Posted on 01/04/2007 6:35:58 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Seagate stakes claim
By : Wednesday 03 January 2007, 08:12
According to Joystick, Seagate boffins are apparently working on a hard-drive which uses heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR) techniques.
The boffins think that this will mean that they can shove 50TB of data into a single square inch of drive space, or around 300TB of information on a standard 3.5-inch drive.
This means that you can stuff the entire Library of Congress onto your hard-drive without any compression.
Being a gaming magazine, Joystick points out that this means that you could store 6,144 50GB Blu-ray disks or the entire Library of PS through PS3 games that could ever be created with room to spare. Of course there is no guarantee that anyone will be using Blu-Ray or the PS3 by 2010.
More here. µ
fyi
Just damn....
Indeed.
I cant say for certain I will ever need that much space, I mean I compute alot but I only take up 20 gb of my 100 gb drive. At my rate it will take me a thousand years to fill up 300tb's, of course I am sure MS will find away to make a browser bloated enough to fill up much of the space.
I'd still want two of 'em. A bit like a gas in a chem lab experiment, software tends to fill up any and all available space in a given volume.
I'm firing up a machine that has two drives....one 750 Gig and the other a 400 Gig in an EZ-Swap rack....and I got good deals on the drives....now I need to figure out how to best use them....
Of course, Windows '10 will take 120Tb just for a basic install.
Yep, video quality will simply improve and increase the storage for video. If you build it, they will come.
Actually once internet speeds are increased to around 20-40 mb/s and movies are more readily downloaded w/o all of the crap you go through now then my storage needs will increase exponentially.
I wonder how much storage space an hour of uncompressed, high-definition holographic video would take up...
Do we have that yet?
I see I'm not the only NewEgg customer.
Read my mind. Seagate's CEO is an honest, honest man.
Newegg! My favorite.
Somebody do the math: how many HD-DVD films will that hold?
Has there been a thread yet about the Intel concept CPU with 80 cores controlled by an onboard network router, supposedly promising 1 teraflop?
Do you realize that this is equivalent to having 1000 300GB hard drives? Holy mackeral! What comes after terra? Penta?
Dude, I remember thinking a 40MB drive would be enough space to last me the rest of my life.
Now I generate more data than that daily.
The article says you could fit the LoC on it. If we actually had the government that we pay for, you'd be able to buy the public domain portion of LoC on disk.
Exobyte.
i'll take two.
Every nudie picture ever taken!
I'm not sure about holographic, but if memory serves me, 1080p at 60fps, 10 bits per channel, 4:4:4 encoded, uncompressed would run you about 1.5 terabytes per hour. But I hope you have the 444 MB/sec sustained throughput on your hard drive to be able to read or write it without getting jerky or dropping frames, respectively.
ping.
Every "money shot" as well.
Here's what I found on Wikipedia: Terra, then Peta, then Exa. Afte Exa comes Zetta, then comes Yotta. (similar to Santa's reindeer :-)
I hope I don't still have to back it up to tape.
Simple search turned up this:
|
Great, but by 2011, mine will be full.
New IBM chip breaks barriers to double speed ~ speeds of between 4 and 5 gigahertz
This is on the Power6 and the second generation of the Cell chip in the SONY Play Station 3....
Here comes the terabyte hard drive
********************************************************************
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Last year, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies predicted hard-drive companies would announce 1 terabyte drives by the end of 2006. Hitachi was only off by a few days.
The company said on Thursday that it will come out with a 3.5-inch-diameter 1 terabyte drive for desktops in the first quarter, then follow up in the second quarter with 3.5-inch terabyte drives for digital video recorders, bundled with software called Audio-Visual Storage Manager for easier retrieval of data, and corporate storage systems. 
The Deskstar 7K1000 will cost $399 when it comes out. That comes to about 40 cents a gigabyte. Hitachi will also come out with a similar 750GB drive. Rival Seagate Technology will come out with a 1 terabyte drive in the first half of 2007. The two companies, along with others, will tout their new drives at the upcoming Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and will show off hybrid hard drives, as well.
A terabyte is a trillion bytes, or a million megabytes, or 1,000 gigabytes, as measured by the hard-drive industry. (There are actually two conventions for calculating megabytes, but this is how the drive industry counts it.) As a reference, the print collection in the Library of Congress comes to about 10 terabytes of information, according to the How Much Information study from U.C. Berkeley. The report also found that 400,000 terabytes of e-mail get produced per year. About 50,000 trees would be necessary to create enough paper to hold a terabyte of information, according to the report.
Who needs this sort of storage capacity? You will, eventually, said Doug Pickford, director of market and product strategy at Hitachi. Demand for data storage capacity at corporations continues to grow, and it shows no sign of abating. A single terabyte drive takes up less space than four 250GB drives, which lets IT managers conserve on computing room real estate. The drive can hold about 330,000 3MB photos or 250,000 MP3s, according to Hitachi's math.
