Are we Ready for 3TB Hard Disks?

Comments 51 to 65 of 65

Saivert 2nd June 2010, 22:24 Quote
also nothing prevents you from installing programs somewhere else then program files folder.
I keep all my games + steam on a separate drive. I never lose that stuff when I reinstall windows.

but is there anything else to discuss about 3TB drives now?
Tele1952 3rd June 2010, 02:03 Quote
This is rather farcical but do you think one day they will release a 1 Petabyte Hard Disk?
GMX09 3rd June 2010, 02:50 Quote
I'm about to order a 1.5TB but that's all I'm going to need for the next few years or so. Whenever my HDD gets full I erase stuff for the lulz.

So, I think the answer to the question "are you ready for 3TB HDD's" is no in my case.
LightningPete 3rd June 2010, 13:35 Quote
i dont think theres any need for concern here. If and when they come out will cost twice as much as a 2x2TB capacity... Yes you lose one space in your tower, but if your so concerned about storage, your tower will be using all the bays for hard drives anyway!
uSlackr 3rd June 2010, 15:16 Quote
Originally Posted by memeroot
surely there are better aproaches

And yet you offer no alternative.
uSlackr 3rd June 2010, 15:17 Quote
Originally Posted by rickysio
Flip off the top?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Besides, 3TB sounds small when you look at the figures from :

Indeed, but I think he was suggesting you do so on a drive you plan to discard...
uSlackr 3rd June 2010, 15:19 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

Of course we've said that with 1GB drives and 160s. Time moves on and yesterday's improbables become today's likelies...
uSlackr 3rd June 2010, 15:23 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).

Can you explain the common sense behind your choice of 500GB & 700GB? I've always used MUCH smaller partitions for the OS.
dispie 4th June 2010, 11:26 Quote
thanks bit tech for this great information, I did not realize that going over 3Tb would be so much of a problem.

this gives a lot to think about sins 1 Tb disk run full in 1/2 a year and in mirror raids they cost a lot of energie, So am already switching then for 2 Tb but that just means the qualitie was upgraded from the back up so they run full in 3/4 of a year.

also looking at the future
I think with the demand of high qualitie downloadable content like 1080p HD movies that take up a small 6 Gb tot 12 Gb and the comming of 3d movies that the size wil increase.

So the demand for larger disk wil also increase.
PingCrosby 4th June 2010, 21:39 Quote
I remember getting a 40mb hard drive for my Amiga 1200 and was the envy of my friends.
Pookeyhead 6th June 2010, 10:17 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.

It's the short sighted attitude of people like you that creates these barriers in the first place. So well done... this is all your fault. :)

Just because you don't doesn't mean no one else does either.

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).

Can I ask though.... what the point of that is? In reality, you want faster load times for things like games, and for loading in large files into Photoshop, or large video into premiere.. then for huge amounts of scratch space for video editing etc. So it will still be mechanical disks that are doing all this work. All you've achieved by moving everything off your boot drive and having a small partition on a SSD is fast boot times. That's pretty much it.

Seriously... I still do not get the whole SSD thing. They're too small to be useful unless you pay more for the drive than you did for the whole rig.
jonmcc33 7th June 2010, 05:42 Quote
Originally Posted by Xir
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. ;)

Don't doubt it. I have a bookcase FULL of DVD wallets - all full. It's actually 4.37GB max on a DVD+R5 and 7.95GB on a DVD+R9. I have burned through so much media in the past 7-8 years that I have gone through at least 2 DVD burners per year. They just end up failing due to how much use they get. Thankfully a DVD burner is $25 or so now.

I admit, a restore would really suck. But these files are spread across multiple drives. I have a 1TB, 1.5TB and 2TB drive on my desk right now. Don't forget that a 2TB drive isn't actually 2048GB of storage capacity. It's 1853GB.

With 2TB drives dropping like a rock in price I will probably stop using DVD media. I will just copy data to a pair of external drives. One would be permanent back up in place of the DVD media. To be used until it is full and then put away.
Splynncryth 7th June 2010, 21:59 Quote
Originally Posted by Zurechial
I'm curious as to why companies like ASUS and MSI speak as though they have to develop their own UEFI BIOSes from the ground up.
Are companies like Phoenix & American Megatrends not developing baseline UEFI BIOSes that the motherboard manufacturers could buy and build-on like they do currently?

IBVs develop their code for reference platforms (a particular chipset and CPU combination like the 'Thurley' platform which the x58 is part of).. Companies like Asus and MSI can then buy a license for the source code involved and work on it themselves. So stuff like Expressgate, OC Genie, or things like that are typically developed by the OEM. UEFI is a totally different animal from BIOS, it is built on a totally different set of principals than BIOS. Just for starters, it is written in C rather than ASM, so even where it is possible to use features developed for BIOS, it's really not very practical.

I believe a number of companies are doing extremely basic ports of reference code for their platform and shipping in the low end. This lets them get to work with UEFI without a lot of risk (from what I have seen, the transition from BIOS engineer to UEFI engineer is not an easy process).
Just as an example, my MSI Wind is running a UEFI BIOS (though I'm not sure which rev of the spec it is compliant with). I can't get at any of the 'fun' features of UEFI because it seems to be set up so I can only do a legacy boot. But it is a UEFI core. At some point when I am not being totally lazy, I'll see about writing a DOS tool to scan memory for the EFI system services table. That could prove interesting to see exactly what is a UEFI core and what is a legacy core :)
Knobby 4th October 2010, 21:48 Quote
Originally Posted by jonmcc33
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.

Who needs to backup porn when the intarwebs is the biggest distributed cloud storage datacenter there is? In fact, the only data i back up is that which i make myself

after a hdd failure leave utorrent running for a few days and you'll have it all back
Cthippo 5th October 2010, 22:33 Quote
Originally Posted by TomH
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.

I keep hearing about this issue, but it always seems to be in the theoretical sense. is anyone actually having these sorts of issues, or is it just something that may happen someday? Given the number of servers out there with utterly massive arrays, it would seem that if this were as big of an issue as some people say it is, then we would be seeing un-recoverable crashes every day.
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