Seagate Reaches Terabit Areal Density Milestone

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
sounds interesting, how about also increasing read/write speed ? it would take ages to backup all that data
 

weatherdude

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2010
59
0
18,630
1
Goodness, I remember when PMR was the new sparkly technology ready to take the HDD world like a couple of years ago or something. Now HAMR looks set to do the same. *sniff* You engineers make me so proud with all of your science. Sweet magical materials science.
 

Gigahertz20

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2009
55
3
18,635
0
The bigger the hard drive, the more data you are going to lose if it fails. I don't think I would ever want to buy a really big hard drive to store everything on. If it fails, you are up shit creek. I'd rather buy several 2TB hard drives to throw into an unraid server or something, if one fails, no big deal, pull it out and put a new one in and let it re-populate the data.
 

balister

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
403
0
18,790
2
[citation][nom]Gigahertz20[/nom]The bigger the hard drive, the more data you are going to lose if it fails. I don't think I would ever want to buy a really big hard drive to store everything on. If it fails, you are up shit creek. I'd rather buy several 2TB hard drives to throw into an unraid server or something, if one fails, no big deal, pull it out and put a new one in and let it re-populate the data.[/citation]

You do realize that people will just RAID the large drives as well right? Thus being able to have the same level of fault tolerance you're talking about, but with more space. The only downside in having large drives in a RAID situation where you have fault tolerance (something other than RAID 0), it will just take longer to rebuild the fault tolerance when a drive dies.

Likewise, as drive size goes up, cost per G(T)/B goes down. Just take a quick look at NewEgg some time and note the price difference between a 500 GB drive, a 1 TB drive, and a 2 TB drive. The price per GB is lower on the 2 TB than the other two and the price per GB on the 1 TB is lower still than the 500 GB drive.
 
G

Guest

Guest
How many 3D 4K resolution porn videos does it take to fill up a 60TB hard drive?
 

bin1127

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2008
736
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]tipmen[/nom]Oh my, a drive that can hold all of my p0rn... I mean movies[/citation]

Porn; movies; all the same. No plot and bad acting.
 

EzioAs

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
2,306
0
20,160
135
People keep complaining about larger capacities, higher fail rates. Well, that's what they said when the first 1TB storage drives came out and smaller ones before them. Now we see most people opt for either a single 1TB or 2TB or 3TB drive. Get real, people!
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]tipmen[/nom]Oh my, a drive that can hold all of my p0rn... I mean movies[/citation]
is there a difference between the two?

[citation][nom]loksfox[/nom]sounds interesting, how about also increasing read/write speed ? it would take ages to backup all that data[/citation]

lets see here, i have a 1.5tb drive, if you expanded it to 60tb, the read/write would be in the 5gb range, thats if the read write scales with dencity (it somewhat does)

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]If they want to stay in the game with regards to SSD, they had better put this tech into high gear and make it faster than other hard drives.[/citation]

ssd have a harder to over come physical wall than hdds, and they will always be more expensive, while newer hdds are comeing with so much space, for a normal person its possible that they never use up all the space on them... if the drives got faster and tried to make everything a sequential read, its possible to match ssds in read speed.
 

dudemcduderson

Honorable
Mar 16, 2012
39
0
10,530
0
[citation][nom]bunnywanny[/nom]How many 3D 4K resolution porn videos does it take to fill up a 60TB hard drive?[/citation]

I just looked it up, for uncompressed 4k video at 8bit color depth and 30fps you are looking at 2.69TB per hour and 44GB per minute, although I have no idea what/if 3D adds anything to it.

