supercaffeinated

Where, oh where, are the Terabyte drives

Recommended Posts

This milestone is about as big to me as the first Gigabyte drive. It would be even better if they made them 1.2 TB each so you could get nice round TBs with RAID5 setups. I've been waiting to build a NAS device, like the Infrant or Buffalo, and it would be great to get 4TB after the RAID5 overhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the eventual size depends on the platter size. Hitachi seem to be comfortable with 5 platters, WD ans Seagate with only 4 platters.

Seagate are currently at 188gb, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine Hitachi using 5x 200gb platters, but it would take more development time for a brand to come out with 4x 250gb platters.

I doubt we will see 5x 250gb platter drives anytime soon....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back supercaff...?

Personally I don't care about nice round numbers (just nice round tits and asses). I care more about whatever I buy costs me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
It would be even better if they made them 1.2 TB each so you could get nice round TBs with RAID5 setups.

But do not forget that most of computers show in fact the capacities in GiB and TiB (although printing on screen GB, TB). So you will not see these round numbers easily ;)

Only if the drive capacity will be 1.100 TB then it will show up in computers exactly 1.000 TiB(TB)

(1.100TBx1000x1000x1000x1000/1024/1024/1024/1024=1.000TiB)

It just happens to be so exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly. It'd be around 1.0004TiB. Of course it'd be rounded by the OS. And maybe substracted by space taken by partition & MFT tables, etc. Also different software appears to round out differently the capacity usable, capacity used and capacity free, so it's pretty much insane to aim at precisely 1.000TiB. (For example Windows Disk Management will report the space of the HDD but after partitioning and formatting, you'll usually only notice the capacity of the partition. And OS might even leave some of the space unpartitioned.)

It's obvious the round numbers should be the actual HDD capacity, not usable HDD capacity as usable capacity may vary (OS, hardware, RAID, file system, etc.). When the numbers are rounded in actual capacity, there's no reason to round them in binary as the actual capacity isn't what we experience using the drive in daily use.

Also, since decimal figures are bigger, there's always the marketing advantage. And we can't blame them. They are absolutely right in correct usage of SI-prefixes. It's the software people are the ones mentally incapable of typing that small "i" between the prefix and "B". It can't be THAT difficult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Hitachi earlier this year saying that they would have a 1TB drive by the end of this year... I guess to conmemorate the 50th yr anniversary of the HD. That was one of the major reasons why I would pop up here every day, since HD reviews and news are RARELY ever posted here now (and has been for a while).

I guess it should come in like March.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember Hitachi earlier this year saying that they would have a 1TB drive by the end of this year... I guess to conmemorate the 50th yr anniversary of the HD. That was one of the major reasons why I would pop up here every day, since HD reviews and news are RARELY ever posted here now (and has been for a while).

I guess it should come in like March.

The Hitachi announcement is now linked on the front page... But Seagate claims that their drive will use fewer platters, less electronics and be all-around more reliable. I'm inclined to believe them, and while Hitachi was first to announce a drive, it'll be interesting to see who actually ships one first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

supercaffeinated: "But Seagate claims that their drive will use fewer platters, less electronics and be all-around more reliable. I'm inclined to believe them..."

Do you have a reason to believe Seagate drives will be more reliable than the Hitachi's? Have 750GB 7200.10 for example been more reliable than 7K400/7K500 (i.e previous Kurofune designs prior to 7K1000)? Because I thought they have been average in reliablity (which actually is quite good for a drive with 5 platters). Are 750GB Seagates then exceptionally reliable drives?

"Fewer platters": no need to pluralize it. It will use 4 platters instead of 5. Big deal.

"less electronics": possibly true. Hitachi drives haven't had the smallest PCBs lately. Especially Kurofunes have large PCBs because they are single-sided due to large amount of space required by internal mechanics of a 5-platter garganthua.

Aside from being single-sided, I'm not certain if they use less components. Hitachi doesn't use a separate SATA bridge any longer. They do have some acceleration sensors on the PCB (which are used to implement Rotational Vibration Safeguard feature). Having them isn't a bad thing, IMO, even if they increase the amount of electronics. (I really don't know is Seagates use similar accelerometers.)

I think the amount of active components is about the same. Number of passive components may vary as may the degree of integration of these passives to larger chips.

If we assume Seagate's claim for less electronics true, what benefit has this given in the past? In terms of start-up current? In terms of operational power consumption? (I sure cannot comment on reliability, if that's the only possible benefit.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whiic, 4 platters is 20% fewer platters than 5, and there is undoubtably less electronics required to drive fewer heads, and spin fewer platters. Fewer components means lower power, less heat, and all this should translate to higher reliability. I think that is a big deal.

I'm sure the community would appreciate any reports of sightings of these drives.

Edited by supercaffeinated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whiic, 4 platters is 20% fewer platters than 5, and there is undoubtably less electronics required to drive fewer heads, and spin fewer platters. Fewer components means lower power, less heat, and all this should translate to higher reliability. I think that is a big deal.

I'm sure the community would appreciate any reports of sightings of these drives.

Sorry, i dont buy it.

IF it were such a big deal, then WHY arent 4 platter HDs HORRIBLY worse than one platter ones? They have 300% more platters...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whiic, 4 platters is 20% fewer platters than 5, and there is undoubtably less electronics required to drive fewer heads, and spin fewer platters.

Quite wrong... it takes the same electronics to spin a 5-platter stack as it does to spin a 4-platter stack, and it takes the same electronics to move a 10-head stack as it does to move an 8-head stack -- the drive motor and head actuator simply just need to be a touch more powerful.

Fewer components means lower power, less heat, and all this should translate to higher reliability. I think that is a big deal.

The requirement for additional power to spin more platters/move more heads would normally favour Seagate, but in the real world, it doesn't matter. Comparing the Barracuda 7200.9 500gb (4 platters) with the 7K500 (5 platters), idle consumption differs by 0.1W (within experimental error) and active consumption by 2.0 watts.

Basically my point is that a 2W different in active power consumption is of no consequence to reliability... if a cooling fan is sufficient for a 12.6W thermal load it's also going to be sufficient for 14.6W. 2 watts is no big deal at all.

Edited by jboles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"whiic, 4 platters is 20% fewer platters than 5, and there is undoubtably less electronics required to drive fewer heads, and spin fewer platters."

I would not say that 1 platter less would always mean "less electronics". Surely there's more signal amplifiers and actual magnetoresistive read heads and write coils with more platter surfaces used. But theres other electronics in addition to them. For example there is always 1 spindle motor controller chip no matter how many platters there is. HDDs controller is typically a single chip. With native SATA or PATA there isn't even separate chips handling the interface. Cache RAM is typically separate (probably because separate RAM chips are cheap and easily offered at various capacities).

"Fewer components means lower power, less heat, and all this should translate to higher reliability."

Potentially: yes.

Within a certain drive series: most likely.

When comparing 4-platter drive of manufacturer X to 5-platter drive of manufacturer Y: depends on X and Y.

For example, let's compare 7K500 to Barracuda ES. StorageReview power consumption measurements are following:

Idle Power Dissipation: 8.5 watts vs 9.4 watts (Hitachi wins)

Active Power Dissipation: 14.6 watts vs 13.3 watts (Seagate wins)

If we assume 50% seek duty cycle (which is quite intensive HDD use):

Hitachi 7K500 (5-platter): 11.55 watts.

Seagate ES (4-platter): 11.35 watts.

Do you see some obvious power saving in favour of Seagate's 4-platter solution? I don't. I see some 0.2 watts which is well within margin of error.

If we were talking of drives within the same series, like 7K1000 1000GB and 7K1000 750GB, I would not doubt that 750GB unit consumes less power. (This assumes of course that both drives are truely of the same series and not like WD's model codes which don't correspond to real drive models at all.)

But in no way can we tell that Seagate's 1TB drive (that should be out 2nd quarter) would or would not be more power efficient than Hitachi's 1TB drive (that should be out 1st quarter). The only way to actually tell whether Seagate's claims are true or BS is by measuring the end-product.

Since I don't expect Seagate to ship a prototype(*) to be reviewed during 1st quarter, making a baseless claim might just be a way to make people post-pone their purchase decision. It's pretty much a win-win situation to Seagate if people post-pone making decision... thus I don't really think Seagate will actually try to make their drive as superb as they imply it to be. They don't need to try.

(*) and even if they did, I'd question whether it'd be the real end-product or something completely different.

___

Due to this, I would more likely make the rough guesstimates based on previous drive models. I would expect 7K1000 to use approximately same amount of power as 7K400 and 7K500. I understand those drives aren't the most power efficient drives there is but at least they manage to tie with Seagates that use "less platters and less electronics".

Surely it's harder to make a guesstimate of Seagate's power consumption. There's quite a bit variation between all the 4-platter Seagates released lately. ES (being the highest capacity and thus possibly closest to upcoming 1TB Seagate) is one of the ones that consume more electricity. NL35.2 is another similar drive. But NL35(.1) is completely different - the coolest 4-platter drive reviewed here. Does not make any sense.

