...instead of sas? as far as I know sas drives are maxing out around 600 GB these days, not 2 TB... or is this saying that we will go from 600 GB all the way to 3 TB in 2010?
Disk vendors have been offering 7200 RPM enterprise SAS disks for a while now. Seagate offered the Barracuda ES.2 and now the Constellation ES in both SAS and SATA variants. As you can imagine, there is a slight price premium associated with the SAS versions over their SATA counterparts.
The disk assembly is very much the same, you get the benefits of a dual-ported SAS interface (which helps in enterprise disk arrays).
Now you see, I don't understand that line of thinking. Suppose you have two choices:
1. Store 2 TB of data across 2 x 1 TB drives. 2. Store 2 TB of data on a 2 TB drive.
Assume that the per-device failure rates are the same (now I don't know how good of an approximation this is, but it's probably true for incremental series drives from the same manufacturer) Which is the safer option? I can't see any reason why you'd pick 1.
If everyone thought that way we would all be storing things on hundreds of 10GB hard drives. If all drives have the same chance to fail why split to 2 drives why not 5,10 or 200, then if one fails its not that big a deal :D
Technology needs to move forward. Bring on the 3TB drives.
Yes, that was my point. Storing things on a single drive is less risky than storing it on any number of (un RAIDed) drives greater than 1, assuming that you treat any data loss as undesirable. And besides the point, you are making a backup (... right?) so your concern is not whether you get the data back, but how quickly you can get up and running again. A large drive simplifies this considerably.
My advice totally changes if you are looking at performance though. Lots of small hard drives are GOOD for increasing IOPS.
RAID1 is more reliable than a single drive, and much more reliable than all your data spread across a RAID0 array but it isn't a substitute for a proper back up. In a system failure (controller goes crazy, power supply fails) the chances are that, if one drive dies, both drives die. Your data is pooched. True, RAID1 will protect against a single drive failure, but there are situations where both will fail together.
Even with a RAID1 array you should still be backing up to something outside of that particular system periodically.
I've got over 20 HDDs in my home. Close to ten as back up drives. RAID is not a backup solution. Yes, you can hope that your array is repairable, but that is not really backup. Now, if you have a server and you value uptime or have a photo/video editing machine that needs to load very large files then yes, there is a place for RAID.
Anyways, no matter the size, I have a identical sized backup drive. If one drive fails I don't want to lose my data. My dream is to have a third set stored offsite, but I can't afford the amount of storage I desire anyways. I would love me some 3TB goodness. My video collection grows all the time. I would rather currently have 8 data drives in my file server (9 if you include the OS drive). I'd much rather have 4 or 6 of these monsters and for me that means a total of 8-10 with backups. Ouch goes my wallet!
"no matter the size, I have a identical sized backup drive"
actually, I have a significantly larger drive to back up a data drive (to allow for daily backup of incremental changes, covering a healthy period of time).
which is PRECISELY why I eagerly await larger drives; when 3TB drives arrive, my 2TB drives get to be data drives instead of backup destination drives.
Looks like a good backup drive. I could backup all the data on all my systems at home on a single 3Tb drive. (assuming some compression)
Currently I only backup the critial data, and not information (like video) than can be re-created or downloaded. It's be nice to actually have an image of everything on 1 drive.
Not sure how these drives will work since bios these days cannot boot from drivers that's larger than 2TB. You will need a EFI support bios as well as a 64bit OS.
So look like they can only be used for storage purposes.
and this little flash animation is the reason it is still a NEED in web devices, like the iphone/ipad and new smartphones. could we live without it? sure! but they are so damn funny!
"Whether people require 3TB is another matter - video editors, professional photographers, or just for storing your movie and blu-ray collection are possibilities."
Lol lets translate that to non politically-correct jargon: “Whether people require 3TB is another matter – porn, mp3, and warez hoarders, or for running bitorrent seeding boxes, and storing pirated Blu-ray/DVD collections are of immediate uses…”
That said… I’m so tired of this metered technology reporting; OF COURSE people need as much space as their dollars can buy! Every year there’s these BS talks about “omg the limits of mechanical storage,” Ummm do you THINK that a multi-mill/billion dollar corp hasn’t LONG estimated the limits of their capacity to improve upon storage technology? The corporations already KNOW the limits; thus they have to give their PR and marketing departments something to talk to US about. Strike that, they need to have something to worry us about, thus creating hype and fear so that people will run out and get more drives, bc “you never know” when “suddenly” the limitations will be reached and then they’ll kindly announce it to everyone, “hey all we’re sorry, but we’ve simply run out of ideas for increasing capacity… so now we’re BUNDLING drives for you!” Haha really, think about it… they’ve already determined just how much space they can deliver (metered out over years and years, while they scramble for advancements in tech), we just don’t know about it. A hacked/leaked internal email addressing this issue would be a very interesting read…
There’s NEVER “enough” storage space, when talking about backups. I mirror EVERYTHING I get with RAID-1 and off site storage; yes it’s a major PITA and $$$, BUT… after losing 2x750GB drives simultaneously (WHILE MAKING BACKUPS OMFG WTF?!) I vowed never again to be that upset and literally sick over losing years and years of irreplaceable data! Folks PLEASE have off site-backups, the day you have to pop that back up out of its external enclosure and into your rig with in minutes of “the clicks of death,” you’ll thank yourself a million times over… Vs the day you LOSE that drive and don’t have a back up = I pray you don’t smash something of value, or injure yourself from flailing about in sheer rage (been-there-done-that haha :-/ )…! As a best-practice rule, I always buy drives in pairs; it’s foolish to have more data than you can mirror… I’d like to see a BFRD (Big Fscking Reliable Drive) approach with more platters etc… I could care less about all the comparisons, access times, wattages, noise etc… blah blah, I want a drive series that’s ALL about RELIABILITY, SPACE and avg-transfer speeds. Who cares about access-rah-rah; these days it’s all about storage space.
A 2+TB drive VERY rugged, much slower drive would suit my needs well. I don't care if it doubles transfer times; hell - for backups, I wouldn't care if it was a 5.25" drive with large platters on a miniature shock pallet.
With every new storage increase there are always people asking who really needs drives that big. I suspect you can find articles lamenting over how to use 80GB drives, yet even my non-techie girlfriend can fill up her 160GB Windows partition with iTunes downloads and digital camera pics.
Don't any of you have DV cams, digital cameras, ISO collections, movie collections, multiple operating systems, full backups or the 50 other things that consume dozens if not hundreds of GB of hard disk space?
I gladly welcome 3TB. Even if you can't use 3TB, there are plenty of people who are holding for single platter 750GB and single platter 1TB drives.
exactly - I went on vacation and filled up 160gb worth of photos on an SLR. And my camera doesnt even record video - If you had one that did 1080, you could legitimately clock up 2tb in 1 year easy.
Even just recording the entire upcoming soccer world cup @ 1080 off tv would eat more than 1tb
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
Back to Article
pesos - Monday, May 10, 2010 - link
...instead of sas? as far as I know sas drives are maxing out around 600 GB these days, not 2 TB... or is this saying that we will go from 600 GB all the way to 3 TB in 2010?somedude1234 - Monday, May 10, 2010 - link
Disk vendors have been offering 7200 RPM enterprise SAS disks for a while now. Seagate offered the Barracuda ES.2 and now the Constellation ES in both SAS and SATA variants. As you can imagine, there is a slight price premium associated with the SAS versions over their SATA counterparts.The disk assembly is very much the same, you get the benefits of a dual-ported SAS interface (which helps in enterprise disk arrays).
eddyg17 - Monday, May 10, 2010 - link
The video animation is awesome.I cant wait for these new drivers to hit the market.. and drop the prices on current drivers,lol. 3TB is too much, I cant even fill up my 250GB drive.
MonkeyPaw - Monday, May 10, 2010 - link
Is it just me, or does anyone else get nervous about having up to 3tb of data on one big drive? Seems like a disaster in the waiting.jimhsu - Monday, May 10, 2010 - link
Now you see, I don't understand that line of thinking. Suppose you have two choices:1. Store 2 TB of data across 2 x 1 TB drives.
2. Store 2 TB of data on a 2 TB drive.
Assume that the per-device failure rates are the same (now I don't know how good of an approximation this is, but it's probably true for incremental series drives from the same manufacturer) Which is the safer option? I can't see any reason why you'd pick 1.
Navitron - Monday, May 10, 2010 - link
If everyone thought that way we would all be storing things on hundreds of 10GB hard drives. If all drives have the same chance to fail why split to 2 drives why not 5,10 or 200, then if one fails its not that big a deal :DTechnology needs to move forward. Bring on the 3TB drives.
jimhsu - Monday, May 10, 2010 - link
Yes, that was my point. Storing things on a single drive is less risky than storing it on any number of (un RAIDed) drives greater than 1, assuming that you treat any data loss as undesirable. And besides the point, you are making a backup (... right?) so your concern is not whether you get the data back, but how quickly you can get up and running again. A large drive simplifies this considerably.My advice totally changes if you are looking at performance though. Lots of small hard drives are GOOD for increasing IOPS.
zdzichu - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Both choices are flawed. Proper way is to store 2TB of data on 2x2TB drives.The0ne - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
I believe the original post refers to the "risk" of losing so much data. The solution is NOT a bigger drive or MORE drives. the solution is BACKUP.SunSamurai - Saturday, May 15, 2010 - link
Huh? The solution is BACKUP on ONE BIG DRIVE, broseph. Thus what the other guy said; RAID1.n3rrd - Thursday, May 20, 2010 - link
RAID1 is more reliable than a single drive, and much more reliable than all your data spread across a RAID0 array but it isn't a substitute for a proper back up. In a system failure (controller goes crazy, power supply fails) the chances are that, if one drive dies, both drives die. Your data is pooched. True, RAID1 will protect against a single drive failure, but there are situations where both will fail together.Even with a RAID1 array you should still be backing up to something outside of that particular system periodically.
bigboxes - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
I've got over 20 HDDs in my home. Close to ten as back up drives. RAID is not a backup solution. Yes, you can hope that your array is repairable, but that is not really backup. Now, if you have a server and you value uptime or have a photo/video editing machine that needs to load very large files then yes, there is a place for RAID.Anyways, no matter the size, I have a identical sized backup drive. If one drive fails I don't want to lose my data. My dream is to have a third set stored offsite, but I can't afford the amount of storage I desire anyways. I would love me some 3TB goodness. My video collection grows all the time. I would rather currently have 8 data drives in my file server (9 if you include the OS drive). I'd much rather have 4 or 6 of these monsters and for me that means a total of 8-10 with backups. Ouch goes my wallet!
coyote2 - Saturday, May 15, 2010 - link
"no matter the size, I have a identical sized backup drive"actually, I have a significantly larger drive to back up a data drive (to allow for daily backup of incremental changes, covering a healthy period of time).
which is PRECISELY why I eagerly await larger drives; when 3TB drives arrive, my 2TB drives get to be data drives instead of backup destination drives.
LuxZg - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Last few hours comments aren't working for me.. I either get logged off or get an error "sorry.." something from site.. Is it fixed?KaarlisK - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
One of the biggest changes will be the requirement to use GUID partition table above 2TB sizes. Bye-bye XP.Nutzo - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Looks like a good backup drive.I could backup all the data on all my systems at home on a single 3Tb drive. (assuming some compression)
Currently I only backup the critial data, and not information (like video) than can be re-created or downloaded. It's be nice to actually have an image of everything on 1 drive.
Etern205 - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
Not sure how these drives will work since bios these days cannot boot from drivers that's larger than 2TB.You will need a EFI support bios as well as a 64bit OS.
