Rumor - 4TB hard drive from Hitachi [Archive]

Handruin

05-14-2010, 01:33 PM

This could just be a rumor, but worth mentioning in case it's not.

"Hitachi is now readying plans to unveil the 4TB Mars (http://www.kitguru.net/components/hard-drives/faith/4tb-hard-drive-hitachi-preps-for-launch/) drive before the year is out."

Mercutio

05-14-2010, 04:38 PM

Anyone think it's possible that they'll release those beasts at a sub-$250 price point?

BingBangBop

05-14-2010, 06:37 PM

Anyone think it's possible that they'll release those beasts at a sub-$250 price point? Not a chance, try $400-$500. They will probably drop to below $250 eventually but not at an initial price. They need to collect all the $$$ they can from all the non-price sensitive customers first.

LunarMist

05-14-2010, 07:38 PM

I was expecting early next year, but it is not surprising in any event. I'll have to build a new computer. :(

DrunkenBastard

05-14-2010, 08:53 PM

Five platters
New unproven potential

For the sake of Mars not turning into a Deathstar, I think I'll wait for others to take the brave first steps into the 4TB generation.

LunarMist

05-14-2010, 09:01 PM

Well, you can buy just one first. :cyclopsani:

Mercutio

05-14-2010, 11:56 PM

Well, you can buy just one first. :cyclopsani:

What use is four measly terabytes?

LunarMist

05-15-2010, 12:05 AM

Backups?

Mercutio

05-15-2010, 12:45 AM

My needs would presently be best met with an LTO changer of some sort. Sob.

CougTek

05-15-2010, 02:20 AM

Five platters
New unproven potential

For the sake of Mars not turning into a Deathstar, I think I'll wait for others to take the brave first steps into the 4TB generation.
Hibachi has often use four and five platters drives and none have had reliability issues since the 75GXP days. The 75GB era is long gone. I wouldn't worry.

The problem with many-platters Hibachi drives has always been heat. But as long as there's a minimal air flow around the drive, I haven't heard or read about a failure-prone model from them in a while.

Chewy509

05-15-2010, 07:47 AM

4TB sort of makes the 36GB drives I am using in my main desktop seem kinder small... (My total storage capacity is just over 1.3TB spread across 4 systems in the household - 1 desktop, 3 laptops and external HDDs).

LunarMist

05-15-2010, 09:24 AM

Five platters
New unproven potential

For the sake of Mars not turning into a Deathstar, I think I'll wait for others to take the brave first steps into the 4TB generation.

Hitachi was fine with ... 400GB, 500GB, 1TB, and 2TB 5-platter drives for highest capacity in the class. It is their way.

Handruin

05-19-2010, 12:43 PM

My needs would presently be best met with an LTO changer of some sort. Sob.

Would a 50TB tape (http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/19/japanese-gurus-unveil-50tb-magnetic-tape-cartridges-are-officia/) suffice?

ddrueding

05-19-2010, 12:53 PM

Getting perpendicular (http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_head/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html) again.

Handruin

05-19-2010, 12:59 PM

I love Mr Actuator man.

Stereodude

05-19-2010, 02:57 PM

Hey check me out! I'm dancing! I'm dancing!

LunarMist

05-19-2010, 08:14 PM

Would a 50TB tape (http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/19/japanese-gurus-unveil-50tb-magnetic-tape-cartridges-are-officia/) suffice?

Is that for real? "Taking it back" implies that the announcement was a joke.:idea:

LunarMist

05-19-2010, 08:19 PM

Getting perpendicular (http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_head/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html) again.

Somehow the improvement from crummy 6GB microdrives to 10x capacity never quite reached fruition. :monky:

Stereodude

05-19-2010, 09:02 PM

Flash memory got real cheap. That's what happened.

However, iPod's got up to 160GB though. If they still made an iPod with dual platter drives we'd have a 320GB model. Maybe we'll get one last larger model before they phase out their iPod Classic HD based model.

LunarMist

05-19-2010, 10:01 PM

LunarMist

01-01-2011, 07:02 PM

Are there any updates to the possibility of a 4TB drive now that the pair of 3TB Hitachi drives have been announced?

Stereodude

01-01-2011, 07:06 PM

You're in a hurry to get 4TB drives given the growing pains of 3TB drives?

