Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
HDD capacity stagnation
93 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 30, 2012, 3:12:32 PM1/30/12
to
Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
Rod Speed
Jan 30, 2012, 4:29:51 PM1/30/12
to
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the longest time (a lot longer than we were
> stuck at 528MB)
Thats very arguable indeed.
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the longest time (a lot longer than we were
> stuck at 528MB)
> but when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
Arno
Jan 30, 2012, 5:54:12 PM1/30/12
to
Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
The technology is at its limits. 8TB does not make ecconomic
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
sense, it would not fit standard HDD case sizes and it would
take forever due to slow interfaces. It would also be very
expensive. As to size progression, why would you expect
8TB? Sizes did never increase in tsucha large step.
Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: ar...@wagner.name
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
Franc Zabkar
Jan 31, 2012, 3:32:35 PM1/31/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:12:32 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
>longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
At the moment we're at 1TB per platter. Therefore we should be able to
fit 4TB in a 3.5" form factor using current technology.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
>longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
fit 4TB in a 3.5" form factor using current technology.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Tom Del Rosso
Jan 31, 2012, 6:31:42 PM1/31/12
to
Arno wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB
> > for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
> > when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another
> > obstacle?
>
> The technology is at its limits. 8TB does not make ecconomic
> sense, it would not fit standard HDD case sizes and it would
> take forever due to slow interfaces. It would also be very
> expensive. As to size progression, why would you expect
> 8TB? Sizes did never increase in tsucha large step.
like the software limit that held us to 2TB lasted longer than the software
limit that held us to 528MB. When the 528MB limit was overcome we reached
2GB very soon as I recall.
The maximum size available in 1993 was 528MB and in 2003 it was 250GB. A
multiple of 500 in 10 years. Maybe that should be 1995, but then it would
have been only 8 years.
Since then it has changed by a factor of 12 in 8 years. So I asked if there
is a specific obstacle that is now in the way.
Case size, interface speed, and price have always been factors.
Percival P. Cassidy
Jan 31, 2012, 6:55:12 PM1/31/12
to
On 01/31/12 03:32 pm, Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
>> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
> At the moment we're at 1TB per platter. Therefore we should be able to
> fit 4TB in a 3.5" form factor using current technology.
Such as the 4TB Seagate GoFlex Desk STAC4000100
>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
>> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
> At the moment we're at 1TB per platter. Therefore we should be able to
> fit 4TB in a 3.5" form factor using current technology.
But the internals go only up to 3TB
Perce
DevilsPGD
Jan 31, 2012, 9:05:46 PM1/31/12
to
In the last episode of <jg6tq4$ijn$1...@dont-email.me>, "Tom Del Rosso"
were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if you
try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)
More importantly, in the consumer space, few people really need more
than 2TB/3TB drives. In the high density storage business world,
smaller, more power efficient drives are all the rage.
Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of the
major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods will probably
leave us around the current range for a while. Once the manufacturers
get rebuilt, expect to see better and faster drives at current densities
(why build a factory to sell 500GB drives when it's the same factory
costs for 2TB drives and 2TB drives see for more?)
Given that we're up to 1TB per platter, 4TB drives should be possible in
typical form-factors, but my guess is that 3TB drives didn't sell well
enough to be worth investing in 4TB designs just yet.
--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
<td...@verizon.net.invalid> said:
>Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
>longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
>Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
>longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if you
try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)
More importantly, in the consumer space, few people really need more
than 2TB/3TB drives. In the high density storage business world,
smaller, more power efficient drives are all the rage.
Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of the
major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods will probably
leave us around the current range for a while. Once the manufacturers
get rebuilt, expect to see better and faster drives at current densities
(why build a factory to sell 500GB drives when it's the same factory
costs for 2TB drives and 2TB drives see for more?)
Given that we're up to 1TB per platter, 4TB drives should be possible in
typical form-factors, but my guess is that 3TB drives didn't sell well
enough to be worth investing in 4TB designs just yet.
--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
Rod Speed
Jan 31, 2012, 10:35:09 PM1/31/12
to
DevilsPGD wrote
> In the high density storage business world, smaller,
> more power efficient drives are all the rage.
Not with the operations that need massive amounts of storage like google.
> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of
> the major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods
> will probably leave us around the current range for a while.
They didnt all build in Thailand.
> Once the manufacturers get rebuilt, expect to see better and faster drives
> at current densities (why build a factory to sell 500GB drives when it's
> the same factory costs for 2TB drives and 2TB drives see for more?)
> Given that we're up to 1TB per platter, 4TB drives should be
> possible in typical form-factors, but my guess is that 3TB drives
> didn't sell well enough to be worth investing in 4TB designs just yet.
