Western Digital Touts 3TB Hard Drives in 2010

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

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

CircuitCity beats Walmart with 'sub'-$200 HD DVD player

Next Story

Apple: a Quarter Million iPhones are Unlocked

13 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is why you back up your files I guess. One of these babies were fail and you'd be ****ed.

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.

This is why you back up your files I guess. One of these babies were fail and you'd be ****ed.

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.

But seriously, I could give two ****s about storage.

Increasing areal density increases speed, not just capacity. Without the need for noisier, hotter and more power consuming 10,000 RPM speeds.

This is absurd. I dont need storage room. I want bloody speed. 300. 400 MB/sec write speed. It's going on 2008. I've had the same write, seek speeds and burst speed since 1999. Thank you scsi. But now one of my systerms are lost because of the hard drive is too busy with that one said app. Heck having the OS on a seperate physical drive aint bad. Problem anything that touches the current drive in i/o the system goes to a crawl. I'd love just to use the apps and doing the process directly from cpu to memory vice versa. No more 4 hours waiting for a 9 pass CCE.

Malbojia said,
This is absurd. I dont need storage room. I want bloody speed. 300. 400 MB/sec write speed. It's going on 2008. I've had the same write, seek speeds and burst speed since 1999. Thank you scsi. But now one of my systerms are lost because of the hard drive is too busy with that one said app. Heck having the OS on a seperate physical drive aint bad. Problem anything that touches the current drive in i/o the system goes to a crawl. I'd love just to use the apps and doing the process directly from cpu to memory vice versa. No more 4 hours waiting for a 9 pass CCE.

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.

What kind of slow progress is this, 3TB by 2010 is rediculous. We need this now, not when HD movies will be the norm and internet speeds will be much more faster.

All this massive drive space is nothing but amazing untill........
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

solution: get 2x 3tb drives
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?

i see your point about if a drive dies... cause the bigger they get the worse it is when they fail and also it seems like storage space goes up way faster than the hard drive transfer rates... so in other words even if you backup data onto something like dvd+r discs it will take a fricking year to restore the data to another hard drive.

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.

Yea, the odds of two drives failing are slim. However, I had an experience at work last week when we had a drive in a 4 drive RAID 5 array fail.

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.

Since RAID is no replacement for backups (and it's not intended for that either), I'd also like to see better ways of actually backing up your data large scale. The most common causes for data loss is maybe not even physical drive failures, but either software or human failures anyway.

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.

Jugalator said,
Since RAID is no replacement for backups (and it's not intended for that either)...

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.