• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hitachi announces 500GB SATA II drive

I don't get when they try to flaunt that 3Gb/s transfer rate. It's just SATA II. Why not put it in terms of MB/sec as they usually do. And it's not like any single drive can even come close to that high of a sustained transfer rate.
 
Originally posted by: shintot
I think they should invent a self standing RAID stiping drive... 250+250
Click to expand...


Because it would be twice as ikely to die (warranty?) and it would take up two slots anyway (they can't just make a 250 GB HD half the size and squeeze two together).

Basically, it would have a shorter warranty, be more expensive, and take up the same amount of room...
 
Originally posted by: SrGuapo
Originally posted by: shintot
I think they should invent a self standing RAID stiping drive... 250+250
Click to expand...


Because it would be twice as ikely to die (warranty?) and it would take up two slots anyway (they can't just make a 250 GB HD half the size and squeeze two together).

Basically, it would have a shorter warranty, be more expensive, and take up the same amount of room...
Click to expand...

Not to mention that it would probably require special drivers, which would make OS installations a pain.

Seriously, though, someone should consider making a "double high" 3.5" drive with a TB of storage. Sure, it won't fit in SFF PC's, but it would be great for bragging rights and the hard core tech crowd would buy them like hotcakes.
 
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: SrGuapo
Originally posted by: shintot
I think they should invent a self standing RAID stiping drive... 250+250
Click to expand...


Because it would be twice as ikely to die (warranty?) and it would take up two slots anyway (they can't just make a 250 GB HD half the size and squeeze two together).

Basically, it would have a shorter warranty, be more expensive, and take up the same amount of room...
Click to expand...

Not to mention that it would probably require special drivers, which would make OS installations a pain.

Seriously, though, someone should consider making a "double high" 3.5" drive with a TB of storage. Sure, it won't fit in SFF PC's, but it would be great for bragging rights and the hard core tech crowd would buy them like hotcakes.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. Nothing that would cost well over $1000 would sell well at all to the hardcore crowd. It's not really even realistic to think such a drive would be possible to be produced. Hitachi is using five 100GB platters in their 500GB drive while using 125GB platters in the smaller 250GB version. Logically you would ask why they didn't use four 125GB platters instead of 5 100GB platters. The answer is most likely that they weren't able to produce a 4 platter drive with data density that high. Now double the capacity, and drop the data density some more, and you are looking at a dozen+ platters in the drive which is pretty impractical. There have been drives in the past with that many, but again with significantly lower areal density and they weren't exactly ideal for home PC's when physical size, heat and noise were accounted for.

RAID within a drive simply makes no sense. It takes all the bad parts of regular RAID and adds a few of its own for good measure.
 
Hahaha, you guys are hilarious! You need to use your imaginations a little. Obviously there would need to be definite hardware upgrades, not to mention the data transfer would likely exceed that of SATA II. I see in the future hard drives will be direcly bussed into the mobo. Hard drives will be the new memory, mark my words.
 
Originally posted by: V00D00
I don't get when they try to flaunt that 3Gb/s transfer rate. It's just SATA II. Why not put it in terms of MB/sec as they usually do. And it's not like any single drive can even come close to that high of a sustained transfer rate.
Click to expand...

SATA now only gets about 55mb or so... 3Gb/s is definately a "look good on paper" thing
 
Originally posted by: shintot
Hahaha, you guys are hilarious! You need to use your imaginations a little. Obviously there would need to be definite hardware upgrades, not to mention the data transfer would likely exceed that of SATA II. I see in the future hard drives will be direcly bussed into the mobo. Hard drives will be the new memory, mark my words.
Click to expand...

Yea you're right. In like 20 to 30 years maybe. As long as hard drives remain mechanical, they will be nothing more than storage for data and swap space. Seagate has stated they see the current winchester design for hard drives as the future of hard drive design for at least the next 10 years because it is a mature technology and they see continued room for improvements for at least that much longer. They also think that there is nothing currently in development that is a realistic replacement for HD's so we are still a long way off from seeing anything but spinning platters in our main storage device.

It would take a pretty serious RAID array to surpass the 300MB/s theoretical limit of SATA II. Certainly nothing anyone could squeeze into a single hard drive casing.

With a better understanding of the basic design characteristics of a typical hard drive, shintot, you would understand why no one has attempted (and for good reason) a true RAID within a single drive arrangement. Conner did infact design a drive which read from 2 heads at once that reached market under Seagate's brand name a few years ago, but the design died after the first model due to complexity and poor sales (performance was pretty good), and wasn't RAID anymore than the trueX CDROM drives could be considered RAID devices.
 
Originally posted by: Pariah
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: SrGuapo
Originally posted by: shintot
I think they should invent a self standing RAID stiping drive... 250+250
Click to expand...


Because it would be twice as ikely to die (warranty?) and it would take up two slots anyway (they can't just make a 250 GB HD half the size and squeeze two together).

Basically, it would have a shorter warranty, be more expensive, and take up the same amount of room...
Click to expand...

Not to mention that it would probably require special drivers, which would make OS installations a pain.

Seriously, though, someone should consider making a "double high" 3.5" drive with a TB of storage. Sure, it won't fit in SFF PC's, but it would be great for bragging rights and the hard core tech crowd would buy them like hotcakes.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. Nothing that would cost well over $1000 would sell well at all to the hardcore crowd. It's not really even realistic to think such a drive would be possible to be produced. Hitachi is using five 100GB platters in their 500GB drive while using 125GB platters in the smaller 250GB version. Logically you would ask why they didn't use four 125GB platters instead of 5 100GB platters. The answer is most likely that they weren't able to produce a 4 platter drive with data density that high. Now double the capacity, and drop the data density some more, and you are looking at a dozen+ platters in the drive which is pretty impractical. There have been drives in the past with that many, but again with significantly lower areal density and they weren't exactly ideal for home PC's when physical size, heat and noise were accounted for.

RAID within a drive simply makes no sense. It takes all the bad parts of regular RAID and adds a few of its own for good measure.
Click to expand...

OK, perhaps this is a pointy haired boss question, but someone needs to ask it... Why can't my "double high" drive design have two or even more sets of drive platters? Since it would be slightly more than twice as tall as a normal hard drive, there should be plenty of room inside for two read mechanisms and extra heatsinks for cooling.
 
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
OK, perhaps this is a pointy haired boss question, but someone needs to ask it... Why can't my "double high" drive design have two or even more sets of drive platters? Since it would be slightly more than twice as tall as a normal hard drive, there should be plenty of room inside for two read mechanisms and extra heatsinks for cooling.
Click to expand...

Heat, cost, etc. It would be much cheaper for you, the end user, to set up your own RAID 0. Since there would be twice as many drive failures per "disk", the company would have to deal with twice as many RMAs. Also, sice there will need to be a large number of platters packed into the thing, a huge (and Loud) fan would be required to keep the things cool. Also, it really isn't neccesary now. Why should a company release a new product that has a very small demographics (due to the price) that only competes with exising products that they sell.

I think it may be a technology of the future, when many of the issues with RAID have been smoothed over and there is actually a need for RAID 0 to keep up with current software.
 
OK, perhaps this is a pointy haired boss question, but someone needs to ask it... Why can't my "double high" drive design have two or even more sets of drive platters? Since it would be slightly more than twice as tall as a normal hard drive, there should be plenty of room inside for two read mechanisms and extra heatsinks for cooling.
Click to expand...

What would be the allure of having a drive with twice the capacity of a single drive, that takes up more than twice the space making it more difficult to integrate, uses twice as much power since it is really 2 drives in one casing and would likely cost a whole lot more than twice as much? I don't see any reason why someone would buy that solution over 2 separate drives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top