26 replies to this topic

[lokoike]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/21/seagate...racuda-7200-10/

Pardon me while I clean off my screen after reading that...


Although, that 16 MB cache has GOT to go!

[Eldmannen]

Damn, that is sweet!
750 gb!
That is huge!
Glad to see that new bigger drives are coming out.

I wish I had a 750 gb disk, that wouldnt be bad.
Wouldnt have to worry about diskspace much then, heh.
Not that I worry much nowadays, since I dont use so much but anyways.

If each song is 4 megabyte, then you can fit 187500 songs into that disk.
Or if you have DVD quality movies at 4 gb each, then you can fit 187~ movies.

[Mike Rochip]

The 5 year warrantee is a nice bonus.

[Eldmannen]

Yeah, all disk manufacturers should have a 5+ year warranty.
Too bad most just have 2 years.

[Andavari]

I need ten of them!

[zaphirer]

Psh. Forget that. I would rather have dual 150 gb Raptor-X 10,000 RPM HDDs in RAID 0. Dangerous, but seriously fast.

[CTskifreak]

Dannnnnnng.....that is sweet.....I need me one of those.

The 2 150 GB Raptors in RAID 0 would be insanely fast ..... that would be scha-weetness.

AJ

[lokoike]

zaphirer, on May 1 2006, 09:15 PM, said:

Psh. Forget that. I would rather have dual 150 gb Raptor-X 10,000 RPM HDDs in RAID 0. Dangerous, but seriously fast.

Even better and faster than those, Flash ROM hard drives! Nearly instantaneous data access, not to mention extremely low power consumption and practically no heat produced!

As soon as the price comes down and the data density increases, you can bet I'll be getting one as my primary OS hard drive. I can't wait!

[Eldmannen]

Raptor is a high-performance disk, often used in servers and high-end workstations. Raptor-X is the same drive, but costs more and targeted for dumb gamers with alot of money because it has a window on the disk. Who the hell needs a window on the disk?
I would rather pick a Raptor than a Raptor-X.

And as for Flash ROM drives, dont forget about no noise!
Though, I heard they have limited amount of times they can write data.

[DjLizard]

lokoike, on Apr 22 2006, 03:32 PM, said:

Although, that 16 MB cache has GOT to go!

What do you mean by that?

[lokoike]

DjLizard, on May 2 2006, 10:43 AM, said:

What do you mean by that?

Well, considering right now the biggest HD you can get is 500 GBs (at least to the best of my knowledge), that means that this 750 gigger will boost the top HD size by 50%! So my personal feeling is that since this drive is designed to not only hold more files, but also bigger files, it should have a larger cache to help handle the workload more efficiently. I've always found that getting a drive with a bigger cache makes a huge performance difference! (much more than defragging ) In fact, I personally prefer a bigger cache to faster platters.

So basically, I just think that it would be cool if they would start doubling and quadrupling the cache for the new perpendicular recording disks. That way, your drives wouldn't have to reaccess the same data as much (since a lot of it could be retained on the cache) which means less repetitive platter spinning, so you would get better performance and longer drive life span. Hopefully they'll at least bump it up a little once we get into multi-terabytes of storage...

[CTskifreak]

Wanna hear huge?? My dad works at this hospital...head of the radiology department...he told me the whole hospital network has about 12 TB's of storage!!! Damn....imagine all the games and programs that could hold.......wow........ (drool)

AJ

[zaphirer]

lokoike, on May 2 2006, 02:27 AM, said:

Even better and faster than those, Flash ROM hard drives! Nearly instantaneous data access, not to mention extremely low power consumption and practically no heat produced!

As soon as the price comes down and the data density increases, you can bet I'll be getting one as my primary OS hard drive. I can't wait!

I don't like the idea of a power outage wiping out all my data. But I have a UPS, so who cares?

[Andavari]

GCNbball8, on May 2 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

he told me the whole hospital network has about 12 TB's of storage!!!

Awesome!

[lokoike]

zaphirer, on May 2 2006, 09:02 PM, said:

I don't like the idea of a power outage wiping out all my data. But I have a UPS, so who cares?

You must be thinking of RAM zaph. Flash ROM retains data without the necessity of a battery or capacitor. That is why you can save something on a Flash ROM memory stick, take it out of your computer for months, and the data still stays on it.

But, Eldmannen is right about Flash ROM's limited number of writes. I think it is in the tens of thousands, which is fine for a backup device, but I suppose if it was used as an OS drive, which reads and writes all day long, it wouldn't last too long. Oh well, maybe they'll up the capabilities in the near future. I sure hope so!

[Andavari]

lokoike, on May 3 2006, 03:58 AM, said:

But, Eldmannen is right about Flash ROM's limited number of writes.

I just learnt something new!

[zaphirer]

lokoike, on May 3 2006, 01:58 AM, said:

You must be thinking of RAM zaph.

Oh yah. I remember seeing a picture of basically a PCI-Card with what looked like 8 gbs of RAM stuck on it.

But Read-Only Memory? I don't know... perhaps just putting the operating system and its updates on it would work... then allow super-fast boot-up times! The fastest I can get (with a little bit of tweaking) is 45 seconds... better than my pre-formatted time of 3 minutes.

[lokoike]

zaphirer, on May 3 2006, 10:42 PM, said:

But Read-Only Memory? I don't know... perhaps just putting the operating system and its updates on it would work...

That's the beauty of Flash ROM: it is still called "Read-Only Memory", but yet it can still be rewriten (without the need of a soldering iron ). Kind of stupid to still call it ROM, as it misleads, but that is what Flash ROM actually is.

You can still save and re-save things on it, so Windows treats it like a normal drive. The only downside is that it wears out faster, because the number of reads/writes of Flash ROM is far less than that of a hard drive or CD-RW.

[zaphirer]

lokoike, on May 5 2006, 09:55 AM, said:

That's the beauty of Flash ROM: it is still called "Read-Only Memory", but yet it can still be rewriten (without the need of a soldering iron ). Kind of stupid to still call it ROM, as it misleads, but that is what Flash ROM actually is.

You can still save and re-save things on it, so Windows treats it like a normal drive. The only downside is that it wears out faster, because the number of reads/writes of Flash ROM is far less than that of a hard drive or CD-RW.

Oh. You learn something new every day
Any idea how fast it degrades? I heard that flash memory tends to be a little on the weak side, maybe around 5 years or so.

[lokoike]

zaphirer, on May 6 2006, 09:01 PM, said:

Oh. You learn something new every day
Any idea how fast it degrades? I heard that flash memory tends to be a little on the weak side, maybe around 5 years or so.

Well, I don't have an exact number yet, but I've heard it is in the ten thousands of writes. That seems like a lot, but when you compare that to around a million or so writes that some CD-RWs can take, it kinda pales in comparison. I'll have to research that and see just how long Flash ROM can endure.