Page 1 of 1
Yowza.. Seagate announces 400Gigs SATA
Posted: 2004-06-16 01:19am
by kojikun
http://www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/new ... 70,00.html
Check it, man. 400 gigs on a 3.5" drive. That's almost half my porn collection!
Posted: 2004-06-16 03:23am
by Sarevok
Awesome !
Posted: 2004-06-16 03:30am
by Gandalf
That's pretty sweet, can't wait to buy my own.
Posted: 2004-06-16 08:11pm
by SPOOFE
400 gigs on three platters and a 16-meg buffer... Nice stuff. Sure, it'll cost an arm an' a leg, but it'll drive the costs of smaller drives down even more...
Shit, I remember how impressed I was back when HDD's hit $1 per gig...
Posted: 2004-06-16 08:28pm
by muse
Three of those drives and you have over a Terabyte of storage. At this rate a petabyte is only about a decade away.
Posted: 2004-06-16 08:39pm
by kojikun
muse wrote:Three of those drives and you have over a Terabyte of storage. At this rate a petabyte is only about a decade away.
The entire Library of Congress is 10 terabytes. Thats only 25 of those harddrives.
Posted: 2004-06-20 11:42pm
by Solauren
I could fill it in a few weeks, but hey, I wouldn't have to worry about HD space for a while
Posted: 2004-06-21 12:10am
by Hyperion
Wow, imagine trying to back that monster up if something went wrong? *shudder*
Posted: 2004-06-21 01:01am
by Uraniun235
If you're actually concerned about loss of data should a monster drive like that fail, then you buy multiple like drives and put them into a RAID.
Posted: 2004-06-21 04:15am
by Comosicus
I think defragmenting such a monster would take a whole weekend
Posted: 2004-06-21 06:16am
by Crayz9000
Comosicus wrote:I think defragmenting such a monster would take a whole weekend
You're going to run Windows on it? You must be kidding me.
For such a freakin' big drive, you want a reliable filesystem. Like, oh... XFS or ReiserFS...
Posted: 2004-06-21 10:18am
by phongn
NTFS is reliable
For backup, you'd probably have to go tape (
expensive tape) to have a prayer of doing so.
Posted: 2004-06-21 12:16pm
by General Zod
muse wrote:Three of those drives and you have over a Terabyte of storage. At this rate a petabyte is only about a decade away.
i read in one computer magazine the other day that they're talking about having hard drives in the 5.7 terabyte range by 2010 or so. Which will be extremely nice when they're available to the mass consumer.
Posted: 2004-06-21 01:47pm
by Pu-239
phongn wrote:NTFS is reliable
For backup, you'd probably have to go tape (
expensive tape) to have a prayer of doing so.
It still requires defragging
(XFS has a defragger though (xfs_fsr)- does anyone use it?)
I'm waiting for Reiser4, though it was very flaky the last time I attempted to use it on a server, so I'll wait a year after it is declared "stable."
Posted: 2004-06-21 03:30pm
by phongn
Pu-239 wrote:It still requires defragging
(XFS has a defragger though (xfs_fsr)- does anyone use it?)
I bet XFS/ext3/ReiserFS also fragment ... just that nobody has taken the time to test to see if it is neccessary. For that matter, I don't think anyone has tested if you actually
need to defragment NTFS.
Posted: 2004-06-21 04:28pm
by Crayz9000
phongn wrote:Pu-239 wrote:It still requires defragging
(XFS has a defragger though (xfs_fsr)- does anyone use it?)
I bet XFS/ext3/ReiserFS also fragment ... just that nobody has taken the time to test to see if it is neccessary. For that matter, I don't think anyone has tested if you actually
need to defragment NTFS.
ext3 probably more than the others, since it's just ext2 with a journal.
Any word on how JFS fares?