Seagate Announces First 1.5TB Desktop Hard Drive 383
MojoKid writes "Seagate announced three new consumer-level hard drives today, which it claims are the 'industry's first 1.5-terabyte desktop and half-terabyte notebook hard drives.' The company claims that it is able to greatly increase the areal density of its drive substrates by utilizing perpendicular magnetic recording (PMR) technology that is capable of delivering more than triple the storage density of traditional longitudinal recording. Seagate's latest desktop-class hard drive, the Barracuda 7200.11, will be available in a 1.5TB capacity starting in August. The 3.5-inch drive is made up of four 375GB platters and has a 7,200-rpm rotational speed."
PMR has been around for awhile... (Score:1, Informative)
In true slashdot fashion I have not read the article.
This technology was first introduced commercially in 2005. All new drives use PMR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpendicular_recording
Re:Flash video (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Flash video (Score:2, Informative)
My 2-year old loves it...
http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_head/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html [hitachigst.com]
Re:Moar datas plz! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What I really want... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Without increasing rotational speed & seek (Score:4, Informative)
Seek time and rotational speed are mostly independent.
Seek time is the time that it takes to move the head to the desired track (including time for the vibrations from the movement to settle down). This is mostly independent of how fast the disk is spinning.
Rotational speed determines how long you have to wait, on average, for the data you want to read to show up under the head.
So a random read will take one seek, plus half a rotation, before the drive can read the data.
Re:4 platters (Score:5, Informative)
Copy the following into your URL bar and press Enter. The code will allow you to compute the real amount.
Re:4 platters (Score:3, Informative)
that's only valid for the kilobyte level. for this drive, your result is off by about 100GB high.
correct generic formula would go
fake capacity*(10^3x/2^10x)=real capacity, where x is the unit stepping (1 for KB, 2 for MB, 3 for GB, 4 for TB, etc.)
Warranty (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What I really want... (Score:5, Informative)
Any data you truly care about needs to be on at least three devices, which are in at least two different buildings. Increasing the reliability of current drives won't be as helpful as bringing down prices so that multiple copies are more affordable. No amount of reliability will account for theft, fire, and human error.
I use a set of three hard drives. One internal drive is in primary use. I back that up to an external drive frequently. Every couple weeks or so, I take that external drive to my remote location and swap it with another external drive, which then becomes my local backup.
All copying is done with rsync to minimize drive wear and copy times. I just plug in the drive and run a batch file.
Re:that's a lot (Score:1, Informative)
You guys mod this funny, but it's a little known fact that the terabyte was actually named after Tera Patrick in deference to her online body of work.
You must be joking.
When Resolution 6 was accepted, she was sixteen years from being born...
http://www.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=11&RES=12 [bipm.org]
Re:that's a lot (Score:4, Informative)
"You must be joking."
Gee, you think?
Re:Post is inaccurate (Score:1, Informative)
poor math (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What I really want... (Score:3, Informative)
get yourself some RAID
I hope you are thinking of RAID6. If you put five of these disks into a typical RAID5 array, and one fails, it's likely that another will fail before the controller has a chance to read 6 TB from the other drives.
Re:Use redundant storage. (Score:3, Informative)
RAID-5/6 AND good old-fashioned backups, preferably with off-site backups.
Backups are not a replacement for a hot spare (backups take time (often lots of it) to restore) and RAID is not a replacement for larger catastrophic failure (other hardware failure, power surge, fire, hurricane, etc.) or those Oh-fuck-I-deleted-the-wrong-file! moments.
Re:Slow drives (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are the increases slowing down? (Score:3, Informative)
I have been studying a variation on this for a while and the answer is yes.
Hard drvie growth has slowed down, or more specifically, hard drive price improvement has slowed down.
You can see on the 1st chart on my page that the last 5 years have been a marked decrease over the previous decade:
http://www.mattscomputertrends.com/harddrives.html [mattscomputertrends.com]
Interestingly, in just the last 4 months it has speeded up dramatically. Using my standard data sources there has been an 80% price improvement in the last 4 months. Thats about the same as the last 2 years worth of growth. I think this is due to the emergence of serious solid state drives. Right now drive manufacturuers only have 4 other drive manufacturing competitors to worry about, but they will be facing some tough competition if any old electronics company in Asia can mount some chips on a board and become competition. The only solution is to maximise their competitive advantage, which for hard disks is cheap space and lots of it.
Re:Moar datas plz! (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have a favorite piece(s) of software for doing all this?
eac3to + various filters (some commercial, it comes with the Free ones) to take it apart and
mkvmerge to put it together as a matroska file (mkvmerge is part of mkvtoolnix)
one caveat is that mkvmerge can not handle dts files more complex than the regular DTS format on dvds, but it can do truehd. I always recompress to flac anyway, tends to be more efficient than either truehd or dts master audio and eac3to can do the recompression automatically.
If you want to keep it in m2ts format than TsRemuxer is pretty good it will allow you to remux to either a single m2ts file or to a bare-bones blu-ray directory format.
All above mentioned tools are easy to find in google.
Re:Obligatory... (Score:2, Informative)
yeah. My almost end of life G5 has more RAM than my last computer (a suped up 7300) had total hard drive space.
but then I remember the first 5meg drive I ever saw. It was as big as a washing machine and almost as quiet.
Re:real life (Score:3, Informative)
"For good measure, please also add a car analogy."here you go!
Well, it's like those "compact car parking only" [youtube.com]parking spots you see.
Then again, it could depend on the file system you use [youtube.com] as to how much usable space you end up with.(this one may be NSFW-no nudity, just chains and leather bikini-clad gal with sledge hammer)
Or if you use disc compression [youtube.com].
Re:Slow drives (Score:4, Informative)
Got a source for that? I've just installed two Seagate SATA 750G drives with 16 MB of cache each in a mirrored config, and I get sustained read performance in the neighborhood of 60-65 MB/s. And mirroring should speed up read performance relative to a single drive. Write performance is about 25 MB/s (tested using bonnie++). These numbers are a significant improvement over the PATA 200G and 120G drives that they replaced, but not matching the relative increase in capacity (nearly 4x).
This article [tomshardware.com] is about a year old, but none of the drives listed give you throughput greater than 100 MB/s. And that list includes 10k RPM drives.
Re:Slow drives (Score:3, Informative)
Correction: One drive of about a dozen gives 102 MB/s read performance, a WD Velociraptor which is 10k RPM.
Re:Slow drives (Score:5, Informative)
Good Source is Storage Review
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/bench_sort.php [storagereview.com]
The top 34 drives all do at least 54mb/sec MINIMUM and at least ~80MB/sec maximum. The top 15kRPM cheetah doing 82.7-135MB/sec.
If i were to pull a number out of my ass I would say 78-135MB/sec (min/max) on the new 1.5TB drives.
I would say if you have 750gig seagates and you are only getting 25MB/sec you have a bottleneck. Those drives should do a MINIMUM of at least 40MB/sec...