And how well they sell obviously depends on the price charged for them.
> Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote
>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB
>> for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
>> when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another
>> obstacle?
> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
> but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
> incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
> reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if
> you try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
> mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
> I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)
> More importantly, in the consumer space, few
> people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives.
Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with PVRs.
>> for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
>> when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another
>> obstacle?
> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
> but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
> incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
> reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if
> you try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
> mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
> I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)
> More importantly, in the consumer space, few
> people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives.
> In the high density storage business world, smaller,
> more power efficient drives are all the rage.
> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of
> the major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods
> will probably leave us around the current range for a while.
> Once the manufacturers get rebuilt, expect to see better and faster drives
> at current densities (why build a factory to sell 500GB drives when it's
> the same factory costs for 2TB drives and 2TB drives see for more?)
> Given that we're up to 1TB per platter, 4TB drives should be
> possible in typical form-factors, but my guess is that 3TB drives
> didn't sell well enough to be worth investing in 4TB designs just yet.
DevilsPGD
Feb 1, 2012, 12:32:38 AM2/1/12
to
In the last episode of <9orq7g...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
that 1) Have a PVR, 2) Overload the PVR, 3) Have the will to upgrade
their PVR, 4) Have a PVR that can be upgraded, 5) Have a PVR that can
handle larger than 2TB drives and 6) Have a PVR that can only handle a
single drive.
Like I said, "few people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives." Some do,
and pointing out specific narrow examples just makes my point.
>> In the high density storage business world, smaller,
>> more power efficient drives are all the rage.
>
>Not with the operations that need massive amounts of storage like google.
Things work a little differently in the business world. Google needs a
lot of storage, but they also need very low latency, so having more
spindles can make sense.
Power efficiency:TB is probably a bigger factor than raw TB count, get
the power cost low enough and it makes sense to crank up the spindle
count for performance reasons.
>> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of
>> the major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods
>> will probably leave us around the current range for a while.
>
>They didnt all build in Thailand.
No, but a significant percentage of drives were manufactured in
Thailand, so the market will be affected for a while.
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> said:
>DevilsPGD wrote
>> Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB
>>> for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
>>> when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another
>>> obstacle?
>
>> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
>> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
>> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
>
>> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
>> but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
>> incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
>> reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if
>> you try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
>> mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
>> I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)
>
>> More importantly, in the consumer space, few
>> people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives.
>
>Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with PVRs.
PVRs are one usage case, for the vanishingly small percentage of people
>DevilsPGD wrote
>> Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB
>>> for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
>>> when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another
>>> obstacle?
>
>> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
>> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
>> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
>
>> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
>> but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
>> incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
>> reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if
>> you try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
>> mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
>> I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)
>
>> More importantly, in the consumer space, few
>> people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives.
>
>Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with PVRs.
that 1) Have a PVR, 2) Overload the PVR, 3) Have the will to upgrade
their PVR, 4) Have a PVR that can be upgraded, 5) Have a PVR that can
handle larger than 2TB drives and 6) Have a PVR that can only handle a
single drive.
Like I said, "few people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives." Some do,
and pointing out specific narrow examples just makes my point.
>> In the high density storage business world, smaller,
>> more power efficient drives are all the rage.
>
>Not with the operations that need massive amounts of storage like google.
lot of storage, but they also need very low latency, so having more
spindles can make sense.
Power efficiency:TB is probably a bigger factor than raw TB count, get
the power cost low enough and it makes sense to crank up the spindle
count for performance reasons.
>> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of
>> the major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods
>> will probably leave us around the current range for a while.
>
>They didnt all build in Thailand.
Thailand, so the market will be affected for a while.
Arno
Feb 1, 2012, 12:37:10 AM2/1/12
to
Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
> Arno wrote:
>> Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB
>> > for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
>> > when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another
>> > obstacle?
>>
>> The technology is at its limits. 8TB does not make ecconomic
>> sense, it would not fit standard HDD case sizes and it would
>> take forever due to slow interfaces. It would also be very
>> expensive. As to size progression, why would you expect
>> 8TB? Sizes did never increase in tsucha large step.
> The perception of time varies a lot, so it's very subjective, but it seems
> like the software limit that held us to 2TB lasted longer than the software
> limit that held us to 528MB. When the 528MB limit was overcome we reached
> 2GB very soon as I recall.
> The maximum size available in 1993 was 528MB and in 2003 it was 250GB. A
> multiple of 500 in 10 years. Maybe that should be 1995, but then it would
> have been only 8 years.
> Since then it has changed by a factor of 12 in 8 years. So I asked if there
> is a specific obstacle that is now in the way.
Ah, yes. There is: Data density per area. And it looks like this
> Arno wrote:
>> Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB
>> > for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
>> > when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another
>> > obstacle?
>>
>> The technology is at its limits. 8TB does not make ecconomic
>> sense, it would not fit standard HDD case sizes and it would
>> take forever due to slow interfaces. It would also be very
>> expensive. As to size progression, why would you expect
>> 8TB? Sizes did never increase in tsucha large step.
> The perception of time varies a lot, so it's very subjective, but it seems
> like the software limit that held us to 2TB lasted longer than the software
> limit that held us to 528MB. When the 528MB limit was overcome we reached
> 2GB very soon as I recall.
> The maximum size available in 1993 was 528MB and in 2003 it was 250GB. A
> multiple of 500 in 10 years. Maybe that should be 1995, but then it would
> have been only 8 years.
> Since then it has changed by a factor of 12 in 8 years. So I asked if there
> is a specific obstacle that is now in the way.
time it may be a hard limit, i.e. one that cannot be overcome
anytime soon.
Arno
> Case size, interface speed, and price have always been factors.
> --
> Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
> zero, and remove the last word.
Rod Speed
Feb 1, 2012, 12:58:16 AM2/1/12
to
DevilsPGD wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> for the vanishingly small percentage of people
Even sillier.
> that 1) Have a PVR,
Thats nothing like a vanishingly small percentage.
> 2) Overload the PVR,
Even sillier. You dont have to overload it to need more than 2/3TB.
> 3) Have the will to upgrade their PVR,
Even sillier when PVRs would be supplied with the larger
drives if they were available and reasonably priced.
> 4) Have a PVR that can be upgraded,
Or are buying a PVR.
> 5) Have a PVR that can handle larger than 2TB drives
Which they will certainly do when the larger
drives are available and are reasonably priced.
> and 6) Have a PVR that can only handle a single drive.
Even sillier.
> Like I said, "few people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives."
Repeating that stupid pig ignorant claim changes nothing.
> Some do, and pointing out specific narrow examples just makes my point.
Taint a narrow example at all, fool.
>>> In the high density storage business world, smaller,
>>> more power efficient drives are all the rage.
>> Not with the operations that need massive amounts of storage like google.
> Things work a little differently in the business world.
Not on the need for drives bigger than 2/3TB they dont except in the
sense that operations like google need immense amounts of storage.
> Google needs a lot of storage,
And they aint alone in that.
> but they also need very low latency, so having more spindles can make sense.
Like hell it does with the immense amount of storage they need.
They'd have plenty of spindles even with drives bigger than 2/3TB.
> Power efficiency:TB is probably a bigger factor than raw TB count,
Wrong, as always.
> get the power cost low enough and it makes sense
> to crank up the spindle count for performance reasons.
Not with the immense amount of storage operations like
google need, they already have vast numbers of spindles.
>>> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of
>>> the major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods
>>> will probably leave us around the current range for a while.
>> They didnt all build in Thailand.
> No, but a significant percentage of drives were manufactured
> in Thailand, so the market will be affected for a while.
Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made about MOST MANUFACTURERS.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> DevilsPGD wrote
>>> Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote
>>>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB
>>>> for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when
>>>> the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
>>> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
>>> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
>>> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
>>> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the
>>> future, but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather
>>> than an incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough,
>>> performance or reliability suffer greatly along with significant
>>> cost increases if
>>> you try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases,
>>> likely mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in
>>> other words, I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher
>>> capacity drives)
>>> More importantly, in the consumer space, few
>>> people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives.
>> Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with PVRs.
> PVRs are one usage case,
Which blows your silly claim completely out of the water.
>>> Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote
>>>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB
>>>> for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when
>>>> the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
>>> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
>>> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
>>> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
>>> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the
>>> future, but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather
>>> than an incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough,
>>> performance or reliability suffer greatly along with significant
>>> cost increases if
>>> you try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases,
>>> likely mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in
>>> other words, I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher
>>> capacity drives)
>>> More importantly, in the consumer space, few
>>> people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives.
>> Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with PVRs.
> PVRs are one usage case,
> for the vanishingly small percentage of people
> that 1) Have a PVR,
> 2) Overload the PVR,
Even sillier. You dont have to overload it to need more than 2/3TB.
> 3) Have the will to upgrade their PVR,
drives if they were available and reasonably priced.
> 4) Have a PVR that can be upgraded,
> 5) Have a PVR that can handle larger than 2TB drives
drives are available and are reasonably priced.
> and 6) Have a PVR that can only handle a single drive.
> Like I said, "few people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives."
> Some do, and pointing out specific narrow examples just makes my point.
>>> In the high density storage business world, smaller,
>>> more power efficient drives are all the rage.
>> Not with the operations that need massive amounts of storage like google.
> Things work a little differently in the business world.
sense that operations like google need immense amounts of storage.
> Google needs a lot of storage,
> but they also need very low latency, so having more spindles can make sense.
They'd have plenty of spindles even with drives bigger than 2/3TB.
> Power efficiency:TB is probably a bigger factor than raw TB count,
> get the power cost low enough and it makes sense
> to crank up the spindle count for performance reasons.
google need, they already have vast numbers of spindles.
>>> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of
>>> the major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods
>>> will probably leave us around the current range for a while.
>> They didnt all build in Thailand.
> No, but a significant percentage of drives were manufactured
> in Thailand, so the market will be affected for a while.
rb
Jan 31, 2012, 12:56:40 PM1/31/12
to
Tom Del Rosso;1326515 Wrote:
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for
> the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the
> gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
>
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ask_doctor/why_2tb_ceiling.
That said, Samsung has already broken the 3TB limit, and they claim 10TB
drives are on the way-->
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/samsung_hits_1tb_platter_%E2%80%93_4tb_desktop_1tb_notebook_drives_shipping_soon
Joe Kotroczo
Feb 1, 2012, 5:27:42 AM2/1/12
to
<http://www.hitachigst.com/internal-drives/desktop/deskstar/deskstar-7k4000>
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
Lynn McGuire
Feb 1, 2012, 12:30:30 PM2/1/12
to
two client of hard drives after consumers right now
(saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
Lynn
DevilsPGD
Feb 1, 2012, 11:15:26 PM2/1/12
to
In the last episode of <jgbss4$cig$2...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
where cost factors in the original purchase price and energy consumption
over it's lifespan (including cooling) vs some combination of
performance and size. Physical size and formfactor is also a factor, of
course.
In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1
PB drive"
Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they beat out the price
point that modern drives achieve.
<l...@winsim.com> said:
>Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>(saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>
>The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
I doubt they care. Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
>Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>(saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>
>The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
where cost factors in the original purchase price and energy consumption
over it's lifespan (including cooling) vs some combination of
performance and size. Physical size and formfactor is also a factor, of
course.
In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1
PB drive"
Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they beat out the price
point that modern drives achieve.
Arno
Feb 2, 2012, 12:44:44 AM2/2/12
to
DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In the last episode of <jgbss4$cig$2...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
> <l...@winsim.com> said:
>>Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>>two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>>(saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
>> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>>
>>The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
> I doubt they care. Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
> where cost factors in the original purchase price and energy consumption
> over it's lifespan (including cooling) vs some combination of
> performance and size. Physical size and formfactor is also a factor, of
> course.
> In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1
> PB drive"
> Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they beat out the price
> point that modern drives achieve.
I think another issue is more problematic: I/O bandwidth to
> In the last episode of <jgbss4$cig$2...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
> <l...@winsim.com> said:
>>Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>>two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>>(saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
>> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>>
>>The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
> I doubt they care. Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
> where cost factors in the original purchase price and energy consumption
> over it's lifespan (including cooling) vs some combination of
> performance and size. Physical size and formfactor is also a factor, of
> course.
> In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1
> PB drive"
> Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they beat out the price
> point that modern drives achieve.
capacity ratio. It has gotten worse and worse over time for
HDDs. Not a surprise as data-density increases on a plane,
while r/w is done on circles. Unless you have rare access
for most data, large disks are not very useful. Now, "the
cloud" (stupid term, it really is just client-server computing),
may turn out to be a gigantic data-heap, in which case the more
capacity, the better, but I somehow doubt that, as it clearly
is unreliable as a storage solution. These days, Megaupload
demonstrates the fundamental problem. It also demonstrates
thet "the cloud" is really a number of different special-purpose
clouds. For storage, large capacity may matter, but see the
lack of maturity of the whole idea. For computing, I do not
see this at all, and neither for presence (web-server, e.g.)
clouds.
Side note: The main selling-point for SSDs is that they
have a far saner I/O to capacity rating. This also explains
why they sell so well, despite being massively more expensive.
Arno
David Brown
Feb 2, 2012, 2:51:56 AM2/2/12
to
On 02/02/2012 06:44, Arno wrote:
> DevilsPGD<booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> In the last episode of<jgbss4$cig$2...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
>> <l...@winsim.com> said:
>
>>> Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>>> two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>>> (saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
>>> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>>>
>>> The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
>
>> I doubt they care. Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
>> where cost factors in the original purchase price and energy consumption
>> over it's lifespan (including cooling) vs some combination of
>> performance and size. Physical size and formfactor is also a factor, of
>> course.
>
>> In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1
>> PB drive"
>
>> Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they beat out the price
>> point that modern drives achieve.
>
> I think another issue is more problematic: I/O bandwidth to
> capacity ratio. It has gotten worse and worse over time for
> HDDs. Not a surprise as data-density increases on a plane,
> while r/w is done on circles. Unless you have rare access
> for most data, large disks are not very useful.
There are a number of uses of large disks, that could always benefit
> DevilsPGD<booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> In the last episode of<jgbss4$cig$2...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
>> <l...@winsim.com> said:
>
>>> Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>>> two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>>> (saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
>>> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>>>
>>> The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
>
>> I doubt they care. Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
>> where cost factors in the original purchase price and energy consumption
>> over it's lifespan (including cooling) vs some combination of
>> performance and size. Physical size and formfactor is also a factor, of
>> course.
>
>> In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1
>> PB drive"
>
>> Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they beat out the price
>> point that modern drives achieve.
>
> I think another issue is more problematic: I/O bandwidth to
> capacity ratio. It has gotten worse and worse over time for
> HDDs. Not a surprise as data-density increases on a plane,
> while r/w is done on circles. Unless you have rare access
> for most data, large disks are not very useful.
from even larger disks.
In some cases, the I/O bandwidth you need is limited and doesn't have to
scale, such as for PVR's or home media servers. There is a limit to how
many streams you can watch at the same time, but there is no limit to
the number of movies you might want to store on the system.
Sometimes your main priorities are to have cheap (and power-efficient)
space, but bandwidth and latency don't matter much - backup and archives
are typical cases.
The other thing that large drives give you is more flexible raid options
for larger arrays. Typical tradeoffs mean people often use raid5 or
raid6 to get redundancy without too much wasted space. Raid10 is often
faster and safer, but much less space efficient. With bigger drives,
that becomes less relevant. I have a server with 5 500GB disks in a
raid5 (2TB total) - I would rather have 3 2TB disks in a 3-way raid10
mirror (same 2TB total) with greater redundancy, safer rebuilds, and
faster access for many usage patterns. But 2 TB was not an option when
it was built.
In many other cases, you are correct that there is no point in adding
more data space without correspondingly more I/O bandwidth - and that
can be best done by adding more disks, not bigger disks.
Lynn McGuire
Feb 2, 2012, 5:47:00 PM2/2/12
to
On 1/30/2012 2:12 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
Amazon is selling a 4 TB Seagate for $425:
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barracuda-ST4000DX000-SATA-Drive/dp/B005WX3NEU/
Lynn
Rod Speed
Feb 2, 2012, 9:20:20 PM2/2/12
to
DevilsPGD wrote
> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote
>> Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>> two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>> (saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
>> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>> The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
> I doubt they care.
Corse they do, 50 times less physical drives is a hell of a lot easier to handle.
> Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
Sure.
> where cost factors in the original purchase price and
> energy consumption over it's lifespan (including cooling)
> vs some combination of performance and size. Physical
> size and formfactor is also a factor, of course.
Waffle.
> In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1 PB drive"
> Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they
> beat out the price point that modern drives achieve.
Duh.
But you stupidly claimed that there is no market for drives bigger than 2/3TB.
> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote
>> Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>> two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>> (saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
>> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>> The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
> I doubt they care.
> Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
> where cost factors in the original purchase price and
> energy consumption over it's lifespan (including cooling)
> vs some combination of performance and size. Physical
> size and formfactor is also a factor, of course.
> In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1 PB drive"
> Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they
> beat out the price point that modern drives achieve.
But you stupidly claimed that there is no market for drives bigger than 2/3TB.
Man-wai Chang
Feb 6, 2012, 9:23:45 AM2/6/12
to
On 31/01/12 4:12 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
Increasing the size of a hard disk is NOT just 1+1=2, 2+2=4... ! It's
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
more about physics. :)
--
@~@ You have the right to remain silence.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora 15 i686) Linux 3.2.1
^ ^ 03:16:01 up 1 day 23:23 0 users load average: 0.01 0.03 0.08
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Arno
Feb 6, 2012, 2:10:37 PM2/6/12
to
Man-wai Chang <toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/01/12 4:12 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
>> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
> Increasing the size of a hard disk is NOT just 1+1=2, 2+2=4... ! It's
> more about physics. :)
Whaaaat? I thought bits were _logical_ objects, not physical ones???
