backtop


Print 30 comment(s) - last by thinairbikes.. on Apr 2 at 9:48 AM

The thousand gigabyte-per-disk era is almost upon us

Earlier this year Seagate confirmed it would ship a 1TB hard drive before the second half of this year. With the first quarter of this year already over, the launch window for Seagate's next generation drive is rapidly shrinking.

Seagate would not confirm or deny the expectation of a new 7200.11 series this morning.  Seagate representatives responded to our inquiries stating, "We already stated earlier this year that we would have the 1TB drive before the second half of this year." 

Spanish-language site Chilehardware countered Seagate's announcement with specifications of the 11th generation Seagate Barracuda drive, which it listed as follows:
  • 1 Terabyte capacity
  • 7200RPM
  • SATA 3.0Gbps interface
  • Perpendicular recording
  • NCQ
  • 16MB of buffer
  • 4 platters
  • 8 heads
Seagate traditionally reserves new generation designations for platter advancements; the company has never released new generation indicators for storage increases alone.  However, it has been a year refresh since the last platter update so it would not be unrealistic to expect new features on the soon-to-ship devices.

Seagate replied to DailyTech stating, "There is no embargo yet." However, we were still assured that the company would fulfill its ship date promise.

Hitachi Global Storage and Seagate released 1TB hard drive promises within hours of each other last January.  Both manufacturers utilize Komag platter configurations -- Komag is the only platter manufacturer to announce 1TB designs to date.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Too Big
By Oregonian2 on 3/30/2007 1:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
You're half right. Yes you need to buy in pairs (I've already been doing that for quite some time) but the second drive needs to go in a different machine (backup server). Or have it in triplets (RAID-1 plus server). If the power supply fails in a bad way (or something equivalent) it'll take out both drives of a RAID-1 pair. The redundant drive needs to be in a different machine (preferable in a different building/house). Networking the backup of a TB is more practical locally than remotely though (I use a gigabit ethernet cable, and the server is local).

P.S. - Video transferred from my camcorder for a single trip I took last year takes up 160Gb for just the raw transferred to disk version. And that's just SD. Be a LOT bigger than that for HD (someday..). And that's just one vacation trip.


RE: Too Big
By kkwst2 on 4/1/2007 9:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
I've been pushing my colleagues for the last two years to use a program called Foldershare to distribute their important files to their computers - work, home and laptop. It is mainly for file synchronization, but actually serves a valuable role in backup as well. As long as you're connected to the internet it creates triple-redundancy (in my example). It doesn't protect form accidental deletion, and doesn't eliminate the need for true backups. However, my experience is that most people just don't back up frequently enough and often lose a bunch of very important stuff they've been working on when they have a hard drive crash. This program certainly reduces and often eliminates that pain.

I have two folders that are constantly synched by this program between three computers. So if I work on something on my laptop, it's instantly transferred to my home and work computers, even if I'm on the road in a hotel room. When I've written half a manuscript sitting in an airport or hotel, it makes me feel much better knowing that's not my only copy if my laptop falls/breaks.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki