In 3 Years, Your HDD Will Hold 100TB or More

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Imagine the storage capabilities of a 100 TB drive. 250,000,000 average MP3 songs or 250,000,000 12 MP photographs. Or 2000 completely filled Blu-ray discs or hundreds of 3D movies."
I just had a GEEKGASM right now thinking about it!!!
 
5.25" floppy->3.5" floppy 5.25"hdd->3.5"hdd->2.5hdd
1994~4gb hdd, 1998~20gb hdd, 2002~250gb hdd, 2006~1tb hdd, 2010~2tb hdd

people said i could never fill them every time every year... i proved them wrong every time by filling not just one, but THREE!

for those of you who scoff at filling 1tb, i have had 4tb worth of tv shows alone since 2005, not including movies or mp3's
in 1998 when winamp came out i filled 4gb in 3 weeks with 1/2 my cd collection. so take your scroffing and STICK IT. my cousin and his military buddies routinely ask me to rip their dvd collections to portable 500gb hdd's every time they go back to iraq or afganistan or out to sea on a 6mo. 1yr tour, and the minimum hdd amount they take with them is 6tb worth, whole seasons , shows, music collections and picture albums. the only hard part about it, is proving to own all of it when their gear gets searched, another reason to take picure albums with you as proof of ownership showing the reciept and product with each and every one of them in the picture.
when i hear scoffing at 100-200 tb i think that'd be about the first 10 years of video porn. blueray = 8track with hi-fi. the silly glasses imitation 3-d, ditto. i can see real 3-d hologram projection becomming reality by 2020. filling these drives will be a snap because real 3-d will be like real 3-d audio 7.1 you need atleast a top a bottom a front and back and a left and right to even claim 3-d. think on that 7 angles of view 1 angle already fills a blueray, try 7 angles anything less then that is a LIE to call it 3-d!
i remember the same thing being said about ssd's that was said about hdd when 5.25" floppy media was king. time to whip out your floppies and eat them nay-sayers.
 
This one is for the newbies who have "discovered" SSD in recent years. I've listened to people claim SSD would be the future since the 1980's. Yes, it was around and "new" in the 80's and even had the same acronym but stood for Solid State DASD plus all the fanboys. Mechanical has soundly kicked SSD's butt every single year for the last 25 years, fact. And there is no reason this will not continue for the next 25 years. 1TB: SSD=$3000, mechanical=$70. Which one will people buy? The price gap isn't going way so mechanical is here to stay.

And God forbid should the newbies "discover" holographic storage as I can only imagine the hype all over again.

Remember just this: price will determine the winner.

 
Just in time for USB 3.0! At first, Backups won't seem to take forever. Once we reach 100TB (one-hundred MILLION megabytes!!), we will need faster buses to accommodate such a massive amount of data in a short period of time.
 
... it says - The company will continue to drive reliability innovation through software and make backups easier - that means data lost is always their.
 
Imaging doing a backup of your hard drive to Symantecs astounding 2gb online Storgae facility! LOL.
OK, so if we can store 250,000,000 'average' MP3's that means with s length average of 3mins it will take 1426 years to listen to the music you have on your hard drive. Gee thats useful. I'd prefer 2Tb 15,000RPM HDD with faster access times and better reliability.

I suppose though if we all look forward to cloud computing Google etc will need those sizes!
 
Your numbers give me 400KB per MP3 file. Even with the order of magnitude error, MP3s really need to stop being used as a unit of storage for big things, they're too small these days. It's like saying you can store 80,000,000 1KB emails on a 80GB drive, the number has become so large as to become meaningless. Even an old 2003 80GB drive can store something like 6 weeks of 3 minute, 4 MB each MP3s.

Even with pertinent modern HDD-busters like HD video, assuming reasonable compression you can fit on the order of 2-3 years of 1080p content on a 100 TB drive. But of course, data expands to fill storage available.
 
[citation][nom]L0tus[/nom]Iron-platinum coating?!This thing will cost an arm, leg and torso![/citation]

Don't forget the pet dog, cat, and your three nuggets of gold.
 
I'd better go buy a lot of dds4 tapes for my backups!

(just kidding: I have an 8-drive rackmount raid array attached to my PC with a SCSI-320 cable. Backups aren't a time issue, just noisy. The fans could probably lift a jet off the runway.)
 
More storage density per platter = higher risk of losing more data should the drive get damaged.
What happened to the whole holographic storage disks? Storing data in 3D?
The research will allways be a decade ahead of whats currently available on the market.
Firms would rather sell you as much current technology, before very slowly rolling out newer slighty changed hardware.
This is what keeps the human race from advancing.
 
Wow..100TB of manga, flac's, and every single song, movie, and game on the planet. The question is, could someone afford to fill it?
 
For the two of you who have read this far into the comments, roughly 200GD has been serving me just fine for years. So I will be getting an SSD as my next drive, as they will be relatively cheap in a year or so. To me, mechanical hard drives = tape drives. Yeah, they store more data, but once I get an SSD, a mechanical drive will seem as painfully slow as a tape drive.

Maybe I will find a use for a TB hard drive if I ever decide to archive my DVD collection onto a media server.
 
Why isn't anyone addressing the most important issue... increased read/write speeds.

So what if they can make a 100TB hard drive!!! Indexing the drive will slow everything to a screeching halt! You would not have enough system resources to support this. Once the system memory is full, it will offload everything to virtual memory (on the hard drive) and that will make things even slower!

If you had several terabytes of data, imagine how this would affect the startup time of your computer.

The Hard Drives available right now have decent storage limits, and are inexpensive enough that you will not have any problems with running out of space. (Obviously I am referring to personal computers - NOT SERVERS)

The hard drive manufacturers need to focus their efforts on increasing read/write speeds to compensate for the increased storage space. If your average hard drive is 1TB, then they should be focusing on making the read/write speeds 100 times faster if they are going to increase the storage space to 100TB.
 
[citation][nom]theuerkorn[/nom]So in other words, every other drive may still be DOA.[/citation]

Yea, it's like SSDs are something of the past in this article. Unless this is simply for low priority massive storage and SSD's are quick access/high speed storage.
 
Dude, did they just say platinum?
How much are those drives going to cost? $1K per platter?
 
Matter transmission has been held up for lack of computing power. Given a really significant level of storage we can have the handy little transit card to insert into a slot in our telephones, stand on the pad, fire up the beam, and be there. So the rest of you do not watch Science TV like "Beyond 2000" or "Quantum". Well too bad. If you did you would know the main bottleneck with matter transmission has been the low capacity of the computer.
 
[citation][nom]Quakestars[/nom]Matter transmission has been held up for lack of computing power. Given a really significant level of storage we can have the handy little transit card to insert into a slot in our telephones, stand on the pad, fire up the beam, and be there. So the rest of you do not watch Science TV like "Beyond 2000" or "Quantum". Well too bad. If you did you would know the main bottleneck with matter transmission has been the low capacity of the computer.[/citation]

Transporting one's body to the location on the other end of the phone has not only storage hurdles to overcome, but quantum technology hurdles.

Somehow a computer has to read-in your current exact body configuration, and have a way to duplicate your body and mind in another location, and then it would destroy the body that you had before, otherwise you'd have 2 of you.

Sounds pretty scary to me, you could say I am like Reginald Barclay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom