Seagate 1000GB drive

You are probably right. I was thinking of my NAS in a RAID 5 config...still, where does that 70gb go?
 
Eh. Not impressed yet ;) It'll be interesting to see how this does against the (announced) Samsung and the (on the shelf) Hitachi 1TB drives. They're 3 and 5 platters respectively, so it'll be density (and buffer strategy, of course) that make the difference in performance.
 
they just keep making it harder for me to finish my media server. :sigh: oh well
 
I was going to jump on 8 of the Hitachi 1TB drives but I am going to wait to see what happens with Seagate. They are my favorite anyway. I'm going to use them for my video server and use my 8 320GB for my music server. I hope I can wait that long. I may just do 8 of the 750GB depending on what happens to the price of them after the 1TB come out.

I wish I wasn't so indecisive. Oh well, at least we have options!
 
I am excited for the seagate offerings, the 5 year warranty is hard to beat, especially for those of us who runs 24/7 or intend on long term storage.
 
Am I the only one that would have a HD that never died, and was HUGE (1TB or bigger) and it doesn't have to be fast...50MB a sec would be just fine...if I wanted speed (and more space still) could 0+1 raid it if I wanted to.

No need for raid 5 if the HD's are big enough.
 
5 year warranty ... sold, I don't really care about the SMALL differences each manufacturer claims to provide with their 1tb drives .. hdds have been by far the most likely to break piece of hardware that i've handled. I just hope theres some sort of price war and drive prices go down, I predict that with such high platter densities finally hitting the market, prices should go down once there is more competetive force out there.
 
HiTech-Hate said:
I just hope theres some sort of price war and drive prices go down
Click to expand...

This makes me feel old, and slightly discouraged. Prices of hard drives have been sliding so fast that you really need a logarithmic scale to really see it happen, for the past 20 years or so. Take a look at what hard drives cost. Twenty cents per gigabyte[/url] for a WD5000AAKS, which is not a bad drive at all. To put this in perspective, I bought two 40GB hard drives in 1998 or so for $100 each. That was an equally good deal. That's an order of magnitude cheaper[/url] (1.07, even) in less than ten years. In the time I've been paying for hard drives, they've gotten 11 times cheaper. I wish I could say the same of cars, pencils, monitors, duct tape, or books... but I can't.

So when people complain about how expensive hard drives are, I try to ignore them as politely as possible. I could today buy a Hitachi drive that spins at twice as fast, has three times the capacity, eight times the cache, and will likely outperform a whole room-full of those 40GB disks that I bought in 1998... for 80% as many dollars per gigabyte.

Storage is cheap, long live storage.
 
unhappy_mage said:
Storage is cheap, long live storage.
Click to expand...

Since about 1990...it really started moving.

In 1991 we had about 40 Meg. This was huge..It cost about $150
In 1994 we had about 150-200 Meg. This was still huge..It cost about $1/MB
In 2006 we had about 500GB. This is huge..it costs about $0.25/GB

In a spam of 15 years, we have almost doubled our space every year for the same dollar. Well color me impressed.
 
Well the price changes are proportional to the exponential growth in platter density, so i'm not 'surprised' at all by these price changes. And I hear ya bud, the first comp I bought for $3000 is worth ... a very heavy paper weight right now.


And just so you know, the prices dont concern me, I get into arguments with ppl all the time regarding the price of seagates 750gb drive (I recently purchased one), they all tell me it was a 'SERIOUS' waste of money, but honestly, for SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY GIGABYTES! of storage for a few hundred dollars, damn as far as i'm concerned thats a deal.

Just a few years ago I setup a raid of 4 120gb HDs which at the time was obviously a lot of money, and it basically broke the bank to do so. Now you can buya 500gb hd for like 1/10th of what I paid, *shrug*, I have just learned to try and keep the upgrades as long as possible, and do one major upgrade every few years, instead of buying a new part part by part.

All the shit marketting that goes into hardware is what truly sickens me. Intel and AMD are investing most of their R&D budget into the same CISC based silicone transistor technology just adding more cores and trying to convince ppl that more cores are insanely better ... when the small companies that can't afford the budgets necessary to market their products are the real workhorses. There are feasable multilayered optical (well photon vs. electron) based core technologies that these small companies are struggling to mature which are remarkably more powerful in every sense then this linear proression of the same technology we've been using for 20 years, but they'll never mature unless intel or AMD adopt this path in thier R&D (which is unlikely because its a risk).

Hell, if AMD and Intel teamed up with IBM we'd have a 12 qubit quantum computer right now, a computer faster then every single computer on the planet right now.
 
HiTech-Hate said:
Hell, if AMD and Intel teamed up with IBM we'd have a 12 qubit quantum computer right now, a computer faster then every single computer on the planet right now.
Click to expand...

Err...... Actually we would probably have a pentium 2 right about now if that were the case.
 
Just to play devil's advocate here, I think you can reasonably make the argument that if IBM, Intel and AMD were all teamed up, we'd have one big monopoly charging us huge amounts of money for Pentium 3 level technology. With no competition there's not much of an incentive to improve your product very much, because they'd be the only game in town, you couldn't take your business elsewhere if they start making crappy products or overcharging, the way you can switch from AMD to Intel or vice versa.

If you look back at the history of the CPU market over the last 10 years, you'll see that competition between Intel and AMD has driven a lot of change in the market. When AMD introduced the Athlon, they had a processor that was outperforming the Pentium and doing so at much lower prices. AMD had the performance crown for quite a while, but eventually Intel realised that they had an advantage in that they ran cooler and could get higher clockspeeds. So they regained the advantage for a while, and at the same time their prices went down somewhat from the pressure of AMD. AMD improved their architecture and their designs were more thermally efficient, and they pulled ahead again, as Intel hit a wall because the Pentium 4 design could only scale up in clockspeed so far, and was inherently a slow architecture per Hz. That in turn eventually got them to invest in the Pentium M/Core architecture that we've got now, with Intel beating out AMD in many ways.

I apologize for getting way off topic, but I wanted to illustrate how competition is generally a good thing.

It's also worth pointing out that in terms of the technologies you mentioned - optical and quantum computing, those are still very far off from being a marketable product (if they turn out to be practical at all). There's still tons of physics research to be done in both areas, which isn't what Intel and AMD do. They could turn tons of research effort towards such things, but they'd either go bankrupt or their product lineups would stagnate in the meantime (or both) - they might get us a bit closer to an optical CPU, but we'd be stuck with what we've got for the next 10+ years. It's better for everyone concerned if they stick to their core competency - silicon chips. We may well see an Intel or AMD cpu using totally different technology one day, but we're nowhere close to that now.
 
Same reason why Intel designs a 3.0GHz chip, then releases it first as 2.0GHZ, then 2.2, etc....Trust me, no matter how feasible optical and quantum computing could be, they are going to milk Athlons, Cores, and current CPU architecture until their techonological ends....Why skip all the points in between? In fact, I think hard drive manufacturers have had the ability to make 1TB drives for some years now, but saw no reason to skip out slowly stepping us up in all the intervals in between first. Who knows, they might even be able to manage a 5 or even 10TB drive right now. Guess when we'd be seeing that?
 
Uhm, you all just basically repeated what I said

"All the shit marketting that goes into hardware is what truly sickens me. Intel and AMD are investing most of their R&D budget into the same CISC based silicone transistor technology just adding more cores and trying to convince ppl that more cores are insanely better ... when the small companies that can't afford the budgets necessary to market their products are the real workhorses. There are feasable multilayered optical (well photon vs. electron) based core technologies that these small companies are struggling to mature which are remarkably more powerful in every sense then this linear proression of the same technology we've been using for 20 years, but they'll never mature unless intel or AMD adopt this path in thier R&D (which is unlikely because its a risk)."

Did you bother to read my post? or just the last line? I agree, they'll milk these things until the cows come home.

Quantum computation is completely feasible and a functional 8 qubit computer currently exists, so I don't know what the f* you're talking about.