That being said Sony needs to say screw the 100GB Blu-ray tech and start looking more toward 10TB lol.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]dudemcduderson[/nom]I just looked it up, for uncompressed 4k video at 8bit color depth and 30fps you are looking at 2.69TB per hour and 44GB per minute, although I have no idea what/if 3D adds anything to it. That being said Sony needs to say screw the 100GB Blu-ray tech and start looking more toward 10TB lol.[/citation]
Thanks for informing me :) Only 20hrs of porn can be saved on a 60TB, i guess. Its time for petabytes. As for 3D, its somewhere on the internet since the porn industry likes to take advantage of new media.
 

nonoitall

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2006
119
0
18,680
0
@dudemcduderson: Even with lots of space on hand, there's not really a strong reason to store movies uncompressed, unless you're editing them. For most content, an average bitrate of 20 Mbps is sufficient for very good quality 1080p. If we assume the same bits-per-pixel for 4k, 320 Mbps or 2.24 GB/min would be sufficient, though in practice, bits-per-pixel can usually decrease as resolution increases.
 

divhon

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2011
7
0
18,510
0
heck with the higher capacity or blazing speed I just want the old regular price of my caviar blue and black I have no time for porn when D3 arrives
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]dudemcduderson[/nom]I just looked it up, for uncompressed 4k video at 8bit color depth and 30fps you are looking at 2.69TB per hour and 44GB per minute, although I have no idea what/if 3D adds anything to it. That being said Sony needs to say screw the 100GB Blu-ray tech and start looking more toward 10TB lol.[/citation]... or compress it? i mean lets be honest here, how many of us can see a difference between uncompressed and slight compression? i recently did 10 seconds of uncompressed 1280x720 at 30fps just to see what it would be, it came out to almost 700mb... 1 hour of that comes to 252gb about. there is no excuse for that kind of file size, when a bluray rip of 720p can look damn good at less than 500mb a half hour

now this is another point to make, some times compression can look immaculate. there is an archer season 1 and 2 rip floating around that is 100mb an episode at 720p... and it was better looking than my previous sd at 400mb encode.

think if it, thats a 720p 21~ minute show, and its compressed to 100mb an episode... correct that, 91mb an episode.

the point im making is that compression isn't an evil in and of itself, most people wont notice the difference between a well compressed video, and an uncompressed video.

[citation][nom]divhon[/nom]heck with the higher capacity or blazing speed I just want the old regular price of my caviar blue and black I have no time for porn when D3 arrives[/citation]

same here, holding off on 4tb drive till prices are at 200$
 

danwat1234

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
1,392
0
19,310
9
[citation][nom]Gigahertz20[/nom]The bigger the hard drive, the more data you are going to lose if it fails. I don't think I would ever want to buy a really big hard drive to store everything on. If it fails, you are up shit creek. I'd rather buy several 2TB hard drives to throw into an unraid server or something, if one fails, no big deal, pull it out and put a new one in and let it re-populate the data.[/citation]

Or just buy 2 of these large drives, 1 for backup. Problem solved.
 
G

Guest

Guest
So....aliens right? How else to explain 480 trillion bits in such a small device all readable by a physically moving read head.
 

zinabas

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
58
3
18,635
0
lets see, math says that 2,000,000 linear bits an inch X 3.50 inch HDD X Pi(3.14159) X 7200 rpm = 18.5 GB a sec are passing under the read head on the outside of the platter... seriously where the hell is this speed going. Lets reduce that by 50% for ecc needed at that bit depth and then put it at 5400 rpm and its still 6.91 GB/s at the edge of the platter. SATA III is so slow.
 

zinabas

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
58
3
18,635
0
[citation][nom]zinabas[/nom]lets see, math says that 2,000,000 linear bits an inch X 3.50 inch HDD X Pi(3.14159) X 7200 rpm = 18.5 GB a sec are passing under the read head on the outside of the platter... seriously where the hell is this speed going. Lets reduce that by 50% for ecc needed at that bit depth and then put it at 5400 rpm and its still 6.91 GB/s at the edge of the platter. SATA III is so slow.[/citation]

Early morning is not a time to do math RPM =/= RPS. All that /60 is more reason able. 314MB/s for 7200 rpm, 235 MB/s for 5400 rpm, and 117 MB/s for 50% ECC, which sounds high, I beleive its probably closer to 20%.
 

stephenkendrick

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2009
28
0
18,530
0
I know it's of little concern in a desktop/server device, but how much power is required for the heat assist element of this mechanism? In turn, how much heat is developed and must be dissipated? Presumably it's very small, but if not, the extra battery drain would not be appealing in any mobile device. Couldn't find any data on-line - anyone have any ideas?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY