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!

Hitachi Promises 4-TB Hard Drives By 2011

kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the behind-your-gmr-let-there-be-found-your-gmr dept.

Data Storage 372

zhang1983 writes "Hitachi says its researchers have successfully shrunken read heads in hard drives to the range of 30-50 nanometers. This will pave the way for quadrupling today's storage limits to 4 terabytes for desktop computers and 1 terabyte on laptops in 2011." Update: 10/15 10:39 GMT by KD : has put up a writeup and a diagram of Hitachi's CPP-GMR head.

cancel ×


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

Man (-1, Redundant)

valkabo (840034) | about 7 years ago | (#20979391)

Thats a lot of p0rn. Lets hope Natalie's video's are out by then.(with grits of course)

Re:Man (5, Funny)

ThirdPrize (938147) | about 7 years ago | (#20979701)

What's in this folder of yours "Cowboy Kneel"? Hmmmm ...

Waiting for... (4, Insightful)

Steffan (126616) | about 7 years ago | (#20979403)

Cue the "Nobody needs more than []300GB []1TB []x because I don't have a reason for it" posters

Re:Waiting for... (4, Funny)

TheBOfN (1137629) | about 7 years ago | (#20979417)

Don't forget the "finally something to hold all my pr0n" posts...

Re:Waiting for... (0, Redundant)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 7 years ago | (#20979427)

Nobody needs more than []300GB []1TB [X]x because I don't have a reason for it

(where x > 0)

Re:Waiting for... (3, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | about 7 years ago | (#20979477)

If I could afford petabyts I'd use petabytes. There is no real limit to the amount of hdd space I can go through. No matter how much I add I always feel like I'm running out of space. I'm always shuffling around a couple hundred gigs here and a couple hundred gigs there to try to fit stuff in. This weekend I downloaded over 100GB of files from the web, several gigs of files using Bit Torrent, and had several gigs of mail.

Even my none geek friends and family are starting to feel the pain as working with video and Bit Torrent becomes more common. Multiple TB usage won't be that uncommon I think. What we really need now though is RAID-5 for the average Joe.

Re:Waiting for... (0, Flamebait)

Solra Bizna (716281) | about 7 years ago | (#20979761)

Well, some of us are still using storage with a reasonable level of efficiency. My hard disk was 60GB and that was more than plenty.

BTW, just got this ultra-modern 500MHz G3 iBook. It's sweet!


Re:Waiting for... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 7 years ago | (#20979507)

actually, no, we're going to change to "look at the colossal amount of largely useless unimportant data those schmucks will lose; look at the colossal amount of data they'll have no means to back up within the budget of the home user, hahahaha!" I trust this will make you feel much better.

Re:Waiting for... (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 7 years ago | (#20979953)

You use another hard drive for backup: that's not difficult. For off-site or storage backup, you use another hard drive.

I use this approach at work, rather than spending colossal amounts of money on expensive tape libraries and backup software. It seems quite effective, although it does require a bit of thought to use effectively. (Don't back up live MySQL databases, write them to a backup file!)

Re:Waiting for... (1)

TrevorB (57780) | about 7 years ago | (#20979667)

I built a 4x320GB RAID5 array last November for my MythTV Backend.

It has confirmed my belief that all new large harddrives will fill up in 4 months.

Sad part is 900GB seems kinda small by today's standards.

Re:Waiting for... (5, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | about 7 years ago | (#20979693)

Cue the "Nobody needs more than []300GB []1TB []x because I don't have a reason for it" posters

Actually, my sickened mind went a completely different direction... remember when we were going to have 8 Ghz Pentium 4s with 6 GB of RAM to run Windows Vista?

Heck, it's still common to see computers sold with 256 MB of RAM, which wasn't a particularly large amount 5 years ago... that it's even salable today speaks volumes. I have an "end of life" Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz that I picked up this w/e for like $50. 20 GB HDD, 512 DDR RAM, CD, Sound, etc.

Other than the small-ish HD and the CD instead of the DVD, this system is not significantly different than a low-end new system. And, when it was first sold 3-4 years ago, its specs weren't particularly exciting.

Point being, there's a "we don't talk about it" stagnation going on in the Computer industry. I honestly think that most of the new purchases are based on the expectation of EOL and the spread of viruses. It's gotten to where it's actually cheaper to buy a new computer than it is to reload your old one. Part of that is the fact that it takes a full business day of rebooting the computer to update Windows from whatever came on the CD.

This part just floors me. I have the original install disk for the aforementioned $50 Dell 2.4 Ghz system, and am reloading from scratch so it's all clean. It takes ALL FREAKIN DAY simply to update Windows to the latest release, with a 1.5 Mb Internet connection. (not high end, but still no particular slouch)

Yet it takes about an hour and just ONE short line to update CentOS (RHEL) to current:

# yum -y update; shutdown -r now;
I'm getting spoiled by the "ready to go in 10 minutes, fully updated in under an hour with no oversight" way of getting things loaded. Windows is just a serious pain in the neck, IMHO.

My point to all this?

The computer industry has (finally) reached a stable point. Performance increases are flat-lining to incremental, rather than exponential, and there's little incentive to change this, since a 4-year-old computer still does most anything anybody needs a computer to do. There will always be a high-performance niche, but it's a niche. The money has moved from computing power to connectivity.

People no longer pay for processing power, they pay for connections. Thus the Intarweb...

The small thing yaou neglected (5, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | about 7 years ago | (#20979929)

There's a small thing you failed to take account for.

Yes, indeed, we've reached the point where any computer, even if 4 years old, is good enough to do most day-to-day activities (hanging around on the web, wrting some stuff in a word processor, e-mails, and ROFL/LMAOing on AIM/MSN/GMail/Facebook or whatever is the social norm du jour).
Case in point, my current home PC is still Intel Tualatin / 440BX based.


. I honestly think that most of the new purchases are based on [ ... ] the spread of viruses. It's gotten to where it's actually cheaper to buy a new computer than it is to reload your old one.

As you said (and that's something I can confirm here around too), Joe 6 pack buy a new computer every other year, just because his current machine is crawling under viruses and is running too slow (and spitting pop-ups by the dozen). He either pay wads of cash to some repair service that may or may not fix his problems, may or may not lose his data in the process, and he'll have to wait without a machine for a couple of days. Or he gets a new machine. And...

remember when we were going to have 8 Ghz Pentium 4s with 6 GB of RAM to run Windows Vista?

Those outrageous configuration never showed up. Never the less, it seems like Vista was still designed with those in mind.

So in the end the new machine Joe Six pack *WILL* have to be better/faster/stronger, simply because the latest Windows-du-jour has tripled its hardware requirement for no apparant reason.

OS maker will continue to make new versions on a regular basis, mostly because that's their business and they have to keep the cash flow in. Also, there are security issues to fix (by adding additionnal layers of garbage over something that was initially broken by design), legal stuff (add whatever new DRM / Trusted Computing stupidy is latest requirement voted the **AA lobby), add a lot of dubious feature that still 0.1% of the user base will need (built-in tools to sort / upload photos, built-in tool to edit home-made movies, or whatever. Modern OS tend to get confused with distributions and go the Emacs-way of bloat).
All this will result in newer OS that take twice the horsepower to perform the exact same task as older.

And thus, each time Joe 6 pack changes his computer, he gets a newer one, which will obviously have the latest OS on it, and thus will *need* to have 4x the computing power. Just to continue hanging on some IM, sending e-mail, writing things, and browsing porn

Re:Waiting for... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979835)

Hard drives are just getting to the point where a few of them in a RAID configured NAS can hold a decent sized DVD collection in uncompressed form. If HD-DVD/BluRay catch on, we'll need new drives like these in order to accomplish the same thing with the newer formats.

As someone with close to 300 DVDs (yeah, yeah...I know, MPAA evil...but I try to buy as many of them used as I can), I'm going to wait until HD technology starts catching up with disc technology before upgrading to HD. So any breakthroughs that make this possible are welcome in my book.

Re:Waiting for... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979969)

Heh. For every movie you buy I download two. The problem is I'd like to actively hurt the MAFIAA, but can't think of a way yet apart from encouraging others to download/copy.

Re:Waiting for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979851)

Cue the attempts to look like a smartarse by preempting commonly used memes.

Err. Damn.

So? (4, Insightful)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | about 7 years ago | (#20979411)

I hope we won't be using hard drives in four years. Let's all pray for a breakthrough in solid-state storage.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979455)

I hope we won't be using hard drives in four years. Let's all pray for a breakthrough in solid-state storage.

arrrr yes

The mythical breakthrough that hasen't happend in the last 10 years!

please be quiet and resume your waiting!

Re:So? (2, Informative)

jmv (93421) | about 7 years ago | (#20979533)

Actually, flash storage has been growing faster than HD for the past few years. About 6-7 years ago, a big HD would 80 GB, while a big flash card would be 32 MB, i.e. a ratio of about 2500. Now, a big HD is 500 GB and a big flash card is 16 GB, which means the ratio is more around 30. Basically, flash has been growing nearly 100 times faster. If it keeps doing that (I've no idea whether it will), flash storage will be bigger then HD in about 5 years.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979711)

It's still way more expensive per MB though, and the write speeds aren't so good. Hard drives aren't going away anytime soon.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979769)

You will probably find that the ratio of the price differences has changed along with the ratio of capacity differences explained above. I don't have any pricing hard facts on this one though, someone do it please.

Speed? They are doing some serious catch up on speed too.

Re:So? (1)

quazee (816569) | about 7 years ago | (#20979955)

> and the write speeds aren't so good
This is so not true.

The read/write speed of a mechanical hard drive has well-defined physical limits (at most, it is rotational speed * bytes per track * number of heads).
And even then, modern hard drives do not use more than 1 head at a time because it makes the drive significantly more complicated with little benefits compared to a RAID array.
The read/write speed of a large solid state disk is mostly limited by the controller design, not by the Flash chips.

Let's say we build a 256GB hard drive using 32GBit Flash chips, 20MByte/sec speed (which is quite slow by todays standard).
Using just 64 of such chips, we can design a device which does 1280MB/sec.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979971)

If your data is correct and the relative change continues, the two will equalize in 5 years, or by 2012.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979603)

1992 called, they want their meme back.

Re:So? (1)

l0b0 (803611) | about 7 years ago | (#20979763)

How about working for it instead of praying for it?

Sincerely, an atheist.

Am I the only one... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979839)

who likes hearing harddrives do their work? Solid-state storage is too quiet, heck even harddrives themselves are relatively quiet these days.

Right now I have a few Quantum Fireball 6GB drives in my system. If I had an IDE port to spare I'd put in a WD Caviar 2635 and put my swap file on it or something. I'm not sure which I like the sound of better, the 2635 or those ancient Miniscribe 20MB MFM drives.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

tomee (792877) | about 7 years ago | (#20979909)

Last I heard the rate at which flash memory prices are falling is 70% a year. You can find 32GB 2,5 inch solid state disks for about $320 at the moment, so $10 per GB, and $40000 for 4TB. So:

2007: $40000
2008: $12000
2009: $3600
2010: $1080
2011: $324

If this works out, 2011 might be about the time solid state disks overtake hard disks.

sooooooo.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979413)

4TB in a notebook, just imagine how much more shocking it will be when the wife finds the porn collection.

4 Terabytes? (0)

crowbarsarefornerdyg (1021537) | about 7 years ago | (#20979421)

Who the hell is going to use all that space? Honestly, it seems incomprehensible right now. I know, I know, we all said the same thing when the 8.4 GB drive was introduced, and the same thing when the 100GB barrier was broken. I know I said it when I saw a 1TB drive on the market.

At any rate, wouldn't the data be more susceptible to corruption being that densely packed on the platters? I'm not a hardware engineer by any means. I really want to know.

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 7 years ago | (#20979433)

Home users won't fill it up (except for the few lunatics who pirate stuff all the time, log 50 IRC channels at once, etc), but business users will certainly utilize multi-terabyte disks.

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

crowbarsarefornerdyg (1021537) | about 7 years ago | (#20979453)

LMAO. I wasn't thinking about business users; I fully expected that. It was more rhetorical than anything, but you're right. I doubt there are many original artists who would need that much to seed their own creations, but you never know, right?

Yeah, okay. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979465)

UT2004. ~8 GB, and that's with very few mods/etc. installed.


Two thousand and..


Notice, it's 2007 now, and shortly it's going to be 2008. Notice that video cards keep getting better and better, and are using larger and larger textures.

Hi, Bill Gates called, he wants his laughable predictions on "X ought to be enough for anybody!" back.

Re:Yeah, okay. (1)

crowbarsarefornerdyg (1021537) | about 7 years ago | (#20979475)

I wasn't being serious. Lighten up. I know how stupid it sounded to say that. Didn't you read the rest of my comment?

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | about 7 years ago | (#20979617)

"business users will certainly utilize multi-terabyte disks"

Eventually, sure, but at the moment the largest 2.5" SAS drive anyone'll sell you is 150GB

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 7 years ago | (#20979647)

How many do they put together? I'm sure Google has terabytes upon terabytes of data set up in some extremely reliable, extremely fast way. "Results 1 - 10 of about 79,800,000 for slashdot. (0.09 seconds)" I'm sure that most businesses use over 150 gigs, they just RAID them somehow (I don't know much about RAID so I don't know the details) for better performance and reliability.

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | about 7 years ago | (#20979675)

absolutely they shove them together with some sort of striping/spanning/whatever; the point is that we're talking individual spindles here.

notice the use of the words "multi-terabyte disks" and not "multi-terabyte logical volumes"

Re:4 Terabytes? (4, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about 7 years ago | (#20979743)

Google runs its index from RAM.

Sound nuts? Yes... but they do. Large clusters of many inexpensive machines set up in a redundant manner...

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 7 years ago | (#20979965)

True. But why use SAS? Given the recent reliability, larger size, and vastly lower expense, of 3.5" SATA drives, a decent 2 Terabyte server using 6x600 Gig drives in RAID5 with one hotswap drive fits easily in 2U and costs less than $3000. A similar capacity of SAS drives takes 4U, has 10% less disk space available, draws a lot more power, and typically costs at least $6000.

I know where I'd spend my money: I'd buy two of the SATA units and have a much more flexible system with redundancy.

Re:4 Terabytes? (2, Insightful)

d12v10 (1046686) | about 7 years ago | (#20979439)

It'll get used up fast, with the introduction of Blu-Ray and HDTV movies/tv shows.

Re:4 Terabytes? (2, Insightful)

QMalcolm (1094433) | about 7 years ago | (#20979451)

It's not really that weird at all. If you have a modest HD movie collection (say, 50), it could easily chew up a big part of the drive. Add a 100gb music collection, maybe half a dozen game installs, OS install, and your 4TB drive suddenly doesn't seem that big.

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

crowbarsarefornerdyg (1021537) | about 7 years ago | (#20979467)

I haven't gotten into the whole HD movie thing yet. Just doesn't appeal to me, but I see your point. I have a 320 GB drive in my system, and between my Linux ISOs, Alcohol ripped game discs, installed games, and other miscellaneous software I've purchased/downloaded (OSS, dammit! lol), I'm using, according to Windows XP, 161 GB. Of course, 10GB are taken by the bloody restore partition.

Re:4 Terabytes? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979505)

Actually, my first reaction was, "That's all?"

They're talking about having this capacity available in another four years, and yet, 4 TB isn't even that much now. I have four drives in my computer totaling a little over 1 TB, and since the start of the year, it's mostly gone. A few uncompressed videos, a decent music collection, and a handful of the latest games... suddenly you're trying to decide what you need to delete before grabbing the camera and starting a new project.

(My work and hobbies all revolve around video, but I know plenty of people who could already fill that drive with just games, movies and porn.)

Re:4 Terabytes? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979801)

yeah, you can fill a lot of space when you don't pay for copyrighted materials, huh?

Re:4 Terabytes? (1, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | about 7 years ago | (#20979515)

"4 terabytes ought to be enough for anybody,..."

Parkinson's Law (1)

The Real Nem (793299) | about 7 years ago | (#20979577)

Re:Parkinson's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979687)

The my phallus symbol is greater then your phallus symbol crowd will keep that forever true unfortunately. Thus bloat in software often comes close to or exceeds the Moore's Law driven hardware. Vista in relationship to the current hardware they are often installing it on is a prime example. OSS isn't free of bloat either, some of it seems to serve for nothing more then something to point and say "look at this, mine is greater then yours". Perhaps nowhere is this more demonstrative in the computer world then it is in the gaming community, new games always seem to push or exceed current hardware and many gamers tend to brag on their hardware, MMORPGs tend to lean more to graphics excess then they do to gameplay and then of course there are the raiders and their bravado.

Call the above a rant if you like, but it was only intended as a realistic look at things based on years of observation. Not everyone or anywhere near every piece of software falls into the above descriptions, but as a general rule such people and things end up in control of where related things go in the fields.

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

Wildclaw (15718) | about 7 years ago | (#20979717)

As a "hardcore" pirate (mostly anime), I can say that a 4TB doesn't really cover my needs today, so I doubt it will cover my needs in five years.

Let's say that you download 25GB a month, which is not that much compared to a hardcore pirate like me, and probably quite common among young people. 25*12=300. 4000/300 = 13. That 4TB disk will be able to contain 13 years of your downloads. Sounds like a lot? Well, humans in general love to keep things, and 13 years isn't that long compared to the human life span.

And that isn't even taking into consideration the increasing size of data, especially HD video, but also uncompressed music and high quality images.

I was just thinking yesterday, (1)

Joseph_Daniel_Zukige (807773) | about 7 years ago | (#20979745)

What would my kids do with my backup disks and all the data on them if I died today?

Would they have any idea?

Easy : Porn ! (1)

DrYak (748999) | about 7 years ago | (#20979911)

What would my kids do with my backup disks and all the data on them if I died today?

They would erase the data and use the free space to store porn.
The fact that there was already porn before hand won't even cross their mind.

Re:I was just thinking yesterday, (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 7 years ago | (#20979923)

Depends on whether they're old enough to appreciate porn.

I keed, I keed! ;) But most likely no, if your hard drive is anything like mine, it'll be a bunch of random media that I found useful or amusing, plus a bunch of install and system files, plus a metric shiteload of stuff that I just haven't gotten around to deleting (my windows app download folder is now completely redundant, for instance). So your point stands - it's kind of like asking whether they'd have any use for the fluff down the back of the sofa. Of course sometimes the TV remote is down there too, so you can't guarantee they won't. :P

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

supersat (639745) | about 7 years ago | (#20979931)

At any rate, wouldn't the data be more susceptible to corruption being that densely packed on the platters?
From what I understand, the answer is yes [] , but there are ways to mitigate the problem (like perpendicular recording).

Re:4 Terabytes? (1)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | about 7 years ago | (#20979937)

To use a pedestrian Joe Sixpack example, people will be able to DVR everything they watch.

Full circle... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 7 years ago | (#20979437)

"But GMR-based heads maxed out, and the industry replaced the technology in recent years with an entirely different kind of head. Yet researchers are predicting that technology will soon run into capacity problems, and now GMR is making a comeback as the next-generation successor."

*Scotty sets down mouse- looks at keyboard and replies:"How quaint."*

Having seen all of the referenced articles and links on my own, this just ties it all together nicely.

On the downside, if you haven't been subjected or hunted out the background info, TFA is kind of sparse.

Base 2 or Base 10? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979445)

30-50 metric nanometers is not as small as 30-to-50 *2^-30* meters, so you purchase one of these drives and they rip you off with a head bigger than the size you expect.

I have a need right now... (5, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | about 7 years ago | (#20979481)

Trying to build an open source PACS system at a hospital I consult with. The need is basically for lots and lots of storage, without needing to access a DVD or tape. A typical MRI / CT scan can generate 1 GB of data; so with dozens of scans a day; and the need to store and access patient data pertaining to say, 10 years; these drives will be really useful.

A simple SATA RAID controller interfaced with 4 such drives can give me 12TB of cheap, fast, storage. At 1TB per year, should be good enough for my needs. H/w vendors currently recommend expensive SAN boxes; which I don't like... no useful value for the application at hand.

Re:I have a need right now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979523)

Are you replacing a certain data centre that burnt down recently? I:m far too lazy to fetch the link.

Re:I have a need right now... (1)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | about 7 years ago | (#20979525)

I will say this, don't use a commodity RAID controller for something like that. They're pretty good for home use, but I would really recommend you spend a little and get a real RAID card. Unless you do a lot of tape backups if that RAID unbinds you'll so many flavors of screwed Baskin Robbins will sue you for trademark infringement.

Re:I have a need right now... (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 7 years ago | (#20979573)

That's terrifying; You would trust that kind of data to a simple raid5 commodity card? A SAN is a must, with a disk juke box backing it up.

Sure, you can recover from 1 disk loss, but what about 2? Murphy is a cruel bastard who enjoys eating fools like you for breakfast.

Re:I have a need right now... (1)

SamP2 (1097897) | about 7 years ago | (#20979627)

Sure, you can recover from 1 disk loss, but what about 2?

RAID 6 is your friend.

Re:I have a need right now... (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 7 years ago | (#20979721)

Except that's not what the OP had in mind. 4TB drives, 4 disks with a total overall capacity of 12TB. That's raid5.

Even raid6 in this configuration is scary. I'd want a SAN, if for no other reason than the backend management. On top of the fact that you slam 16 drives in the bloody thing ( minimum for this kind of data ), and have half as hot spares to a raid6 array. On top of this, you have a support contract with the vendor, so if a drive dies you have an exact replacement in under 24 hours. You dump the array to tape once a day ( and you'll need many drives, probably ultrium 3 ). Given the shear amount of data, you'd need a tape juke box, robotics and all.

Sure, you *might* get away with a consumer level raid5/6 solution. But when things come crashing down, and they very likely would, you want something a bit more serious on the back end.

Re:I have a need right now... (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 7 years ago | (#20979775)

Except that's not what the OP had in mind. 4TB drives, 4 disks with a total overall capacity of 12TB. That's raid5.

Actually, the setup includes an off-site Disaster recovery setup that will have identical storage size, in an external drive cage, attached to vanilla hardware. So in the event of a major crash, I just need to transport the DR box and rebuild the RAID.

Re:I have a need right now... (2, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 7 years ago | (#20979995)

Which CT scanner are we not going to get, in order to pay for all this? Or which MRI will we fail to pay for the last 25% of to pay for all this?

Because, you see, you've just spent your budget on hardware that will never likely be used that gets you no visible day-to-day advantage, except leaving you vulnerable to multiple simultaneous drive failures. (This is surprisingly likely: go read the Google paper on drive failure rates.)

Instead,, you use a second system with snapshot backups, possibly using a system like rsnapshot that supports hard-linked backups. This gives you on-line backup, fast bare-metal restoration, and easy access to yesterday's or last week's data. It also offloads the tape backups. And the mirrored drives can be used for off-loaded backup or mirroring, for creating off-site backup media of actual hard drives, not tapes.

Re:I have a need right now... (2, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | about 7 years ago | (#20979913)

Being in (roughly) the same industry and situation, I can sympathise. Our setup for study archiving is a front end "head" unit that receives data to a local 4-disk RAID10 (via a hardware - for transparency - 3ware card). It is connected to a number of back end "disk servers"[0] via GbE and iSCSI to present their disk space to the front end as block devices which are then stiched together using LVM.

Studies are archived daily, with an automated script simply carving an appropriately-sized LV out of the VG, formatting it, copying the data to it, indexing the study metadata, etc. We have about 15TB online (12.5TB allocated) and archive ca. 5000-6000 studies/140-160GB every day (compressed with JPEG lossless).

