The article is a little old, but WD just anounced a 200GB harddrive (60Gb per platter; not sure how they get 200Gb). This is talking about 200GB PER PLATTER. Pretty cool..
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn...k.xml?0126frpm
The article is a little old, but WD just anounced a 200GB harddrive (60Gb per platter; not sure how they get 200Gb). This is talking about 200GB PER PLATTER. Pretty cool..
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn...k.xml?0126frpm
Call me Fleet Admiral §pêêЃrêák™! Go get me some coffee.
CoolSpeed
i can't wait!! 1 terabyte per HD.. mmm.. imagine raiding that baby!
Imagine degragmenting that baby... several weeks per drive?
Something like that!Originally posted by johnnymk
Imagine degragmenting that baby... several weeks per drive?
Dell Dimension 9200 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz) | 4x1GB DDR2 | 256MB nVidia GeForce 8800GT
Dell Studio 17 | Intel Core i7-720QM (1.6GHz) | 6GB DDR3 1066MHz | 1GHz ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650
Intel P4-C 3.0GHz | ECS 865PE-A | 3x512MB PC3200 | 128MB PNY GeForce 6600GT
http://[img]http://sfx-images.mozill....gif[/img]
I can't wait to get my hands on one of those.
-Corsec-
bigger is always coming along, you just gotta wait. 200gb's are going to take a long while to hit the market yet. If the rate keeps going the way it is (100% increase per year, with a 50% demand increase), then we should hit the 200gb's per platter sometime late winter 2004.
LK
Bigger is cool.....
But chosenfool is right. They need to come out with something faster (at least for IDE). That is definately the bottleneck now...
potato gun + marshmallow gun = FLAMING MARSHMALLOWS OF DOOM!!!!!
-Welfareloser
4/13/05
Time to switch to AMD now I guess... (just kidding... )
-Darkfury
5/23/05
I don't think this'll stop anything though - the better you idiot-proof a system, the more impressive the idiot becomes.
-ShawnLee
5/30/08
<ahemm> anyone remember Serial ATA?
Originally posted by hapoo
<ahemm> anyone remember Serial ATA?
What does an interface have to do with platter density?
LK
Originally posted by GraingerGuy
Bigger is cool.....
But chosenfool is right. They need to come out with something faster (at least for IDE). That is definately the bottleneck now...thats why. it was right above hapoos post
Originally posted by hapoo
<ahemm> anyone remember Serial ATA?
Interface is not the problem, its rotational speeds, cache size, and cooling of the drives.Originally posted by GraingerGuy
Bigger is cool.....
But chosenfool is right. They need to come out with something faster (at least for IDE). That is definately the bottleneck now...
A HDD's speed is determined by: density+rotational speed+cache=faster
The only big improvement your going to get from SATA is the fact that you can burst higher...ATA100 was only a THEORETICAL burst speed, most bursts didn't even reach that high. SATA burst speeds will be much closer to the 150mbps.
The other problem with consumer HDD's is the fact that they need to work in your average desktop. With people like us it doesn't matter if we have 4-5 fans. That doesn't fly with joe-sixpack. Why? Too loud, too much power, and too expensive (gotta remember each fan is 8-10 bucks for a good one).
Thats what happened to IBM, they pushed glass platters onto a desktop unit at high rotational speeds. Thus, the tracks were out of alignment from where they were supposed to be, the servo tracks couldn't find the tracks and became lost. And once its lost the tracks and tries to correct for the thermal expansion it either does or doesn't...IBM's couldn't. Thus, you get a dead drive.
The only good way to increase density is to move to lighter and more perfect platters, thus you have ot go to glass. However, you cannot spin them that fast due to heat. Therefore, you have to develop better heat dissipation technology, and cool the drive more.
HAve you ever seen inside an X15 drive? Their platters are 2.5" and are glass. The rest of the drive is VERY heavy because the casing is like a giant heatsink.
LK
How do SCSI drives get away with 10-15K?Originally posted by chosenfool
so will MORE CACHE be more effective?
it seems the rotational speeds have "sorta" reached its limit for IDE drives - anything past 7200rpm gets way too hot, and the platter just starts to expand more and, as you pointed out, contributes to the death of a drive. maybe a 16MB buffer? or push it to 64MB even? seems SDRAM chips have now become the default "budget" RAM for most systems anyway, and are actually more readily available, thus cheaper to use on drives.
It is not enough to merely touch the face of god; you also must open your eyes so that you may see your palm.
They get away with the higher speed by using MUCH smaller platters. The platter size on a Cheetah X15 drive is 2.6", while the average desktop platter is around 3.4. Furthermore, the cheetahs also have much heavier cases made out of more aluminum, which acts as a heat sink. They also have better mechanics and fault-protection. The X15's get pretty damn hot...I just tested one out...as do Ultra320 cards...