LunarMist

01-01-2011, 07:12 PM

Why would 4TB be any different from 3TB? I'd rather have more capacity to make the nightmare of Win 7 more worthwhile.

Stereodude

01-01-2011, 07:41 PM

Why would 4TB be any different from 3TB? I'd rather have more capacity to make the nightmare of Win 7 more worthwhile.Got me, why was 3TB any different from 2TB?

BingBangBop

01-01-2011, 08:17 PM

Got me, why was 3TB any different from 2TB?

Because 3TB exceeds the capacity of LBA (logical block addressing) which maxes out at 2.1TB so the entire drive is not accessible. Also, the MBR (Master Boot Record) is also limited to 2.1TB preventing booting.

Currently, unless you have a UEFI BIOS and a 64 bit OS that supports such 2.1+ TB drives are unbootable. Currently UEFI bios computers are rare so it is very unlikely that anyones computer will be able to boot from one of these. The drives can be used as data drives in Linux, Vista, and Win7 if they convert the drive to using GPT/GUID. XP is totally out of luck here.

Eventually, these problems will go away (for Vista onward) but that is the current state of affairs.

Stereodude

01-01-2011, 09:12 PM

Because 3TB exceeds the capacity of LBA (logical block addressing) which maxes out at 2.1TB so the entire drive is not accessible.Uh... 3TB does not exceed the capacity of LBA. 48bit LBA was adopted in 2003 and supports up to 128PiB.

Also, the MBR (Master Boot Record) is also limited to 2.1TB preventing booting.So what? GPT has been around for a while as have drive larger than 2TB (via RAID arrays).

Currently, unless you have a UEFI BIOS and a 64 bit OS that supports such 2.1+ TB drives are unbootable. Currently UEFI bios computers are rare so it is very unlikely that anyones computer will be able to boot from one of these. The drives can be used as data drives in Linux, Vista, and Win7 if they convert the drive to using GPT/GUID. XP is totally out of luck here.XP x64 supports GPT just fine, though it can't boot from a GPT drive assuming the system had EFI and all the other magic conditions.

So, I stand by my comment that 3TB is not significantly different from 2TB. Anyone playing with RAID cards knows about the 2TB limitation of MBR. Further, thanks to RAID cards, OS makers have been able to play with drives larger than 2TB for quite some time, so the idea that 3TB drives suddenly caught everyone with their pants down is laughable.

ddrueding

01-01-2011, 09:20 PM

...so the idea that 3TB drives suddenly caught everyone with their pants down is laughable.

Except that it has. Just because they don't have a good excuse seems irrelevant. Home server can't handle drives larger than 2TB, many RAID cards can't handle them either. But I suspect that you knew this, so the position you took in your last post seems curious.

LunarMist

01-01-2011, 09:42 PM

Yes, it could be somewhat of a denial.

Stereodude

01-01-2011, 09:46 PM

Except that it has. Just because they don't have a good excuse seems irrelevant. Home server can't handle drives larger than 2TB, many RAID cards can't handle them either. But I suspect that you knew this, so the position you took in your last post seems curious.I took the position that if the jump from 2TB to 3TB has caught them with their pants down (for no good reason) we shouldn't expect the jump from 3TB to 4TB to be any different.

This isn't the old 128GB limit (LBA-28bit) where there was something that had to be overcome with a standards revision.

ddrueding

01-01-2011, 10:11 PM

But there is a difference between 2TB and 3TB and there isn't one between 3TB and 4TB.

Were you to produce a matrix of technologies which support each capacity, the list would have significant differences between 2TB and 3TB, and no differences between 3TB and 4TB+. IIRC, there isn't another change required until 100TB+

LunarMist

01-01-2011, 10:22 PM

I'm not sure where the next breaking pioint is, but I'm fairly confident that it is not 4TB. :D

Mercutio

01-01-2011, 11:40 PM

It's been 11 years since we've had a serious technical issue related to hard disk capacity. It's been a nice run.

LunarMist

01-02-2011, 12:03 AM

~11 years ago there was the 36GB drive problem. The 160GB drive problem was 9 years ago. IIRC, both initially involved Maxtor drives (DiamondMax 36 and DiamondMax D540X, respectively). The retail D540X shipped with a controller which was mandatory at first.

sechs

01-04-2011, 04:54 PM

Frankly, I'm curious as to who is trying to boot from these ginormous drives.

ddrueding

01-04-2011, 04:59 PM

Being able to run with a single drive (or a RAID-1 of them) would be nice.

