|
|
Seagate says: 300TB drives by the year 2010
Author: Wil HarrisPublished: 3rd January 2007
Could we soon see 300TB drives from Seagate?
Joystiq says that the technology would mean you could store 6,144 Blu-ray discs - quite enough to allow the PS3 to act as a home entertainment center with nary a disc in sight.
Seagate reckons that it can get 50GB of data in a square inch of physical space. That's some pretty stunning data density, and is sure to be something of a calamity should the drive get a bad sector.
As a Seagate tech explains, HAMR:
"Uses lasers to momentarily heat the disk surface and allow the drive heads to write information. When the surface of the drive cools, the bits settle into a more stable state for longer-term reliability. The technology allows a smaller number of grains to be used for each bit of data, taking advantage of high-stability magnetic compounds such as iron platinum."
There are surely going to be implications for reliability - many users prefer to buy drives with lower capacity, and hence lower data density, to increase the reliability of the drive.
Do you look forward to the days of multi-terabyte drives, or are you struggling to fill 160GB even now? Let us know your thoughts over in the forums.
Recent articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (70)Stats: 0.164 seconds
Man I fill 300 Gb only !!! and 200 Gb free !!! and those Talking about 300T !!! LOL I will Keep My talk With 500 GB
Thanks for news Waiting for drop this harddisk drive to 10 $
Good luck , CK
I currently regularly fill my 500GB of drives with ease (photos, DV tapes, music, Games), though as already stated the reliability of these drives would be of great concern.
I have a large DVD collection and only ever use them once, to put them on the Hard drive.
By 2010 solid state devices will also be much bigger, affordable and much more versatile.
But I would've hoped by 2010 we wouldn't be focusing so much on the clunky mechanisms of spinning discs to record/read data. I would've thought by then new tech flash memory would be the drive/focus... obviously with significantly higher storage capacities and retention/stability periods.
surely 300TB is porn!
That reminds me I just finished a wedding DVd so that will free up 60GB for now. :)
http://www.siemens.com/index.jsp?sdc_p=cfi1426061lmo1426061ps5uz1&sdc_bcpath=1327899.s_5%2C%3A1426061.s_5%2C&sdc_sid=33642822358&
And 107 Gbit/s is damn fast IMO.
'tis a nice dream, but I simple don't believe it. The upside is that disks are pretty much growing in size faster than the vast majority of users need them to.
t's good to know how press the Del button sometimes...
I have a 40 gb at home, and it is also the system disk, and i manage to download and have movies on it...so 300TB is good, but you'd better have a good sorting method, OR a good search engine !
I wish they'd focus more on non-magnetic storage - HDD's are so unreliable...
Which has relevence to this thread how? :|
I'm basing my assumption on current speeds, which for me is 10Mb.
This year NTL are due to go 25Mb along with Blueyonder and various ADSL providers, so I'm assuming in 2010 there will be the notion of 50Mb connections.
On my 10Mb I can download a 5Gb retail quality dvdr in just over an hour, so in several years time I'd expect it to complete in 15 minutes or so...
I think highlighting the need for bigger hardisk sizes is not altogether irrelevant?
But it didn't really even do that did it? I'm not even sure you're correct. Right now there really is very little need for bigger disks. The vast majority of consumers could easily be satisfied by a few hundred gigs for their holiday photos on their digicam and the few hundred mp3's they've downloaded.
And those (very very few, compared with the gen.pop) of us who're on a mission to download the entire interweb just RAID or shove a whole load of disks in there and get on with it. Bigger drives really aren't that neccesary at all right now. Just desirable.
I agree they arn't neccesary for the vast majority, however it's always the small minority of enthusiasts who push things forward in technology.
In a couple of years time though when HD material really hits it's commercial target, 'gen.pop' as you put it there will be a need for much larger storage space.
And personally my case can only accommodate two hardisks due to the watercooling setup, so I'm actually having to buy pretty expensive £500+ external NAS box to store all of my music and films on...
I think solid state memory is going to become the standard, so mechanical storage would have to remain competitively priced...
