of science.

Those scientists, and their apologists(like you for example), should be shot, and the parents should be sterilized to prevent further polluting the gene pool with such genetic trash of which you yourself is a particularly stellar specimen

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209747)

I'd be cool with a new prefix if it didn't make me feel gay to say it. Tebibyte?

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210043)

The binary prefixes sound no dumber than the SI prefixes. "Terabyte" sounds dumb; and "Megabyte," in particular, is just plain awful.

Problem solved! (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210095)

Why use a new prefix when the suffix provides all the information you need. If we're talking bits and bytes, then we use the base 2 values. Simple.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (1)

billsf (34378) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209761)

One TByte is 2^40 bytes. I wouldn't say it doesn't exist as those daring can probably low-level format this machine to that. This 'salesman talk' is deceptive, but One Trillion Bytes is metric. Don't forget every file system needs some overhead, to at least index the files and 'free space' (non-MS) to avoid fragmentation. Every modern OS needs swap space. If you get 900GB of space _you can use_ you are doing very well. Only when used as a 'tape streamer' can you expect to get all available _formatted_ space. If you push these limits, performance will suffer.

BillSF

     

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (1, Redundant)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209805)

Formatting has nothing to do with it. Neither does swap space or file system overhead, or anything else like that. The "lost" space isn't lost to anything like that. The 1000 vs 1024 math is the only culprit. The fact that their drive has the capability to store 1 trillion bytes doesn't make it a 1 terabyte drive. When they release a drive that can store 1,099,511,627,776 bytes, *then* they have a terabyte drive. A trillion bytes is only 931.3GB, period.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209919)

TeraWatt : 10^12 Watts : 1 trillion Watts
TeraGram : 10^12 Grams : 1 trillion Grams

The fact that their drive has the capability to store 1 trillion bytes doesn't make it a 1 terabyte drive

You are dumb. This is why computer "science" is not respected by real scientists.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210051)

TeraWatt : 10^12 Watts : 1 trillion Watts
TeraGram : 10^12 Grams : 1 trillion Grams

The fact that their drive has the capability to store 1 trillion bytes doesn't make it a 1 terabyte drive

You are dumb. This is why computer "science" is not respected by real scientists.
That's ok, we have been known to randomly access parity with science. Think about that a while and maybe you will get a bit of a clue. Do I need to give you 8 or 9 hints? Enough going off and on about it.

You shouldn't use Linux then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209861)

Linux kernel is full of this marketing BS.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209967)

Yeah, and while we're at it, let's stop all that marketing bullshit in the network card industry, which sells so called 'gigabit Ethernet' cards that actually only manage 1_000_000_000 bits per second, and in processor speeds, which give you a processor several percent slower than you were expecting by using a crooked definition of gigahertz.

Re:tebi? shut up. 1 terabyte drive still NOT here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209979)

This marketing BS always pisses me off. For years and years and years we've used 1024 in the computer world,

Oh, really?

For example IBM and Seagate haven't.

From 1981 preliminary ST506 manual:

The ST506 disc drive is a random access storage device with two non-removable 5 1/4 inch discs as storage media. Each disc surface employs one moveable head to service 153 data tracks. The total formatted capacity of the four heads and surfaces is 5 megabytes. (32 sectors per track, 256 bytes per sector, 612 tracks).

Let's see: 32 sectors per track * 256 bytes per sector * 612 tracks = 5013504 bytes

OMG marketing BS again (in 1981)

http://www.bighole.nl/pub/mirror/www.bitsavers.org /pdf/seagate/ST506_Preliminary_OEM_Manual_Apr81.pd f [bighole.nl]

You can find many more docs there.

Power-of-10 prefixes are the norm in IT (4, Informative)

this great guy (922511) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210143)

Contrary to common belief, power-of-10 prefixes (as used by disk manufacturers) are much more commonly used than power-of-2 prefixes in the IT world. People claiming the contrary are wrong. Here are a few examples:
  • A 128 kbit/s audio stream is 128 * 10^3 bit/s (power of 10)
  • A 100 Mbit/s ethernet card is 100 * 10^6 bit/s (power of 10)
  • A 480 Mbit/s USB2 link is 480 * 10^6 bit/s (power of 10)
  • A 500 GByte disk is 500 * 10^9 bytes (power of 10)
  • A 56 kbaud modem is 56 * 10^3 baud/s (power of 10)
  • A 1.5 GHz processor is 1.5 * 10^9 Hz (power of 10)
  • A 6 Mbit/s DSL line is 6 * 10^6 bit/s (power of 10)
  • A 650 MByte CD is 650 * 10^6 bytes (power of 10)
It is a total mystery to me why people think that power-of-2 prefixes should be the norm, when the only few places where they are used are to refer to the size of files and RAM sticks.

Spread the truth. Mod me informative ;-)

Re:Power-of-10 prefixes are the norm in IT (3, Insightful)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210201)

If you notice, everything listed in the parent is in powers of 10 bits (or Hz) except for disc capacities. Like everyone else said, this is because disc manufacturers want to confuse you. When talking about m/g/k bits the convention is to use powers of 10, and when talking about bytes it is to use powers of 2. Hence, as the parent said, powers of 2 are used for file sizes and RAM sizes... because those are usually in bytes.

base 1024 (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209599)

Since when do we use base 1024 for counting anything but RAM? Network cards, harddisk capacity, etc. seems to me is ordinary prefixes a thousand at a time. Why the author has to go into an elaborate explanation on how you were ripped off seems pretty silly to me.

Maybe because a few OSes decide to measure overall filesystem capacity that way, but that doesn't make it right. It really only makes sense to measure files that way when you are dealing with memory mapped files, something users are almost never aware of. So why expose those nitty gritty details to the user? Throwback to an era of systems that had drive letters I suppose.

Re:base 1024 (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209651)

Throwback to an era of systems that had drive letters I suppose.
You mean like, today?

Just because you don't care about Windows doesn't mean that it isn't running on countless millions of computers right now, drive letters and all.

Re:base 1024 (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209731)

You realize that all non-removable media can be a single drive letter on Windows right? It's trivial to configure on win2k-XP. I assume Vista is the same (it might even be easier)

Re:base 1024 (3, Interesting)

llirik (1074623) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209771)

You realize that all non-removable media can be a single drive letter on Windows right? It's trivial to configure on win2k-XP
Yeah, except for a small caveat that even Microsoft installers can't deal with it. I had to go back to letters once Visual Studio 2005 refused to install claiming there is not enough space, while in fact there was plenty of space at the mount point where I wanted it to install, but it stubbornly insisted for checking space at the root.

Re:base 1024 (1)

normuser (1079315) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209695)

base 1024
Since when do we use base 1024 for counting anything but RAM?

Since when do we use base 1024 for ANYTHING?
Now base-2 on the other hand...

Re:base 1024 (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209749)

how is kilobyte base-2 when it's either 1024 or 1000 ? I think your definition of base is perhaps too narrow.

It's 1110100011100000101100110000000000000000 bytes?

Re:base 1024 (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209827)

> Since when do we use base 1024 for counting anything but RAM?

In the days of the Apple II people and marketing used power of 2 for both ram and storage, as it's quite impractical to do otherwise when you worked so close to the metal (apple commodore and spectrum users often knew the address of ram and rom blocks for their machine).

Then some clever biz heads started using power of 10, but it was several years later.

Unfortunately, using the kilo- mega- etc. prefixes is accurate for base 10.

The history (as I remember it...) (2, Informative)

DusterBar (881355) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210013)

The "clever" marketing company was Atari with the 520ST - they wanted to make it sound better than the Amiga with 520K of memory (it had 512K like anything else, but it was 520 in marketing terms). The same reason they has the 1040ST.

Note that it was sometime after that point in time (don't have the exact year) that some hard drive manufacturers started to play the same games. (Only with megabytes). Back then it was common to look at a 30meg vs 32meg drive and pick the 32meg drive. So when a marketing person figured out that a "real" 40meg drive could be called 42meg "unformatted" and get away with it, well, they did. And the other manufacturers followed and, well, everything was different by the time 1990 happened... (or so, maybe 1991 for the last holdout)

It really does not matter much now - but when different manufacturers followed different rules, it was a real problem.

(ps - Jack was always pushing the marketing envelope - albeit I can not claim to know if he did come up with the 520-vs-512 idea himself, he did push it rather hard)

Re:base 1024 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210191)

Mountains and mountains of fail. What did such a low UID cost on ebay anyway?

32mb of cache... woohoo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209611)

Drive caches were 2MB for so frickin' long, I have to wonder whether the upgrades we are seeing now are actually being forced by memory manufacturers phasing out uselessly small RAM chip sizes.

Re:32mb of cache... woohoo... (0, Redundant)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209643)

Well, when you can only slam 4kb of data into the drive bus at any one time, it doesn't require a whole lot of cache to keep up.

Re:32mb of cache... woohoo... (0, Offtopic)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209765)

Computers have been slowly turing (funny Frueidian typo, honest) into overly-equipped money sinks ever since hardware graphics acceleration became mainstream. I've recently been surprised by what all I can do with only 512MB of system memory and the Intel onboard graphics chipset.

Visit our site! (4, Funny)

Zebedeu (739988) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209641)

The Tech Report has tested the 7K1000's performance, noise levels, and power consumption against 18other drives to find out, with surprising results.
Suspense!

Come on! Just tell us what the results were directly, don't make us have to break Slashdot law and RTFA!

Re:Visit our site! (4, Informative)

LarsG (31008) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210179)

I've RTFA, and still don't get what the 'surprising results' is supposed to be.

It has huge capacity - check.
It is noisy and sucks power - check.
It is not a speed champion - check.

Not exactly surprising for the first 1TB drive on the market.

Pr0n (0, Redundant)

AkumaReloaded (1139807) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209657)

Only 1TB? What about all my HD porn movies, they will never fit... (Divx re-encoded of course, else it hardly works in Vistasuck)

Seriously though, it is a lot of drive space. It is a great achievement, albeit a bit slow since we are promised large storage dvds/blue rays/hd dvds/hdd's all the time!

