bit-tech.net

Seagate hints at 8TB, 10TB hard drive launch plans

Seagate hints at 8TB, 10TB hard drive launch plans

Seagate's hard drives could reach capacities of 10TB this year, thanks to the company's investment in heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR) technology.

Seagate has promised high-capacity spinning-rust drives to come in the near future, with chief executive Steve Luczo outlining a roadmap to 10TB drives in as little as a year.

During the company's most recent earnings call, Luczo promised a shift from the current highest 3.5" mechanical drive capacity of 6TB to a whopping 10TB in the near future. 'I just don’t see those price erosions sustaining themselves, given the capacity points that we have to deliver over the next year,' Luczo claimed in response to an analysts' question during the call. 'Going from 6 to 8 to 10 terabytes, that’s a lot of technical investment as you know, it’s also a lot of test investment.'

Although Luczo's comment suggested a shift to 8TB and 10TB drives as early as this financial year, he later clarified that quantities of the parts would be limited. 'As you get to the 6 and the 8 and the 10TB drives, the lead time on those drives is going to be pretty significant whether or not that’s wafer-related or whether or not that’s test related' Luczo explained. 'So you are not going to kind of be able to call up and say "by the way I need an extra 500,000 8TBs I forgot to order," because they are just not going to be there and the industry can’t respond that quickly.'

Luczo did not go into details of how his company plans to significantly increase the data density of its 3.5" mechanical hard drives, but the secret likely lies in Seagate's work with heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR) technology. The company's first HAMR drives were demonstrated at Ceatec last year, and it has previously pledged that the technology will lead to capacities of 20TB per drive by 2020.

Before getting too excited, however, Seagate's first high-density drives will likely be targeted at the enterprise market, meaning pricing that will likely keep them out of reach of enthusiasts for a year or two yet.

72 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Nexxo 1st May 2014, 11:50 Quote
Should have called it MOAR.

Hey, it would work: Magnetic Orientation Assisted Recording. :)
Icy EyeG 1st May 2014, 12:07 Quote
I wonder how reliable these hard drives are going to be...
Flibblebot 1st May 2014, 12:28 Quote
Boy, oh boy. That's one hell of a lot of p0rn
Big Elf 1st May 2014, 12:47 Quote
spinning-rust drives?
IanW 1st May 2014, 13:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Elf
spinning-rust drives?

The platters are coated with Iron Oxide (rust) to store the magnetic charge.
It's also why cassette tape was brown.
[USRF]Obiwan 1st May 2014, 13:23 Quote
Impressive amount of storage data. A few years ago (make that more then four) we had a lot of discussion here on BT about SSD going to overtake HD's in a couple of years. Still there is no sign whatsoever in large amount of storage increase and price drops on the SSD part. HD drives are still pretty reliable too even more so then SSD.

The only big problem for HD's still is performance.
ffjason 1st May 2014, 14:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
Impressive amount of storage data. A few years ago (make that more then four) we had a lot of discussion here on BT about SSD going to overtake HD's in a couple of years. Still there is no sign whatsoever in large amount of storage increase and price drops on the SSD part. HD drives are still pretty reliable too even more so then SSD.

The only big problem for HD's still is performance.

From my personal experience, SSD's are more reliable than HDD's.

More specifically Samsung SSD's (the whole range) are more reliable than Seagate HDD's (not including their latest SSHDD but time will tell).

I wont go into too many details but this is across multiple thousands of drives, in all sizes over the period of ~1 year in a whole host of real world scenario's.
azazel1024 1st May 2014, 15:18 Quote
I must have missed it, but SSDs are continuing to come down in price. In the last couple of years SSDs have moved significantly closer to HDD in terms of price per GB. HDDs still lead by close to a factor of 10, but it used to be a factor of 100.

You can now sometimes get 256GB SSDs on sale for around $110-120. $.45-.50 per GB. Current best deal I can see is on 3TB HDDs that you can sometimes get for $100. .$033 per GB, about 15x better price per GB.

In the last year that went from 256GB for around $160-180 to $110-120 (sales prices and YES, low end SSDs, but you can say the same with HDDs as high end HDDs run 30-80% more). 3TB drives, the best price per capacity generally, have gone from around $120 to sometimes $100. 40% reduction in SSD prices, around a 15% reduction in HDD prices.

Unless the move to 6, 8 and 10TB drives really depresses the price of 3/4TB drives, I think it is unlikely that HDDs will move the bar to better price per capacity in comparison to SSDs, ratio-wise.

I think it is unlikely SSDs will have the price per capacity crown any year soon. Maybe not ever (using NAND Flash), but they are creeping up on being affordable for enthusiasts with moderate storage needs.

Right now I couldn't grok getting a couple of 1TB drives to replace the storage in my server (I am currently utilizing 1.7TiB of 3.6TiB total (pair of 2TB drives in RAID0)), as that would run around $1,000. In 2-3 years though? That might be $400-500. I could wrap my head around that, even if it isn't likely I'd be willing to spend that much (and I'll probably need closer to 3TB total storage).

In 5-6 years though, following trends, even if I need 4-5TB of storage then, that might only cost me $500 or so...that just might be worth it for the low power and much greater speeds (and I'll probably have a 10GbE link between my server and desktop, making it doubly worth it). Also in someways easier to do an SSD storage space through windows than relying on RAID0 (or 10, or 5/6) for extra speed with spinning disks and can just keep tacking on SSDs, which is harder to do with RAID and basically impossible with different sized and speed HDDs.

SSDs you can just keep adding to the storage space as you need capacity, low failure rate with low to modest writes (file server) combined with fast individual drive speed and its really perfect for the job. At least once it is a little more affordable (closer to $.10-.20 per GB).
jrs77 1st May 2014, 15:19 Quote
I still don't get it. I'm perfectly fine with my internal 120GB SSD + 1TB HDD and external 2 TB backup.

I can understand the need for bigger storage-devices when talking about companies like facebook, twitter, instagram, youtube etc, but what do you homeusers need all that space for?

I'd rather see them develop cheaper SSDs in the 2 TB-range. A 2 TB SSD for < $500 would be nice to start with, even if it's in 3.5".
schmidtbag 1st May 2014, 15:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ffjason
From my personal experience, SSD's are more reliable than HDD's.

More specifically Samsung SSD's (the whole range) are more reliable than Seagate HDD's (not including their latest SSHDD but time will tell).

I wont go into too many details but this is across multiple thousands of drives, in all sizes over the period of ~1 year in a whole host of real world scenario's.

Well duh, everything mechanical is automatically less reliable than it's solid-state counterpart (when used under the proper conditions).

Today, the purpose of mechanical HDDs is massive storage. If they make a consumerist version of these 10TB drives, it will likely cost less than $300. Nearly all 0.5TB SSDs start at $300.


Anyway, I feel like if drive manufacturers want to discourage from consumerist purchases, SAS is a good way to do that.


@jrs77
I know what you mean. I have a 64GB SSD that I use for linux and 2 250GB HDDs in RAID for Windows and both sets of drives are more than 70% empty. The appeal to these drives (for consumers) is being able to store all their media. HD content takes up a LOT of disk space. Also, some people have a stupid amount of music. And by stupid I mean they have songs they added to their collection that they never heard before.
erratum1 1st May 2014, 15:53 Quote
They have to be reliable though imagine filling it then it dies !!

10TB that's a lot of data to lose..unless you buy 2 and back up at least with 5 2TB's you still have the other 4.
GeorgeStorm 1st May 2014, 16:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
I still don't get it. I'm perfectly fine with my internal 120GB SSD + 1TB HDD and external 2 TB backup.

I can understand the need for bigger storage-devices when talking about companies like facebook, twitter, instagram, youtube etc, but what do you homeusers need all that space for?

I'd rather see them develop cheaper SSDs in the 2 TB-range. A 2 TB SSD for < $500 would be nice to start with, even if it's in 3.5".

For me personally it's media, my internet connection isn't amazing so streaming isn't an attractive option.
schmidtbag 1st May 2014, 16:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by erratum1
They have to be reliable though imagine filling it then it dies !!

10TB that's a lot of data to lose..unless you buy 2 and back up at least with 5 2TB's you still have the other 4.

Depends on how you intend to fill it. If you're filling them up with just games, all you have to do is backup your saves. The rest of the content you can get back fairly easily (it'll just be tedious). Some people use hard drives as an archive for their optical disc movies too. Thankfully, Seagate has pretty a pretty picky SMART so you should know well ahead of time if you're about to lose data.

In the server world, you MUST have redundancy. 10TB is a lot to back up but you have to do it anyway.
jrs77 1st May 2014, 16:30 Quote
I know it's for media in the homeuser-environment, but I have no troubles storing all of my music and videos on my 1 TB internal HDD. The 2TB external USB-HDD is only for backup really.

My music takes some 130 GB all in 320kb MP3. But then, I have all the original CDs to these ~900 albums aswell, which are stored away directly after converting them. Movies I only have very little on DVD or BluRay, as I'm not that much into movies.
The only thing that basically takes all of the space is the downloaded TV-series I watch, but they don't need to be stored permanently and I delete them after I watched them. No need to watch them more then once or maybe twice.

The only thing I really need safe storage for is my workfiles and my stock-art collection, but these are only some 400GB currently, and that's all the webpages, booklets, flyers, posters, etc I've done over the last 20 years.

So yeah, I really don't get the need for these vast amounts of storage, if you're not a professional video-editor.
runadumb 1st May 2014, 16:33 Quote
8TB is my magic number for my emulation station. Covers every system Wii and under.

As my HTPC can only hold 1x 3.5inch (and 2 x 2.5inch) drive I want a single drive with all that storage. My NAS can back it all up across multiple drives it would just make loading times much faster if I had everything on an internal drive.
Landy_Ed 1st May 2014, 16:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77

I can understand the need for bigger storage-devices when talking about companies like facebook, twitter, instagram, youtube etc, but what do you homeusers need all that space for?

20Mp cameras with1080p video, no doubt 4k in the near future.

Those lolcatz files are getting bigger every year.
Gareth Halfacree 1st May 2014, 16:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landy_Ed
Those lolcatz files are getting bigger every year.
I CAN HAZ EXASCALE?
jrs77 1st May 2014, 17:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landy_Ed
20Mp cameras with1080p video, no doubt 4k in the near future.

Those lolcatz files are getting bigger every year.

Yeah, but how many people really do alot of 1080p video-editing really? Most people are shooting videos with their smartphones these days, and the videos they shoot aren't really worth storing anyways.
Gareth Halfacree 1st May 2014, 17:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Yeah, but how many people really do alot of 1080p video-editing really?
Both my phone (Nexus 4) and my wife's phone (Nokia PureView 808) record 1080p video. The wife's phone even captures 34 megapixel still images if she tells it to, although it's normally set to downsample 'em to eight megapixels.
MrJay 1st May 2014, 17:33 Quote
When I was still in high school and I started building my own machines I remember HDD's breaching the Pound per GB barrier.

I remember thinking I was the **** for having a 120GB HD!

The development pace is rapid, this conversation about SSD density will look silly in 5+ years!
jrs77 1st May 2014, 17:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Both my phone (Nexus 4) and my wife's phone (Nokia PureView 808) record 1080p video. The wife's phone even captures 34 megapixel still images if she tells it to, although it's normally set to downsample 'em to eight megapixels.

So how many of those videos do you or your wife edit afterwards to make a finished piece of art out of it? And how many of those 34 MP images are worth it to be printed out?

The bigger the storage gets the more crap people tend to store that's not worth storing to begin with.
Gareth Halfacree 1st May 2014, 17:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
So how many of those videos do you or your wife edit afterwards to make a finished piece of art out of it?
Who said anything about art? They're mostly videos of my daughter growing up, and you can be damn sure I'm storing those for posterity.

Out of interest, how much of the data stored on your hard drive is 'art'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
And how many of those 34 MP images are worth it to be printed out?
Quite a few; the quality, in good lighting, rivals my 20 megapixel Nikon D3200 DSLR, and the wife is a talented photographer.

Any more unwarranted assumptions you'd care to make to prove your point?
jrs77 1st May 2014, 18:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Out of interest, how much of the data stored on your hard drive is 'art'?

50% actually, as I discard everything else that doesn't fall into this category.

Quote:
Any more unwarranted assumptions you'd care to make to prove your point?

Sorry, didn't want to offend anyone.

My point is, that instead of allways getting more storage to store every little bit is to sift through the content and get rid of everything not worth keeping. It's more economical. I do this twice a year with my household aswell. Spring and fall cleanout. I get rid of everything I didn't use within the last 6 month.

I try keep everything to a minimum really.
Gareth Halfacree 1st May 2014, 18:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
My point is, that instead of allways getting more storage to store every little bit is to sift through the content and get rid of everything not worth keeping. It's more economical.
Depends on how much your time is worth, surely? Sure, I could sift through a few thousand photographs to trim it down to just the ones I'm absolutely sure I want to keep - and risk regretting deleting something in the future - or I could spend £50 on a bigger hard drive. There's a simple calculation to be made there in terms of how much you earn per hour times by how many hours it takes you to filter through your data.

Me? I'm very much of the "store it all, just in case" brigade. Sure, I might not want that blurry picture of her foot that my wife took by mistake now, but if I ever write a story involving feet it could prove the perfect image!
Flibblebot 1st May 2014, 18:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJay
When I was still in high school and I started building my own machines I remember HDD's breaching the Pound per GB barrier.

I remember thinking I was the **** for having a 120GB HD!
120Gb?
My first ever hard drive was 20Mb...you young whipper-snappers and your gigabytes :D
I remember working with Sun Microsystems back in the day when they were selling terabyte storage that cost tens of thousands...pence per gigabyte? Try hundreds of pounds per gigabyte!
Gareth Halfacree 1st May 2014, 18:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
My first ever hard drive was 20Mb...
Snap! First one I ever used was 5MB, first one I ever owned was a 20MB IBM-compatible sidecar. Footprint of an old flatbed A4 scanner, a good three inches thick, and required its own 240V power supply. Had it hooked up to my Schneider Euro-PC II: 8086, 640KB, built-in 1.44MB floppy drive. Lovely little machine that was. I really miss the amber monitor it had; so easy on the eyes, even if it was - from memory - 9".
schmidtbag 1st May 2014, 18:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Both my phone (Nexus 4) and my wife's phone (Nokia PureView 808) record 1080p video. The wife's phone even captures 34 megapixel still images if she tells it to, although it's normally set to downsample 'em to eight megapixels.

I HIGHLY doubt it's actually 34MP. Hell, even many 12MP or 16MP photo cameras are just 8MP with interpolation and other processing effects to make it seem like the advertised resolution. Or, sometimes it might have the hardware capability for the advertised MPs but doesn't have the ability to actually resolve the image properly. Here are a couple sources on the matter:
http://iconophor.com/megapixel-mp.html
http://snapsort.com/learn/sensor/true-resolution

I am no photographer, but cameras are one of those dangerous markets to get into because it is so easy to get scammed.
Gareth Halfacree 1st May 2014, 18:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I HIGHLY doubt it's actually 34MP. Hell, even many 12MP or 16MP photo cameras are just 8MP with interpolation and other processing effects to make it seem like the advertised resolution.
Doubt it all you like, you'd be wrong. The PureView 808 - and the Lumia 1020, which is its spiritual successor - has a 41 megapixel sensor behind a quality Carl Zeiss lens. Here's a whitepaper (PDF) explaining the technology behind it. I quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokia
The starting point is a super-high-resolution sensor. This has an active area of 7728 x 5368 pixels, totalling over 41Mpix. Depending on the aspect ratio you choose, it will use 7728 x 4354 pixels for 16:9 images/videos, or 7152 x 5368 pixels for 4:3 images/videos as is shown in Figure 1.
In fact, that PureView sensor works in the exact opposite way to your claim of interpolation; it uses pixel oversampling to improve quality at lower resolutions.
LordPyrinc 1st May 2014, 20:17 Quote
Games take up the vast majority of drive space on my machine. I love the fact that I can back up my Steam library. But for non-Steam games, it seems like every time I uninstall one, sure enough a few months later I'll get the urge to play it again. Then I have to bust out the disks, make sure I have the key, install it, then update it. Gets to be a pain. I'd rather just have more space so I don't have to uninstall.

I've actually got two 240 GB SSDs and a 2TB drive laying on a shelf right now just waiting for me to get around to backing things up again so that I can move my OS around and pull out my older raid setup.
jrs77 1st May 2014, 20:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Depends on how much your time is worth, surely? Sure, I could sift through a few thousand photographs to trim it down to just the ones I'm absolutely sure I want to keep - and risk regretting deleting something in the future - or I could spend £50 on a bigger hard drive. There's a simple calculation to be made there in terms of how much you earn per hour times by how many hours it takes you to filter through your data.

Me? I'm very much of the "store it all, just in case" brigade. Sure, I might not want that blurry picture of her foot that my wife took by mistake now, but if I ever write a story involving feet it could prove the perfect image!

So you go build a new garage aswell, if you run out of space to store yet another box full of crap?

Economically it's the worst thing to allways buy/built more storage. It simply wastes alot of ressources.

And measuring up your cost per hour only shows how capitalistic a person you've become allready. I'm sorry you lost it there.
schmidtbag 1st May 2014, 20:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPyrinc
Games take up the vast majority of drive space on my machine. I love the fact that I can back up my Steam library. But for non-Steam games, it seems like every time I uninstall one, sure enough a few months later I'll get the urge to play it again. Then I have to bust out the disks, make sure I have the key, install it, then update it. Gets to be a pain. I'd rather just have more space so I don't have to uninstall.

I've actually got two 240 GB SSDs and a 2TB drive laying on a shelf right now just waiting for me to get around to backing things up again so that I can move my OS around and pull out my older raid setup.

As a suggestion, game media (audio and cutscenes) usually end up taking up about 1/4 of the total game data, more or less depending on the game, and usually never gets updated. If you look into linking, you could burn the game media on a DVD and symlink to it. Your loading times will barely be affected (for some games it might improve) and you save an immense amount of disk space. If you have a blu ray burner, you could put the media of several of your games on the same disc.

I'm not sure how difficult it is to accomplish this in Windows. On the topic of saving disk space, in both Windows and linux I managed to run some old games in compressed folders from a single-layer DVD. I did this for experimental reasons, and proved that compressing the data makes a HUGE difference in improving loading times. You can only do this to games where none of the files in the game's installation folder get modified.

For the record, linux is better at and easier to accomplish either of my suggestions.
Gareth Halfacree 1st May 2014, 21:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
So you go build a new garage aswell, if you run out of space to store yet another box full of crap?
If the land it was on and the building of the garage itself cost £50, I probably would, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
And measuring up your cost per hour only shows how capitalistic a person you've become allready. I'm sorry you lost it there.
If you were telling the truth when you said you mean no offence, you've got a bloody strange way of showing it. How the hell would you know how capitalistic I am?

For your information, bucko, I value my time because I have a family to support. When I'm not earning enough cash to keep a roof over our head and put food on the table, I'm spending my time with my family. You don't have anyone you care about enough to spend time with them and would rather waste hours sorting through your photos, that's your lookout; personally, I'd say that makes you a pretty damn sad excuse for a human being.

But, hey: I didn't want to offend anyone, there.
Guinevere 1st May 2014, 21:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Yeah, but how many people really do alot of 1080p video-editing really? Most people are shooting videos with their smartphones these days, and the videos they shoot aren't really worth storing anyways.

My smartphone shoots in 1080p and I'd like to keep 'almost' all of it. I could slim it down but I'd rather not devote the time and energy TBH. I want enough capacity around so I don't have to manage it from day to day.

That's why I have a 64GB Smart phone, and a main computer with a 512GB SSD and 7TB of attached storage for media and redundant backups. There's another 4TB attached to the family media player and another few TB of offline backup and 'old stuff I should sort out one day'.

Then there's the cloud backups...
Guinevere 1st May 2014, 21:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I HIGHLY doubt it's actually 34MP. Hell, even many 12MP or 16MP photo cameras are just 8MP with interpolation and other processing effects to make it seem like the advertised resolution.

Believe many conspiracy stories? I follow a lot of tech & photography blogs etc and can't remember the last time I read about a device that had less MP than it was advertised at.

Nearest I can think of is the iPhone 5S Slow-mo mode, that's rendered out at 720p but actually something closer to 480p upscaled. Their normal resolutions are true though, only the slow-mo gets the upscaling. The camera is still the same res as advertised.

If you know otherwise, care to tell us which cameras fit under your 'many' banner?
Maki role 1st May 2014, 22:23 Quote
I store a lot of large CAD files (500MB-8+GB) on my machine, the space fills up fast. I have a drive dedicated to holding thousands of high resolution textures (50-60MP) for use in 3D work, again the file sizes get pretty big for uncompressed files.

Having a large drive like one of these and another for backup would be really handy, would make things smaller and more efficient, which is always a good thing.

I'm still holding out for ditching HDDs altogether though. Sadly for my uses things aren't quite there yet, but once 2TB SSDs reach the price of ~750GB ones now, I'd be pretty tempted to make the jump given I could just put my current drives into a NAS to offload some of the data.
schmidtbag 1st May 2014, 22:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
I follow a lot of tech & photography blogs etc and can't remember the last time I read about a device that had less MP than it was advertised at.
That's the entire point of marketing... The actual image itself WILL be the claimed pixel range but it doesn't mean the quality will be the same. A camera can claim to be 34MP but with enough software magic and/or product technicalities (for example, maybe its 34 mega subpixels) the average consumer will never know if it's not truly 34 until they see the technical datasheets. But to digress, at such a massive resolution, it's way too hard for the average person to spot a "fake" resolution. The high numbers help make people feel like self-proclaimed professional photographers, and sometimes, it's just the thought that matters in the end.

But a great example of this sort of misleading marketing is hard drive storage. If you get a 500GB hard drive, you're really getting 500000000000 bits, not bytes. So you lose (I think) roughly 10GB of storage.
Quote:
Nearest I can think of is the iPhone 5S Slow-mo mode, that's rendered out at 720p but actually something closer to 480p upscaled. Their normal resolutions are true though, only the slow-mo gets the upscaling. The camera is still the same res as advertised.

If you know otherwise, care to tell us which cameras fit under your 'many' banner?
Like I said, I'm not a photographer so I don't know of any models off the top of my head. But a few posts back I showed 2 links that explain different causes of cameras with faked resolutions. I'm SURE you can find plenty more sources that include more info, including a list of cameras.

I'm sure that you could determine yourself which cameras have a fake MP value just by looking through stores like amazon. Check the average price for a really high MP (such as 34) and then compare that price to the lowest priced camera with that MP. If the price seems too good to be true, that's because it probably is.
John_T 1st May 2014, 23:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag

That's the entire point of marketing... The actual image itself WILL be the claimed pixel range but it doesn't mean the quality will be the same. A camera can claim to be 34MP but with enough software magic and/or product technicalities (for example, maybe its 34 mega subpixels) the average consumer will never know if it's not truly 34 until they see the technical datasheets.

If I'm understanding you, I think maybe you're mixing up your arguments slightly.

The real issue isn't so much the number of pixels as it is the size of the CCD / CMOS capturing them. A higher quality, (physically larger) 12MP CCD will produce far better quality images than a cheap 20MP CCD, simply because it is able to capture more light. The race for higher MP's can then become a misleading selling point: Much like the MHz wars in CPU's. The CPU's did run at the quoted speed, it just wasn't necessarily the best way of measuring quality.

As an example:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yRviN2oksWY/Tt6ckbnl-TI/AAAAAAAAA_8/LQx6Gv2N7SU/s1600/sensor_table.gif

(There's loads more sensor sizes than this, it's just a nice graphic example I had tucked away)

A cheaper camera phone may have a 1/3" CCD compared to a 4/3" CCD in a dedicated camera, they may both have the same number of quoted pixels, but the 1/3" CCD has less than 1/10th the surface area in which to capture light. They're still real pixels, just not as good.

Casting no aspersions on anyone's particular phone (I know very little about phones) I know some makers have started putting larger CCD's in their phones - I was just making the point in general...
jrs77 1st May 2014, 23:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
If the land it was on and the building of the garage itself cost £50, I probably would, yes.If you were telling the truth when you said you mean no offence, you've got a bloody strange way of showing it. How the hell would you know how capitalistic I am?

For your information, bucko, I value my time because I have a family to support. When I'm not earning enough cash to keep a roof over our head and put food on the table, I'm spending my time with my family. You don't have anyone you care about enough to spend time with them and would rather waste hours sorting through your photos, that's your lookout; personally, I'd say that makes you a pretty damn sad excuse for a human being.

But, hey: I didn't want to offend anyone, there.

It's about ressources. New drives, new garages, new whatever doesn't cost money... it costs us ressources.

Going to say that you simply buy somehting just shows that the capitalistic system has caught you allready to a degree, where you don't even question it anymore.

And fyi... I'm taking care fulltime of my severly disabled mother, working from home as a graphics designer 10+ hours a day, putting a roof over the head, paying tons of medical bills etc.

But yeah, I guess I'm the worst human being ever to travel the world by questioning the waste of ressources the current economical system is based on.
Gareth Halfacree 1st May 2014, 23:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
And fyi... I'm taking care fulltime of my severly disabled mother, working from home as a graphics designer 10+ hours a day, putting a roof over the head, paying tons of medical bills etc.
And yet you still find time to argue with strangers on the internet about who is the better man. Clearly, your priorities are in order. I say that, if this is turning into willy-waving, as someone who has been working twelve hour days for the last month straight - from home as well, I add, 'cos I'm a freelancer - to get a MagBook ready for deadline.

I managed it, by the way. Final deadline was the 28th, which is the only reason I've got time to waste on you now. Go me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
But yeah, I guess I'm the worst human being ever to travel the world by questioning the waste of ressources the current economical system is based on.
I believe I said you sounded like "a pretty damn sad excuse for a human being." Nothing you've said so far has changed my opinion on that matter.

You want to attack strangers for supporting what you clearly believe is an evil capitalist regime on a technology forum, where the vast majority of people buy things they don't strictly need when they don't strictly need them, you're - to borrow the theme from a South Park meme - gonna have a bad time. Especially when you've supported said regime yourself by buying, and I quote, "Define Mini Black [Gigabyte Z77MX-D3H | intel i5-3450 | Kingston HyperX DDR3-1600 8GB | Gigabyte GTX660OC Windforce2 | intel 330 120GB | WD AV GP 1TB". That's considerably more expensive, resource-sapping and energy-hungry than my AMD A10-5800K desktop, y'know. You planet-murderer, you.
John_T 1st May 2014, 23:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
...(stuff)

jrs, you can't be rude to people and then expect them not to become defensive - that's not how things work. As for the rest, do you really think you're the only person with troubles and worries in life? Please. Most of us have hardships and problems to deal with, we just choose not rub them in other peoples faces for brownie points.

And by the way, I'm curious, how does having a single 10TB drive waste resources anymore than a single 1TB drive?

And, while I'm thinking about it, how does throwing away stuff you've already bought and used make you any less capitalistic than someone who shoves it in a cupboard thinking "that may come in handy one day"? If anything it makes you more capitalistic, as the person who saves stuff may actually reuse some of it at some point - clearly not an option to someone who tossed it. Minimalism and environmentalism aren't necessarily the same thing.

Not meaning to offend you or anything...
schmidtbag 1st May 2014, 23:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
If I'm understanding you, I think maybe you're mixing up your arguments slightly.

The real issue isn't so much the number of pixels as it is the size of the CCD / CMOS capturing them. A higher quality, (physically larger) 12MP CCD will produce far better quality images than a cheap 20MP CCD, simply because it is able to capture more light. The race for higher MP's can then become a misleading selling point: Much like the MHz wars in CPU's. The CPU's did run at the quoted speed, it just wasn't necessarily the best way of measuring quality.

As an example:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yRviN2oksWY/Tt6ckbnl-TI/AAAAAAAAA_8/LQx6Gv2N7SU/s1600/sensor_table.gif

(There's loads more sensor sizes than this, it's just a nice graphic example I had tucked away)

A cheaper camera phone may have a 1/3" CCD compared to a 4/3" CCD in a dedicated camera, they may both have the same number of quoted pixels, but the 1/3" CCD has less than 1/10th the surface area in which to capture light. They're still real pixels, just not as good.

Casting no aspersions on anyone's particular phone (I know very little about phones) I know some makers have started putting larger CCD's in their phones - I was just making the point in general...

Ah yes, CPU frequency is definitely a better example. What you are describing is basically what I was getting at but more focused on the hardware level, and worded better. I was describing more about how the software makes the not-so-great hardware seem better, whereas you're describing why the hardware is different. Anyway, both points are relevant to each other.
jrs77 2nd May 2014, 00:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
And yet you still find time to argue with strangers on the internet about who is the better man. Clearly, your priorities are in order. I say that, if this is turning into willy-waving, as someone who has been working twelve hour days for the last month straight - from home as well, I add, 'cos I'm a freelancer - to get a MagBook ready for deadline.

I managed it, by the way. Final deadline was the 28th, which is the only reason I've got time to waste on you now. Go me!I believe I said you sounded like "a pretty damn sad excuse for a human being." Nothing you've said so far has changed my opinion on that matter.

You want to attack strangers for supporting what you clearly believe is an evil capitalist regime on a technology forum, where the vast majority of people buy things they don't strictly need when they don't strictly need them, you're - to borrow the theme from a South Park meme - gonna have a bad time. Especially when you've supported said regime yourself by buying, and I quote, "Define Mini Black [Gigabyte Z77MX-D3H | intel i5-3450 | Kingston HyperX DDR3-1600 8GB | Gigabyte GTX660OC Windforce2 | intel 330 120GB | WD AV GP 1TB". That's considerably more expensive, resource-sapping and energy-hungry than my AMD A10-5800K desktop, y'know. You planet-murderer, you.

I'm not arguing at all, I just question the need for allways more, more and more.

As for my rig... I need my rig for work, besides the GPU which could be smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
jrs, you can't be rude to people and then expect them not to become defensive - that's not how things work. As for the rest, do you really think you're the only person with troubles and worries in life? Please. Most of us have hardships and problems to deal with, we just choose not rub them in other peoples faces for brownie points.

And by the way, I'm curious, how does having a single 10TB drive waste resources anymore than a single 1TB drive?

And, while I'm thinking about it, how does throwing away stuff you've already bought and used make you any less capitalistic than someone who shoves it in a cupboard thinking "that may come in handy one day"? If anything it makes you more capitalistic, as the person who saves stuff may actually reuse some of it at some point - clearly not an option to someone who tossed it. Minimalism and environmentalism aren't necessarily the same thing.

Not meaning to offend you or anything...

I don't consider me being rude at all. If that's your impression, then I can't do anything about it.

As for the 10GB vs 1GB HDD. If we're talking a single HDD, then no there's no difference. The thing I'm talking about however is allways needing more an more space, because we grew accustomed to it, instead of going the other way to save space and the need for a new and bigger drive while the old one is still perfectly fine.

As for throwing stuff away... I don't throw stuff away, I give it to other people who can use them. And I don't buy as many stuff to begin with.
Gareth Halfacree 2nd May 2014, 00:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
As for my rig... I need my rig for work, besides the GPU which could be smaller.
If by that you mean you could do graphic design on integrated graphics, yes. Yes, you could. Hell, I do - although, I'll grant you, the APU's graphics bits are pretty good as these things go. So, you certainly didn't need the expensive and power-hungry graphics card. Or the high-end motherboard. Or the SSD. Or the shiny case. See where I'm going with this? You wanted more than you needed, didn't you? Physician, heal thyself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
I don't consider me being rude at all. If that's your impression, then I can't do anything about it.
Then I fear that we have a language barrier. I understand that English is your second language, so for the future I warn you that the following:

"shows how capitalistic a person you've become allready. I'm sorry you lost it there."
"just shows that the capitalistic system has caught you allready to a degree, where you don't even question it anymore."

are extremely rude. You know nothing about me, but you choose to claim that I am in some way a lesser man than you because I said I'd rather buy a hard drive than delete photos and videos of my only daughter's formative years?

I am no more a lackey of the capitalist machine than you are a dog-rapist. Notice how I'm not assuming you rape dogs, there, because to do so would be extremely rude. Until given evidence to the contrary, I will assume that you don't rape dogs - and if you could do me the courtesy of assuming I'm not a brainwashed sheeple who spends all his money greasing the wheels of capitalism that'd be grand.

I don't own a car. My most expensive watch - I have several, all but one of which were presents - cost £40 and is a freakin' microcontroller development system I bought for work purposes. I can't even remember the last time I bought a full-price computer game, and the closest I get to branded clothes is the Weird Fish jacket I'm wearing as I type this - which I bought for a couple of quid from a charity shop.

You want to live a minimalist life; that's fine, you go do that. But do not attack me for deciding to live my life a different way when you know absolutely nothing about me. Because that. Is. Rude.
Landy_Ed 2nd May 2014, 00:31 Quote
if we did not grease the wheels of capitalism, we'd still be using stone tablets to store our words and smoke signals or semaphores to communicate over long distance.

Not to split hairs, but the higher capacity disk is the exact opposite of building new garages to store more junk, its about compressing it better in a unit with broadly the same external dimensions. Going all the way back to the original article and comments, I don't think manufacturers are targeting higher density arbitrarily, they are responding to demand either directly communicated or calculated based on trends analysis, else they would be throwing money away pointlessly.
schmidtbag 2nd May 2014, 01:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landy_Ed
if we did not grease the wheels of c apitalism, we'd still be using stone tablets to store our words and smoke signals or semaphores to communicate over long distance.

Not to split hairs, but the higher capacity disk is the exact opposite of building new garages to store more junk, its about compressing it better in a unit with broadly the same external dimensions. Going all the way back to the original article and comments, I don't think manufacturers are targeting higher density arbitrarily, they are responding to demand either directly communicated or calculated based on trends analysis, else they would be throwing money away pointlessly.

I think the point jrs77 is trying to make is a lot of people get more and better things simply because more=better, regardless of how much that actually applies to an individual's work flow. The underlying problem, though, is people don't realize that the surpluses of resources they acquire encourages laziness of maintenance and organization, so when you use a slower computer or when you want to find 1 photo, you're going to get frustrated. Unfortunately, Windows caters to poor maintenance, and Mac caters to poor organization.

In the server world, which these 10TB drives are intended for, there are some real practical uses for them that no average home user would understand.
runadumb 2nd May 2014, 06:01 Quote
This thread has gotten pretty ****ing weird for a bigger storage story :/

For the record, I ALWAYS appreciate increased storage.
YEHBABY 2nd May 2014, 08:42 Quote
I've enjoyed reading this article and thread :D

Anyway, I want MOAR storage!
Phil Rhodes 2nd May 2014, 09:52 Quote
Quote:
Yeah, but how many people really do alot of 1080p video-editing really?

Hello!
Cthippo 2nd May 2014, 10:09 Quote
Quote:
Yeah, but how many people really do alot of 1080p video-editing really?

