Page 1 of 2
Hitachi releases one-terabyte drive
Posted: 2007-01-05 12:19pm
by Uraniun235
Hitachi Press Release
* Deskstar 7K1000 – gaming and high-performance PCs, external storage devices and upgrade applications
o SATA 3.0Gb/s and PATA-133 interfaces
o Ramp load design for increased shock protection
o Three low-power idle modes to boost power efficiency
* CinemaStar 7K1000 – DVR applications
o Adaptive error recovery and SMART command transport for optimized video streaming and picture quality
o Smooth Stream Technology to optimize the drive for audio/video applications requiring reliable storage
o "Bedroom quiet" acoustics
Finally, an enterprise version of the TB drive designed for lower duty-cycle, high-capacity enterprise environments is currently under evaluation at major OEM customers and is expected to be available in the second quarter.
Pricing and Availability for the Deskstar 7K1000
The Deskstar 7K1000 SATA version will be available in Q1 2007 at 750-GB and one-TB capacities. The 1TB capacity point will have a suggested retail price of $399 (USD).
The CinemaStar 1TB hard drive will be available in the second quarter.
Technical Specifications:
Deskstar 7K1000
1000/750 GB – SATA (GB = 1 billion bytes, accessible capacity may be less)
148 billion bits per square inch maximum areal density
1070 Mb/s max. media data rate
8.7 ms average seek time (with command overhead)
7,200 RPM, 4.17 ms average latency
Serial-ATA 3.0Gb/s
32 MB data buffer – SATA
26.1 mm in height (max)
700g in weight (max)
5/4 platters, 10/8 recording heads – SATA
300 G/1 ms pulse non-operating shock
9.0 (5 disk)/8.1 (4 disk) watt idle power – SATA
2.9 Bels typical idle acoustics
5-60 degrees C operating temperature
CinemaStar
Specifications will be available at the time of product shipment
Posted: 2007-01-05 12:26pm
by General Zod
I think I just had an orgasm.
Posted: 2007-01-05 12:48pm
by MKSheppard
does it work with Windows XP SP2?
Posted: 2007-01-05 01:21pm
by Mr Bean
MKSheppard wrote:does it work with Windows XP SP2?
It frigging better!
*Edit in actual computer terms anyone want to do the math and tell me how many actual GB's this 1000 GB drive has(Due to that whole Computers think 1024 MB=1GB while Hard Drive company's think it's 1000 MG=1GB)
Posted: 2007-01-05 01:36pm
by General Zod
Mr Bean wrote:MKSheppard wrote:does it work with Windows XP SP2?
It frigging better!
*Edit in actual computer terms anyone want to do the math and tell me how many actual GB's this 1000 GB drive has(Due to that whole Computers think 1024 MB=1GB while Hard Drive company's think it's 1000 MG=1GB)
Unless I botched my math horribly, the actual space should be something like 903.35gb.
Posted: 2007-01-05 01:39pm
by Dave
Assuming I did my math right:
1000 GB (listed in press release) * 1000 MB per GB =1*10^6
1*10^6 / 1024 = 976.5625 GB real size
Divide that by 1024 again and you get about 5% less "real" HD space than advertised (and bear in mind that this is for a blank disk, not a formated one.)
Posted: 2007-01-05 01:39pm
by Mr Bean
General Zod wrote:
Unless I botched my math horribly, the actual space should be something like 903.35gb.
Perhaps this summer when the 1.2 TB drives are released we will get our first "actual" TB drive.
Posted: 2007-01-05 02:12pm
by Ace Pace
MKSheppard wrote:does it work with Windows XP SP2?
Why not?
Posted: 2007-01-05 02:32pm
by Losonti Tokash
Ace Pace wrote:MKSheppard wrote:does it work with Windows XP SP2?
Why not?
Guy reading over my shoulder thinks it's because there's supposedly a limit to how much space XP can format or something. He doesn't really know what he's talking about and neither do I.
Posted: 2007-01-05 02:42pm
by General Zod
Losonti Tokash wrote:Ace Pace wrote:MKSheppard wrote:does it work with Windows XP SP2?
Why not?
Guy reading over my shoulder thinks it's because there's supposedly a limit to how much space XP can format or something. He doesn't really know what he's talking about and neither do I.
It has more to do with how Windows or the BIOS reads the hard drive's sectors, and isn't too relevant in modern computers, since we've more or less gotten around the majority of old hard disk limitations.
Clicky.
Posted: 2007-01-05 02:44pm
by Xon
Losonti Tokash wrote:Guy reading over my shoulder thinks it's because there's supposedly a limit to how much space XP can format or something. He doesn't really know what he's talking about and neither do I.
There are some technical limitations preventing NTFS being used on volumes formated as "basic" which are greater than 2 terrabytes in size.