Handruin

01-04-2011, 05:14 PM

If I built a new basic system, I might boot from one of them.

timwhit

01-04-2011, 05:28 PM

I boot from a 1TB drive on my HTPC. If I was building a new one today, it might be useful to use a larger drive.

LunarMist

01-04-2011, 08:19 PM

Frankly, I'm curious as to who is trying to boot from these ginormous drives.

Maybe someone with the dedicated prono/illegal video server. I don't think that requires much in the way of HD performance.

Mercutio

01-05-2011, 11:28 AM

LunarMist

01-05-2011, 08:44 PM

It would be so amazing to have a small box with 4x4TB in RAID 0. :bravo:

Stereodude

01-05-2011, 08:48 PM

AID 0??? :scratch:

Really? :skepo:

Howell

01-05-2011, 08:51 PM

It would be so amazing to have a small box with 4x4TB in RAID 0. :bravo:

I see what you did there.

LunarMist

01-05-2011, 08:59 PM

I see what you did there.

Really, what? :wink:

LunarMist

01-05-2011, 08:59 PM

AID 0??? :scratch:

Really? :skepo:

AID? The HD is not diseased.

timwhit

01-05-2011, 09:04 PM

AID? The HD is not diseased.

0 is not redundant.

LunarMist

01-05-2011, 09:13 PM

Nobody ever said that RAID Level 0 was redundant. Who removed the R, someone on the internet?

ddrueding

01-05-2011, 10:16 PM

The R in RAID stands for redundant. Therefore, the R does not belong. I leave it to avoid confusion.

LunarMist

01-05-2011, 10:26 PM

According to whom? Did LSI, Intel, IBM, etc. get the message?

ddrueding

01-05-2011, 10:29 PM

Nope. I believe the acronym lost it's meaning at some point.

CougTek

01-06-2011, 12:34 AM

We should always refer to RAID 0 as a stripe to avoid confusion.

Mercutio

01-06-2011, 12:57 AM

We could also call it a "Looming data loss event" and be just as accurate.

LunarMist

01-06-2011, 01:09 AM

Bah. I did 3x IBM 75GXP in RAID 0 - no problems. :rofl:

ddrueding

01-06-2011, 01:14 AM

At one point I built a(n) (R)AID-0 from 8 2TB WD Green drives. Worked it hard for about two weeks without issue, before I chickened out and went RAID-10 ;)

BingBangBop

01-06-2011, 04:14 AM

Come off it -- Everyone here should know what Raid 0 is. There should not be any confusion, at least from the regulars.

Howell

01-06-2011, 09:47 AM

The R in RAID stands for redundant. Therefore, the R does not belong. I leave off it to be pedantic.

Fixed that for you. :D

Howell

01-06-2011, 09:50 AM

We should always refer to RAID 0 as a stripe to avoid confusion.

Or maybe stripe with 0 parity bits.... to avoid confusion.

LunarMist

01-06-2011, 08:48 PM

At one point I built a(n) (R)AID-0 from 8 2TB WD Green drives. Worked it hard for about two weeks without issue, before I chickened out and went RAID-10 ;)

My IBM 75GXPs were up for over a year. ::cyclop:

LunarMist

01-06-2011, 08:53 PM

Fixed that for you. :D

I see what you did there. :p

ddrueding

01-06-2011, 08:56 PM

Fixed that for you. :D

That's actually where I was going, but I'm nice ;)

Howell

01-06-2011, 11:03 PM

My IBM 75GXPs were up for over a year. ::cyclop:

The force is strong with this one. :thumbleft:

BingBangBop

01-06-2011, 11:27 PM

I still have a bunch of 45GB 75GXP's that I pulled out of service because they were just too small nowdays. They were very reliable for I have yet to get one that has failed.

sechs

01-07-2011, 06:55 PM

My boot drives are almost always plain old 250GB SATA drives or 80GB SSDs, LM. The assumption I make when I set up a system is that there will be at least five hard disks in it. The other four will be as ginormous as I can afford and they will be used in some kind of array.So that's one, it would be nice, two mights, and a porno server - except nix on the porno server.

So a total of three people who aren't booting and have no need to boot from these drives who are interested in the ability to do it. That is, nobody.

In the future, sure, people will be be booting from giant drives. But not now or in the very near future. These are for storage only.