Consumers, meanwhile, are gobbling up more drive capacity because of content like video. An hour of standard video takes up about 1GB, while an hour of high-definition video sucks up 4GB, Pickford said.
Consumers, though, tend to be skeptical of ever needing more storage capacity.
"We heard that when we brought out 1 gigabyte drives," Pickford said.
The boost in capacity for desktop drives comes in part through the introduction of perpendicular recording technology to 3.5-inch-diameter drives. In perpendicular drives, data can be stored in vertical columns, rather than on a single plane. Drive makers have already released notebook drives, which sport smaller 2.5-inch-diameter drives, with perpendicular recording. The 1 terabyte drives will be Hitachi's first 3.5-inch drives with perpendicular recording.
Currently, Hitachi sells 3.5-inch drives that hold 500GB of data, while Seagate has come out with a 750GB data drive.
Drive makers convert to perpendicular recording when the need for areal density, the measure of how much data can be crammed into a square inch, passes 125 gigabits. The terabyte drive (and the 750GB drive) can hold 148 gigabits per square inch, or 148 billion bits. Hitachi's previous 3.5-inch drives maxed out at 115 gigabits per square inch.
The hard drive turned 50 last year, and over the past five decades data capacity has increased at a fairly regular and rapid pace. The first drive, which came with the RAMAC computer, weighed about a ton and held 5MB of data.
So when the price on those puppies comes down, does this mean my bank won't try to squeeze me when I need to access account data that's more than six months old?
Sounds like your bank is one of those Fee Fee Banks....
But with this much cheap storage coming into the market place soon, I don't how they are going to be able to continue justifying those fees and successfully compete with their more nimble competitors.
Holy crap.
I can remeber back (not too long ago) when 1TB cost $1 million bucks.
Just Damn, indeedy.
I hate to admit it, but I remember when an 80mb hard drive was big, big news...
Some history:
(Photos: Making the first disk drive)
I haven't found the photos....
A 1-inch 8GB platter holds more than 80,000 times as much data as a single 24-inch RAMAC platter. An 8GB 1-inch drive holds 1,600 times as much data as RAMAC.
Good lordy!
The first computer I bought had a 40mb hard drive, and that was an expensive upgrade!
Yeah, and, I remember the celebration we had when we made the first functioning 512 chip. (thats, five hundred and twelve bits)
High Speed Octa-Core : Intel’s Xeon X5355 Processors
**************************AN EXCERPT *********************************
Author : Chris Connolly
| Date : 1/5/2007 |
 |
Just a few weeks back, we took our first look at Intel's quad-core Xeon processor, codenamed "Cloverton", here at GamePC. **************************** Intel's "Cloverton" Xeon quad-core processors are architecturally identical to Intel's Core 2 Extreme quad-core chips on the desktop, but with one major benefit, the ability to run in multi-processor configurations. Thus, this new line of Xeon processors can easily be tossed into dual-processor motherboards to support a total of eight processor cores (two processors, four cores per processor), while running with run of the mill tower cases and power supplies. We're talking super-computer level processing power here, for a fraction of the cost and headache, and our initial benchmarks looked quite good. ***************************************************
At the time of our first report, Intel had only started shipments of their low-end quad-core Xeon processors, running at 1.6 GHz (Xeon E5310) and 1.8 GHz (E5320). Even with these fairly low clock speeds, these new quad-core processors could outperform the fastest dual-core Xeon processors at 3.0 GHz, but only in applications which could make use of all eight cores available. The majority of real-world applications on the market, however, struggle to make use of all of the cores available to it, showing performance levels not on par with what one would expect from systems with this much computing power under the hood.
Now in early 2007, Intel has now begun full-scale shipments of their entire line of quad-core Xeon processors, including their high-end 2.33 GHz and 2.66 GHz models. As many of you are no doubt aware, the 2.66 GHz quad-core Xeon (dubbed X5355) has the same features and clock speeds of Intel's top of the line desktop chip, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700. The Xeon X5355 model, however, costs about 25% more but supports multi-processing. Now we can see how a pair of 2.66 GHz quad-core chips can perform in today's high-end workstation application. We've also done some revisions for our octa-core testing suite in order to more efficiently utilize all of this computing power. Let's get started, shall we?
Man....that goes back aways....
So...how many bits in the Intel Quad chip above....?
I don't know...haven't even seen a wafer since 1994. That's a very nerve-wracking business, lots of heart-attacks and nervous break-downs. Anthropology/archaeology is more my speed these days, lol.
AMD's Brisbane Core - the Transition to 65 nm
And the cache latency
I remember getting a 10 Meg hard drive card and popping it into a slot on my PC clone. Man did I think I was cool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
TalkBack
E-mail
Print
del.icio.us
Digg this