Seagate readies 750GB hard drive
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,994
Likes: 0
From: S Florida
Seagate readies 750GB hard drive
With the way games MP3, videos etc...and the amount of space there starting to take up, might be the way to go.... 
Seagate is on the verge of announcing a 3.5in desktop hard drive with a capacity of 750GB - increasing the Barracuda 7200.10 line's maximum storage space by 50 per cent. Seagate hasn't formally announced the 750GB model, but it is already beginning to appear on the company's marketing material.
The drive runs at 7,200rpm and contains 16MB of cache memory. Like other models in the line, it has an average latency of 4.2ms. Seagate will offer the HDD with a choice of Ultra ATA 100, 1.5Gbps SATA or 3Gbps SATA interfaces. The Serial ATA versions both support Native Command Queuing (NCQ).
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04...0gb_barracuda/
Seagate is on the verge of announcing a 3.5in desktop hard drive with a capacity of 750GB - increasing the Barracuda 7200.10 line's maximum storage space by 50 per cent. Seagate hasn't formally announced the 750GB model, but it is already beginning to appear on the company's marketing material.
The drive runs at 7,200rpm and contains 16MB of cache memory. Like other models in the line, it has an average latency of 4.2ms. Seagate will offer the HDD with a choice of Ultra ATA 100, 1.5Gbps SATA or 3Gbps SATA interfaces. The Serial ATA versions both support Native Command Queuing (NCQ).
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04...0gb_barracuda/
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,108
Likes: 14,260
Good gravy. You know, shouldn't we get to a point where data becomes unlimited? It would be like, an unlimited HD. It would use fiber optics or other light technology combined w/ data multiplication to make a continually resizing hard drive. Kind of like a CVT transmission. It expands as the need arises. Yeah.
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 64,104
Likes: 3,359
From: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Originally Posted by BstonBruin
to put that hd space really into perspective
750GB = about 187,500 mp3's
750GB = about 550 dvd quality movies
wow
750GB = about 187,500 mp3's
750GB = about 550 dvd quality movies
wow
Go Giants
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 70,003
Likes: 1,260
From: PA
Originally Posted by srika
Good gravy. You know, shouldn't we get to a point where data becomes unlimited? It would be like, an unlimited HD. It would use fiber optics or other light technology combined w/ data multiplication to make a continually resizing hard drive. Kind of like a CVT transmission. It expands as the need arises. Yeah.
Trending Topics
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,108
Likes: 14,260
1TB flash drive... sign me up.I had a curious problem today though. I was copying files from a 1gb SD card to a computer, and got file corruption errors - it couldn't copy certain files. wtf? I thought that would never happen on an SD card or other RAM-type memory device.
Go Giants
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 70,003
Likes: 1,260
From: PA
Originally Posted by srika
1TB flash drive... sign me up.I had a curious problem today though. I was copying files from a 1gb SD card to a computer, and got file corruption errors - it couldn't copy certain files. wtf? I thought that would never happen on an SD card or other RAM-type memory device.
Big Block go VROOOM!
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,578
Likes: 1
From: Chicago Burbs
Originally Posted by JSuppi
Why even produce an Parallel ATA HD anymore?? Should just make them either SATA1, SATA II or SAS.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,108
Likes: 14,260
hard drives in the future will be organic. they will be living, breathing organisms, that you have to feed. so it will be like having a pet, except it stores all your data. as long as you don't let it die, you're all good. 
go like hell
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,154
Likes: 1
From: Anna,OH(home of the honda/acura motors)
Originally Posted by Billiam
And you're going to back up 750GB with...?
'Big Daddy Diggler'
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,016
Likes: 4
From: Yonkers NY
Great, let me put 750gb of important data on a single unit and loose it all because of disc failure and then have to pay 3 grand to recover it. Sorry, just had 3 500 gigs die in 3 diff computers in the last 6 months. I work with a photographer/videographers and we put all the raw footage and pictures in back up drives and use different drives to edit. And we've tried a raid configuration, but premiere slows to a crawl.
Originally Posted by bigman
Great, let me put 750gb of important data on a single unit and loose it all because of disc failure and then have to pay 3 grand to recover it. Sorry, just had 3 500 gigs die in 3 diff computers in the last 6 months. I work with a photographer/videographers and we put all the raw footage and pictures in back up drives and use different drives to edit. And we've tried a raid configuration, but premiere slows to a crawl.
Originally Posted by bigman
Great, let me put 750gb of important data on a single unit and loose it all because of disc failure and then have to pay 3 grand to recover it. Sorry, just had 3 500 gigs die in 3 diff computers in the last 6 months. I work with a photographer/videographers and we put all the raw footage and pictures in back up drives and use different drives to edit. And we've tried a raid configuration, but premiere slows to a crawl.
http://www.pcmech.com/show/harddrive/296/1/
The more commonly used RAID levels are RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 0+1, and RAID 5. Each "level" is simply a different configuration of the RAID standard, each providing certain benefits and performance parameters.
RAID 0
RAID 0 could be said to not be technically RAID. Why? Because it lacks the "R" - redundancy. RAID 0 is basically a RAID setup that employs the striping I talked about above. This setup requires at least two hard drives to be configured into a "striped set". RAID 0 is becoming increasingly popular amongst power users. As discussed before, this setup offers much higher read/write speeds than normal and will really help to speed up a computer. People who are into raw speed for gaming, multimedia, etc, will enjoy RAID 0. But, because it lacks the redundancy factor, it is not typically used in corporate, mission-critical environments. If one drive of the RAID 0 array dies, the whole array is screwed.
RAID 1
RAID 1 employs the mirroring capability discussed previously. It can, in some cases, provide a little performance benefit, but it is primarily used for redundancy, pure and simple. With RAID 1, you have the option of attaching a third drive to the controller. It acts as a spare drive. It is not part of the RAID array, but simply kicks in in the event that one of the drives fails. The controller would perform an automatic restore to the spare drive, notify you of the failure, and continue operating as though nothing happened. RAID 1 is used more on corporate networks andweb servers. Desktop users don't typically need it, although some who REALLY need that redundancy do use it on desktop machines.
RAID 0+1
RAID 0+1, as you might be able to tell from the name, gives you the best of both worlds. It can be costly, though, as it requires at least 4 hard drives to do it. Two of the drives are striped, as in a RAID 0 array, and the other two are mirrors of the first two. This is the only option for IDE users who want both the speed and the redundancy. Due to the cost of buying 4 hard drives plus a RAID controller, this is not the most popular option in town. It does, though, kick ass, and you will find desktop users and web server guys using this.
RAID 5
RAID 5 uses the high performance capability of striping with the increased integrity of the parity bit. The setup requires at least 3 drives. To see why it needs 3, see the discussion of parity above. By comparing the data on two of the drives, it can "fill in the blanks" on the third drive, just like solving an algabraic equation. This is what gives RAID 5 the security. Because both the data and parity info is spread out across all drives, it is often called "distributed parity".
RAID 5 is typically not an option for desktop users. It offers the best of all worlds, but typically only SCSI RAID controllers have the ability to handle it. This means IDE cannot be used, which in turn means this option will cost a crapload. RAID 5 is typically thought to be used in enterprise servers and the like.
RAID 0
RAID 0 could be said to not be technically RAID. Why? Because it lacks the "R" - redundancy. RAID 0 is basically a RAID setup that employs the striping I talked about above. This setup requires at least two hard drives to be configured into a "striped set". RAID 0 is becoming increasingly popular amongst power users. As discussed before, this setup offers much higher read/write speeds than normal and will really help to speed up a computer. People who are into raw speed for gaming, multimedia, etc, will enjoy RAID 0. But, because it lacks the redundancy factor, it is not typically used in corporate, mission-critical environments. If one drive of the RAID 0 array dies, the whole array is screwed.
