Yowza.. Seagate announces 400Gigs SATA

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-16 01:19am

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!

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-06-16 03:23am

Awesome !

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-06-16 03:30am

That's pretty sweet, can't wait to buy my own.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-06-16 08:11pm

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...

muse · Post by **muse** » 2004-06-16 08:28pm

Three of those drives and you have over a Terabyte of storage. At this rate a petabyte is only about a decade away.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-16 08:39pm

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.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-06-20 11:42pm

I could fill it in a few weeks, but hey, I wouldn't have to worry about HD space for a while

Hyperion · Post by **Hyperion** » 2004-06-21 12:10am

Wow, imagine trying to back that monster up if something went wrong? *shudder*

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-21 01:01am

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.

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2004-06-21 04:15am

I think defragmenting such a monster would take a whole weekend

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-06-21 06:16am

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...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-06-21 10:18am

NTFS is reliable

For backup, you'd probably have to go tape (expensive tape) to have a prayer of doing so.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-06-21 12:16pm

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.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-06-21 01:47pm

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."

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-06-21 03:30pm

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.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-06-21 04:28pm

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?