bit-tech.net

Are we Ready for 3TB Hard Disks?

Comments 26 to 50 of 65

Reply
Cas 1st June 2010, 15:59 Quote
I am surprised that there is only one small line in the article with regards to Linux support, and it fails to mention the fact that Grub already supports GPT without needing a new UEFI motherboard.
jrs77 1st June 2010, 16:04 Quote
I think it's rather funny to see so much people, that need this much capacity.

I've got two gaming/working-rigs, an ION-based media-box and a MacBook Pro... all of them 4 machines together don't have more HDD-capacity then 1TB.

Oh and even my NAS only has 2x 1TB in RAID 1.
Cepheus 1st June 2010, 16:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fractal
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
I did the math on rebuilding RAID5 arrays from large hard drives for a storage project a couple of years ago. The error rates quoted by manufacturers, combined with the huge data storage volumes of modern disks compared with their counterparts when the RAID levels were defined, meant it was unsafe to rely on even a RAID6 with 8 drives to be able to successfully rebuild a failed disk without further errors cropping up if the disks were larger than 1TB. Looks like it won't be long until even single drives will be likely to suffer unrecoverable errors before you even fill them up. New tech pls!

That seems unreasonable. I have 6x 1.5TB discs in RAID 5 and it only takes 2 days to rebuild (while still uploading data 24/7). Considering statistically that I'm expecting to have around 1 HDD fail on me this year then it is extremely unlikely that more than one will fail at a time.

It's not quite that.

What he's saying is that each hard disk has a likelihood of accidentally introducing a bad sector.
This, for a raid five system will stop a rebuild in it's tracks, because it will be unable to recover that block correctly.

The more data you have, the more the chance of that happening. We've got to the point where for a RAID 5 system with 1tb hdds, the likelihood of there being a bad sector is very high. It's one of the drawbacks listed on wikipedia of having large raid 5 arrays.
Quote:
The tradeoffs of larger redundancy groups are greater probability of a simultaneous double disk failure, the increased time to rebuild a redundancy group, and the greater probability of encountering an unrecoverable sector during RAID reconstruction.
rickysio 1st June 2010, 17:11 Quote
So everyone needs to RAID 5 with the old 40GB drives!

I understand the fact that reliability is compromised - but surely these manufacturers would have improved reliability first? Their principal clients, are after all, the enterprise, which value reliability.
The_Beast 1st June 2010, 18:24 Quote
Very cool, now it comes down to price
Moyo2k 1st June 2010, 19:02 Quote
HAMR Time joke was painful :p
Doglobster 1st June 2010, 21:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
I think it's rather funny to see so much people, that need this much capacity.

I've got two gaming/working-rigs, an ION-based media-box and a MacBook Pro... all of them 4 machines together don't have more HDD-capacity then 1TB.

Oh and even my NAS only has 2x 1TB in RAID 1.

Think about storing uncompressed bluray iso's at 30 gigs+
each and it doesn't seem so outrageous.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 1st June 2010, 22:03 Quote
First Off if your Booting from a 1tb drive or higher your just asking for trouble. Common sense says boot and run OS from 500 gb or smaller, run a raid set up from 700 gb or smaller HDD's and only use 1 TB or greater for storage. Hell my 2 TB HDD is external and I would never use it as OS or running .exe files (I even spray painted U-Haul on it as it's nothing but storage).

But if bigger is your dream go ahead and when Hamr FAILS and you just lost your Boot sec, OS, and Porn collection you'll be sorry.
jonmcc33 1st June 2010, 22:03 Quote
Shame about the noise? What noise? My 2TB Samsung F3 is completely silent when running.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryu_ookami
3TB seems an awful lot of data to lose when and if the drive ever fails saying that though I said the same thing about the 2TB

I use a 2TB Samsung drive in an external USB enclosure. It only powers on when I back up data to it, which is redundantly backed up on DVD+R. So the drive is barely on and if it does die then I still have all the data on DVD+R, which will take a long time to restore.

I use Directory Lister to make HTML file listings of all the data on the drive as well.
jonmcc33 1st June 2010, 22:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
First Off if your Booting from a 1tb drive or higher your just asking for trouble. Common sense says boot and run OS from 500 gb or smaller, run a raid set up from 700 gb or smaller HDD's and only use 1 TB or greater for storage. Hell my 2 TB HDD is external and I would never use it as OS or running .exe files (I even spray painted U-Haul on it as it's nothing but storage).

But if bigger is your dream go ahead and when Hamr FAILS and you just lost your Boot sec, OS, and Porn collection you'll be sorry.

I set up a 300GB partition on my 1TB drive for the OS/apps. I have used the backup feature in Windows 7 to make a backup image and stored that file on a external USB hard drive. All my porn is backed up to an external USB hard drive as well.

Make back ups (lesson learned) and you won't need to worry about losing anything.
DanaG 1st June 2010, 22:08 Quote
Actually, it's not all that hard to switch a system from MBR-based booting to UEFI-based booting:
http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t186207.html

I know HP's business laptops use UEFI (though the first-gen EliteBooks have it somewhat broken); yet their desktops -- the only place you'd possibly find a 3TB drive -- do not!

UEFI is also fun to mess with -- I once loaded Apple's Firewire EFI modules on my laptop, and was able to boot Linux from Firewire even though the system doesn't normally support that.
Pookeyhead 1st June 2010, 23:12 Quote
I'll sit back and let all this blow over... let people insane enough to want to boot from a 3TB disk sort it all out. Meanwhile, I'll just use these 3TB drives for storage or a RAID array... and carry on booting from a decent sized disk or a SSD.

If you have a modern PC with a 64bit OS you can use a 3TB drive as a non-bootable device already.


Job done :)
docodine 1st June 2010, 23:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkmaarder
Interesting but a bit one sided view. There are a lot of users who have both a 64bit OS and EFI motherboard.

All Apple computers now come with both. So I am looking forward to 4TB disk in 2010. And if you are still using Windows XP 32bit or hang on to the old fashioned BIOS its YOU who are holding back development not the industry.

What do you think of this?

And yes I know this is not an Apple fan site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo
Nature 2nd June 2010, 00:52 Quote
"Are we Ready for 3TB Hard Disks"


I'm just here to dance. So back up off this. I'ma indapendent lady, so don't you try to play me. Huh-huh! You think you're really sexy, you think you're ready 3 TB of HD space.... But you're not! Too hot, ohhh ohh woah-a too hot! 3TB got goin' crazy, make overs and gucci baby, 3TB!!! 3TB!!!
deadsea 2nd June 2010, 03:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
So everyone needs to RAID 5 with the old 40GB drives!

I understand the fact that reliability is compromised - but surely these manufacturers would have improved reliability first? Their principal clients, are after all, the enterprise, which value reliability.


Doesn't matter how low the fail rates go. As the number of total sectors in an array increases, the higher the total number of possible bad sectors. Kinda like a lottery, albeit one that you don't want to win. The more tickets you buy, the more likely you'll win. Even when the chances are 1 in a billion.
play_boy_2000 2nd June 2010, 06:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
so it's only an issue for booting, who in their right mind would only buy one single largest hard drive commercially available without a SSD?

SSD should be compulsory for new computers these days.

What M$ really needs to do is make a slick way of installing the core OS files (C:\windows\*) on a flash drive (32GB should suffice (lol, my windows folder is 19GB)) and everything else on a mechanical drive, all the while making it appear to be a single seamless HD (should be easy, as iirc ntfs partitions can be mounted as a folder).
knyghtryda 2nd June 2010, 08:12 Quote
For those of you going "but who needs that kind of space!", just try working with HD 1080p video and 18MP raw images. I'm not even talking about professional work here, just the odd project here and there or personal work. 1 TB will last you about a week if you're lucky, and even a good 8TB RAID5 setup will start to seem small once you begin racking up the projects. I'm in the process of getting a rig setup for a long personal project, and I might just duplicate my 8TB setup from home for the road just to make sure I don't have storage issues. Now that being said.... booting off anything bigger than 500GB is just stupid and a waste of space. Get yourself a SSD already!
rickysio 2nd June 2010, 08:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by knyghtryda
For those of you going "but who needs that kind of space!", just try working with HD 1080p video and 18MP raw images. I'm not even talking about professional work here, just the odd project here and there or personal work. 1 TB will last you about a week if you're lucky, and even a good 8TB RAID5 setup will start to seem small once you begin racking up the projects. I'm in the process of getting a rig setup for a long personal project, and I might just duplicate my 8TB setup from home for the road just to make sure I don't have storage issues. Now that being said.... booting off anything bigger than 500GB is just stupid and a waste of space. Get yourself a SSD already!

Most of them also say the same thing about UnknownLobster's Black Dwarf NAS, so just ignore them.
outlawaol 2nd June 2010, 09:13 Quote
If they are saying the problem isnt the density for the platters, but the implementation of the use of the space. Why not simply build a drive that thinks its two drives? Think of dual GPU's and you'll understand what I mean. I am sure that it could be done, its just a matter of multi disk management on a single drive. I would have no issue buying a single drive and having two 'drives' in My Computer. Anyone up for 4tb drives? :)
jrs77 2nd June 2010, 09:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by knyghtryda
For those of you going "but who needs that kind of space!", just try working with HD 1080p video and 18MP raw images. I'm not even talking about professional work here, just the odd project here and there or personal work. 1 TB will last you about a week if you're lucky, and even a good 8TB RAID5 setup will start to seem small once you begin racking up the projects. I'm in the process of getting a rig setup for a long personal project, and I might just duplicate my 8TB setup from home for the road just to make sure I don't have storage issues. Now that being said.... booting off anything bigger than 500GB is just stupid and a waste of space. Get yourself a SSD already!

I'm working as a graphics-designer and I've only accumulated some 100GB of material over the last 5 years, since I've started my own little agency.
Those 100GB include all project-files aswell as all raw picture-files I'll add and some Photoshop-files have well over 100MB sometimes.

Sure, If you're going to save those 18MP-photos in RAW, then you'll have som 50MB-files, but compressed as JPG they're down to some 2MB.

Video is another question for sure...
phuzz 2nd June 2010, 10:53 Quote
Most Dells from the past year or so have had UEFI BIOS's (or at least all the one's I've been playing with at work). Also, GPT works fine for non boot disks on 2k3 x64 and vista/Win7 x64 for me.
Xir 2nd June 2010, 11:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmcc33
I use a 2TB Samsung drive in an external USB enclosure. It only powers on when I back up data to it, which is redundantly backed up on DVD+R.

I dare to doubt that.
That's a huuuuuuuuuuge stack of DVD+R's you're talking about.

2048GB in 4,7GB chunks (using a chunk optimizer software) = 436 DVD's :D

A backup would cost you...(let's be generous and say 10 min each) about 73 hours. ;)
play_boy_2000 2nd June 2010, 14:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by outlawaol
If they are saying the problem isnt the density for the platters, but the implementation of the use of the space. Why not simply build a drive that thinks its two drives? Think of dual GPU's and you'll understand what I mean. I am sure that it could be done, its just a matter of multi disk management on a single drive. I would have no issue buying a single drive and having two 'drives' in My Computer. Anyone up for 4tb drives? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_partitioning

windows still knows it's one disk, so i doubt this would solve the 2tb limit
TomH 2nd June 2010, 14:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cepheus
It's not quite that.

What he's saying is that each hard disk has a likelihood of accidentally introducing a bad sector.
This, for a raid five system will stop a rebuild in it's tracks, because it will be unable to recover that block correctly.

The more data you have, the more the chance of that happening. We've got to the point where for a RAID 5 system with 1tb hdds, the likelihood of there being a bad sector is very high. It's one of the drawbacks listed on wikipedia of having large raid 5 arrays.
What you need to look at is the BER, or Bit Error Rate. This is usually buried deep within the specifications of the drive itself, but it's the claimed chance (by the manufacturer) of having an un-recoverable error somewhere in the disk (be it the SATA controller, cache, spindle, etc.) and thus a failed read/write.

See this ZDNet article for a better explanation of how it affects you. What you'll notice is that the BER's are usually an order of magnitude better than the example in that article. However, even if you want to ignore it on that fact - you need to wonder if a) the manufacturer was correct and b) if you want to take that chance that they're wrong, even if you're willing to risk the odds of an error being significantly higher the closer that you get to the theoretical limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaG
Actually, it's not all that hard to switch a system from MBR-based booting to UEFI-based booting:
http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t186207.html
Interesting article! I wasn't ruling-out the chance that it could be done, but I knew Windows wouldn't be able to do it by itself. Always hilarious when Linux does a better job of fixing/adjusting Windows than Windows. :)
wuyanxu 2nd June 2010, 17:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by play_boy_2000
What M$ really needs to do is make a slick way of installing the core OS files (C:\windows\*) on a flash drive (32GB should suffice (lol, my windows folder is 19GB)) and everything else on a mechanical drive, all the while making it appear to be a single seamless HD (should be easy, as iirc ntfs partitions can be mounted as a folder).
easy: make an unattended install disk.

i did it with my install and it's working perfectly. a bit fiddly but still very nice.

Linux distro's install method are preferred, there's a root and a usr can be installed in separate drive. all done very easily through installer.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums