willsmith

Maxtor 500Gb in Q3.

30 posts in this topic

7200rpm, of course. Apparently will be in all major ranges, MaXLine, DiamondMax, Shared Storage and OneTouch.

Both SATA and ATA133 versions, according to the press release.

Now if only Western Digital would up the capacity on the Raptor, 76Gb is a bit stingy these days - I want capacity and performance, not just one!

I also have to work out how to add another HDD to my PC : 5 drives already, 2x180GXP (180Gb), 1xRaptor 76Gb, 1x7200.7 (200Gb) and 1x7200.8 (300Gb) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to know if that means they'll be shipping 500 in Q3, or if they'll be shipping 50,000...

Kind of a big difference. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whichever way you look at it, they'll be available in bulk by Q4, which is only ~5 months away.

And this will no doubt push the price of the 400Gb models down, to become the new 'sweet spot' (currently I'd say the 250Gb and 300Gb models occupy this niche).

Are these likely to be 4 platters of 133Gb each, short-stroked to 125Gb to make 500Gb, or is 166Gb/platter x 3 platters yet possible?

Will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whichever way you look at it, they'll be available in bulk by Q4, which is only ~5 months away.

207239[/snapback]

:unsure: Hard drive makers have not been particularly successful at getting anywhere near projected shipping dates for some years now. I think it would be highly improbable, given past evidence, that we'll see these before Q1 2006.

Are these likely to be 4 platters of 133Gb each, short-stroked to 125Gb to make 500Gb, or is 166Gb/platter x 3 platters yet possible?

207239[/snapback]

I expect that they're 166GB/platter disks, since Maxtor hasn't made consumer disks with more than 3 platters for ages now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe That's the reason why they skipped the latest platter capacities offered by Seagate, Samsung etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166GB/platter will be a huge step forward, considering the company is currently using 100GB platters.

207261[/snapback]

Indeed, that is why I expect Maxtor will rival Seagate's recent policies with respect to the amount of time that passes between announcement and availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let us all prepare for the "..how do I backup my 500GB+ drive" threads  :)

207373[/snapback]

LOL :)

Another 500 gig drive?

Or I know buy 2 250 gig in raid 0 to back up the 500 gig. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let us all prepare for the "..how do I backup my 500GB+ drive" threads  :)

207373[/snapback]

LOL :)

Another 500 gig drive?

Or I know buy 2 250 gig in raid 0 to back up the 500 gig. :lol:

207377[/snapback]

That's not that far fetched. If a RAID0 disk dies, you only lose your backup which you can recreate (unless the RAID0 backup drive dies at the same time as the 500GB data drive, but that's a risk you take with on-site backups no matter how you store it). You could use two single disks for backup if your data partitions into two drives easily. Besides 2x250GB is probably cheaper than 1x500GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the current hitachi 400GB is nearly just as expensive as 2x of 250GB.

the hitachi 400GB features has vibration control.

its going to be very rich clients that can afford such 500GB hdd, yahoo, google, hotmail.

i think there will be delay as the qualification will take some $$ marketing to get clients to pay for such expensive hdd.

and factory testing will probably last 5 days for 500GB.

its always like this. the first with the highest capacity gets the maximum profit til the competition catches up.

just imagine 2 years from now, every new entry home dual core pc will come with a 500GB hdd at the price of todays 40GB hdd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the current hitachi 400GB is nearly just as expensive as 2x of 250GB.

the hitachi 400GB features has vibration control.

its going to be very rich clients that can afford such 500GB hdd, yahoo, google, hotmail.

i think there will be delay as the qualification will take some $$ marketing to get clients to pay for such expensive hdd.

and factory testing will probably last 5 days for 500GB.

its always like this.  the first with the highest capacity gets the maximum profit til the competition catches up.

just imagine 2 years from now, every new entry home dual core pc will come with a 500GB hdd at the price of todays 40GB hdd.

207429[/snapback]

I'd say that's completely wrong. The current Hitachi 400GB costs more than 2x250GB.

Yahoo, Google, and Hotmail will probably have no interest whatsoever in IDE drives. Why should they? They probably use multi-gigabyte RAM-disks with several 15K SCSI drives in tow.

As for factory testing lasting 5 days, that's just absurd.

2 years from now it's unlikely that a home PC will come with a 500GB drive since the average PC nowadays only comes with 160GB. Note that 160GB was availible several years ago, and today's 40GB drive costs about as much as an 80GB, in circumstances, less. Most people simply do not need that much space. The few people that do, will hardly be buying systems simply because of hard drive capacity, they will more likely buy their own drives. The price arguement is ridiculous. You will not get a 500GB drive in 2 years time for the cost of a 40GB drive today. Nor for the price of an 80GB.

I'd say the primary reason for 400/500GB drives is consolidation. Home theater PC's and multimedia centres used as DVD archives. These small units don't have the physical space for multiple drives so as much capacity in as little physical space is required. While you could buy three 200GB drives for the price of a 400, some people do not have the physical space to put them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about Yahoo and Hotmail, but Google uses IDE drives in their farms. So does Ask Jeeves. They'd likely want the largest capacity drives possible if physical rack space becomes an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about Yahoo and Hotmail, but Google uses IDE drives in their farms. So does Ask Jeeves. They'd likely want the largest capacity drives possible if physical rack space becomes an issue.

207432[/snapback]

I'll second this. I see no reason why companies that do massive datawarehousing would not use really large IDE drives. In RAID arrays large enough, STR is no longer an issue, and the extra access time can be compensated for using really large RAM disks as cache. Reliability isn't that big a concern because with large redundant arrays of disks you have...redundancy. The added cost in drives and floor space (not to mention electricity and heat) would almost certainly rule out 10k and 15k SCSI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi qasdfdsaq

on second thoughts,you are probably right. so looks like i may be premature and off target about the future.

so no low cost price 500GB hdd for a long time, well i still be happy if 160GB at todays 40GB price in 2 years time, for my future main desktop dual core and 64 bit winOS.

500GB for DVD entertainment sounds more reasonable. these hdd will be great and suitable for those pay internet movies and songs super rich download provider.

they can store tonnes of movies for access.

i thought hotmail, yahoo, google, use largest capacity either SATA or IDE hdd for their 250MB to 1GB emails per user storage as speed for whole world emails delivery is secondary to web search servers and all front servers If they use scsi 15Krpm, then who is the lucky brand, Seagate, maxtor or fujitsu or hitachi. the sales guy must be damn super rich with the commision he is getting.

it could be thousands of scsi at each yahoo server and storage farm.

not to mention the amount of electricity bills they chalk up for power companies.

anyone here doing HDD sales? whats the commission rate like and monthly takings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few notes on the above:

1) Google has a strategy, backed by an incredible grid computing infrastructure, of using the cheapest hardware they can, and then using the failover features of their grid to compensate when a system goes down. Google is VERY good at this - last report I saw said they run Google searches off a massive grid of (AFAIK) 15,000 PCs worldwide. So the reliability of any ONE machine or disk isn't imporant - there is always failover and reduncancy. It is NOT clear that any other company has this same technology infrastructure...

2) Datawarehousing and Data Archiving are two very different things. In Data Archiving the returned results sets are usually small. In Data Warehousing (as defined by Kimball and Inmon) the result sets, and intermediate working data sets within a query, can be quite large...large enough so that database software stop using their indexes and simply do file passes to generate query results. Thus, effective STR very much DOES matter in a Data Warehouse, even if you get it from RAID 5 instead of high-performance disks. The problem is that, as stated, the data sets are huge - way too large to cache. A 64 Gig cache seems like a lot - until you realize that your main customer table/file is 2 terabytes - and you will need to stream all of it to get the results of a non-indexed query! This is very, very common in data warehouses, and one reason that old DW pros hate storage vendors that do nothing but talk up their cache...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a few notes on the above:

1) Google has a strategy, backed by an incredible grid computing infrastructure, of using the cheapest hardware they can, and then using the failover features of their grid to compensate when a system goes down.  Google is VERY good at this - last report I saw said they run Google searches off a massive grid of (AFAIK) 15,000 PCs worldwide.  So the reliability of any ONE machine or disk isn't imporant - there is always failover and reduncancy.  It is NOT clear that any other company has this same technology infrastructure...

2) Datawarehousing and Data Archiving are two very different things.  In Data Archiving  the returned results sets are usually small.  In Data Warehousing (as defined by Kimball and Inmon) the result sets, and intermediate working data sets within a query, can be quite large...large enough so that database software stop using their indexes and simply do file passes to generate query results.  Thus, effective STR very much DOES matter in a Data Warehouse, even if you get it from RAID 5 instead of high-performance disks.  The problem is that, as stated, the data sets are huge - way too large to cache.  A 64 Gig cache seems like a lot - until you realize that your main customer table/file is 2 terabytes - and you will need to stream all of it to get the results of a non-indexed query!  This is very, very common in data warehouses, and one reason that old DW pros hate storage vendors that do nothing but talk up their cache...

Future Shock

207437[/snapback]

this is enligthening. IS this a google secret of using grid computing.

JUst curiuos , from the above how will 64 bit OS and 64 bit cpu into every desktop or servers affect grid computing and datawarehousing storage and caching in the near future.

twice as fast and smooth? or full of bottleneck somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends upon the vendor and their grid strategy - which is in many ways determined by the application challenges. Oracle's approach to grid computing is very fine grained parallelism - it's almost more of a clustering solution than a true grid. This tends to work well for database software. Globus grid software (an industry "standard") is much more coarse grained, emphasizing the co-ordination and communication of more robust stand-alone computers (or even computing centers). This tends to work better for technical computation problems.

Both can benefit from more powerful processing and larger address spaces, and if the grid is well-designed it should be reconfigurable (either automatically or manually) to avoid bottlenecks.

Grids are cool, but they aren't all THAT different from any other distributed data/ distributed computing environment. When I met a few CEOs and CTOs of some grid companies a year ago at a conference, we shared a few jokes as to how old this technology really was at it's roots...

honold should chime in here, he actually WORKS at a hive computing company last we checked...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends upon the vendor and their grid strategy - which is in many ways determined by the application challenges.  Oracle's approach to grid computing is very fine grained parallelism - it's almost more of a clustering solution than a true grid.  This tends to work well for database software.  Globus grid software (an industry "standard") is much more coarse grained, emphasizing the co-ordination and communication of more robust stand-alone computers (or even computing centers).  This tends to work better for technical computation problems. 

Both can benefit from more powerful processing and larger address spaces, and if the grid is well-designed it should be reconfigurable (either automatically or manually) to avoid bottlenecks. 

Grids are cool, but they aren't all THAT different from any other distributed data/ distributed computing environment.  When I met a few CEOs and CTOs of some grid companies a year ago at a conference, we shared a few jokes as to how old this technology really was at it's roots...

honold should chime in here, he actually WORKS at a hive computing company last we checked...

Future Shock

207442[/snapback]

thanks.

apologise to threadstarter for offtracking his topic on 500GB hdd to grid computing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166GB/platter will be a huge step forward, considering the company is currently using 100GB platters.

207261[/snapback]

Indeed, that is why I expect Maxtor will rival Seagate's recent policies with respect to the amount of time that passes between announcement and availability.

207359[/snapback]

Bingo, let the race of who can miss their announced ship date by the most begin. Unfortunately for Maxtor, Hitachi has a huge lead already. It's been so long since Hitachi announced their 500GB drive that everyone here has apparently forgotten.

Hey, remember me? I'm only 3 months late so far...

"Hitachi is currently shipping the Deskstar 7K80 and expects to begin shipping the Deskstar T7K250 and Deskstar 7K500 in Q1 2005."

Good luck Maxtor, but you got a long way to go to catch Hitachi before your drive is as late as Hitachi's. Not to mention you are eons behind catching Seagate for the current worst time to market with their still unseen 7200RPM laptop drive. Don't let us down Maxtor, and release this drive before Q2 2006, you might cause a tear in the space-time continuum if you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apologise to threadstarter...

207446[/snapback]

Hey, if you want to apologize for something, how about apologizing for making copy after copy of entire other messages in the very next message? Do you think we can't see it up there? Do you think we won't figure out what you're referring too? Do you have any idea what that little arrow over there on the right, under the quote-icon does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whichever way you look at it, they'll be available in bulk by Q4, which is only ~5 months away.

And this will no doubt push the price of the 400Gb models down, to become the new 'sweet spot' (currently I'd say the 250Gb and 300Gb models occupy this niche).

Are these likely to be 4 platters of 133Gb each, short-stroked to 125Gb to make 500Gb, or is 166Gb/platter x 3 platters yet possible?

Will

207239[/snapback]

They are actually 4x133GB platters. I have a few on my desk at work right now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now