Western Digital has achieved record areal density in its Magnetic Head Operation labs in Fremont, California, using its perpendicular magnetic recording/tunneling magneto-resistive head technology, allowing the leading maker of hard disk drives to product 3TB hard disk drives in about three years time. Following WD’s growing investments in technology the past five years, the company achieved 520Gb/inch² using its own perpendicular magnetic recording/tunneling magneto-resistive head technology. This level of density produces a 3.5” hard drive storing 640GB-per-platter and single hard drive capacities as large as 3TB. WD demonstrated 520Gb/inch² density in its Magnetic Head Operation labs in Fremont, California, earlier this month.
News source: Xbit Laboratories
News source: Xbit Laboratories
Any one knows that its not a matter of if a drives gonna fail but when
One drive with 3 tb hmmm
Hell i **** my pants when a 500g died
It used to be we had like "massive" 120 gig as the norm
loose that data ind well you could recover it in time...
With TB sized drives then Raids and other redunant forms of duplications is mandatory
In the end defeats the cool massive drive as you will need to duplicate inorder not to loose
But seriously, id like some question answered, can windows support it?
Also, what kind of file systems are we talking here? Can NTFS handle it?
Would 3TB drives be able to give 3TB storage or be like 2.7TB unpartitioned?
but i guess if money aint a issue.... getting 2 BIG hard drives and making duplicate data is best option cause the odds of both hard drives failing at (or around) the same time is super slim.... but even transferring from SATAII hard drive to SATAII hard drive will still takes a long time to transfer 1+TB of data
me personally i got 850GB total disc space (250 - 200 - 400) and i backup all my important stuff to "quality" (Verbatim or Taiyo Yuden is best according to club.cdfreaks.com overall) dvd recordables.
Everything should have been ok, but one of the other drives had corrupt data (it was good, but the data was bad), so the failed drive could not be rebuild. No matter what we tried, the array could not be recovered. We lost the entire array due to this.
Luckily, we were using this server only a couple days, ( it was brand new) and we still had the old server up ( just disconnected). We plugged it in and reconfigured the other servers to use it. We were up and running. Regardless, this should not have happened due to the nature of RAID.
That RAID is for backups has became a common misconception since the system became more common in the home segment. It's merely intended for data reliability and e.g. maintaining server uptime, not a catastrophic failure or reliance from *any* form of software issues that can corrupt your data. Such things can immediately get replicated across the whole array, and RAID will make no difference between if it was a user error or a software bug in a partitioning tool or whatever.
I've been wishing for HD-DVD/Bluray to become more common and cheaper in burning for this, but there's still not the evolution I've been hoping to see, maybe because of the format war.
Last edited by Jugalator on 28 Oct 2007 - 02:52
I found that out the hard way once when one of the two RAID subsystems failed on one of my server motherboards and I didn't have my data backed up. Fortunately, I still didn't lose my data – though it was a genuine pain in the ass recovering it because of the particularly weird setup I had [don't ask – long story!]
No, backup is really your only way of guaranteeing that your data will be protected – especially against things like earthquakes, fire, war, or other disasters of that sort.
Relax. 10,000 RPM drives are getting larger all the time, and SATA 3 is just around the corner. And then there's the growing SSD sector.
But seriously, I could give two ****s about storage. I want speed. Start working heavily on that instead. The norm should be 10,000 RPM and 32 MB Cache until SATA 3 comes out.
No, not if you back up. Every time a larger drive comes out someone posts the stupid argument that it's too big and you'll lost more files.
Increasing areal density increases speed, not just capacity. Without the need for noisier, hotter and more power consuming 10,000 RPM speeds.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.