> On 31/01/12 4:12 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
>> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
> Increasing the size of a hard disk is NOT just 1+1=2, 2+2=4... ! It's
> more about physics. :)
;-)=)
Tom Del Rosso
Feb 6, 2012, 2:32:22 PM2/6/12
to
Arno wrote:
> Man-wai Chang <toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 31/01/12 4:12 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > > Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at
> > > 2TB for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at
> > > 528MB) but when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is
> > > there another obstacle?
>
> > Increasing the size of a hard disk is NOT just 1+1=2, 2+2=4... !
> > It's more about physics. :)
>
> Whaaaat? I thought bits were _logical_ objects, not physical ones???
be ambiguous to anyone familiar with the history of the rate of growth in
capacity.
Arno
Feb 7, 2012, 3:36:12 AM2/7/12
to
Tom Del Rosso <td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
> Arno wrote:
>> Man-wai Chang <toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 31/01/12 4:12 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> > > Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at
>> > > 2TB for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at
>> > > 528MB) but when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is
>> > > there another obstacle?
>>
>> > Increasing the size of a hard disk is NOT just 1+1=2, 2+2=4... !
>> > It's more about physics. :)
>>
>> Whaaaat? I thought bits were _logical_ objects, not physical ones???
> Of course I did ask for some kind of specifics. I don't know how it could
> be ambiguous to anyone familiar with the history of the rate of growth in
> capacity.
It is not. But platter density has been staganating for some
> Arno wrote:
>> Man-wai Chang <toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 31/01/12 4:12 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> > > Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at
>> > > 2TB for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at
>> > > 528MB) but when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is
>> > > there another obstacle?
>>
>> > Increasing the size of a hard disk is NOT just 1+1=2, 2+2=4... !
>> > It's more about physics. :)
>>
>> Whaaaat? I thought bits were _logical_ objects, not physical ones???
> Of course I did ask for some kind of specifics. I don't know how it could
> be ambiguous to anyone familiar with the history of the rate of growth in
> capacity.
time now and doubling is way in the past.
Lynn McGuire
Feb 7, 2012, 12:48:39 PM2/7/12
to
On 1/30/2012 2:12 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly. We were stuck at 2TB for the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB. Is there another obstacle?
that we were suppose to get any day now ?
Lynn
Tom Del Rosso
Feb 7, 2012, 1:17:36 PM2/7/12
to
Rod Speed
Feb 7, 2012, 3:04:30 PM2/7/12
to
Lynn McGuire wrote
Just another fantasy time wise.
Arno
Feb 7, 2012, 5:30:43 PM2/7/12
to
holographic tapes that never materialized. Seems progress
is still hard and incremental, mostly in small steps.
Noob
Feb 8, 2012, 5:19:03 AM2/8/12
to
Arno wrote:
> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
>> that we were suppose to get any day now ?
>
> InPhase Technologies, after several announcements and subsequent
> delays in 2006 and 2007, announced that it would soon be introducing
> a flagship product. InPhase went out of business in February 2010 and
> had its assets seized by the state of Colorado for back taxes.
Even though the site is still running...
http://www.inphase-technologies.com/
> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
>> that we were suppose to get any day now ?
>
> Lost in hyperspace? I also remember something like 200TB
> holographic tapes that never materialized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage
> holographic tapes that never materialized.
> InPhase Technologies, after several announcements and subsequent
> delays in 2006 and 2007, announced that it would soon be introducing
> a flagship product. InPhase went out of business in February 2010 and
> had its assets seized by the state of Colorado for back taxes.
Even though the site is still running...
http://www.inphase-technologies.com/
Arno
Feb 9, 2012, 3:13:31 AM2/9/12
to
never materialize. Some can later directly be identified
as fraud, others are just over-enthusiastic researchers
(which is unprofessional) or marketing people (where this
is expected of them).
Rule of thumb: If it looks to good to be true, it practically
always is.
DevilsPGD
Feb 9, 2012, 7:04:01 PM2/9/12
to
In the last episode of <9phdhb...@mid.individual.net>, Arno
mean with an appropriate level of enthusiasm who publish in an
appropriate venue with an equally appropriate level of enthusiasm. Works
fine until someone else writes a "next big thing" article as though the
research is ready for production and we'll see products in the next few
weeks.
Despite the technology for something existing, it's not necessarily
feasible to bring it to market (or even to package it up as a sellable
package without other pieces)
Imagine you design a read/write head for a hard drive that can work at
100,000rpm. All it takes is one idiot journalist to write up a "hard
drive speeds improving 10x-500x with new head" to fail to notice that
spinning platters at that speed isn't particularly feasible or practical
for a variety of other engineering reasons.
However, there are plenty of "revolutionary" technologies that we see
become evolutionary products. SSDs are a perfect example, we've had
flash drives for years, but only once all the pieces evolved did we
start to see practical primary storage.
<m...@privacy.net> said:
>Why am I not surprised. Most "revolutionary" technologies
>never materialize. Some can later directly be identified
>as fraud, others are just over-enthusiastic researchers
>(which is unprofessional) or marketing people (where this
>is expected of them).
Don't forget researchers who describe what they've got and what it might
>Why am I not surprised. Most "revolutionary" technologies
>never materialize. Some can later directly be identified
>as fraud, others are just over-enthusiastic researchers
>(which is unprofessional) or marketing people (where this
>is expected of them).
mean with an appropriate level of enthusiasm who publish in an
appropriate venue with an equally appropriate level of enthusiasm. Works
fine until someone else writes a "next big thing" article as though the
research is ready for production and we'll see products in the next few
weeks.
Despite the technology for something existing, it's not necessarily
feasible to bring it to market (or even to package it up as a sellable
package without other pieces)
Imagine you design a read/write head for a hard drive that can work at
100,000rpm. All it takes is one idiot journalist to write up a "hard
drive speeds improving 10x-500x with new head" to fail to notice that
spinning platters at that speed isn't particularly feasible or practical
for a variety of other engineering reasons.
However, there are plenty of "revolutionary" technologies that we see
become evolutionary products. SSDs are a perfect example, we've had
flash drives for years, but only once all the pieces evolved did we
start to see practical primary storage.
Arno
Feb 10, 2012, 12:48:42 PM2/10/12
to
DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In the last episode of <9phdhb...@mid.individual.net>, Arno
> <m...@privacy.net> said:
>>Why am I not surprised. Most "revolutionary" technologies
>>never materialize. Some can later directly be identified
>>as fraud, others are just over-enthusiastic researchers
>>(which is unprofessional) or marketing people (where this
>>is expected of them).
> Don't forget researchers who describe what they've got and what it might
> mean with an appropriate level of enthusiasm who publish in an
> appropriate venue with an equally appropriate level of enthusiasm. Works
> fine until someone else writes a "next big thing" article as though the
> research is ready for production and we'll see products in the next few
> weeks.
Indeed. In this case the researcher may be enthusiastic because
> In the last episode of <9phdhb...@mid.individual.net>, Arno
> <m...@privacy.net> said:
>>Why am I not surprised. Most "revolutionary" technologies
>>never materialize. Some can later directly be identified
>>as fraud, others are just over-enthusiastic researchers
>>(which is unprofessional) or marketing people (where this
>>is expected of them).
> Don't forget researchers who describe what they've got and what it might
> mean with an appropriate level of enthusiasm who publish in an
> appropriate venue with an equally appropriate level of enthusiasm. Works
> fine until someone else writes a "next big thing" article as though the
> research is ready for production and we'll see products in the next few
> weeks.
"maybe in 50 years we will have this hard problem solved!!!",
which is perfectly fine to be enthusiastic for when you are
doing research.
> Despite the technology for something existing, it's not necessarily
> feasible to bring it to market (or even to package it up as a sellable
> package without other pieces)
bad. See, e.g., flying cars for normal people (not feasible
before fundamental breakthrough in both portable energy sources
and AI for steering)
> Imagine you design a read/write head for a hard drive that can work at
> 100,000rpm. All it takes is one idiot journalist to write up a "hard
> drive speeds improving 10x-500x with new head" to fail to notice that
> spinning platters at that speed isn't particularly feasible or practical
> for a variety of other engineering reasons.
> However, there are plenty of "revolutionary" technologies that we see
> become evolutionary products. SSDs are a perfect example, we've had
> flash drives for years, but only once all the pieces evolved did we
> start to see practical primary storage.
predecessor is older. Just not in sizes and at prices where using
them as ordinary storage made sense. We are there now and as soon
as the right cost ratio was reached, things exploded. But the first
lab demo is maybe 30-35 years in the past.
DevilsPGD
Feb 10, 2012, 2:14:49 PM2/10/12
to
In the last episode of <9pl3jq...@mid.individual.net>, Arno
several engineering problems, it is still a worthwhile step forward. If
it were cheap enough, might make 10,000rpm-15,000rpm drives more
practical for consumer/prosumer use overnight, so while the underlying
tech might be revolutionary, the resulting product will generally be
evolutionary.
That's not a bad thing, it's just important to remember when reading
hype styled articles.
>> However, there are plenty of "revolutionary" technologies that we see
>> become evolutionary products. SSDs are a perfect example, we've had
>> flash drives for years, but only once all the pieces evolved did we
>> start to see practical primary storage.
>
>FLASH technology is about 25 years on the market now. EEPROM as
>predecessor is older. Just not in sizes and at prices where using
>them as ordinary storage made sense. We are there now and as soon
>as the right cost ratio was reached, things exploded. But the first
>lab demo is maybe 30-35 years in the past.
Flash was potentially revolutionary when it was first invented but by
the time it hit the market as storage for general purpose computing, it
was just an evolutionary step forward from the on-market alternatives.
Remember the first USB key flash drives to hit the market? Thousands of
write cycles, no wear leveling, performance that beat out floppy drive
alternatives, but not by much, etc. It was only barely an evolutionary
step forward in terms of practical use when compared to a ZIP drive or
similar.
SSDs were just a series of small steps forward, densities increased,
reliability increased, production costs decreased, along with software
to cover over the rough edges (wear leveling, limited write cycles,
write reliability in general)
Each of those small steps could have been sensationalized in the media,
had anyone caught wind of one on a slow news day.
Still, many of the sensationalized stories have potential to be realized
over the long term.
<m...@privacy.net> said:
>DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> In the last episode of <9phdhb...@mid.individual.net>, Arno
>> <m...@privacy.net> said:
>
>> Imagine you design a read/write head for a hard drive that can work at
>> 100,000rpm. All it takes is one idiot journalist to write up a "hard
>> drive speeds improving 10x-500x with new head" to fail to notice that
>> spinning platters at that speed isn't particularly feasible or practical
>> for a variety of other engineering reasons.
>
>Nice example!
Doubly so because even if this phantom disk head only solves one of
>DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> In the last episode of <9phdhb...@mid.individual.net>, Arno
>> <m...@privacy.net> said:
>
>> Imagine you design a read/write head for a hard drive that can work at
>> 100,000rpm. All it takes is one idiot journalist to write up a "hard
>> drive speeds improving 10x-500x with new head" to fail to notice that
>> spinning platters at that speed isn't particularly feasible or practical
>> for a variety of other engineering reasons.
>
>Nice example!
several engineering problems, it is still a worthwhile step forward. If
it were cheap enough, might make 10,000rpm-15,000rpm drives more
practical for consumer/prosumer use overnight, so while the underlying
tech might be revolutionary, the resulting product will generally be
evolutionary.
That's not a bad thing, it's just important to remember when reading
hype styled articles.
>> However, there are plenty of "revolutionary" technologies that we see
>> become evolutionary products. SSDs are a perfect example, we've had
>> flash drives for years, but only once all the pieces evolved did we
>> start to see practical primary storage.
>
>FLASH technology is about 25 years on the market now. EEPROM as
>predecessor is older. Just not in sizes and at prices where using
>them as ordinary storage made sense. We are there now and as soon
>as the right cost ratio was reached, things exploded. But the first
>lab demo is maybe 30-35 years in the past.
the time it hit the market as storage for general purpose computing, it
was just an evolutionary step forward from the on-market alternatives.
Remember the first USB key flash drives to hit the market? Thousands of
write cycles, no wear leveling, performance that beat out floppy drive
alternatives, but not by much, etc. It was only barely an evolutionary
step forward in terms of practical use when compared to a ZIP drive or
similar.
SSDs were just a series of small steps forward, densities increased,
reliability increased, production costs decreased, along with software
to cover over the rough edges (wear leveling, limited write cycles,
write reliability in general)
Each of those small steps could have been sensationalized in the media,
had anyone caught wind of one on a slow news day.
Still, many of the sensationalized stories have potential to be realized
over the long term.
Franc Zabkar
Feb 11, 2012, 2:23:45 PM2/11/12
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:48:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:
>What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
>that we were suppose to get any day now ?
Here's another one:
Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording (HAMR):
http://kd63.seagatestorage.com/6A7EEB3777?elqPURLPage=4019&elq=767E7C6098DC4837964DF258F71C6625
http://hddscan.blogspot.com/2011/01/hamr-or-path-of-jedi.html
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
finger to keyboard and composed:
>What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
>that we were suppose to get any day now ?
Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording (HAMR):
http://kd63.seagatestorage.com/6A7EEB3777?elqPURLPage=4019&elq=767E7C6098DC4837964DF258F71C6625
http://hddscan.blogspot.com/2011/01/hamr-or-path-of-jedi.html
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
0 new messages