The need for cache is always finite. For example, Seagate has the V series with usually has 2x the amount of cache. THis helps for massive data transfers, but its a diminishing return.
LK
Yeah, I know they run hotter... but the smaller platters explains a lot...Originally posted by LegendKiller
They get away with the higher speed by using MUCH smaller platters. The platter size on a Cheetah X15 drive is 2.6", while the average desktop platter is around 3.4. Furthermore, the cheetahs also have much heavier cases made out of more aluminum, which acts as a heat sink. They also have better mechanics and fault-protection. The X15's get pretty damn hot...I just tested one out...as do Ultra320 cards...
I really do agree with chosen, though... I don't see the need to have more than a 20 gig drive for OS and programs, and I like to keep my hard drives <50% full...
BTW, do you know of any 80-pin SCSI cards with onboard bios that support RAID 0? I'd almost be tempted to get 4, 4.5 gig 10K SCSI drives and RAID them together to form an 18 gig main partition. The drives would be cheap enough, but I bet the card would EXPENSIVE.
It is not enough to merely touch the face of god; you also must open your eyes so that you may see your palm.
You should be able to find an old school Ultra2 (40mb) RAID card that is bootable. Some dude on the hardforums is selling full CASES of Seagate 26 gig 68-pin wide lvd drives for like...40-60 each...if I could spare the money I would buy 10 of those and make a giant raid 5 out of it, get a nice LSI card...
LK
Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Yeah, I know they run hotter... but the smaller platters explains a lot...
I really do agree with chosen, though... I don't see the need to have more than a 20 gig drive for OS and programs, and I like to keep my hard drives <50% full...
BTW, do you know of any 80-pin SCSI cards with onboard bios that support RAID 0? I'd almost be tempted to get 4, 4.5 gig 10K SCSI drives and RAID them together to form an 18 gig main partition. The drives would be cheap enough, but I bet the card would EXPENSIVE.
I've been looking for Ultra2s that support RAID, but it seems like all of the places where I've been looking separate the SCSI cards from RAID (really, just ide RAID) cards, so I'm not sure which catagory to be browsing.Originally posted by LegendKiller
You should be able to find an old school Ultra2 (40mb) RAID card that is bootable. Some dude on the hardforums is selling full CASES of Seagate 26 gig 68-pin wide lvd drives for like...40-60 each...if I could spare the money I would buy 10 of those and make a giant raid 5 out of it, get a nice LSI card...
LK
I wonder what the performance would be like with 3, 80 gig WD SE's in RAID 5, though still, wtf would I do with a 160 gig main partition?
It is not enough to merely touch the face of god; you also must open your eyes so that you may see your palm.
The question isn't wtf would you do with a 160 gig main partition.. the question is.. are you sure it'll even be enough? Answer, no.Originally posted by Ladogaboy
I wonder what the performance would be like with 3, 80 gig WD SE's in RAID 5, though still, wtf would I do with a 160 gig main partition?
Honestly, for a main partition, I don't see the need in having anything more than 20 gigs. For storage, yes, I could use a lot more... for streaming avi, I could use as much as I could get, honestly... but for just my OS and programs, 20 gigs is more than enough.Originally posted by NuTs62
The question isn't wtf would you do with a 160 gig main partition.. the question is.. are you sure it'll even be enough? Answer, no.
It is not enough to merely touch the face of god; you also must open your eyes so that you may see your palm.
true, true.. actually, thats how i have it. but hey, apps are getting larger and larger.. so you never know =)Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Honestly, for a main partition, I don't see the need in having anything more than 20 gigs. For storage, yes, I could use a lot more... for streaming avi, I could use as much as I could get, honestly... but for just my OS and programs, 20 gigs is more than enough.
I was just looking through my HDD today, looking for stuff to clean out, and I was surprised how relatively little space Word and Outlook and stuff take up compared to the games. I hope it stays that way.Originally posted by NuTs62
true, true.. actually, thats how i have it. but hey, apps are getting larger and larger.. so you never know =)
After a while, you've gotta wonder.. what other features could they possibly add to it..? Afterall, its been updated since the 80's.. You would think that they have all the features anyone would ever want, already. And Word, Outlook, etc, aren't graphics oriented, or have lots of music files, etc.., which could explain it. I don't know of many regular apps are that huge.Originally posted by Windsor
I was just looking through my HDD today, looking for stuff to clean out, and I was surprised how relatively little space Word and Outlook and stuff take up compared to the games. I hope it stays that way.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks