mystified Posted January 6, 2007 Report Share Posted January 6, 2007 "A Hitachi unit announced plan to deliver what could be the first computer disk drive to store a trillion bytes of data, known as a tetrabyte. That capacity - equal to about 250 hours of high-definition video - is a big step up from the current limit of 750 billion bytes, or gigabytes, for high end drives on the market now." Don Clark, Wall Street Journal for Friday, December 5th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Has the unit of size been renamed tetrabyte as part of the war against tera? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystified Posted January 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Sorry, typo on my part I guess. I don't have the paper anymore to review if that's what they called it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddie Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Dang it, no one laughed at my "war against tera" joke then... :sad: OK, how about a more serious point then - how is the reliability of a drive affected as it scales to ever more monstrous sizes? Wouldn't an array of smaller ones provide much more resilience to errors etc - rather than losing an entire enormous drive, you might just lose one small replaceable portion if something goes wrong? And access time - wouldn't a single drive of 1 TB be much worse at serving multiple concurrent files/users than a number of smaller parallel ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 OK, how about a more serious point then - how is the reliability of a drive affected as it scales to ever more monstrous sizes? Wouldn't an array of smaller ones provide much more resilience to errors etc - rather than losing an entire enormous drive, you might just lose one small replaceable portion if something goes wrong? And access time - wouldn't a single drive of 1 TB be much worse at serving multiple concurrent files/users than a number of smaller parallel ones? Well, obviously these drivers aren't really intended for consumers. They are intended for businesses. And you know what businesses love? RAID arrays ;) - think, several 1TB disks in a RAID array. Huge storage capacity with great performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffi Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) It wouldn't take me long to fill 1TB with data though. I have 280GB and I continously need to delete stuff to keep some free space. One TB it's only about 100 installed games + their isos.... Edited January 9, 2007 by ffi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 OK, how about a more serious point then - how is the reliability of a drive affected as it scales to ever more monstrous sizes? Wouldn't an array of smaller ones provide much more resilience to errors etc - rather than losing an entire enormous drive, you might just lose one small replaceable portion if something goes wrong? And access time - wouldn't a single drive of 1 TB be much worse at serving multiple concurrent files/users than a number of smaller parallel ones? Well, obviously these drivers aren't really intended for consumers. They are intended for businesses. And you know what businesses love? RAID arrays ;) - think, several 1TB disks in a RAID array. Huge storage capacity with great performance. Well, yes, but (and there is always a but) big RAID arrays are -as it seems - more prone to catastrophic accidents than several smaller drives. At least I get this impression from the many "RAID array broken" threads I see in a lot of forums. Uh... I didn't even manage to fill a 60 GB drive on my home-machines yet... (I burn my articles and pictures as catalogues onto CDs regulary). What the hell do you guys store on your computers? :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffi Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) per GB a HD is cheaper than a DVD or CD* and it's faster and less of a hassle, I keep everything om my HD, movies, isos etc. I don't even have a DVD burner, only a CD one, used it about 10 times in over 3 years... (* yeah, so!? I am dutch, cheap and proud of it :P ) Edited January 9, 2007 by ffi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystified Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I have a 80 GB hard drive and I've probably used about 20 GBs of it. And that's with two distros. I've removed lfs so I have a blank partition. Don't think I'll be needing a big drive anytime soon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 What the hell do you guys store on your computers? :blink:Well, I certainly couldn't use a TB of space (like I said...not for home users...more for businesses). I do, however, use up quite a bit of space with movies, web page back-ups, images (pictures, things i made with gimp, web page images, etc.), mp3's, and mostly games. A lot of the data (outside of games) is also backed up on my external drive, so I have 2-3 copies of every file sometimes. When you repartition your drives a lot and mess with different OS's, you always gotta have a backup! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I've got 2 x 160GB drives in my system, running Linux software Raid 1 to keep my data safe in case one of the disks die. Currently only using 30GB of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.