RAID 1
RAID 1 employs the mirroring capability discussed previously. It can, in some cases, provide a little performance benefit, but it is primarily used for redundancy, pure and simple. With RAID 1, you have the option of attaching a third drive to the controller. It acts as a spare drive. It is not part of the RAID array, but simply kicks in in the event that one of the drives fails. The controller would perform an automatic restore to the spare drive, notify you of the failure, and continue operating as though nothing happened. RAID 1 is used more on corporate networks andweb servers. Desktop users don't typically need it, although some who REALLY need that redundancy do use it on desktop machines.
RAID 0+1
RAID 0+1, as you might be able to tell from the name, gives you the best of both worlds. It can be costly, though, as it requires at least 4 hard drives to do it. Two of the drives are striped, as in a RAID 0 array, and the other two are mirrors of the first two. This is the only option for IDE users who want both the speed and the redundancy. Due to the cost of buying 4 hard drives plus a RAID controller, this is not the most popular option in town. It does, though, kick ass, and you will find desktop users and web server guys using this.
RAID 5
RAID 5 uses the high performance capability of striping with the increased integrity of the parity bit. The setup requires at least 3 drives. To see why it needs 3, see the discussion of parity above. By comparing the data on two of the drives, it can "fill in the blanks" on the third drive, just like solving an algabraic equation. This is what gives RAID 5 the security. Because both the data and parity info is spread out across all drives, it is often called "distributed parity".
RAID 5 is typically not an option for desktop users. It offers the best of all worlds, but typically only SCSI RAID controllers have the ability to handle it. This means IDE cannot be used, which in turn means this option will cost a crapload. RAID 5 is typically thought to be used in enterprise servers and the like.
Big Block go VROOOM!
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,578
Likes: 1
From: Chicago Burbs
And to make things even more confusing, there is also a configuration commonly referred to as RAID 10. Where as 0+1 is a mirror of stripes, RAID 10 (or 1+0) is a stripe of mirrors. In something like video editing, where I/O throughput is a concern, you definitely want to stick with RAID 0+1.
BTW - The other thing that can come into play a bit is the cluster or block size but in this day and age this is usually more of a concern over effeciently using disk space than a performance issue.
BTW - The other thing that can come into play a bit is the cluster or block size but in this day and age this is usually more of a concern over effeciently using disk space than a performance issue.
'Big Daddy Diggler'
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,016
Likes: 4
From: Yonkers NY
Originally Posted by Sly Raskal
I don't know your experience level on computer setups so I'm just throwing this out there..
http://www.pcmech.com/show/harddrive/296/1/
what RAID setup were you using??
http://www.pcmech.com/show/harddrive/296/1/
what RAID setup were you using??
'Big Daddy Diggler'
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,016
Likes: 4
From: Yonkers NY
Originally Posted by Billiam
And to make things even more confusing, there is also a configuration commonly referred to as RAID 10. Where as 0+1 is a mirror of stripes, RAID 10 (or 1+0) is a stripe of mirrors. In something like video editing, where I/O throughput is a concern, you definitely want to stick with RAID 0+1.
BTW - The other thing that can come into play a bit is the cluster or block size but in this day and age this is usually more of a concern over effeciently using disk space than a performance issue.
BTW - The other thing that can come into play a bit is the cluster or block size but in this day and age this is usually more of a concern over effeciently using disk space than a performance issue.
Originally Posted by bigman
I do have experience, and i had a raid1 setup on an asus motherboard with a built in controller, but i was informed by adobe that the premiere rights everytime you do anything this way you dont lose time if shit happens. They also said that becuase of the reading and writing all the time, the software takes longer to do certain tasks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rockyboy
2G RDX (2013-2018)
171
Aug 4, 2024 10:35 AM
rockyboy
2G RDX (2013-2018)
46
Jan 25, 2016 06:00 PM
ja17
Audio, Video, Electronics & Navigation
0
Sep 7, 2015 06:08 PM
asahrts
Member Cars for Sale
0
Sep 4, 2015 05:55 PM