View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ggrobot Elite Member
Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 45820
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:46 pm Post subject: 60TB hard drives soon? [32627] |
|
|
Seagate has demonstrated the first terabit-per-square-inch hard drive, almost doubling the areal density found in modern hard drives. Initially this will result in 6TB 3.5-inch desktop drives and 2TB 2.5-inch laptop drives, but eventually Seagate is promising up to 60TB and 20TB respectively.
o achieve such a huge l
Read more...
Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4804 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
We've been expecting the 4-6TB drives two years ago. Just check where we are now. Barely hit the low end of that promise.
20-60TB? That means 20TB two years from now. But, by then, things might be SSD only. So, unless these drives are available today, the news have no real value. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Genoism Elite Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2004 Posts: 335
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
we had 4tb hd's two years ago....they just weren't available to everyone. I work in the media business and we've been using them for a long time now.....more than 2 years ago actually. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4804 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right. So the news has no real value for us, mortals. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sabot Elite Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2004 Posts: 2082 Location: The Dark Side of The Moon
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One thing is sure, it's going to be fun when that monster fails. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4804 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess hard disks like that are built into fault-tolerate arrays, so that should not be an issue. Rebuilding the array will take a long time though, so another drive might die in the process -> be sure to use RAID6. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ozieo Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2004 Posts: 648
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
<running like scared chicken> OOOohh Aaaaargh! The SSD's are drowning our bussiness, let's blow some bubbles or we're history ! <running like scared chicken> |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kompressor Junior Member
Joined: 11 Jul 2004 Posts: 229 Location: Earth
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Genoism wrote: | we had 4tb hd's two years ago....they just weren't available to everyone. I work in the media business and we've been using them for a long time now.....more than 2 years ago actually. | Can you provide some proof that you have ever used or had access to a 4TB hard drive? Picture? Model number? Anything? And I'm talking about an actual 4TB drive, not two or more drives but together in an array to make 4TBs of storage. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kompressor Junior Member
Joined: 11 Jul 2004 Posts: 229 Location: Earth
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ozieo wrote: | <running like scared chicken> OOOohh Aaaaargh! The SSD's are drowning our bussiness, let's blow some bubbles or we're history ! <running like scared chicken> | SSD has a long way to go. SSD has way too many issues, for example, SSD drives fail much, much faster than a regular hard drive. That's why the warranty is so short on them. SSD drives get really slow after you have used it for a little while because it has a hard time getting rid of the old data. SSD drives are very small in capacity, and SSD drives are very expensive, just to name a few. Regular hard drives are very reliable (compared to SSD), cheap, and high capacity.
I'm not going to buy a SSD drive any time soon. I myself am using a couple of 10,000 RPM VelociRaptor drives in a RAID 0 array. It's not as fast as SSD, but I don't have to deal with any issues.
Hopefully SSD will get better soon, or maybe something else will come out to replace it. We'll have to wait and see. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Csimbi Elite Member
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Posts: 4804 Location: The bright side of the dark side
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Kompressor
I think Ozieo meant that the HDD manufacturers woke up; if they want to stay in business, they need to offer something competitive or else the SSDs will take over. Four years ago the SSDs were so small that there was no reason to consider. Nowadays you can buy 256G and 512G drives. Sure, they are still expensive but as the new generation of SSDs come out, the price of these will drop so these will become direct competitors to traditional HDDs.
Yes, there are a good deal of bad SSD drives out there. Good SSDs come with algorithms to mitigate wear - extending the lifetime significantly. So, pay attention and make sure you buy the good ones.
I have two 40Gs from Kingston - these are over three years old. No signs of degradation so far. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2545
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Csimbi wrote: | @Kompressor
I think Ozieo meant that the HDD manufacturers woke up; if they want to stay in business, they need to offer something competitive or else the SSDs will take over. |
they are offering 1TB of storage space for ~80 bucks. How is that not competitive compared to 60GB SSD for the same price? I mean SSD is great and all that, but I am not really in a rush, regular HDD speed is just fine from my point of view. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ozieo Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2004 Posts: 648
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, sure those multi-TB HDD's are great, i'm using these too as partitions to store big chuncks of data, like all my copies of the DVD's i bought and so
In this (clever) case, I have not the slightest idea how the heck i would fill my 120GB primary (working) partition, when i store big data in a seperate one.
If you do lots of simultanous work, like browsing, in the meantime fiddling with Excel, and perhaps photoshoping your self image, you'll be stumped how much faster an SSD is, particularly in those "average usage" situations. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gx-x Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2545
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ozieo wrote: | Well, sure those multi-TB HDD's are great, i'm using these too as partitions to store big chuncks of data, like all my copies of the DVD's i bought and so
In this (clever) case, I have not the slightest idea how the heck i would fill my 120GB primary (working) partition, when i store big data in a seperate one.
If you do lots of simultanous work, like browsing, in the meantime fiddling with Excel, and perhaps photoshoping your self image, you'll be stumped how much faster an SSD is, particularly in those "average usage" situations. |
Actually, I wouldn't be stumped. Everything fits into 8GB of ram so programs don't need to use HDD for anything, well, the little that they do u se it for is so rare and so brief that I see no point in getting SSD. And actually, I use photoshop, illustrator and browser at the same time 99% of the time, every alt-tab is instant unless I have HUGE print documents open in photoshop and illustrator. Also, I used computers with SSDs so I know when and where are they fast/er and I am not that impressed considering the price. Sure, if you have a laptop with 1~2GB of ram and SSD (very unlikely scenario) it is going to work 5x faster than the same one without SSD. But with 8+ gigs of ram...not so much.
Don't get me wrong, it IS faster even with 16 gigs of ram, but for me it simply isn't worth it. If 128GB SSD was ~50-60 euros then sure, put OS on it, put some essential apps and ofc the swap file(s) from apps. But to be honest, I wouldn't buy it even then. I am just to lazy to to rearrange my 200GB C: partition into a 60-70GB C: partition on SSD (because I have to keep ~30% of those 128GB free so the trash collector can work, so trim could work and to keep SSD's speed because you really can't even fill those 128GB because SSD is going to be slower than HDD
edit: ddr3 is dirt cheap, like 15$ for 4 gigs, there is no reason not to have at least 8 gigs of ram. For lot's of simultaneous work without "lag" or need for SSD, get 8+ gigs of ram and instead of SSD buy an i7 or i5 (i7 is better because of HT and more L3 cache) it's gonna be blazing fast in any app and in as many simultaneous apps you want. SSD becomes redundant, you wont have a chance to notice it's benefits xD |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ozieo Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2004 Posts: 648
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Baconnaise Elite Member
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 Posts: 710
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I picked up a 128g SSD after rebate for 110 or 120 a couple years ago. The new ones I have are two 60g striped sata3 which are supposedly faster and support the fastest sata. There's a noticeable difference between ssd and the standard drives. Budget wise they're still overpriced unless you get on a rebate or sale of some sort. Regular drives haven't been fairly priced for quite a awhile as well. Prices of regular drives have stayed inflated and have opened up the option of upgrading drives to SSD depending on the situation.
Memory is dirt cheap if you're semi current. DDR3 is cheap to the point that 8-16g of ram is 30-60 bucks unless you get picky. This seems about right considering that the current gen supports up to 32g+ ram in many cases.
I don't see 6tb let alone 60tb coming anytime soon as the current economic climate and pricing of drives just won't support them. Things need to settle more before I get optimistic. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2666 phpBB Group
|
|