However right now I have 6 hdd's which totally make up for 1.6TB. 2 of these disks would cover those. Darn where is my money stash.

32 MB cache? (2, Insightful)

dabadab (126782) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209721)

Is there any point to these "huge" caches? My Linux system uses a few hundred MB's as disk cache so I don't really expext another few MB's on the disk to make any noticable difference (and, if I recall it correctly, when disks with 8 MB caches were new they did not really gave any performance advantage compared to models with only 2 MB of cache).

Re:32 MB cache? (2, Interesting)

dargaud (518470) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209789)

s there any point to these "huge" caches?
Depends on your use... I work with a lot of images and my drive has a 16Mb cache. When I save an image that's <16Mb, it's almost instant and I can start work on the next one. If the image is >16Mb, it takes a good 5~15 seconds for the drive to thrash around until it's saved it. For me, yeas, a large cache makes a difference as most of my images are in the 10~50Mb range.

Re:32 MB cache? (1)

dabadab (126782) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209889)

That's probably because write-back caching is enabled on your HDD but disabled in your OS (that's the default with Linux). Turning on write-back caching on your OS which will probably will make much more difference than a larger HDD cache.

However, write-back caching is dangerous, since in case of a power failure, it may seriously damage your filesystem.

Fills up too fast anyways (3, Funny)

emj (15659) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209777)

The problem is this will be full in 24h with a 100Mbps connection anyways, or ~6 hours if you live in sweden.

Re:Fills up too fast anyways (5, Funny)

joke_dst (832055) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209999)

No matter how big a hard drive gets it still only has two states: new and full.

cat got my tongue (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20209795)

Yes, but does it Destroy Planets ?

Meaningful tests? (4, Insightful)

mrkh (38362) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209825)

I'm not that convinced by the testing methods here. The boot and load times page shows 20 seconds difference between the slowest and fastest drives which they barely comment on, and yet the drive with the slowest boot time is among the quickest when loading Far Cry and Doom 3? Something is not right there.

And if they're really timing level loads with a stopwatch, why on earth are they quoting 2 decimal places (and besides, the variability in reaction time is accounting for most of the supposed differences in any case). Half of their tests don't appear to tell anybody anything significant, and the most worthwhile page in there is the conclusion. Pretty graphics though.

Re:Meaningful tests? (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209987)

Agreed. Their testing methods is pretty weird and their results doesn't show anything it all. Caviar SE16 is really fast on one test and then slow at another. Instead of benchmarking how fast Doom 3 loads a level or how fast Windows boots, it would have been much more interesting to see some low-level performance tests. How fast can the disk write 1k bytes to 1000 10k bytes spread out on the disk when it is full? Synchronously? Test the same thing for reads. Such tests would have tested the seek times for the disks in different scenarios which is much more interesting than reading or writing huge chunks of data.

partition != drive (1)

tolomea (1026104) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209925)

From the article:

"File copying is tested twice: once with the source and target on the same partition, and once with the target on a separate partition."

I really don't see how that's going to make any difference, unless by "separate partition" they really mean "separate drive".

Re:partition != drive (1)

tolomea (1026104) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209955)

Guess not: "FC-Test's second wave of copy tests involves copying files from one partition to another on the same drive." Although I think I get it now, they are probably trying to make the heads seek a long way across the platter.

Re:partition != drive (1)

shird (566377) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210073)

By copying files on the same parition, it only requires a change in the file table entry. Which is just a few bytes, the file itself stays where it is on the drive. By copying to a different partition, the full file needs to be read and written in its entireity to another location.

what for ? (1)

voraistos (1128439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20209977)

As an end-user who does not pirate stuff and does not download any music ( i mean come on, after Pink Floyd "Meddle", nothing good happened in the music business) because i have all the records (ten years after, pink floyd, deep purple - real music-) and no movies (my GF is a director so she takes care of that), what am i supposed to do with a terabyte ? To store raw HD movies cant HDDVDs do that ? Even for a server backup i would not use it. Once the drive goes wild, you can say good bye to your business, because that's a lot of your client's data you loose there.

Retarded Article! KILOBYTE = 1024 bytes! not 1000 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20210009)

Retarded Article! EVeryone knows a KILOBYTE = 1024 bytes! not 1000.

SI has no dominion over the burgeoning world of computer jargon which moves at a fast pace and is based on base-2 not base-10

A kilobyte is and shall always be 1024 bytes.

Megabyte and Gigabyte and Terabyte fall in line under base-2 as well.

If the author does not liek it, then HE can rename his own words into kibibyte kibblebyte kissybyte krappybyte or whatver he wants but kilobyte and gogabyte are frozena dn will always mean base-2

that suffix word (BYTE) is a base-2 item.

he is a retard and his rant is unwelcome.

The drive is not the first terabyte drive

Its the first 931 gigabyte drive.

All things come to those who wait. (1)

Circlotron (764156) | more than 6 years ago | (#20210151)

"Kerbside shopping" expeditions and dumpster dives will be great just a few short years from now :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...