Discussion Forums > Technology
WD HDD Industry Will Be Supply Constrained Due to Thailand Flooding
Pentium100:
More than 10TB. The drive I have has 8 platters, but there were other drives that had 16 (I don't know if there was a drive with more platters). However, since each platter is 5.25" it would hold more data than a 3.5" platter, because it has more surface area (about twice, since area is proportional to the square of the radius). So, the 5.25" full height drive would probably be 32TB (16 2TB platters). I think these drives will return someday, when SSD takes over as the "fast" storage. Then these drives will be "slow, but large and cheap" storage because they will most likely be cheaper to make than a bunch of 3.5" drives that have the same capacity.
I wouldn't want to have my system partition on such drive, but for my anime collection it would be perfect.
CharredChar:
Again, having such large single drives is worthless. A good reason Id consider that is because of this.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-5-stops-working-in-2009/162
Id rather a RAID with multiple drives so when one fails (and Ive had three fail on me already) you can swap out the drive and have it rebuild itself. Youll find the more relable drives have less parts, platters, read heads, etc. Of course, even increasing the density of a platter will increase failure rate, but Id rather a two platter 2TB drive than a four platter 2TB drive.
Freedom Kira:
Well, the point was more for the storage space, not really the reliability. Obviously, the savvy would keep their critical data off of drives like those. It'd probably be good for keeping a cheap backup for non-critical data.
Not too sure that full-size disks would be slower, either. I would expect them to be faster - more platters, and larger platters means the outside data can be accessed more quickly. They'd probably use a lot more electricity though, unless they decide to decrease the rotational speed to account for the platter size.
Implementing a built-in platter-wise RAID 1/5/6/10 would be nice too, if drive manufacturers happen to realize the dangers of drive failure instead of pushing forward with disk sizes.
Pentium100:
--- Quote from: CharredChar on November 23, 2011, 05:40:30 AM ---Again, having such large single drives is worthless. A good reason Id consider that is because of this.
Id rather a RAID with multiple drives so when one fails (and Ive had three fail on me already) you can swap out the drive and have it rebuild itself.
--- End quote ---
So, have a RAID of the big drives. A bunch of 3.5" drives will take up more physical space then one 5.25" drive of the same capacity. So, a bunch of 5.25" drives will take less space than a larger bunch of 3.5" drives.
--- Quote from: Freedom Kira on November 23, 2011, 08:57:36 AM ---Not too sure that full-size disks would be slower, either. I would expect them to be faster - more platters, and larger platters means the outside data can be accessed more quickly.
--- End quote ---
Seeks will be slower. Linear speeds will be higher.
--- Quote ---Implementing a built-in platter-wise RAID 1/5/6/10 would be nice too, if drive manufacturers happen to realize the dangers of drive failure instead of pushing forward with disk sizes.
--- End quote ---
Not worth it - it is more likely that the drive fails completely instead of developing a lot of bad sectors on one platter. All the drives I have, some work perfectly, some have a few bad sectors and some do not spin up or cannot read/write even a single byte. I have never encountered a drive that has 25% (or some other large number) of its sectors bad.
Have you seen how much a hardware RAID controller costs? I wouldn't want each drive to come with its own RAID controller and not have redundant motors/heads/etc but still pay a lot for that controller.
Freedom Kira:
--- Quote from: Pentium100 on November 23, 2011, 09:45:11 AM ---Seeks will be slower. Linear speeds will be higher.
--- End quote ---
Ah, yes, I forgot about that.
--- Quote from: Pentium100 on November 23, 2011, 09:45:11 AM ---Not worth it - it is more likely that the drive fails completely instead of developing a lot of bad sectors on one platter. All the drives I have, some work perfectly, some have a few bad sectors and some do not spin up or cannot read/write even a single byte. I have never encountered a drive that has 25% (or some other large number) of its sectors bad.
Have you seen how much a hardware RAID controller costs? I wouldn't want each drive to come with its own RAID controller and not have redundant motors/heads/etc but still pay a lot for that controller.
--- End quote ---
True on the drive failure. On the RAID controller though, call me optimistic, but I don't think a platter-wise controller would cost as much as a regular SATA one, mostly because it doesn't need to interface to the generic SATA/SAS/SCSI/whatever connection, nor would it have to be as fast, since the output of the whole thing would be bottlenecked by the drive's connection anyway. Would it not be similar to an SSD's controller, concept-wise?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version