Jump to content


- - - - -

Seagate's 3TB drives; will need new motherboards


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Nvyseal

Nvyseal

    Chairman of the Board

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,802 posts
  • Location:From the whatever it is, Pluto
  • Country:USA

Posted 18 May 2010 - 06:54 PM

images/news/hardware.jpg2.1 TB of storage ought to be enough for anybody. At least, that's what IBM and Microsoft must have been thinking when they set the maximum supported size drive of the venerable Logical Block Addressing (LBA) standard that's now embedded in motherboards, RAID drivers and firmware, and operating systems across all segments of the PC industry. So when Seagate confirmed longstanding rumors that the drivemaker is prepping a 3TB drive for the end of the year, it also had to give a number of caveats along with the news.

"Nobody expected back in 1980 when they set the standard that we’d ever address over 2.1TB," Seagate's Barbara Craig told Thinq. That was the year that IBM introduced the world's first gigabyte drive at a retail price of $40,000 (about $68,300 in 2009 dollars) and a weight of 550lb; it was also the year that Seagate introduced the first 5.25-inch hard drive for the IBM PC-XT, the 5MB ST-506. Given those data points, it's easy to see how 2.1TB was essentially just an arbitrarily large number of bytes, sort of like "a gazillion."

So if you're in the market for a new system as we head into the summer, you'll want to keep an eye out for hardware that can support the larger drives. And you'll also want to keep an eye out for the next version of our long-delayed System Guide, which we're currently working on.

ArsTechnica


#2 m.oreilly

m.oreilly

    rog'er wilco

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts
  • Country:lower uncton

Posted 19 May 2010 - 01:55 AM

unless these 3tb drives are super performers/dirt cheap/lotsa onboard cache, raiding a couple of 1.5/raid0 would be faster, albeit 0 fault tolerance. i dunno, just the shear size of these things...what about seek times? short stroking aside, filling up one of these and using an OS/filing system that requires defrag...and losing a drive...w/3tb on it (or ya coulda had a raid5/6/10/50 utilizing bundles of cheap 1tb drives, with hot spares...).

#3 scaramonga

scaramonga

    CALLING ALL STATIONS

  • Global Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts
  • Location:Scotland
  • Country:Dunno? but it ain't nice.

Posted 19 May 2010 - 03:39 AM

I think 48 SSD's looped up in a Matrix Ludo Grid would be much better.....eh mo?


:giggle:

#4 m.oreilly

m.oreilly

    rog'er wilco

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts
  • Country:lower uncton

Posted 19 May 2010 - 05:33 AM

ssds ftw111 :giggle:

#5 hog

hog

    official linguist

  • Sponsor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Montreal area, QC
  • Country:Canada

Posted 19 May 2010 - 01:41 PM

lol I guess you're right that a single 3TB is rather useless, but still, imagine yourself in 2-3 years being stuck with a 2.1TB limit... 3 years ago, I was buying a 320GB drive, thinking it would take me forever to fill it up!

#6 VROSA

VROSA

    Ghost Member

  • Global Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,043 posts
  • Location:Belo Horizonte - Minas Gerais - Brazil
  • Interests:Hardware, Software, Alphas and Betas, OS Mods, Windows 8.1, Windows 10, Linux, Games, Fun, Friends.
  • Country:Brazil

Posted 21 May 2010 - 10:23 PM

Quote

lol I guess you're right that a single 3TB is rather useless, but still, imagine yourself in 2-3 years being stuck with a 2.1TB limit... 3 years ago, I was buying a 320GB drive, thinking it would take me forever to fill it up

The more we have the more we need ! :giggle:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users