300TB may seem a lot, but think about it archiving every bit of data you own and it starts to make sense. I seem to remember it will take about 80 yottabytes (YB), a YB is 1,099,511,627,776 terabytes or a terabyte ^ 2.
the only reason i stick to 2x80Gb of Seagates for my Windows is becoz its the fastest for my RAID-0 array. just SATA2 just aint cutting it anymore.
transferring a couple gig of movies over SATA2 isnt fun. when 300TB drives (which im sure will be available. what do u think the max capacity of drives 5 years back?) arrives, games, movies, files n whatnot will be bigger. even the operating systems. and moving them across SATA2 will be a pain.
come out with SATA4 or whatever, or make cheap SCSI outof it, and ill get one of those terras...
afterall, i got 2x250+ 1x320 + 1x160 + 2x80Gb (RAID) almost full and now watching for more drives but i coudlnt get them coz i cant fit anymore drive into my small HTPC case..... bigger capacity drive will make sense, no?
Actualy you can buy cartrige holographic drives they store about 300gb per discs and are marketed at large companies and cost about £100,000 per drive.
I cant get why they will make 300TB maube for the central world server !!!
also on 2010 harddisk will be old , there some thing new im sure !!
Thanks . CK
However, on this article, as someone who has followed and participated in the storage industry for about 15 years, I have two thoughts:
1. The timetable is too tight. While the capacity will get there, it won't be there in 3 years. Even if technically possible, the market demand won't be there yet. Smart companies like Seagate don't bring products to market until there is sufficient demand. They don't just throw products at the market willy-nilly...they are in business to make money and the cash cow must be milked with incremental upgrades.
2. Just as with the numerous 750GB drives I buy today, that are readily available, they may as well plan on selling these in 2-packs. Once you get above the 1 terabyte level with online storage, your list of available options for fast, cost-effective backup gets really short. Plan on keeping hard-drive based backups of your stuff. Whether you keep the backup drive(s) 'online' or 'offline' will depends on your situation.
Man I Work video production business I cant see that I need more than 100Gb When I'm working After I complete the ( part ) or the project I copy it to 8.5 GB DVD and clean my space to be ready for anther ( part ) or work !
Of course not Movie production !!! Because I saw there studios and I worked with them they use a KICK ASS server with 5 TB for each Movie !!
This Just form My point !! ;) , Thanks , CK
Which smaller, faster, drives being used for the OS.
Whatever, we were told of usable optical discs for all, mainstream market type jazz. My point is that, these technologies get people excited and they talk about how great it could all be, but frequently we don't see what they envisage.
Umm, what? You're using 7200.9's which as far as I know aren't SCSI drives, and even if they are they're comparatively very slow against almost all other SCSI. Why on earth do you think SATA 2 "aint cutting it anymore"? It's 300MB/s! 3-4 times more data can go through there than any disk you stick in there is going to produce.
As for the idea that 2x80GB 7200.9's would be faster then a couple of modern WD or Samsung T series 500's, you need to start doing some reading if you reckon it's so, because modern drives continue to improve on bandwidth and those things ain't gonna be coming close to big perpendicular drives.
How much hotter will these run?
I suspect these will be hotter & require more power but if not then I'd like to see drive sizes shrink so laptop size drives become the standard.
Also dont forget with great power comes great responsibility, what file system would be able to keep up with that kind of drive? Fragmentation would be a massive problem, well with ntfs anyways.
Another thing i want to see, which this massive amount of storage being available is more IPTV style on demand systems like the xbox live film market having the content at your fingertips with no format war crap to deal with, and with higher bandwith broadband becoming the norm HD content isnt that unrealistic.
You've touched on something there. What will drive massive storage increases in the mainstream market is media storage...specifically, HD video storage. Reliable bandwidth for on-demand HD movies is a pretty finite quantity, and will remain so for some time, so the content industry is going to be looking for ways to deliver you content that can be cached at your local drive, and then streamed to your display device. More people are going to embrace the concept of home media servers that begin to integrate all media and this will also drive demand for more storage.
Higher quality/less compressed forms of HD video delivery will be possible only once both the bandwidth and storage capacity are there.
Along this continuum (which will evolve for the next 10 years or more), I see 2007 being the year that DRM grows up and gets real. Before you get too excited... much to our chagrin, DRM will not go away, but it WILL, however, start to move to more reasonable levels. The music industry seems to be moving in this direction (DRM free downloads for a higher price) sooner than the movie industry, but they've been generally late on all things digital....
I think history will look back at the failed launch of the ZUNE as the tipping point where consumers rejected oppressive DRM in such a dramatic way that it actually sent a strong-enough message to the content industry to reform themselves, and it may actually start a movement in that direction.