"Dynamic" formated volumes dont have this limitation
Posted: 2007-01-05 03:00pm
by phongn
Mr Bean wrote:*Edit in actual computer terms anyone want to do the math and tell me how many actual GB's this 1000 GB drive has(Due to that whole Computers think 1024 MB=1GB while Hard Drive company's think it's 1000 MG=1GB)
1 TB = 1000 GB = 10^6 MB = 10^9 KB = 10^12 B
Also,
1 TB = 1000 GB ~= 931.32 GiB (which presumably is what you're wanting)
A 1 TiB drive would be 2^40 bytes or 1.0995 TB
Xon wrote:"Dynamic" formated volumes dont have this limitation
Those limits are 2^32 - 1 clusters (i.e. ~256TiB max)
Posted: 2007-01-05 03:03pm
by General Zod
phongn wrote:Mr Bean wrote:*Edit in actual computer terms anyone want to do the math and tell me how many actual GB's this 1000 GB drive has(Due to that whole Computers think 1024 MB=1GB while Hard Drive company's think it's 1000 MG=1GB)
1 TB = 1000 GB = 10^6 MB = 10^9 KB = 10^12 B
Also,
1 TB = 1000 GB ~= 976.5 GiB (which presumably is what you're wanting)
Hrmm, thought my math may have been a bit off. I got that number when I ran it through the first time but it didn't seem quite right for some reason. Ah well.
Posted: 2007-01-05 03:12pm
by phongn
General Zod wrote:Hrmm, thought my math may have been a bit off. I got that number when I ran it through the first time but it didn't seem quite right for some reason. Ah well.
I was actually wrong and used a rough conversion factor. I've corrected it above (10^12/2^30 = 931.32 GB)
Posted: 2007-01-05 03:16pm
by Beowulf
You're all still wrong. It's (10^12 / 2^30) Gigabytes. Comes out to 931 GB.
Posted: 2007-01-05 03:20pm
by Ubiquitous
How long would it take to defrag such a beast?
Posted: 2007-01-05 03:29pm
by phongn
Beowulf wrote:You're all still wrong. It's (10^12 / 2^30) Gigabytes. Comes out to 931 GB.
Ahem.
Ubiquitous wrote:How long would it take to defrag such a beast?
It depends on how data you have and how badly fragmented it is
Posted: 2007-01-05 03:56pm
by Beowulf
phongn wrote:Beowulf wrote:You're all still wrong. It's (10^12 / 2^30) Gigabytes. Comes out to 931 GB.
Ahem.
So I'm slow posting. Sue me.
Posted: 2007-01-05 06:48pm
by Instant Sunrise
1 TB = 10^12 Bytes
10^12 B / 1024 = 976.56 KiB
972.56 KiB / 1024 = 953.67 MiB
953.67 MiB / 1024 = 931.32 GiB
This figure, however, does not account for the 8 Megabytes that windows requires to be left unpartitioned to function. Assuming the drive is used with Windows.
An actual 1 terabyte drive would have to be 1,099,511,627,776 bytes. Or 1.1 TB on the box to actually format to a terabyte.
Posted: 2007-01-05 06:48pm
by Sharpshooter
DAY-MN. And here I was just the other day asking a friend of mine when we were going to start seeing the next big jump in hard drive space.
Posted: 2007-01-05 06:58pm
by aerius
Hmmm...wonder how many hi-res porn movies I can stuff on it...
Posted: 2007-01-05 07:00pm
by Sriad
skyman8081 wrote:1 TB = 10^12 Bytes
10^12 B / 1024 = 976.56 KiB
972.56 KiB / 1024 = 953.67 MiB
953.67 MiB / 1024 = 931.32 GiB
This figure, however, does not account for the 8 Megabytes that windows requires to be left unpartitioned to function. Assuming the drive is used with Windows.
An actual 1 terabyte drive would have to be 1,099,511,627,776 bytes. Or 1.1 TB on the box to actually format to a terabyte.
I'm looking forward to it.
I've always wanted to own a trillion of something.
Posted: 2007-01-06 02:25am
by Xon
phongn wrote:Xon wrote:"Dynamic" formated volumes dont have this limitation
Those limits are 2^32 - 1 clusters (i.e. ~256TiB max)
Due to many features requiring 4kb clusters, and the MBR, the max size is ~2TB. You see this issue come up every now and again when people at ARS talk about large RAID arrays under Windows.
Ubiquitous wrote:How long would it take to defrag such a beast?
You shouldnt need to. File fragmentation only occurs when the drive is
very full.
Posted: 2007-01-06 03:04am
by Uraniun235
Wait, so what happens if you manually specify a larger cluster size when you format a volume?
Posted: 2007-01-06 07:10am
by Xon
Uraniun235 wrote:Wait, so what happens if you manually specify a larger cluster size when you format a volume?
The builtin compression and encryption stop working, cant remember if anything else breaks