WD Launches 3 Terabyte HD 313
MojoKid writes "Today, Western Digital announced the world's highest density hard drive, as they reach the 3TB mark with their newest, 5th generation Caviar Green product. The Caviar Green 3TB serves up a super-sized combination of reduced power consumption, lower operating temperature, and a quieter operation. Unfortunately, if you're still using Windows XP, don't expect your system to make full use of any 3TB drive (yet). The problem is that older operating systems, in combination with a legacy BIOS and master boot record (MBR) partition table scheme, face a barrier at 2.19TB. Existing motherboards utilizing BIOS (non-UEFI), GPT ready operating systems like Windows 7 64-bit, and appropriate storage class drivers, can address the entire capacity of hard drives larger than 2.19TB. Another issue is that a number of host bus adapter (HBA) and chipset vendors don't offer driver support for these types of drives. To provide a solution for this compatibility issue, Western Digital bundles an HBA with the Caviar Green 3TB drive that allows the operating system to use a known driver to correctly support extra large capacity drives. This solution is reportedly just temporary until the rest of the industry catches up."
orly? (Score:5, Funny)
Cool (Score:3)
Definately cool. Seems like we were stuck at that 2TB size for way too long. On the other hand, it DID result in a rare case of the largest drive capacity being your best bang for your buck. I'm sure for a while these 3TB drives will be more expensive. Still, I was looking at building a new RAID6 NAS box using 2TB drives pretty soon. If the prices are reasonable, I might opt for the 3TB drives instead. 5 of these setup as a RAID6 should yield enough storage space to tie me over for quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
i've been sticking to 1.5 TBs for the past year, those 5400 rpm green drives simply are unbeatable BFTB wise for the storage server, if 2 TB drives had a better price/size ratio i would have switched in a heartbeat.
Currently at 8,25 TB of storage in the server, allthough over 50% of that is empty currently, but at the present rate, that will take about a year to fill up.
By then i'll look into building a new server, it'd be nice if these 3 TB disks were common good by then
short-sightedness (Score:5, Insightful)
If you make SATA controllers, and you didn't see 3TB coming coming years in advance, you need to get the hell out of the hardware business. You are incompetent. Go find another line of work.
Re:short-sightedness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:short-sightedness (Score:5, Insightful)
If you make SATA controllers, and you didn't see 3TB coming coming years in advance, you need to get the hell out of the hardware business. You are incompetent. Go find another line of work.
On the other hand if you saw 3TB coming, built SATA controllers that only handled 1TB AND charged an early-adopter premium, THEN conned users into upgrading to the 2TB version later, AND NOW can get them to upgrade again for 3TB you're brilliant and if not rich at least living comfortably.
Re: (Score:2)
good business, though, plenty of 3.0gb compatible sales coming your way !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hilarious that we aren't over those size limits yet. :-D
A history lesson here:
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm [dewassoc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Never enough? (Score:2)
5ct/GB is too expensive for you?
Prices don't suddenly drop because of this announcement. I can't believe how they manage to make drives as inexpensive as they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. I got a 1.5 TB about two months ago for ~$75; I don't think we're really going to see the prices drop a whole lot at the "low end", they are already pretty much bottomed out. As others have mentioned, drives have mostly been stuck at the 2 TB point for a while as none of the manufacturers wanted to deal with the controller/MBR/OS issues associated with going bigger, so prices have already had a chance to drop and stabilize. They might come down to $60 in a year or two, but that's probably about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully that'll drop the prices on PATA drives, which seem to have all but disappeared except for WD ones.
I have a NAS box which uses 4 160GB PATA drives. I'm looking to replace them with 4 500GB PATA drives (it doesn't have SATA). The cheapest place I found them was Best Buy, for $90 (Canadian) each. The only place that had them possibly cheaper was Newegg, and I'd only save $5/drive, but lose out in that they were OEM drives and Newegg's bubblewrapped cluster of drives packaging means I might as well ha
Re: (Score:2)
$20 x 6 is $120. x2 (so I have an offline backup) $240.
Not enough to wait for but enough savings to make me decide it's time.
I'm pretty sure they weren't the first. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Seagate doesn't advertise any internal drives at higher than 2 TB, I am guessing that is 2 drives in a RAID0 configuration. Which is a really bad idea - if either drive fails you loose everything, so you have double the failure rate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it's a single drive. You can't buy the naked 3gb drive from seagate, but you can buy it already installed in various devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why the space? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can I please flip a switch to turn that into 20GB of hard-to-corrupt data?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
make 150 copies of it and take the majority vote amongst the copies when reading? :) (j/k)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Define the drive as 20 partitions and raid-1 them all together.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either the moderation is a "insightful for funny" mod or it's on crack. Only one 3.2 GB or so drive I had many yeats ago has failed in that way, all the others have gone completely bye-bye which means all 20 partitions go down at once. It's not redundant when the same failure will knock out all of them...
Re:Why the space? (Score:4, Informative)
Can I please flip a switch to turn that into 20GB of hard-to-corrupt data?
That would be an SSD, which fails on write, thus keeping any original data around. Over time, as an SSD fails, it simply has less and less available capacity, thus proving to be very reliable. As long as you don't fuck it up with a bad firmware update, of course. :)
Re:Why the space? (Score:4, Informative)
That would be an SSD, which fails on write, thus keeping any original data around. Over time, as an SSD fails, it simply has less and less available capacity, thus proving to be very reliable.
In theory, that's what's supposed to happen on the cell-level. In practice, companies are often not so considerate in making things fail gracefully. Often the whole drive just bricks itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, larger hard drives means greater density of storage in the server room, which in turn means cheaper online storage. Have you considered making backups?
Runaway memory (Score:2)
But by then, they will have a Petabyte drive and they will have to catch up to that too.
Do they self destruct like other Greens? (Score:5, Interesting)
Other members of the Green line have an "Intellitpark" feature that can destroy the drive in a matter of months for certain workloads (like using linux). Any word on if WD has fixed that for these?
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=73573
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2008/4/10/1396844
Re: (Score:2)
Other members of the Green line have an "Intellitpark" feature that can destroy the drive in a matter of months for certain workloads (like using linux).
I've been running 'Green' WD drives in my MythTV server for years with no problems. The oldest has well over 10,000 hours of run time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you REALLY need to write to the disc 2x a minute every single minute continually for the life of the machine.
Most likely the answer is no. For 99.9% of the people thee is no benefit to writing to the disc continually every 30 seconds as opposed to once a minute or less.
For the 0.01% of people who absolutely must continually write to the disc all the time WD makes a drive series for that. Black series.
Problem solved. Why should WD "fix" the green series drives (optimized for low power consumption) by m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why does a log need to write to a disc more than once per minute. Really?
For 99.9% of uses there is no reason.
There is no reason the log can't simply cache the results to memory and write to the disc once every minute or every couple minutes.
How about when your OS is clever and tries to reduce disk use by only flushing the OS block cache intermittently, and that interval is slightly greater than the park timer?
then change the interval. If the clever OS flushed once per minute it wouldn't be an issue.
The i
The More Things Change (Score:2)
Reminds me of when ATA66/100/133 came out and in order to take advantage of the new larger HDs you needed a new controller. Maxtor kindly bundled one with their drives. Made it very easy to upgrade existing/
Western Digital (Score:2)
At least it's Western Digital, because Seagate drives sure suck lately (looks at the stack of dead Seagate drives).
Re:Western Digital (Score:4, Informative)
You missed where Maxtor took over Seagate and kept the Seagate name on the door. I know it was techincally (businessally?) the other way around, but the end result has been Maxtor quality with a Seagate sticker.
It's my density! (Score:2)
With ever increasing densities on the platters, doesn't that just mean if there's a malfunction like a HDD head crash, you lose more data?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if a full 3TB disk crashes, you definitely lose more data than a full 1GB drive crash. It's call the process of "bigger they are, the harder they fall".
The problem is that (Score:2)
old OS can't see the whole thing? That's not really a problem. No more then saying my dos 3.3 can't see 1T.
Not that many people need 3T. yeah yeah, save me your 'people will use the space they have' argument. It doesn't hold up to reality.
\
Re: (Score:2)
yeah yeah, save me your 'people will use the space they have' argument. It doesn't hold up to reality.
I thought my netbook's 160GB drive would be plenty, but after six months it was down to 8GB free. I thought my laptop's 640GB drive would be plenty, but it's now down to 40GB free, and only after I deleted a few games from Steam. I thought my MythTV server's 3.5TB would be plenty, but it's down to 400GB free.
Most people will end up using most of the disk space they have available, because it's easier than deleting old files.
Old-school workaround (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is an issue at the block level, so no.
Finally ... (Score:3, Funny)
Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry, isn't this Slashdot? Why isn't anybody asking about Linux support?
A while ago, I read that Linux wasn't ready for 3TB drives yet. Is it now? Do we need 64bit Linux to use this, or is there a solution like PAE is to the 4GB memory limit?
Is the bundled HBA supported?
I'd love to use this disk to store multiple snapshots (rsnapshot) of my fileserver...
XP often won't wake up from S3 on 1+GB SATA drives (Score:3, Informative)
BS about 3T (Score:3, Interesting)
This article makes it sound like having a 3T hard drive doesn't work with anything other than the latest and greatest HW. This is mostly BS, sure there are a number of cases where it doesn't work, or you can't boot off a partition at the end of the device. On the other-hand, having used various RAID devices >2T, some of which were transparent SATA devices (aka 2HD's striped, exported as a single SATA device) for years. I haven't had a major problem since the 2003/4 with them. Back then many of the linux filesystem (ext2/reiser/etc) had performance or data integrity issues with disks that large. Back then switching to XFS or similar was usually the solution. With windows, I can't remember having a problem in a LONG time.
Basically, if you don't plan to boot of the drive, its probably going to work just fine in any machine made in the last 5-7 years. Booting is another issue, but there are workarounds. Same as always, I remember having to have boot managers install in my boot sector to boot off a 512meg disk in the early '90s. Same game now, only there are a number of alternatives, including bootstrapping from USB flash.
Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for you. In the last year, I've put about 8.5 TB into my house (without a single torrent) and I could use another 3 TB. Running a small recording studio digitally has it's upsides and downsides.
A 5x 3TB Raid 6 sounds just about right for a nice 9TB assembly. (And yes, I know, Raid isn't a backup, there's tapes for that.)
Re: (Score:3)
What I want to know is: how can you justify the cost of tape? And why isn't a raid6 array a valid backup location?
What, exactly, does tape provide you in terms of archival veracity and longevity that current drives do not? Assuming no significant sunk cost for tape hardware, you're still looking at similar if not greater costs per GB of tape storage as you would be disk, whether you're looking at LTO 3 or LTO 5. Throw in $1,000 to $3,000 for your standalone chassis tape drive... you'd have to burn through h
Re: (Score:3)
Because it is very possible that 2 or more drives can fail at the same time. Not probable but possible. If the data loss is not an issue then by all means do not have some other kind of backup. To many people the data loss is bad, so they do a backup.
Speaking from my own experience I have seen drives just go bad. They were not even hooked up. They worked one day, and were dead the next time they were used. I tried the hard drive as a backup solution. The hard drive (which was kept in an anti static bag when
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is most people saying "I got a RAID" ONLY have a raid.
So maybe it is better phrased that ONLY a RAID isn't a backup. The issue is if you only have a single copy of your data no matter how redundant the method of storing that single copy can become corrupt.
Having a drive (or RAID) and a backup RAID provides a high level of fault tolerence and may make sense where cost of tape storage is simply not warranted.