And take note of the funding the US government is putting into this technology, because the first country to aquire the means to launch a full quantum computation system will have military superiority over the entire world.

There is one and only one reason that the US is now the world superpower, and that's because they were the first to secure space (through the launching of hundreds of satellites) in the 60s (I don't know what all this confusion is between China and the US regarding militarization of space ... the USA already did it, 40 years ago).

Anyways, the first country to possess the power held in a Quantum computer will practically become the new world superpower overnight, so i'm sure the US military has a lot of $$$$ invested into trying to bring a feasible model to the table.

You guys make the high end consumer market out to be like its the main sector in computation. Fiscally speaking, the consumer market is a miniscule fraction of the computing sector, business and military application (among other things) make the consumer market so insignifigantly small that ... why are we even talking about it right now?
 
HiTech-Hate said:
You guys make the high end consumer market out to be like its the main sector in computation. Fiscally speaking, the consumer market is a miniscule fraction of the computing sector, business and military application (among other things) make the consumer market so insignifigantly small that ... why are we even talking about it right now?
Click to expand...

Setting aside the rest of your post, while supercomputers may be where it's at research-wise, it's not what AMD and Intel do. Their market is consumer processors (in addition to graphics chips, other chipsets, flash memory - all consumer items for the most part).

Also, while I have no idea what the overall market numbers are for supercomputers vs. consumer processing, I don't think the consumer segment is a "miniscule fraction" of the supercomputer market. Supercomputers may be very high priced, but it's extremely low volume, whereas consumer products have vastly larger volume. I don't have numbers, so I can't say for sure either way, but I think you're overstating the size difference.
 
The Hunter said:
Setting aside the rest of your post, while supercomputers may be where it's at research-wise, it's not what AMD and Intel do. Their market is consumer processors (in addition to graphics chips, other chipsets, flash memory - all consumer items for the most part).

Also, while I have no idea what the overall market numbers are for supercomputers vs. consumer processing, I don't think the consumer segment is a "miniscule fraction" of the supercomputer market. Supercomputers may be very high priced, but it's extremely low volume, whereas consumer products have vastly larger volume. I don't have numbers, so I can't say for sure either way, but I think you're overstating the size difference.
Click to expand...

Wow it amazes me how little of my post you must have read, I have no idea what you're talking about. I was never comparing supercomputer nothing. I was comparing BUSINESS and MILITARY, did you READ my post? The revenue gained off business contracts far far surpasses the revenue made in the consumer market, and as such, the consumer market is a very small and insignifigant fraction of Intel and AMD's fiscal portfolio.

You buy one processor, company X buys 1000 processors ... do the math.
 
I'm going to be making a RAID 6 file server with a bunch of 750GB drives... is there any reason I should go with 7200.11? I know it's 3 platters, and the .10's are 4. 32MB cache vs 16MB. I don't think it will matter which one I use.
I wonder how much they'll cost when the 1TB drive is released. I bought a retail 750GB SATA for $200 shipped a couple months ago.
 
the thing is... back in 1999 - when i got my first PC, it had I believe a 8gb HDD... i didnt know WHAT to fill it with. maybe its because i didnt know shit about PCs back then. but still 8gbs was ALOT back then. about 2 years later, i could fill a 8gb drive in a matter of days. today, i can fill 8gbs in a few hrs. tommorow Iam sure I will fill 8gbs in an a few mins...

I think the storage world is growing with the market demand for higher end storage... there wasnt a NEED for a 1 TB drive - unless you were some SUPER duper marketing company or whoever needs terabytes of space for their work files. TODAY, a common joe has a few TBs in their server.... What do we fill our drives with today? HD videos, pr0n, rip CDs in lossless format and archive our 10 megapixel family photos.

Yes, its true, Iam sure if there was a 1TB drive 3 years ago people would find what to stuff onto it very easily, but that # wouldnt be as great as it is today. I really cant say "the storage market is going slow, they need to up their game and make a 2TB drive already..."

Iam kind of curious who has the most TBs on this forum right now, and whats it filled with?

time to search the forum......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top