Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2513 > unrolled thread

HDD capacity stagnation

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

Contents

  HDD capacity stagnation "Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> - 2012-01-30 15:12 -0500
    Re: HDD capacity stagnation "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-31 08:29 +1100
    Re: HDD capacity stagnation Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-30 22:54 +0000
      Re: HDD capacity stagnation "Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> - 2012-01-31 18:31 -0500
        Re: HDD capacity stagnation Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-02-01 05:37 +0000
    Re: HDD capacity stagnation Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> - 2012-02-01 07:32 +1100
      Re: HDD capacity stagnation "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2012-01-31 18:55 -0500
        Re: HDD capacity stagnation Joe Kotroczo <kotroczo@mac.com> - 2012-02-01 11:27 +0100
    Re: HDD capacity stagnation DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> - 2012-01-31 18:05 -0800
      Re: HDD capacity stagnation "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 14:35 +1100
        Re: HDD capacity stagnation DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> - 2012-01-31 21:32 -0800
          Re: HDD capacity stagnation "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 16:58 +1100
      Re: HDD capacity stagnation Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2012-02-01 11:30 -0600
        Re: HDD capacity stagnation DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> - 2012-02-01 20:15 -0800
          Re: HDD capacity stagnation Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-02-02 05:44 +0000
            Re: HDD capacity stagnation David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-02-02 08:51 +0100
          Re: HDD capacity stagnation "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-02-03 13:20 +1100
    Re: HDD capacity stagnation rb <rb.57942z@no.email.invalid> - 2012-01-31 11:56 -0600
    Re: HDD capacity stagnation Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2012-02-02 16:47 -0600
    Re: HDD capacity stagnation Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 22:23 +0800
      Re: HDD capacity stagnation Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-02-06 19:10 +0000
        Re: HDD capacity stagnation "Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> - 2012-02-06 14:32 -0500
          Re: HDD capacity stagnation Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-02-07 08:36 +0000
    Re: HDD capacity stagnation Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2012-02-07 11:48 -0600
      Re: HDD capacity stagnation "Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> - 2012-02-07 13:17 -0500
      Re: HDD capacity stagnation "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-02-08 07:04 +1100
      Re: HDD capacity stagnation Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-02-07 22:30 +0000
        Re: HDD capacity stagnation Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-08 11:19 +0100
          Re: HDD capacity stagnation Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-02-09 08:13 +0000
            Re: HDD capacity stagnation DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> - 2012-02-09 16:04 -0800
              Re: HDD capacity stagnation Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-02-10 17:48 +0000
                Re: HDD capacity stagnation DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> - 2012-02-10 11:14 -0800
      Re: HDD capacity stagnation Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> - 2012-02-12 06:23 +1100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2513 — HDD capacity stagnation

Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the 
longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates 
opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?


-- 

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2514

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the longest time (a lot longer than we were 
> stuck at 528MB)

Thats very arguable indeed.

> but when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?

Nope. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2515

Tom Del Rosso <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the 
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates 
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?

The technology is at its limits. 8TB does not make ecconomic
sense, it would not fit standard HDD case sizes and it would
take forever due to slow interfaces. It would also be very
expensive. As to size progression, why would you expect
8TB? Sizes did never increase in tsucha  large step.

Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2523

Arno wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB
> > for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
> > when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another
> > obstacle?
>
> The technology is at its limits. 8TB does not make ecconomic
> sense, it would not fit standard HDD case sizes and it would
> take forever due to slow interfaces. It would also be very
> expensive. As to size progression, why would you expect
> 8TB? Sizes did never increase in tsucha  large step.

The perception of time varies a lot, so it's very subjective, but it seems 
like the software limit that held us to 2TB lasted longer than the software 
limit that held us to 528MB.  When the 528MB limit was overcome we reached 
2GB very soon as I recall.

The maximum size available in 1993 was 528MB and in 2003 it was 250GB.  A 
multiple of 500 in 10 years.  Maybe that should be 1995, but then it would 
have been only 8 years.

Since then it has changed by a factor of 12 in 8 years.  So I asked if there 
is a specific obstacle that is now in the way.

Case size, interface speed, and price have always been factors.


-- 

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2528

Tom Del Rosso <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

> Arno wrote:
>> Tom Del Rosso <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB
>> > for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
>> > when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another
>> > obstacle?
>>
>> The technology is at its limits. 8TB does not make ecconomic
>> sense, it would not fit standard HDD case sizes and it would
>> take forever due to slow interfaces. It would also be very
>> expensive. As to size progression, why would you expect
>> 8TB? Sizes did never increase in tsucha  large step.

> The perception of time varies a lot, so it's very subjective, but it seems 
> like the software limit that held us to 2TB lasted longer than the software 
> limit that held us to 528MB.  When the 528MB limit was overcome we reached 
> 2GB very soon as I recall.

> The maximum size available in 1993 was 528MB and in 2003 it was 250GB.  A 
> multiple of 500 in 10 years.  Maybe that should be 1995, but then it would 
> have been only 8 years.