So look like they can only be used for storage purposes.
There was a article on this somewhere in here.
marc1000 - Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - link
and this little flash animation is the reason it is still a NEED in web devices, like the iphone/ipad and new smartphones. could we live without it? sure! but they are so damn funny!v12v12 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
"Whether people require 3TB is another matter - video editors, professional photographers, or just for storing your movie and blu-ray collection are possibilities."Lol lets translate that to non politically-correct jargon: “Whether people require 3TB is another matter – porn, mp3, and warez hoarders, or for running bitorrent seeding boxes, and storing pirated Blu-ray/DVD collections are of immediate uses…”
That said… I’m so tired of this metered technology reporting; OF COURSE people need as much space as their dollars can buy! Every year there’s these BS talks about “omg the limits of mechanical storage,” Ummm do you THINK that a multi-mill/billion dollar corp hasn’t LONG estimated the limits of their capacity to improve upon storage technology? The corporations already KNOW the limits; thus they have to give their PR and marketing departments something to talk to US about. Strike that, they need to have something to worry us about, thus creating hype and fear so that people will run out and get more drives, bc “you never know” when “suddenly” the limitations will be reached and then they’ll kindly announce it to everyone, “hey all we’re sorry, but we’ve simply run out of ideas for increasing capacity… so now we’re BUNDLING drives for you!” Haha really, think about it… they’ve already determined just how much space they can deliver (metered out over years and years, while they scramble for advancements in tech), we just don’t know about it. A hacked/leaked internal email addressing this issue would be a very interesting read…
There’s NEVER “enough” storage space, when talking about backups. I mirror EVERYTHING I get with RAID-1 and off site storage; yes it’s a major PITA and $$$, BUT… after losing 2x750GB drives simultaneously (WHILE MAKING BACKUPS OMFG WTF?!) I vowed never again to be that upset and literally sick over losing years and years of irreplaceable data! Folks PLEASE have off site-backups, the day you have to pop that back up out of its external enclosure and into your rig with in minutes of “the clicks of death,” you’ll thank yourself a million times over… Vs the day you LOSE that drive and don’t have a back up = I pray you don’t smash something of value, or injure yourself from flailing about in sheer rage (been-there-done-that haha :-/ )…! As a best-practice rule, I always buy drives in pairs; it’s foolish to have more data than you can mirror… I’d like to see a BFRD (Big Fscking Reliable Drive) approach with more platters etc… I could care less about all the comparisons, access times, wattages, noise etc… blah blah, I want a drive series that’s ALL about RELIABILITY, SPACE and avg-transfer speeds. Who cares about access-rah-rah; these days it’s all about storage space.
dac7nco - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
A 2+TB drive VERY rugged, much slower drive would suit my needs well. I don't care if it doubles transfer times; hell - for backups, I wouldn't care if it was a 5.25" drive with large platters on a miniature shock pallet.Daimon
psionic1 - Friday, May 14, 2010 - link
With every new storage increase there are always people asking who really needs drives that big. I suspect you can find articles lamenting over how to use 80GB drives, yet even my non-techie girlfriend can fill up her 160GB Windows partition with iTunes downloads and digital camera pics.Don't any of you have DV cams, digital cameras, ISO collections, movie collections, multiple operating systems, full backups or the 50 other things that consume dozens if not hundreds of GB of hard disk space?
I gladly welcome 3TB. Even if you can't use 3TB, there are plenty of people who are holding for single platter 750GB and single platter 1TB drives.
xsilver - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - link
exactly - I went on vacation and filled up 160gb worth of photos on an SLR. And my camera doesnt even record video - If you had one that did 1080, you could legitimately clock up 2tb in 1 year easy.Even just recording the entire upcoming soccer world cup @ 1080 off tv would eat more than 1tb
Jim1900 - Thursday, June 10, 2010 - link
The shift to perpendicular recording occurred at the 160GB density, at least for Seagate. WD waited until the next generation.