HOWEVER, our requirements are probably quite different - we keep archived images more for our own convenience, than because of any legal requirements, and only aim for about a 90 day rolling window (ie: the last 90 days worth of studies). Further, the front end unit has enough local disk to go for a solid 3-4 days without needing to archive off (and there is a backup machine if it fails), so while we've never had significant downtime on that particular aspect of our workflow, theoretically most of the physical machines could die for a couple of days with little more than a minor inconvenience.

While I think this is a sound (and dirt cheap - for what the whole thing is worth you couldn't even buy a single 16*500G drive array for our DS4800) solution, if your requirements are more strict - especially from a legal perspective - I would be extremely careful about recommending what is effectively a DIY solution. In particular, if your client ends up on court, they'll be a lot happier if they can go "we have a legally compliant storage system for our data, as certified by $LARGE_VENDOR" rather than "$CONSULTANT designed and built a storage system for us with COTS parts, but it hasn't been certified as compliant for storing patient data". There's also the greater uptime and redundancy of enterprise storage solutions (the part you're actually paying the 10x as much for)[1].

A simple SATA RAID controller interfaced with 4 such drives can give me 12TB of cheap, fast, storage. At 1TB per year, should be good enough for my needs. H/w vendors currently recommend expensive SAN boxes; which I don't like... no useful value for the application at hand.

Using RAID5 with 4TB drives would be insanity. Heck, using RAID5 *at all* with SATA ~160GB+ drives is crazy, IMHO, even for just my home server (16*250G RAID6) - let alone anything business-critical. Maybe if you restrict yourself to small drive counts (6-7), have a hot spare and do regular disk scrubs, it's worth taking a chance on - but I personally wouldn't do it.

[0] DIY jobbies, since no major vendor sells a box that holds so many SATA drives. We stuff 16 drives into a box, RAID6 them all together with Linux's software RAID, then export the RAID arrays with iSCSI Enterprise target. Each disk server has a pair of GbE links for bandwidth and redundancy and cat saturate both of them simultaneously from the RAID array. There used to be 5 servers, but 3 old IDE-based ones were recently replace with a single machine (holding triple the space). We also keep no less than two spare drives for each machine on-site and enough other spare parts (motherboard, CPU, etc) to completely rebuild one from scratch if necessary.

[1] This particular system is one of the few times I have chosen to go DIY over off-the-shelf, simply because the cost savings were so massive and the uptime/reliability requirements were relatively low (only 99% uptime). One thing I did discover researching this, however, was the dearth of low-end storage solutions in the Australian market (hence my decision to DIY).

Will we even use magnetic HDs in laptops in 2011? (4, Interesting)

webplay (903555) | about 7 years ago | (#20979501)

With the current market trends, the flash memory-based HDs should be cheap enough to replace magnetic hard drives in laptops by 2011 in most applications. They are already superior in access time, drive life, power use, and transfer speeds (see the FusionIO demo or MTRON drives).

Re:Will we even use magnetic HDs in laptops in 201 (2, Insightful)

Zantetsuken (935350) | about 7 years ago | (#20979571)

But that fits a different need - the need for fast access times, low power, etc. This fits its own need - people that need extremely large amounts of storage space, no matter the access time or power usage tradeoffs. Also, while this'll be pretty expensive, keep in mind that SSD drives are still gonna be expensive as hell, and even assuming the price of SSD drives comes down, 500Gb is still gonna cost a pretty penny, while normal mechanical HDD's at that size will probably be no more than $50 dollars (since I can run down to local retail and pick up a 400Gb for about 120 right now).

While its pretty incomprehensible to use even a fraction of the mentioned 4Tb right now, I can see that with high-def video becoming more and more common, at the very least all the people pirating movies and tv shows will use these drives. Also, think about how more and more computers are being sold with TV tuners in them (granted most people will never use them). A few years from now, I can see that instead of regular TV tuners, HDTV capture devices will be much more common - thus people will actually use that space...

Re:Will we even use magnetic HDs in laptops in 201 (1)

webplay (903555) | about 7 years ago | (#20979695)

I don't disagree that regular HDDs will still have their uses by then. I was talking about laptops, though - where power usage is more important (even when it's an extra 20 minutes), video storage is less important, and the current 2.5'' HDDs are comparatively even slower. There is one more thing that I expect will jump start their acceptance, even if they are way more expensive - the "cool factor." Flash-based HDDs will be visibly faster to end users than magnetic HDDs, giving laptop-makers a good reason to use them as a selling point. Laptop buyers will see them in expensive laptops owned by their friends and they will see that they are better. When that happens, magnetic HDDs will be seen as old technology, kind of like CRT monitors were seen for a couple years, even though they were cheaper and had better specs. I can see external eSATA magnetic HDDs becoming more popular when a lot of cheap storage is needed because they have the big plus of portability.

That is tiny (1)

tonan (325152) | about 7 years ago | (#20979503)

That read head is about the size of 3 big protein molecules [] side-by-side! (That's what she said. Sorry, I've been watching The Office reruns.)

Thats a lot of porn! (4, Funny)

Zantetsuken (935350) | about 7 years ago | (#20979511)

I know most people think they don't need that much, but still, thats a helluva lot of porn!

Re:Thats a lot of porn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979685)

One can never have too much porn.

To all people who are saying that this is too much: 150 HD movies would take more than 4TB....

I'm sure there are many people who have more than 150 movies on their HDDs...

I don't want more space... (4, Informative)

TwoBit (515585) | about 7 years ago | (#20979541)

I want more reliability. Over the last ten years of using hard drives, I have about a 50% failure rate.

Re:I don't want more space... (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about 7 years ago | (#20979621)

I want more reliability. Over the last ten years of using hard drives, I have about a 50% failure rate.

I see comments like this all the time, and really don't understand them.

I have personally bought an average of one HDD per six months over the past decade, and, except for ones outright DOA, I have only had one fail, ever (and that after it had served for a good many years). And I include both DiamondMaxes and the legendary DeathStars in that list, both considered some of the most prone-to-failure out there.

Considering my work environment, I can expand that sample to most like 100+ HDDs; Of those, only two have failed, both laptop drives.

