http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 5:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 5:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
That is truly an Amazing amount of pRon @_@]]>May 17th 2010 6:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 6:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 7:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 8:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/No, because chances are you're running a 32-bit OS.]]>May 17th 2010 9:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
I don't see why 32-bit vs 64-bit is the issue. The bit refers to memory address space. As far as I remember, it was MBR that couldn't be extended beyond 2TB without non-default cluster sizes, which can cause problems with some applications. The solution is to simply use GPT, which is supported as a data drive on any system running Vista, 7, and even Server 2003, although in order to use it as a boot drive you need EFI. Can anyone shed any light on why 32-bit vs 64-bit matters for hard drive capacity?]]>May 17th 2010 10:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/It's not like Seagate is going to stop producing smaller, '32-bit compatible' HDD anytime soon.]]>May 17th 2010 11:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
I'd still probably get one for my home server...]]>May 17th 2010 5:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/Every single time. Every single time HDDs get a capacity upgrade someone is worried about the density and the reliability. This has been happening since HDDs first showed up. I don't think there is anything to really worry about.]]>May 17th 2010 5:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/Unless I am mistaken the failure rate for 2TB drives is higher than for 1TB or 1,5TB drives.]]>May 17th 2010 5:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/i have some 500meg drives i want to sell you]]>May 17th 2010 5:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
The larger the HDD the large the failure's effect will be.
]]>May 17th 2010 5:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/Links please?]]>May 17th 2010 5:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
actually, I don't believe that. If I recall correctly, google did a report on hard drives and found that the rpm of the drive is the real key for reliability. slower drives last longer - little to do with density.]]>May 17th 2010 5:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/Do you mean failure effect or failure rate? They're two different things. The effect is larger because you're losing more data, but do 500GB HDDs have a higher chance of experiencing a failure than say a 320GB one?]]>May 17th 2010 5:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
Higher capacity means more data at risk. In near future we may be seeing RAID 1 or 5 as a common desktop user setup. Or maybe some better way to store data redundantly with low cost.

I remember buying Seagate SATA 160gb HDD when it was released (5 years warranty). A chip on the main board got burnt, but didn't get any replacement. I came across same issue with 2 more person's HDDs (obviously same model).

Anyway thumbs up for better inventions.]]>May 17th 2010 6:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
Having raid 1 will not be a common setup in the near future as it will still be twice as expensive as not having it. The same prediction could have been made 2 years ago, or 10 years ago - makes no difference. Redundancy will always come at a higher price and those who need it will have to pay for it.

What's really important is that these drives also need to be faster.
It's not so much losing data that hurts, but losing the time spent to accumulate that data and then losing it. If you had a 10TB drive and could fill it up in 30 minutes with super-fast internet. You probably wouldn't care if it failed because you only lost 30 minutes of your time. Now, if you spent a year to fill up a 100GB drive and the drive failed, that would hurt a lot more.
]]>May 17th 2010 8:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
Google's report did not show that the spindle speed was the important factor; it was the number of spindles in the drive. I guess that makes sense -- those drives have more moving parts and their data is spread out over a wider area, and since failure of one platter means the whole drive is essentially lost, statistically drives with a high platter count would fail more often.]]>May 17th 2010 10:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
thanks for the correction.
that makes sense.]]>May 18th 2010 5:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 18th 2010 7:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 5:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/I just bought one today :)
Sux it's only actually only 1.8GB (Why can't HDD manufactures and Microsoft get along?). That's f*cking 200GB short! Some HDD's aren't even 200GB's, lol. I remember back when that that amount was negligible, and now we're talking 200GB's short...it's amazing.
]]>May 18th 2010 8:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
The reason for that discrepancy is because Japanese manufacturers who make these drives use decimal for measuring capacity, so their definitions are as follows:

1 TB = 1000 GB; 1 GB = 1000 MB; 1 MB = 1000 KB

Software like operating systems and computers in general measure things in binary, so in that realm the definitions are:

1 TB = 1024 GB; 1 GB = 1024 MB; 1 MB = 1024 KB.

It's the same reason a 4.7 GB DVD only has 4.38 GB or so of usable capacity; one measures in decimal and the other in binary. Back in the dark ages, that discrepancy of of 24 KB per MB didn't amount to a whole lot of the total capacity of the media, but now that we're talking terabytes, as you've noticed it adds up. The problem is that no one wants to be the first to switch to the "right" or compatible binary counting method. If you saw a 1TB drive sitting next to a 946TB drive for the same price, all else being equal, which would you pick? In reality they'd have the exact same capacity, but most people don't know this.]]>May 18th 2010 3:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
1TB drive sitting next to a 946 *GB* drive, my bad.]]>May 18th 2010 3:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 5:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 5:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
Thinking about all the pr0n that could be stored...]]>May 17th 2010 5:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/This.]]>May 17th 2010 5:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
If someone needs this much porn, they probably can't get one.]]>May 17th 2010 6:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 18th 2010 12:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/Blu-Ray Pr0n takes up a lot of space :)]]>May 18th 2010 12:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 5:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/You need UEFI + a 64 bit version of Windows 7 or Windows Vista in order to boot off of a hard drive or RAID array that's greater than 2 TiB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table#Windows_64-bit_versions]]>May 17th 2010 5:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
Linux ftw. You can get around that by setting up a small NTFS partition for booting and then use a GPT partition for the rest.]]>May 17th 2010 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/I don't know... I wouldn't recommend doing that. Even though Mac OS X's Boot Camp works by doing that (which is creating a Hybrid MBR), trying to do it manually with Linux is ugly and painful. ]]>May 17th 2010 5:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
On Linux I just use EXT4 and don't worry about it, that's the beauty of Linux :D

I have a setup with the GPT parition on 2 of the servers here at the office, but they are both Server 2008 x64.]]>May 17th 2010 5:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/Boot to SSD, use 3tb as storage... ]]>May 17th 2010 9:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
oh, nevermind, i probably won't live that long :)]]>May 17th 2010 10:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 18th 2010 12:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 5:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
Surely the hard drive market, overall, hasn't reached a point where people are ditching even their 250GB hard drives all that often because they don't have enough space. Who honestly will need more than 1TB in the next 5 years? Maybe 1 out of every 100,000 computer users?

The market is no longer in the size department store, it's in the speed department.]]>May 17th 2010 5:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/Photographers for example - and if you record video its even worse.

But not necessarily in a computer - more as "outside storage".]]>May 17th 2010 5:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/These could be incredibly useful for servers or personal NAS setups. Photographers and videographers obviously would love the space. There are tons of places where this would be perfect.]]>May 17th 2010 5:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
Hopefully I'm quoted in 10 years!]]>May 17th 2010 5:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
Uhhh...we (only my gf and I) have 2 desktops and an HTPC. Between them, a rough counts gives a total HD capacity of ~8.5TB (not counting our laptops). Between all the computers, we have only around 1.5TB free.

When you use computers as workstations, gaming, multimedia machine with tens of thousands of audio files, many HD 1080P or 720P rips of blu-rays, HDTV recordings of entire series, etc., it does not take long to fill up even a couple 2TB drives.]]>May 17th 2010 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/
I didn't say that. I said beyond the 1 out of 100,000 users who do have a legitimate purpose, who else needs it in the next 5 years? Of course in 20 years, PetaByte HDs will be all the rage.

I just think that in today's atmosphere, a 250GB hard drive can handle 90% of the market. A 1TB drive covers 99.9% of the market. And a 2TB drive covers 99.999% of the market.]]>May 17th 2010 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/seagate-confirms-3tb-hard-drive-for-2010-possible-3/May 17th 2010 5:28PM