4 TB Hitachi Desktop Hard Drive Starts Selling in Japan

[MRCL]

Thanks for that insightful comment. Why?

BACK OT: This news got me wondering about Moore's law applied to HDD's. And the fact that it just doesn't seem to apply...

My first computer in 1998 had a 4gb HDD. Fast forward almost 14 years, and we're only at 100x space on a single HDD with technology almost unchanged (SSD don't count).
This computer sported a 400MHz Celeron. Compared to todays silicon cookies, its like Australopeticus vs. Homo Sapiens. Basically the same but so much evolved.

 

[Completely Bonkers]

^And there I was, thinking the Swiss were good at engineering and math!

I think my first drive was a 210MB Conner IIRC on a pretty fast 386/25Mhz. So in 20 years we have gone from 300*MB to 3TB. And that is 10000x. Yes. 10,000x

* Rotten typos in my original post.

 

[dogchainx]

^And there I was, thinking the Swiss were good at engineering and math!

I think my first drive was a 210MB Conner IIRC on a pretty fast 386/25Mhz. So in 20 years we have gone from 30MB to 3TB. And that is 10000x. Yes. 10,000x

math fail. =)

I remember the good old days with my 80MB hard drive and Wing Commander taking up 10MB of that (with speech pack/addons)

 

[Lionheart]

If it's a 5900 RPM spinner, I could probably see why only 32MB cache. The 7200 RPM version I could surely see a 64MB cache. Would also help differentiate the two models more and the prices on them.

Ah ok, I didn't see that part, cheers ^_^

 

[Fx]

if you are afraid of RAIDs failing/corrupting then buy 2 drives of the same size and the software Goodsync

setup up this job:

[One Way Sync]
1 Drive(Media) ---> 1 Drive(Backup)


done.

 

[techtard]

Or, you can add everything to a .zip or .rar or other archive and spread it across multiple volumes.

 

[Sasqui]

I think my first drive was a 210MB Conner IIRC on a pretty fast 386/25Mhz. So in 20 years we have gone from 30MB to 3TB. And that is 10000x. Yes. 10,000x

I had a 90MB (I think) Conner on a 386/25, wow was I excited to upgrade to a 300MB drive, thanks to DOS 3.31, didn't need to break it into 10 different partitions

Did a little digging and as a matter of fact:

"Kryder noted that hard-drive areal densities have matched the famed Moore's Law, first outlined in 1965" ...Would provide link, but it's busted.

 

[yogurt_21]

^And there I was, thinking the Swiss were good at engineering and math!

I think my first drive was a 210MB Conner IIRC on a pretty fast 386/25Mhz. So in 20 years we have gone from 30MB to 3TB. And that is 10000x. Yes. 10,000x

you're one digit off, if it were in bits it would be 100,000 times larger

since you used bytes it's actually 104857.6 times larger

30MB = 31457280 bytes
3TB = 3298534883328 bytes

thinking about that rate of increase by 2030 our current hard drives will seem as small as 30MB does now.

 

[Zubasa]

Many people in this thread seems to fail at math....

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

RAID1 sucks.

Raid 0?

Anyway, the way i see it, the bigger the hard drives seem to get these days, the higher the fail rate of them. Especially in the SATA III market.

 

[Zubasa]

Raid 0?

Anyway, the way i see it, the bigger the hard drives seem to get these days, the higher the fail rate of them. Especially in the SATA III market.

Raid 5 is the way to go

 

[pr0n Inspector]

apparently you've never heard of RAID.

RAID is not backup.

 

[MRCL]

^And there I was, thinking the Swiss were good at engineering and math!

I think my first drive was a 210MB Conner IIRC on a pretty fast 386/25Mhz. So in 20 years we have gone from 30MB to 3TB. And that is 10000x. Yes. 10,000x

Woops well uhm, in my defense, uh, I...look over there a bird!
*runs*

I'm not good at math. Nor an engineering. But I'm good at speaking Swiss German and eating Chocolate!

 

[Roph]

80GB single platter DeskStar bought in 2003 still alive and working here

 

[Disparia]

Raid 5 is the way to go

Time for Intel and AMD need to start implementing RAID-6 in their chipsets

Without it, probably wouldn't do more than 4 of these drives in an array. At least not with the initial run of 4TB drives.


Since we're reminiscing, my first was a 730MB Western Digital.

 

[ypsylon]

Give me few 7K series.

RAID6 on software? Bleee.... Furthermore anyone who running hardware RAID will say the same thing. You need at least 8 HDDs to maximize efficiency of the RAID 6 array. RAID 6 on 4 disks is pointless.

RAID is not backup.

To some extent very true. To some extent because in home applications nobody is backing up hard drives every day. Nobody is buying Streamers or Tape Libraries. For a 2-3 drive system RAID 1 is better backup than no backup. Truly appalling statements are from users (on various forums or in real life) which creating (e.g.) 4x1TB drive RAID0 as a backup. They should have PC confiscated at once.

 

[Disparia]

As I said, without it, "it" being RAID-6 in which case I'd be running RAID-5 and I wouldn't do more than 4 of those first gen drives. With it, would feel much better about 6 x 4TB, or when Intel works the kinks out of the Patsburg SCU, 8 to 14.

 

[xaira]

RAID 1 is the most expensive, but it just makes me feel safe, and twice the read speed doesnt hurt either

 

[Completely Bonkers]

Woops well uhm, in my defense, uh, I...look over there a bird!
*runs*

I'm not good at math. Nor an engineering. But I'm good at speaking Swiss German and eating Chocolate!

Don't worry about it... I made an equal number of typos in my post!!!

 

[Fx]

RAID is not backup.

I couldnt agree more. last time I ran RAID it was RAID5 for performance & backup but I got burned when 2 drives failed at the same time. the time before that I lost at least 500GB in a RAID1 setup

losing 500GB/1TB of data especially when it contains irreplaceable data makes for a minor depression so I havent used RAID since the last failure

syncing 2 drives has been working beautifully for me for years now. if I am to ever try it again it will be 2TBs in RAID0 synced to one 4TB drive for backup

 

[Completely Bonkers]

RAID is not backup.

RAID1 operating VSS Shadow copies for Shared Folders is pretty close.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

RAID1 operating VSS Shadow copies for Shared Folders is pretty close.

Well, RAID 1 in that scenario provides only the redundancy in hardware.

The thing is, too many people treat RAID as a method of backing up and cry when logical data destruction happens.

 

[Yukikaze]

RAID is not backup.

Listen to this man. He knows his RAIDs.

 

[Sasqui]

Well, RAID 1 in that scenario provides only the redundancy in hardware.

The thing is, too many people treat RAID as a method of backing up and cry when logical data destruction happens.

Or BOTH harddrives fail... an unlikely scenario but it happened to a friends DELL with 2x 500GB Seagate drives. Thankfully, one of the drives wasn't completely hosed, and I managed to pull the bulk of data off of it.

Anyway, agreed, RAID is more a form of security than a backup.

 

[Fx]

Or BOTH harddrives fail... an unlikely scenario but it happened to a friends DELL with 2x 500GB Seagate drives. Thankfully, one of the drives wasn't completely hosed, and I managed to pull the bulk of data off of it.

I too, had the 'unlikely event' of 2 drives failing simultaneously

Anyway, agreed, RAID is more a form of security than a backup.

RAID is widely used for performance