What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
84 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+60"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn."
-Seagate CEO
http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/30/magazines/fortune/obrienseagate.fortune/index.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+45Cool - somewhere to put all the new HD porn :)
- BarriedaleNick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Digg down - half a dozen people can type quicker than I can.
- E3L1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25thats not a single internal drive... :/
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Bah! It's really only .9TB.
Wake me when they come out with a real 1TB drive. - phantomAI, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Imagine the time it takes to defrag that thing.
- r121, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Longer than it takes to install an operating system that doesn't fragment it's filesystems, I imagine.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20cool Hitachi has just announced their 1Tb drive too http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/05/hitachi_unveils_first_1tb_hdd/
- MrBobDobolina, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Another gadget I have no practical use for... ...I want one!
- PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14High five, all. This technology, floating around for so long, finally fulfills its promise of a 1TB single drive.
Hell. Yeah. - drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13cant wait till they're 300 bucks
- pcrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Hitachi says that theirs will be $399 later this quarter.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13HFS+ defragments on the fly, so you don't require those monster defrag session. I believe ZFS does something similar.
Come to think of it, almost any other filesystem except for FAT32/NTFS does a great job of keeping itself pretty clean. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12TimDigg: You've never shelled out for a good WD drive have you? If you go cheap don't be surprised when you get a cheap drive. I agree that Seagate makes good drives, I am becoming loyal to them over the years since Maxtors started sucking (hardy har har, they always sucked, make your jokes). But I also have 2 WD Raptors and they are fantastic drives. WD should not throw in the towel, otherwise there will be less competition. Competition is what drives Seagate to excel and drop prices dude.
- jseaton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10also a price point of $400, which is ridiculously cheap and its going to be available in Q1, compared to Seagate's "within 6 months" time line, and Seagate is not releasing a price point.
- crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9In regards to Skyshock21, he is the coolest CEO ever.
At least he's one of the only ones that truely understands his market.
Wonder what his meetings are like? - YoDiggity2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's for a 20-pack.
" 750GB Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3Gbps Internal Hard Drives (20-pack)" - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You obviously dont spend enough time on the internet then...
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11never, ever, post that you have a bonner again. Thats what you do.
And your man card has been deducted 5 points for making a bonner comment that wasn't in relation to a scantily clad or naked picture of a woman. - farrellj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Sweet....time for a Hitachi vs Seagate smackdown!
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5931.322575 gigabytes, actually.
- Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why wouldn't it? Just buy 4 of 'em and slap 'em in.
- danbedford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I can vouch that it will outperform 10k RPM SATA drives.
I have 3 Avid edit suites at work:
Two room have 4x Seagate 7200.10 500GB (perpendicular) drives set up in RAID 5 using Highpoint RocketRaid cards.
The other room has 4x Western Digital Raptor 10k 72GB drives also setup in RAID 5 using the same model Highpoint card.
The 500GB 7200RPM hit sustained 200-210 MB/s read speeds, while the less dense but faster spinning Raptors sustain about 150-160 MB/s. I would imagine the newer, more-dense 150GB Raptors might catch up a bit, but the value in these new perpendicular drives is absolutely amazing.
I'd like to see what happens if Western Digital can incorporate perpendicular recording in a Raptor 10k drive to increase density, but now with SAS 15k drives becoming commonplace, who knows what technology will be the new speed/density king. I think 10k SATA drives are dead in the water. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, Bigdisk is actually several harddrives that have been cabled together in a Raid system and housed in a big aluminum box. It is known to be highly unreliable. Just search for bigdisk reviews on teh intranets.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hate to tell all the byte nazis, but the Hard drive makers actually got it right. Tera is a prefix that means 1 trillion, not 2^40. It's the computer programmers that have redefined this for their base 2 computer system. These prefixes were defined before the computer age.
- Kale, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If it's mission-critical, use raid 1 with two. You have to pay for data security, unfortunately.
- LGgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The fortune interview with the CEO is great, nice to see there is still a CEO that is not borg. With this kind of leadership Seagate will continue to innovate.
- sorti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5it should force down the price on the 750GB drives then I'll update my RAID system
- CircleFusion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4He said 3 _more_, which, I suppose, means that he already owns one.
4 x 750 = 3000 - VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Is anyone else wary of the idea of putting all your eggs in one basket like that? I would hate to have an issue with my 1 TB hard drive.
- ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Mac Pro will work with any SATA drive (either I or II) in each of it's 4 drive bays, and can fit another one in each of the 5.25 inch bays (if you don't put an optical drive there. There are no "Mac only" or "Windows only" drives.
- artanis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ adml_shake
what the hell is a bonner? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Second on the WD Raptor drives.. The good bearings and long warranty got me, because really the only thing I want out of my OS drive is for it to keep working, and the idea that it's faster is nice, but I can't tell.
- danbedford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There seems to be a lot of confusion about the largest capacity SINGLE, BARE drive on the market.
If you are going to post anything about an ***external*** hard drive enclosure, please realize that ALL of them that are larger than 750GB have *2 or more* drives inside the enclosure. The largest capacity bare-bones internal hard drive on the market today is the Seagate 750GB drive.
Thanks!!! : ) - jseaton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Actually Hitachi has already announced this - http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.368c8bfe833dee8056fb11f0aac4f0a0/?javax.portlet.tpst=74ef8e8d695bcd876ccf7be1cf4362b4_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_74ef8e8d695bcd876ccf7be1cf4362b4_viewID=content&javax.portlet.prp_74ef8e8d695bcd876ccf7be1cf4362b4_docName=20070105_first_terabyte_hd.html&javax.portlet.prp_74ef8e8d695bcd876ccf7be1cf4362b4_folderPath=%2Fhgst%2Faboutus%2Fpress%2Finternal_news%2F&beanID=804390503&viewID=content&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token
- dodgyc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No there aren't. ~60GB Max.
- danbedford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Kniggit:
Actually, the 750GB Seagate drives are pretty damn fast. The higher density makes up for what it lacks in rotational speed, bringing it to relatively the same speed as a 150GB 10k Raptor when in a multiple drive RAID 0 setup.
Barefeats.com has some speed tests on their site. Check 'em out:
4 drive RAID 0 (stripe) setup; 750GB Seagate on par with 150GB Raptors:
Seagate = 294MB/s READ, 284MB/s WRITE
Raptor = 297MB/s READ, 286MB/s WRITE
http://barefeats.com/quad07.html
Single boot drive comparison; Raptors are still single drive speed king:
http://barefeats.com/quad08.html - CircleFusion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In a single drive? No.
- danbedford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2adding to my last comment:
please see my other comment here:
http://www.digg.com/hardware/Seagate_Anounces_1TB_Consumer_Hard_drive#c4588136
4 drive RAID 0 (stripe) setup; 750GB Seagate on par with 150GB Raptors:
Seagate = 294MB/s READ, 284MB/s WRITE
Raptor = 297MB/s READ, 286MB/s WRITE
http://barefeats.com/quad07.html
Keep in mind this is RAID 0 which has faster speeds overall than RAID 5, as RAID 5 has to create parity data to add redundancy. - DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ahhhh... I see 2 TB in my G5 in the future! Digital heaven is never having to throw anything away.
- SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@TimDigg
I have dozens of WD drives running 24/7. Maybe 3 or 4 failures in the last 10 years. Not a bad track record, really.
And amazingly, I still have some Maxtors that are doing well. - ajchavar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ timdigg and nofx junkie:
WD has never let me down, i got a 200gb external from them for $87 and never had a problem with it. the only foible was having to use winXP to format to work on OSX and winXP, but that was hardly anything to complain about. - michaelg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sounds pretty nice. I have a 1TB setup in my home torrent server with 2x200GB and 2x320GB working together with LVM. I'd love to throw one of these in there but they'll cost too much in the beginning.
- Lane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Raid array anyone? i want benchmarks for read write times, i bet this outperforms a 10k drive
- Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@TimDigg:
One good reason to have WD around is the fact that they are the only ones that have a 10k rpm SATA drive. Everyone else in the industry is making SCSI/SAS drives in the 10k rpm and higher range and know that WD has significantly eroded their market share for fast workstation and some of the server market with the 10k rpm Raptor. To this day, Storage Review rates the WD Raptor as the absolutely fastest desktop/workstation hard drive ever made.
If WD goes away, so do their fast drives. Then we, as consumers, will only be able to have 7200rpm drives or lower to choose from. Seagate and Hitachi will never make 10k rpm drives because they will undercut their own sales in SCSI/SAS drives. And, if WD goes away, expect less innovation and higher prices. - rlg420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I just bought 3 more 750 so I could say I have 3 tb and now this.
- pgztrio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Compare it to the 1954 HDD! we're in heaven
http://digg.com/hardware/Picture_of_a_5MB_Hard_Disk_in_1956 - SobyOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To be fair:
10K RPM Drive vs. 4-7200 RPM drives (Raid0 / Stripe)
The possible write speed is 4x the possible write speed of a single drive with COMPARE ABLE controller cards.
Generally speaking, the poor performance (yes, I said poor) of the RAID0 can be attributed to a software raid0. You should be seeing about 1200MB/s out of the 4 drives (300MB/s x 4). On a software RAID0, the computer can only send a read or write command to 1 drive at a time, thus the 300MB/s peek. The drives are able to keep up even with the slower seek times.
The entire purpose of RAID0 is for additional read/write bandwidth. This assumes you actually have enough data to write a single block of data greater than the largest block available with SATA or SAS (generally not necessary for home users). Games and Databases are the largest data hogs right now, followed closely by graphics applications with very large raw images.
Raid5 vs Raid0
To be true to the performance measures, on a good controller card the only difference should be from 1 of three problems:
(1) Raid5 is compared against the same drive number as Raid0.
- This is an incorrect assumption because you need the same data write width on both setups to make a fair comparison
- Raid5 with 5 750s ~ same performance as Raid0 with 4 750s
(2) Raid5 with a poor controller (e.g., On-board Raid5)
- The parity is generally calculated by your CPU, causing the performance problem.
- Most Mother Board do not have the CACHE required to send a read or write command to 2 drives at once, let alone 4 drives. I'm not even sure if the SATA command set (eh, low level programming language) includes a way to do this. It is generally a function reserved for SCSI and SAS systems.
(3) Raid5 with more writes than reads.
- This gets into hardware theory a bit
- The closest comparison I can think of is when you fill the cache of the controller (512MB is not unusual) with write transactions and then you want to read from the drives.
- This is about the same as trying to send a big file through a modem and requesting another web page... you've filled the transmit buffer to capacity and your request for another web page must wait for available buffer memory before it can be sent.
I've also noticed a randomly poor performance from Raid5 in SATA (7200 RPM) and SAS (10K RPM) environments, but the problem is random and doesn't occur very often. I attribute this to the "age" of the Serial technology, it's simply not as mature as SCSI. - V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hitachi's 1T drive is supposed to come out before Seagates.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I should also mention that not all new Maxtors suck. I'm very happy with my MaxLine IIIs.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is