Even better would be:
storage RAID
backup RAID
offsite backup (via cloud)
The problem is many u
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I want to know is: how can you justify the cost of tape? And why isn't a raid6 array a valid backup location?
The whole 'raid isn't backup' argument seems a misnomer to me these days.
You're actually arguing with yourself. 'RAID' isn't a backup, it provides fault tolerance for uptime.
A separate and off-site storage target is a valid backup. In fact, most tapes are being replaced with "virtual tape" which is nothing more than disk backed RAID storage located in a different area than the source data.
Stop confusing RAID (within a single storage array) and a separate storage array that also happens to be RAID.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't believe you can purchase a chassis with an externally accessible hard drive array, hard drives and carriages for the drives to emulate a tape changer for less money than you can purchase a large capacity tape changer and the equivalent storage in tapes.
If you're backing up a small office, home office or tiny corporate environment, then go for it, just use some externally accessible array that can export everything JBOD and manage the device by hand, but if you need more than a few drives to back thi
Re: (Score:2)
You're backing up 8+ TB onto tape? What kind of tapes and drive? I always thought the only practical way of backup up multi-TB drives was with other multi TB drives.
Re: (Score:2)
Your only option is an autoloader which isn't cheap.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16840119028 [newegg.com]
Single LTO 3 drive plus 8 tape magazine. 3.2TB capacity (6.4TB w/ compression YMMV)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I know, Raid isn't a backup, there's tapes for that.
Heh, shows how much you know... I run RAID-0.
Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (Score:5, Interesting)
Combined storage in my house is maybe ~2.5TB. That's 4 machines + external storage. I'm no where near filling it up and my wife has been torrenting all our television for over a year.
All depends on your needs. The combined storage space in my house is close to 12TB. Most of the drives are full and I'm constantly having to copy things around to make space for new stuff. The fact that my entire DVD library has been ripped to AVI files (including television season/series sets) helps eat up a lot of that though.
Helps a lot in that I have a 1.9-year old niece who comes over all the time wanting to watch Elmo, Charlie Brown, and various other Disney movies. She actually knows how to work the DVD player herself, but she's not exactly careful with the discs (my Finding Nemo disc is now completely unplayable :'(), but in the interest of making sure my discs don't all die horrible deaths, they're now being streamed from a MythTV server . . .
Re: (Score:2)
that is what is eating up my 1TB drive atm, except it's my kids, not my niece.
Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Ken Thompson said, "The steady state of disks is full". No matter how big drives get, you'll eventually fill it up. At which point you'll need a bigger one, or you'll be spending an inordinate amount of time (any really) moving shit around and deciding what to delete.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's almost entirely due to everybody storing their own copies. Searching the BluRay store at amazon.com I get 9352 titles. If we assume 50 GB/disc - some are smaller, some are duplicate versions and some are multi-disc sets but not too far off - then that's 500 TB. Is that much? It's 133 of these drives, and that'd store pretty much all high-def content produced to date. It's out of the league of a home server but if there was such a thing as Spotify for movies it would be a piece of cake. If we'
Re: (Score:2)
rip your dvds let me know how fast the storage goes then.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly I find that I archive less and less.
Donated all my DVD (almost never watch them again) to charity (nice writeoff).
Quick what % of your DVD have you watched at least 10 times. Hell how many of them have you watched only once or twice?
Storing DVD is of dubious value IMHO. In 20-30 years it will be the digital equivelent of people who stored every single newspaper in case they needed.
With netflix, VOD (both from cable and online), hulu, itunes, redbox, etc the need to store TB of pre-generated conte
Re: (Score:2)
and what do you do with these torrents? hoard them?
i DVR a bunch of cartoons for my eldest son and keep the 3 latest ones. my wife DVR's a few shows and erases them after she watches them. i also have netflix for a few other cartoons and stuff to watch.
what exactly is the point of hoarding TV shows? most of them you watch once and don't want to watch again. stuff like Friends and Everybody loves Raymond is constantly playing reruns
Re: (Score:2)
My DVR alone has 2.5TB of space dedicated to it just for storing recordings.
It stores those recordings in h264, so I get much more recording time than with MPEG2.
Once you get into HD video, 3TB really isn't that much. Individual recordings can be 35G.
A few years of saving what you would have watched on cable can easily fill up several TB. This could be torrents or "purchases" from iTunes.
Apple really should have a home server of it's own by now just for this reason alone: DVD Jukebox for iTunes purchases.
De
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but why? It sounds like you have hundreds of hours of video stored locally. Do you really watch that much tv?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but why? It sounds like you have hundreds of hours of video stored locally. Do you really watch that much tv?
Buying a few terabytes of disk space is much easier than convincing your girlfriend that she really didn't need to watch that episode of CSI Milton Keynes from last March that you just deleted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A few tearabytes of disk space and some DVD box sets are a quick and easy way to get carte blanche on the computing expenses.
Putting her favorite shows at her fingertips is the quickest path to the greatest WAF.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No honestly getting a sane girlfriend seems easier.
you never had a girlfriend did you?
Re:The industry can take all the time it needs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No honestly getting a sane girlfriend seems easier.
One piece of advice I got given many years ago, "there is no such thing as a sane woman, just pick your insanity". Applies to men too don't get me wrong. If I can pick a woman who gets annoyed over weird TV programs I have no interest in I'll pick that any day over some of the stuff I've put up with over the years.
All that gross sexism over and done with a fairer version of the above advice would be people are different, even your best friend or life partner will piss you off about some weird stuff at time.
Re: (Score:2)
well with a DVR the content is playable before it finishes. With torrents it isn't. Also depending on your tracker there may be ratio requirements, which makes it a good idea to simply hang on to them for a while and let them seed.
Re: (Score:2)
and what do you do with these torrents? hoard them?
i DVR a bunch of cartoons for my eldest son and keep the 3 latest ones.
Now that he's 30 he should consider moving out of your basement and getting his own DVR.
Re:3TB (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I keep all my data on DVDs. That way, if one goes bad, I'll only lose 4 gigabytes!
Of course, if I really wanted to be safe, I should use CDs. That way I'd only lose a few hundred megabytes.
But then again, real safety is in 3 1/2" floppies. Then I'd only lose 1.44 megabytes!
5 1/4" floppies! 360 kb!
Single bits stored as rocks! 1/8th byte!
Or I could wait ten years and be the guy saying "1 petabyte drives!? Ha! I'll keep my nice old 3 terabyte drives, thank you very much."
Re:3TB (Score:5, Funny)
I like my RAID array
Not as much as I like my redundant RAID array of inexpensive disks.
Re: (Score:2)
which transmits the data via it's NIC card.
Re: (Score:2)
"network interface controller card" isn't redund...
Oh, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you'll like your raid a lot when you get a virus, a fire, your stuff stolen, deleted by mistake, suffer a big OS bug, app bug, a power surge, a RAID board/PSU failure...
OTOH, a couple of off-line, off-site 3GB disks, and you're safe. Fewer bragging rights, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I will like it just fine. I run a ZFS file server that all of my PCs use to store almost everything. All of my data is checksummed, every hour a snapshot is made of every changed file at almost zero cost in time and only the changed data takes up space, I have multiple drives RAID'ed together and because of the checksums the system can actually tell when a bit gets flipped not just when a sector goes bad or a drive crashes.
It took me 15 minutes to set it up. I wrote up the install: http://petertheoba [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A RAID array won't save you from fire, floods, system faults and your own stupidity (nobody's perfect). You need backups if you care about your data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone stuck one of these into a Time Capsule yet? I assume it won't have any problem utilizing all 3TB
You don't really have to put it IN a Time Capsule. You can just have the drive in a USB enclosure and attach it to the USB port on the Time Capsule.
You can also attach a drive to the Airport Extreme base station and it will be available over the network for Time Machine backups.
Re: (Score:2)
USB is slower than GigE. By putting your storage behind a USB controller you just killed your performance.
Although the Time Capsule might have had crap performance anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have had a 100% failure rate with WD drives. I've only ever had two, but both were dead in under a year. Haven't bought one since. Never had a hard drive of any other brand fail. Hell, I've got drives from '95 that are still running fine, but the WDs can't make it 10 months!
Re:Too bad it's WD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad it's WD (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly what I tell anyone whenever they start talking, or asking, about HD failure rates. Apart from some obvious exceptions (IBM deathstar, I'm looking at you), HD manufacturors are much of a muchness. You get people swearing blind that one company had never failed them, while others swore blind that the same company produces garbage. I've always kind of had a soft spot for Maxtor, because it's hard to get over your own personal experiences, but I'm running 1 Maxtor, 2 WD, and 1 Seagate in my system now, so I can't have been that attached.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. Google released a bunch of data on hard disk reliability, not broken down by manufacturer but they said it didn't make much difference. And you know big OEMs like Dell keep track of warrany HDD failures and the "That #%*&%/# Dell ate my documents" hit to their reputation as opposed to other hardware that just breaks means they'd get rid of any poor manufacturers quickly, even if they were slightly cheaper. Also people that deliver big storage solutions and such. Of course you could end up with a le
Re: (Score:2)
I've had the similar experiences. Mine usually make it to just a month outside the warranty period. One had the distinct honor of only lasting 3 weeks. I was able to recover most of the data, but after that incident, like you, I've only bought non-WD drives. I've had 5 WD drives die. All my other drives have outlived the WD drives by a long shot.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with hard drives is it's all dumb luck. I've had the exact opposite experience. I have almost a dozen WD that have been running great for as long a 4 years, but I have one Seagate that died in 2 months.
Mechanical hard drives have very random failure rates and you just have to pick a company with good customer service.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much confidence in a sample size of 2. Buy 20,000 drives and let us know.
For the record I have owned 5 WD over the years (2 currently) and none have died.
Still our combined sample size of 7 isn't really meaningful.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no reliable drives. Every new drive I get goes through a conditioning stage as a redundant backup drive before I'll trust it with real data. And even then, it's data that's backed up to multiple drives. A certain percentage of any brand will fail and that percentage has been climbing for me in recent years. It's taught me to be more rigorous in my backups. I'm not sure how non-techies manage it though.
Re: (Score:2)
But the real question is does Windows 7-32 bit handle this drive? The summary stated Windows-7 64 bit...
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect not. Why does it matter?
Why would you put a 3TB drive in a 5-year-old+ computer? There haven't been 32bit x86 machines on the market (as 'new product') for several+ years now, and only then on netbooks and laptops. Anything capable of running Windows 7 will, in all likelihood, be using a 64 bit processor.
If you're running 32 bit Windows 7, let me refer you to my previous post where I say "It's dead, Jim." There is no reason to do so unless it is archaic hardware (in which case - does it even have
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you on XP- Cheap desktops, and most (all?) current windows netbooks are running 32-bit Win7. It's not going away any time soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there is still software that doesn't run on 64 bit Windows of course.
I use such software daily in my work.
So it's not "dead, Jim."
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 32 is supported but only as non-boot drive (Score:2)
However that limitation is dubious at this point.
Windows 7 32 & 64 bit is supported (as is Vista 32 & 64)
Boot drive requires
compatible HBA
UEFI (instead of BIOS)
64 bit OS and compatible storage drivers
There are almost no UEFI compatible motherboards so booting from this disc is most systems is impossible.
Both 32 & 64 bit versions of 7 & Vista support this drive as secondary (non boot) drive.
Re: (Score:2)
volume is kinda meaningless given data is stored on flat platters. Only the surface area on platters are used.
A 2.5" platter has about 40% of the surface area compared to 3.5" platter.
If data was stored 3 dimensionally then maybe volume would matter.