Should we calculate the average? (Somewhere in between.)

Assume the best? (Assume power consumption of NL35.)

Assume the worst (till today)? (Assume power consumption of NL35.2.)

Extrapolate? (Assume current trend: power consumption exceeding NL35.2.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jboles: "Quite wrong... it takes the same electronics to spin a 5-platter stack as it does to spin a 4-platter stack, and it takes the same electronics to move a 10-head stack as it does to move an 8-head stack -- the drive motor and head actuator simply just need to be a touch more powerful."

Hitachi "Kurofune" drives do have quite heavy actuators and moving it with high speed does use quite a bit of current as can obviously be seen in active power consumption. Idle power consumption (which is the state drives are usually in) is suprizingly low for these drives, less than that of most 4-platter Seagates (NL35(.1) is an exception as it is more efficient than other 4-platter Seagates).

I'm not sure whether 5-platter Hitachis (the Kurofunes) have more powerful spindles. At least they are amazingly low-power during both operation and spin-up. My guess would be that because there is no stiction (i.e static friction) as unlike Seagates these drives don't land their heads on the platters. Due to this, the spindle doesn't need a high peak torque to break the friction. Also, as the heads are protected from contact with the platter there is no need to hurry with the spin-up process as sliders are not in contact with the platter during acceleration to operational rpm.

supercaffeinated did even notice what I was after when I asked "what benefit has this given in the past? In terms of start-up current? In terms of operational power consumption?"

I referred to the fact that 5-platter 7K400 and 7K500 draw only 15.0 and 15.2 watts (respectively) from 12 volt line, while 4-platter Seagates draw up to nearly 30 watts (29.4 and 29.6 watts to be accurate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the number of components approaches 0, reliability, power consumption, heat, etc. all approach the ideal. This is indisputable.

I'm most interested in sightings of these drives for sale and at what price. No drives have been sighted, and just because Hitachi announced first doesn't mean they'll ship first.

I'm really not trying to convince anyone of anything. Everyone is welcome to reach their own conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this article from dailynews quoting a Seagate source saying their 1TB drive will be out in the first half of the year.

Seagate’s 1TB hard drive will be our second generation 3.5-inch hard drive to feature capacity-boosting perpendicular recording technology, and it will use fewer heads and discs than similar-capacity products we expect to see from our competitors. It is clear that fewer heads and discs, along with our proven perpendicular technology, can increase drive reliability, and also reduce operating temperatures, power consumption, noise, and weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I found this article from dailynews quoting a Seagate source saying their 1TB drive will be out in the first half of the year."

1st half ... 2nd quarter ... what is the difference? What's the news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be even better if they made them 1.2 TB each so you could get nice round TBs with RAID5 setups.

But do not forget that most of computers show in fact the capacities in GiB and TiB (although printing on screen GB, TB). So you will not see these round numbers easily ;)

Only if the drive capacity will be 1.100 TB then it will show up in computers exactly 1.000 TiB(TB)

(1.100TBx1000x1000x1000x1000/1024/1024/1024/1024=1.000TiB)

It just happens to be so exactly!

Well 1.00044417195022106170654296875 TiB anyway. Windows would probably show it as "1.00 TB", as even when you enable multiple decimal places in the regional settings, it just put zeroes after the second place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888

Received some information from our distributors that Hitachi's promised 1TB drive will be available for general distribution in Q2 (may-be in May month). Before that (may be in the end of Q1) selected big OEM's only will get the initial shipments.

That scenario seems pretty realistic also if to speculate from the Hitachi's previous new product announcements. The real availability has shifted pretty late usually (the latest example - T7K500 series, but also 7K500 two years ago).

But for Seagate it has been this and thus. Some of their new product announcements have been very in-time with real availability, in fact even couple of weeks late (remember the 7200.9 and 7200.10 series when some models were in retail stores already before the actual press release!). Although, some of Seagate press releases have been again too early (some items of their last year's June announcement aren't in volume production even today yet).

So, the situation about who will put 1TB on market earlier is still going very close between Hitachi and Seagate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, i dont buy it.

IF it were such a big deal, then WHY arent 4 platter HDs HORRIBLY worse than one platter ones? They have 300% more platters...

quotes like this are why my posts in the SR forums are few and far between. You are a tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, i dont buy it.

IF it were such a big deal, then WHY arent 4 platter HDs HORRIBLY worse than one platter ones? They have 300% more platters...

quotes like this are why my posts in the SR forums are few and far between. You are a tool.

Notice something?

Its your complete lack of arguments.

happy fellowtard.

(and if you think that was a math error, you fail there, too)

Edited by imsabbel

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