Of course, none of us will really ever get what we really want (DRM free everything)...just more 'reasonable' terms is what will result.
Anyway, back to storage: all this content needs to be stored, and this will drive the demand for more,bigger hard drives. Oh, and faster home networking.
Except that is, for the hundreds of millions who choose to take what they want on their own terms.
And I feel pathetic, that broken HDD's and huge backup HDD's just drive the market. Companies make money of your drives failing and breaking, and that is so fuc*** up.
Hard Drive is probably the most important component of a computer, yet it seems to be most outdated.
[cries and runs outside in order to ignore Windows Disk not formatted error of his 240GB photo/video HDD]
Solid State is what I reckon most people like us (enthusiasts) will be drooling over while joe public will be showing off their 100Tb Mech-Clunk-ical drives and screaming when they lose all their data.
That's because kilo is 1000 while kibi is 1024.
Same for all other suffixes.
I only filled about half my HD.
But thats technogly it keeps getting better and better for us :)
i am waiting for more reliable mechanisms for hard drives....
Allow for some over-estimation by Seagate's marketing, and say that in 2011 these things are as "Main-stream" as Seagate's current 750GB offering is today, and it's not really such a huge jump. That's only a 50x increase in storage over 4-5 years. The jump is equivalent to the jump from 15GB to 750GB...which happened over around 6-7 years.
In other words, picture yourself back in late 1999 saying "what on earth could I do with 15GB," then look at where you are today operating with hundreds of Gigabytes. Basically, Seagate is banking on the same sort of increase happening over the next ~5 years.
Touché - blame for pointless statements duly shifted to bit-tech :p
True to some extent, but again, the more you have, the more you want. Just a few years ago, 10-20 GB would have been satisfactory and was more than anybody could ever use. I remember an early computer I had (a raging P1 with 3-6 GB) had so much space, I couldn't even fill it.
Of course, content is changing. Instead of 14kb Word Documents, we have 60gb video projects. With digital camera makers insisting on pursing the megapixel race (albiet with a neglect for image quality), that drive space fills fast when you shoot a few thousand photos at 6 MB each.
It's only going to get worse as computer games take up more disk space than a single DVD, programs and operating systems start eating up more space, and HD rolls along into the standard mainstream.
Blame transfer commencing
Blame transfer now in progress. Please do not switch off your planet or unplug the collective unconsciousness while blame is being transferred.
Blame transfer completed successfully, have a nice day. :D
I'd certainly like that, imagine the amount of depth games could have! We're talking 150+ levels of CoD!
I can't see myself ever needing more than 500GB of space even if I burned, copied, ripped, and hoarded everything I could find and stored it all uncompressed, let alone even one Terabyte. They need to start making the technology faster, not bigger! :(
But in any case, I'd love for this. It'll fit in my case right next to my MRAM from 2004 which is ten times faster than DRAM and non-volatile with a higher capacity than ever.
I've got over a terabyte and I'm always shuffling around stuff to try and free up more space (a hazard of ripping all your movies to lossless .avi files), but I won't believe this until I see it. And FFS, existing high-capacity storage better start coming down in price soon - the sweet spot around 320GB (last I checked) is just too cheap relative to the 500 and 750GB drives, even though I'm at the physical limit of how many drives I can fit in my fileserver and need as much capacity per drive as possible. If the 750GB drives would come down about $100 so they were at least CLOSE to the $/GB of the ~320GB models, my server would soon be enjoying three terabytes.
I had a a 40Gb read only drive once on my raid.... I didn't cool it properly
That said I have 620Gb of storage space, and intend something on the Tb level for my next build, or a 0+1 RAID array.
Jaz_knos
http://www.sandisk.com/Oem/Default.aspx?CatID=1478
I thought it was only 15K $ per drive, and the cartridges are a couple of hundred...
It makes an awful lot of sense from an enterprise perspective. Would be ideal for low performance mass storage. 50 Petabytes of redundant storage in a single rack is nothing to sniff at.
But... if there are drives even 1/10 that size available in 3 years I'll eat not only my hat but the hat of everyone on this forum. It just isn't going to happen. Back as far as 8 years ago we were supposed to all be using multi TB holographic drives, which are as yet non-existent.
My hats a 10 gallon texas jobbie.
But regardless, lets try to get back on topic, shall we? ;)