I have to suspect the people experiencing the flakyness of HDDs either fail to adequately cool them (I put ALL my HDDs loosely-packed in 5.25 bays with a front-mounted 120mm low-RPM fan cooling them) or somehow subject them to mechanical stresses not intended (car PC? portable gaming rig? screws tight agains the drive's board?).

Re:I don't want more space... (1)

G Fab (1142219) | about 7 years ago | (#20979643)

Look man, you did the right thing. Fans for each HDD probably saved you a lot of money. But the typical consumer wants a hard drive that is durable enough that it can be abused a bit more. That's all the parent means.

I don't have time to cool all my hard drives. In fact, I'm sure the one in this computer is covered in dust. It's a deskstar, and it's been making odd rattles for a while, so I know this system is headed south. Could I have babied it to where that wasn't going to happen? Yeah, but I don't want to. I could live with a ten gig drive that was robust.

We can have one 500 gig media server, even software servers to some extent. Those can have fans and stuff. Your huge hard drives probably have a lot of content overlap (if they are personally your drives). You probably only need one if you could access it wherever you were.

Re:I don't want more space... (1)

pla (258480) | about 7 years ago | (#20979787)

But the typical consumer wants a hard drive that is durable enough that it can be abused a bit more.

Fair enough - I can accept that interpretation... But ignoring the reality that HDDs have rapidly moving parts that must never touch mere nanometers apart, combined with a high sensitivity to heat, well, that just asks for trouble. Ideally, we'd have better. Practically, we have what we have.

I don't have time to cool all my hard drives.

I didn't mean to imply that I have some complicated setup... Just a $3 DC fan, in its simplest form. For cases that have 4+ 5.25 bays, ThermalTake makes a great little kit for about $12 that holds 3 HDDs with a 120mm fan (you can get 4HDD-in-3bay as well, but they pack the drives a bit tighter than I'd like); For those with too few external bays, zip-ties work wonders for connecting fans to anything at odd angles.

I could live with a ten gig drive that was robust.

As you point out, iff I could always access my home file server, a 10GB flash drive would indeed work fine in any other machine I own. But again, this comes down to what-we'd-like vs what-we-have.

Re:I don't want more space... (1)

Wildclaw (15718) | about 7 years ago | (#20979639)

Hard drives will always crash eventually.

What you really want is a hard drive that is big enough that it contain all your data, while cheap enough that you can buy a few without going over budget. That way it is easier to make backups, as well as implementing a redundant RAID.

Re:I don't want more space... (2, Funny)

fractoid (1076465) | about 7 years ago | (#20979949) well as implementing a redundant RAID.
Is that like an ATM Machine? Or a PIN Number? ;)

Re:I don't want more space... (1)

smileylich (903618) | about 7 years ago | (#20979673)

I've also had several hard drive failures, and it's annoying. I thought I was immune until I started getting failures 2 years ago. Yes I keep them cool, etc. External (USB) hard drives seem to be really vulnerable; writing more than 20-30G to a drive without a break seems to make them rather hot. One drive (a WD MyBook) failed within a month of purchase. Makes we want to RAID or use Syncback to mirror each of my drives, which is unfortunate. It effectively halves my space. An unreliable 4TB HD is really only 2TB in my mind, since I'll need another drive to backup the info to.

Re:I don't want more space... (1)

Slorv (841945) | about 7 years ago | (#20979867)

Heat is one common factor that kills harddrives.

We buy lots of drives (university).
We've never - yeah, really - had a hardware failure on individual storage drives. Raidchassis has failed but never drives.
However, we replace the drives approx. each 36 months simply beacuse that's when the warranty expires = we would live on borrowed time if we would continue to use them. Also we have properly fan-cooled enclosures to reduce heat.

Re:I don't want more space... (1)

Grismar (840501) | about 7 years ago | (#20979891)

If you want more reliability:

- Mount the hard drive as specified in the manual, in a bay that's intended for it, with adequate cooling, depending on the other hardware.

- Make sure the other hardware has proper specs. A crappy controller or shoddy PSU can ruin your harddrive.

- Get decent surge protection, put your case on a solid base, out of reach of children, pets and your own feet.

- Keep the case relatively free of dust and don't smoke in the room that has the system with the hard drive in it.

- Install 2 smaller drives in a RAID mirror array and configure the relevant software to notify you when one of the drives still fails.

If you follow these instructions, you won't have any trouble at all. This problem is not for the HDD manufacturers to solve per se. Ofcourse they can contribute, but nobody else can make the drives larger, whereas all of the above helps to make them more reliable. I think they have their priorities straight, considering that hard drives hardly ever fail if you treat them properly.

Math time! (0, Redundant)

Cprossu (736997) | about 7 years ago | (#20979575)

4TB = 4096GB = 4,194,304MB
in the 'hard drive' world, and everywhere else these days, we've been told that 1000MB=1GB and 1000GB=1TB, so 4TB = 4,000GB = 4,000,000MB.

So what are we really getting?! if 1TB = 1,048,576MB, then 4TB = 4,194,304MB, so we are missing 194,304MB - which is the better part of 190GB right?

Isn't the mixing of the 'new' SI units and good old binary values confusing? now someone needs to do the calculation for certain filesystems and not just arbitrary values.

feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I wrote this before going to sleep.

Re:Math time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979767)

eh, the SI units are not new. M is mega and it's 1,000,000 and K is kilo and it's 1,000. At the beginning, "1KB" doesn't mean 1024 bytes. If it's 1024 bytes, it will state as 1024 bytes (you can check out some of the old computer manuals). But after a while some people got lazy.

Re:Math time! (1)

prionic6 (858109) | about 7 years ago | (#20979843)

Even more...

First in 1024 "base":

1 TB = 1024 GB = 1048576 MB = 1073741824 kB = 1099511627776 B

So 1 Terabyte "base 1024" is almost exactly 1,1 Terabyte in "base 1000". It would be nice if operating systems would start to give disk and file sizes in base 1000 to avoid this confusion.

Re:Math time! (1)

piranha(jpl) (229201) | about 7 years ago | (#20979881)

Where "TB" and "GB" refer to the SI/marketing quantifiers, 4TB ~= 3.6TiB:

4 * 1000**4 / 1024**4 = 3.63797880709171295166015625

As we expect "1 terabyte" to mean exactly 1024**4 bytes, the disk manufacturers would be short-changing us by about 370.7GiB.

What happened to PMR? (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about 7 years ago | (#20979583)

This will pave the way for quadrupling today's storage limits to 4 terabytes for desktop computers and 1 terabyte on laptops in 2011.

Prior to the rise of perpendicular recording [] , we had cheap and plentiful 200-400GB HDDs using plain ol' longitudinal recording. Suddenly PMR hits the market, promising 10x the storage density at up to 1Tb/in^2 (which Seagate claims they actually achieve), and two years later we have only two real models (with a few variations for SATA/PATA) of 1TB drives available.

Call me crazy, but a few really trivial calculations show that at 6.25in^2 *of usable area) per platter surface, times two surfaces per platter, times three platters, we should have, using today's technology, 4.5TB (note the change in case of the "B", no confusing units here) 3.5" HDDs.

So forgive me for not wetting my pants in excitement about an "announcement" that something realistically available today, we won't have for another half of a decade.

The bigger problem (4, Interesting)

SamP2 (1097897) | about 7 years ago | (#20979605)

The real problem is not the lack of space but the systematic chronical unability of the industry and users alike (but especially the industry) to properly manage their files.

Yes, there are some cases where 4TB truly isn't enough without the problem being poor data management (large datacenter, huge DVD-quality media collection, etc). But far too often we see the reason for more space being poorly managed mail servers, tons of WIP that has not been properly archived or disposed of, huge amounts of unhandled spam, work-related casual conversations that really don't need to be stored after the work they relate to has been completed, outdated and obsolete software not being uninstalled, inflated registry (or any other overhead data) that keeps being backed up and restored without any cleanup involved...

A lot of people, when challenged with the problem of this vast array of useless junk data will just respond "well we have space, and if we run out we can always buy more, and the purchase price is way cheaper than the manhours needed to clean up this mess, so why bother". Another common excuse is "it doesn't bother me, so why not keep it just in the potential case I'll ever need it again, even if the chance is extremely small".

It does not occur to these people that proper data management is extremely important procedure, and must be ingrained in the business process. Much the same way you clean up physical garbage, remove obsolete physical equipment, empty the contents of that blue recycle bin under your desk, and do it all on a regular basis to keep the garbage from getting out of hand. Trash not worth keeping in real life does not become valuable when stored online, even if it can be stored for free or cheaper than the disposal price.

Properly disposing data as a business process will take time, but this time will be saved many times over when people don't have to dig up through junk to find what they need, when important things are not buried in crap, when all data worth storing is clean and polished and free of rust, when your OS is not clobbered up by crap processes or temporary files, when your DBE doesn't have to go through zillions of crap stored in the database to find a single row, when you do the cleanup as-you-go, rather than waiting for things to be completely out of hand and then doing a half-assed job because by that point it is really hard to tell apart the good from the junk.

The problem is spiraling - the longer people don't properly clean up data, the harder it is to clean it, especially as files grow larger and more complex as hardware and applications evolve. In turn, it motivates people to just invest in extra drive space, processing power, memory, etc, because by that time it's cheaper than the cleanup. And of course, once the resources have been invested into, they are filled with even more crap until they are full too.

But the biggest problem of poor data management is actually not technical, it's business-related. As we are faced with an increasing information overload, it is very easy to make poor decisions based on data that is not necessarily wrong, but is outdated, matched with incompatible other data, or just not put in the right perspective. The whole "data warehousing" principle absolutely REQUIRES proper and timely maintenance and cleanup of data. This is so important that (and this has been proven over and over again) large corporations with proper data management gain a substantial strategic advantage over those who don't.

It's not just about a little slower response time, or some more work to find what you need on the server. It's about right business decisions vs. wrong business decisions. And it's also about not being taken advantage of - contractors and business partners can easily manipulate data to present it in the light favorable to them, and if you are a private business, this kind of crap can make you bankrupt. Of course, it happens day after day in the government with the taxpayers footing the bill, but that's another story altogether.

The damage caused by garbage data is MUCH bigger than simply the cost of the media it occupies. So don't be lazy and actually invest in properly cleaning it up on a regular basis. The fact that you can buy a stack of 4TB drives for relatively cheap is NOT an excuse for not doing this.

Re:The bigger problem (4, Interesting)

svunt (916464) | about 7 years ago | (#20979755)

You seem to be approaching the need for big disks from a purely sysadmin point of view. In my case, and the case of a lot of friends/family, massive media collections aren't the exception, they're the rule. Between backups, downloads and plain old piracy, a lot of individuals need enormous data storage, as do film makers, musicians, artists etc. The sort of issues *you* face make it clear where your priorities lie, but don't assume that your experience is definitive.

I for one am getting sick of having to navigate between endless stacks of DVD-spindles every time I'm in a house!

Re:The bigger problem (0, Offtopic)

James_G (71902) | about 7 years ago | (#20979771)

Well, I've read this post now. How do I go about deleting it?

Re:The bigger problem (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 7 years ago | (#20979811)

Properly disposing data as a business process will take time, but this time will be saved many times over when people don't have to dig up through junk to find what they need, when important things are not buried in crap, when all data worth storing is clean and polished and free of rust,

I'm sorry, but this is just fantasy world 101. I almost never have to look through old mail, but when I do it's because some clients are trying to dredge up something that just not how it happened. Often when I do, it's important that I have all the "useless" mails as well, so you can say with confidence that "No, you just brougth this up two months before the project deadline and it wasn't in any of the workshop summaries [which are in project directories, not mail] before that either."

When I do, it's far more efficient to search up what I need rather than going over old junk - what you're saying is something which would imply that the Internet is useless since it's full of so much redundant, unorganized information. It's quite simply not true, and even though you should extract vital bits to organized systems, keeping the primary source around is very useful.

Extracting experience from current communication to improve business systems (or for that matter, technical routines) should be an ongoing process - it's vital going forward. Going back to old junk to try to figure out what's deletable just to run a "clean ship" is just a big timesink and waste of money. Maybe you'd have an argument if there was a good system not being used because it's all kept as unorganized mailboxes. In my expererience, usually the prolem is there's no such system and doing a clean-up would do nothing to change that.

Re:The bigger problem (1)

l0b0 (803611) | about 7 years ago | (#20979819)

Very good points. Also, this is one place where open standards are great: Even if the file format is long obsolete, there's a good chance there are modern tools available to read them, and you can create your own scripts to extract data automatically for review.

Re:The bigger problem (1)

SnprBoB86 (576143) | about 7 years ago | (#20979837)

I think Google has DEFINITIVELY PROVEN that you can find a needle in a haystack and software is getting better at it all the time. Every few months or so, I select everything on my desktop, move it into a folder labeled with the current date, and stash that folder into the "Desktop Junk" parent folder of my "Archive" directory. I've got a couple GB of junk over the last few years and I can not count the number of times a 2 second, indexed search located something super useful in that directory.

Proper data organization is certainly valuable for decision making and other business reasons, but there is absolutely no reason you can not create smarter software to organize existing information and to add improved structure to new information. The solution to this problem you see is not better deletion of old data, but superior classification and visualization of all data.

Thanks to people like you, Google added a "Delete" button to Gmail which is just cluttering up the UI. Has anyone got a greesemonkey script to get rid of that for me? :-)

Re:The bigger problem (1)

Phurge (1112105) | about 7 years ago | (#20979883)

sorry but I don't buy this argument. I would much rather spend my limited time being productive and making money for my business rather than being an email filing clerk. Cost of storage these days makes this a non issue. In terms of "business intelligence" - the types of data needed for these tasks are held in structured databases which facilitate data-mining, number crunching, whatever you want to call it. (and even then because the data is held in a database, you can hold the dta on your server indefinately and be able to retrieve it in a systematic way)

So where is the speed? (5, Insightful)

ryanisflyboy (202507) | about 7 years ago | (#20979607)

Okay, that's great. Hard drives will get bigger. The problem is they aren't getting any faster. I'm having a hard time trying to get RAID 6 working well with my 1TB drives (think rebuild times, RAID 5 will be on its way out). How do I manage a RAID array of 4TB disks that still only give me about 60MB/s real-world write performance. So I put 12 in a RAID 6 and end up with 40TB. How many days will it take to rebuild a failed drive in real-world work loads? Capacity is great - but at some point we are all going to wake up and start begging for faster speeds as well. I think hybrid drives might have a shot, 1TB of flash with 3TB disk might be the right match - but you're still waiting forever on rebuilds (and a policy to manage it).

I imagine some of you out there, like myself, are starting to see problems with data integrity as the mountain of data you are sitting on climbs in to the petabytes. All I can say is: bit flips suck! Do you KNOW your data is intact? Do you REALLY believe your dozens of 750GB-1TB SATA drives are keeping your data safe? Do you think your RAID card knows what to do if your parity doesn't match on read - does it even CHECK? I hope your backup didn't copy over the silent corruption. I further hope you have the several days it will take to copy your data back over to your super big - super slow - hard drive.

Is anyone thinking optical? Or how about just straight flash? I have a whole stack of 2GB USB flash drives - should I put them in a RAID array? ;-)

Re:So where is the speed? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979753)

Let me get this straight - you're complaining about write times and you recommend we use flash? Flash has access times several orders of magnitude better than HD. However, write and read performance is about half from what I can remember.

Also, if Hitachi manages to get 4 TB onto a single or 2 platter arrangement, data density will be much higher now which should mean quite a bump in read/write speed (about 4 times, no?).

Re:So where is the speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979939)

If you have a decent RAID card you should know exactly how many hard drives you need to keep your data safe within an acceptable level of risk. Especially if you're the one buying the RAID, you better well find out whether it does parity checks and how it handles recovery. It's not the RAID card's problem if you configured it wrong.

Of course, if your server rack catches fire then RAID isn't going to help you, but you better have other plans to deal with that.

Relax... (1)

therufus (677843) | about 7 years ago | (#20979659)

Hitachi are making them. You'll lose 4Tb of data before you know it!

Really, reliability is what we need these days. Now if Hitachi made reliable drives, I'd be listening. Instead the sacrifice stability with size.


BFD (1, Insightful)

headhot (137860) | about 7 years ago | (#20979663)

Its 2007 and we have 1TB drives now... If you apply Moore's law to storage, size should be doubling every 18 months.. that puts 4TB some where around 2.5 years out.

I think 2011 is a pretty conservative estimate.

Ugh, no. (2, Insightful)

JewGold (924683) | about 7 years ago | (#20979669)

Whenever I read about advancements in storage space, what comes to mind for me is now there will be NO incentive for companies to ever throw away information they have about you. In years past, physical storage limits--and later data storage limits--has caused companies (and the government) to routinely purge data. With hard drives getting bigger at a rate faster than they can fill them, why expend the effort to get rid of old data? Why would they spend the manhours to delete old data, when it's cheaper just to keep adding larger drives?

The possibly negative consequences here can be very damaging. Imagine the security breach when a company "loses a laptop" that contains 30 years of your transaction history. Or, say you're 20 years old right now, imagine what would happen if in 2040 you decide to run for congress and your opponent pulls out dirt from your Google searches and GMail chats of your youth? Imagine the blackmail material that could be uncovered.

The possibilities are endless, but without a real revolution in the way corporations and government operate, they all seem to lead to the absolute end of privacy.

No dissipative ceramic bonding tips? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | about 7 years ago | (#20979777)

I wonder how Steven and Mary Reiber [] are handling the news.

This is a shock (0)

Aqua OS X (458522) | about 7 years ago | (#20979927)

I'm glad Slashdot decided to post this story. I know we've become accustom to harddrive capacities tripling every 5 years, but like most of us, I was certain harddrive capacities were as large as they could possibly get. Now we can rest assured that hardrives will in fact continue to get bigger over time. Amazing, absolutely amazing.

this FP f0r GNAA? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20979935)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?