Yeah, me too

Most consumer level video cameras, and even most cell phones these days, offer 1080 and a lot of people shoot in it, even for youtube. I shoot 960p/60fps mostly with my GoPro, which also eats up a lot of storage space. I'm going to be replacing my 1 TB fileserver in the next few months because it's full and will definitely be looking for what the biggest drives I can get at a reasonable price are.
Landy_Ed 2nd May 2014, 11:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I think the point jrs77 is trying to make is a lot of people get more and better things simply because more=better, regardless of how much that actually applies to an individual's work flow. The underlying problem, though, is people don't realize that the surpluses of resources they acquire encourages laziness of maintenance and organization, so when you use a slower computer or when you want to find 1 photo, you're going to get frustrated. Unfortunately, Windows caters to poor maintenance, and Mac caters to poor organization.

In the server world, which these 10TB drives are intended for, there are some real practical uses for them that no average home user would understand.

I think the point jrs77 is making has little to do with tech progress and a lot to do with a fairly insular view on what the product is for and why it would have a customer base. Storing lots of video is not the same as editing lots of video. Large storage mediums are not solely for servers, though they may be the initial market. Hence you can buy 3tb drives right now for about £80.

<addendum>it's ok in my book to make such statements, but you have to expect people will respond in kind!
BLC 2nd May 2014, 11:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
Quote:
Yeah, but how many people really do alot of 1080p video-editing really?

Hello!

Yo.

1080p at 60fps, even compressed with h.264, eats a HUGE chunk of hard drive space. My 15-20 minute videos are coming out at around 8GB these days, and I produce at least 3 of those every week.

I even have to use compressed source video these days; uncompressed 1080p60 takes around 100GB for about 15 minutes.
Cthippo 2nd May 2014, 11:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
Yo.

1080p at 60fps, even compressed with h.264, eats a HUGE chunk of hard drive space. My 15-20 minute videos are coming out at around 8GB these days, and I produce at least 3 of those every week.

You should post some of your work in the "Video of the day" thread ;)
Corky42 2nd May 2014, 13:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
the closest I get to branded clothes is the Weird Fish jacket I'm wearing as I type this - which I bought for a couple of quid from a charity shop.

Is that like Lady GaGa's meat dress ? :D
azazel1024 2nd May 2014, 16:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Well duh, everything mechanical is automatically less reliable than it's solid-state counterpart (when used under the proper conditions).

Today, the purpose of mechanical HDDs is massive storage. If they make a consumerist version of these 10TB drives, it will likely cost less than $300. Nearly all 0.5TB SSDs start at $300.


Anyway, I feel like if drive manufacturers want to discourage from consumerist purchases, SAS is a good way to do that.


@jrs77
I know what you mean. I have a 64GB SSD that I use for linux and 2 250GB HDDs in RAID for Windows and both sets of drives are more than 70% empty. The appeal to these drives (for consumers) is being able to store all their media. HD content takes up a LOT of disk space. Also, some people have a stupid amount of music. And by stupid I mean they have songs they added to their collection that they never heard before.

Yup. Media for me. All my songs and my wife's songs take maybe 20GB total. At most. However, lots and lots of pictures and family videos. More the former than the later. I am an amateur photographer and I probably eat 3-4GB of storage for images every month in a slow month and 6-10GB in a heavy month. Times a large number of months...I probably have a minimum of 300GB taken up between my pictures, my wife's pictures and family pictures and videos.

Movies also eat a lot. I probably have about 1.5TiB...which is relatively small compared to some collections I know of. My coworker needs to expand his storage because he is running low on the 10TB of storage he has.

Between images, the occasional BR I buy and rip and so on, I probably grow my storage on average 20GB a month. So in a year I probably need 240GB of extra storage. Right now on my desktop (which also serves as a backup for my server) I am butting up on my storage limits. Server is still only 50% utilized and I'll have space on it to grow for years to come (okay, at least 2 years, probably more like 3-5).

So I am thinking a couple of 3TB drives in RAID0 for my desktop. That should tide me for at least 5-6 years...so long as a drive doesn't die, or 4k doesn't make a bigger splash at a lower price than I think it will (because otherwise ripping 4k to 2k/4k instead of my usual practice of ripping my 1080p BR to generally 720p and occasionally 1080p). If it does, my storage requirements in a given year are probably going to triple. Which means 6TB (~5.5TiB formatted) might only last me 3 years, possibly 4.
Gareth Halfacree 2nd May 2014, 17:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azazel1024
So I am thinking a couple of 3TB drives in RAID0 for my desktop.
No. No, no, no. Nooooo. No.

Y'know why they call it RAID0? 'Cos you've 0% chance of keeping your data intact. If you make a two-drive RAID0 array, you've doubled your chances of losing everything on both drives to a drive failure. Make a three-drive array? Your chances just tripled. Seriously, don't do it.

A better idea: create a non-striped pool of disks. I know Windows can do LVM-style stuff these days. That way, if you lose a single disk you only lose the data on that disk; everything stored on the other disks is A-OK. You should still have backups, like, but it's better'n playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic like a RAID0 setup would be.
schmidtbag 2nd May 2014, 17:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
A better idea: create a non-striped pool of disks. I know Windows can do LVM-style stuff these days. That way, if you lose a single disk you only lose the data on that disk; everything stored on the other disks is A-OK. You should still have backups, like, but it's better'n playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic like a RAID0 setup would be.

I agree, RAID 0 is really only good for performance reasons and if the data can be reproduced. Besides, the performance gains would be relatively useless. As a very simple solution, if you have a storage system dedicated to media and you have multiple folders at the root of the drive, you can always distribute those folders between the drives and just use shortcuts to the folders on the "main" drive.

If your media is only viewed through your computer, you might want to look into better compression methods. Personally, I'd rather use more of CPU, GPU, and RAM for lower disk usage. But, I don't care about having the best quality possible, so I know my opinion is crazy to some.
BLC 2nd May 2014, 20:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
You should post some of your work in the "Video of the day" thread ;)

I do rather a lot of videos... Probably best that I just have a link in my sig to the channel that I produce content for, otherwise I'm gonna look like a dirty spammer :)
John_T 3rd May 2014, 00:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
...What you are describing is basically what I was getting at but more focused on the hardware level...

I thought so: I could see other people not quite seeing what you were trying to get at, so I thought I'd just stick my big fat nose in... :D

By the way, completely agree with you & Gareth re: RAID 0 - bad, bad idea for storing data. With the advent of SSD's it's not even a good idea for a 'clean' primary drive anymore now. Just old tech past its sell-by date really...
Anfield 3rd May 2014, 02:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree

Y'know why they call it RAID0? 'Cos you've 0% chance of keeping your data intact. If you make a two-drive RAID0 array, you've doubled your chances of losing everything on both drives to a drive failure. Make a three-drive array? Your chances just tripled. Seriously, don't do it.

As long as you have a backup it doesn't matter and you should always have a backup of all your personal data regardless of running raid 0 /1/ 5/ 60 or not.
RedFlames 5th May 2014, 22:51 Quote
Yadda 5th May 2014, 23:09 Quote
8TB on a single drive is pretty mental. Mind you, I remember saying the same about 1GB. :o
Cthippo 6th May 2014, 00:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
8TB on a single drive is pretty mental. Mind you, I remember saying the same about 1GB. :o

I wouldn't mind seeing them go back to the 5 1/4" form factor if it could get us to 20 or 50 TB. There is nothing magical about the 3 1/2" size.
ViPPeR_666 30th May 2014, 15:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
but what do you homeusers need all that space for?

Are you seriously that naive? lol
Impatience 30th May 2014, 15:41 Quote
Cthippo, I'd be fine with a 5.25 bay being used up if that meant I could have ALL the storage i'd ever need on it!
Cthippo 1st June 2014, 09:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impatience
Cthippo, I'd be fine with a 5.25 bay being used up if that meant I could have ALL the storage i'd ever need on it!

Unfortunately, the definition of "all the storage I'd ever need" is a moving target. I remember when I though a gigabyte of storage was more than I would ever need. Guess what? I shot 6 GB worth of video in one day on Thursday using only a single camera. Do that once a week for three years and you've filled up a 1 TB fileserver. Sure it seems like storage demands should level off eventually like the demand for CPU speeds and memory sizes has, but that date seems nowhere near.
Maki role 1st June 2014, 14:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
but that date seems nowhere near.

Unsurprising really though. Our media keeps increasing in size as the physical devices themselves become more advanced. With 4K hitting mainstream audiences (both on the content side and ease of amateur production) and potentially 8K after that, our storage needs are becoming phenomenally massive. Add to that downloading ever increasingly detailed games, then things like video with higher framerates etc. I can't see our need plateauing any time soon either.
schmidtbag 1st June 2014, 16:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
Unfortunately, the definition of "all the storage I'd ever need" is a moving target. I remember when I though a gigabyte of storage was more than I would ever need. Guess what? I shot 6 GB worth of video in one day on Thursday using only a single camera. Do that once a week for three years and you've filled up a 1 TB fileserver. Sure it seems like storage demands should level off eventually like the demand for CPU speeds and memory sizes has, but that date seems nowhere near.

I completely see what you mean, but to some degree, I don't fully agree. Yes, as computer technology and digital media becomes more prolific and advanced, the demand for storage (and other things like processing power and RAM) increases as well. But the one thing you seemed to let slip by you is how you yourself said "a gigabyte of storage was more than I would ever need" which at the time was most likely very true. Way back then, there wasn't really anything much bigger than your OS that you would actually WANT to store on your computer, and rightfully so. It didn't make sense to store stuff like media and high density textures on a disk - it was more efficient in every sense of the word (except time) to use external mediums to store such things.

The interesting thing is how CPUs, RAM, the internet, and HDD technologies all improved at roughly the same time. When dialup was a home commodity, PCs at the time were still pretty slow and plenty of storage, but still not enough to store an abundance of high quality media. Because of this, compressed file formats like MPEG were released, allowing people to view media that their computers (and network connection) were otherwise unable to realistically work with, at the cost of CPU and RAM.

Anyway tl;dr, the point of me saying all of this is for a while, software itself had to get better in order to work around the limitations of hardware. Since HDD storage is so prolific these days, and because software like Windows or Titanfall don't even attempt to be sensitive to disk space, there is no amount of GB or TB that should be "all I'll ever need". To me, I see this as a problem, because it encourages laziness of both the user and developers. Just because you CAN easily have 6TB in a micro ATX system, it doesn't mean all of that space SHOULD be filled.

Personally, I find it good practice to intentionally put a limit on the disk space you are willing to use. Computers are quickly becoming like obese people - they have so much of things they need to survive that they become unhealthy.
Sloth 2nd June 2014, 22:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
what do you homeusers need all that space for?
That's a loaded question. No one "needs" greater storage any more than they "need" a PC in the first place.

I've filled a little over 2TB now, most of which I keep a backup of. What do I "need" that space for? None of anyone's business.
schmidtbag 2nd June 2014, 22:31 Quote
Quote:
I've filled a little over 2TB now, most of which I keep a backup of. What do I "need" that space for? None of anyone's business.
lol well when you put it that way, now we all know what it is.
Sloth 2nd June 2014, 22:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
lol well when you put it that way, now we all know what it is.
Ha, in a friendlier context I'll gladly share it's mostly TV shows and movies, with in-game video recordings accounting for a growing amount.

It could all be porn, though, and that'd be an equally valid reason to have so much storage. Whatever the home user does with their privately owned and purchased hard drives is their own choice.
Cthippo 3rd June 2014, 00:54 Quote
Mine is mostly filled with raw video I've shot and will probably never use. That's about half of it. Another quarter is porn and the rest is photos, music, and whatnot. If you do any sort of AV content creation it's not hard to fill up space in a hurry.
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