> Since then it has changed by a factor of 12 in 8 years.  So I asked if there 
> is a specific obstacle that is now in the way.

Ah, yes. There is: Data density per area. And it looks like this
time it may be a hard limit, i.e. one that cannot be overcome
anytime soon. 

Arno

> Case size, interface speed, and price have always been factors.


> -- 

> Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
> zero, and remove the last word. 



-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2521

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:12:32 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the 
>longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates 
>opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?

At the moment we're at 1TB per platter. Therefore we should be able to
fit 4TB in a 3.5" form factor using current technology.

- Franc Zabkar
-- 
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2524

On 01/31/12 03:32 pm, Franc Zabkar wrote:

>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the
>> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?

> At the moment we're at 1TB per platter. Therefore we should be able to
> fit 4TB in a 3.5" form factor using current technology.

Such as the 4TB Seagate GoFlex Desk STAC4000100

But the internals go only up to 3TB

Perce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2531

On 01/02/2012 00:55, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> On 01/31/12 03:32 pm, Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the
>>> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>>> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?
>
>> At the moment we're at 1TB per platter. Therefore we should be able to
>> fit 4TB in a 3.5" form factor using current technology.
>
> Such as the 4TB Seagate GoFlex Desk STAC4000100
>
> But the internals go only up to 3TB

Not anymore:

<http://www.hitachigst.com/internal-drives/desktop/deskstar/deskstar-7k4000>


-- 
Illegitimi non carborundum

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2525

In the last episode of <jg6tq4$ijn$1@dont-email.me>, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> said:

>Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the 
>longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates 
>opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?

Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.

That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if you
try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)

More importantly, in the consumer space, few people really need more
than 2TB/3TB drives. In the high density storage business world,
smaller, more power efficient drives are all the rage.

Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of the
major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods will probably
leave us around the current range for a while. Once the manufacturers
get rebuilt, expect to see better and faster drives at current densities
(why build a factory to sell 500GB drives when it's the same factory
costs for 2TB drives and 2TB drives see for more?)

Given that we're up to 1TB per platter, 4TB drives should be possible in
typical form-factors, but my guess is that 3TB drives didn't sell well
enough to be worth investing in 4TB designs just yet.

-- 
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to 
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2526

DevilsPGD wrote
> Tom Del Rosso <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote

>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB
>> for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
>> when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another
>> obstacle?

> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.

> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
> but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
> incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
> reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if
> you try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
> mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
> I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)

> More importantly, in the consumer space, few
> people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives.

Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with PVRs.

> In the high density storage business world, smaller,
> more power efficient drives are all the rage.

Not with the operations that need massive amounts of storage like google.

> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of
> the major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods
> will probably leave us around the current range for a while.

They didnt all build in Thailand.

> Once the manufacturers get rebuilt, expect to see better and faster drives
> at current densities (why build a factory to sell 500GB drives when it's
> the same factory costs for 2TB drives and 2TB drives see for more?)

> Given that we're up to 1TB per platter, 4TB drives should be
> possible in typical form-factors, but my guess is that 3TB drives
> didn't sell well enough to be worth investing in 4TB designs just yet.

And how well they sell obviously depends on the price charged for them. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2527

In the last episode of <9orq7gF8gvU1@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> said:

>DevilsPGD wrote
>> Tom Del Rosso <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB
>>> for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but
>>> when the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another
>>> obstacle?
>
>> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
>> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
>> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
>
>> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
>> but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
>> incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
>> reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if
>> you try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
>> mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
>> I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)
>
>> More importantly, in the consumer space, few
>> people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives.
>
>Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with PVRs.

PVRs are one usage case, for the vanishingly small percentage of people
that 1) Have a PVR, 2) Overload the PVR, 3) Have the will to upgrade
their PVR, 4) Have a PVR that can be upgraded, 5) Have a PVR that can
handle larger than 2TB drives and 6) Have a PVR that can only handle a
single drive.

Like I said, "few people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives." Some do,
and pointing out specific narrow examples just makes my point.

>> In the high density storage business world, smaller,
>> more power efficient drives are all the rage.
>
>Not with the operations that need massive amounts of storage like google.

Things work a little differently in the business world. Google needs a
lot of storage, but they also need very low latency, so having more
spindles can make sense.

Power efficiency:TB is probably a bigger factor than raw TB count, get
the power cost low enough and it makes sense to crank up the spindle
count for performance reasons.

>> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of
>> the major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods
>> will probably leave us around the current range for a while.
>
>They didnt all build in Thailand.

No, but a significant percentage of drives were manufactured in
Thailand, so the market will be affected for a while.

-- 
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to 
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2529

DevilsPGD wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> DevilsPGD wrote
>>> Tom Del Rosso <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote

>>>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB
>>>> for the longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when
>>>> the gates opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?

>>> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
>>> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
>>> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.

>>> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the
>>> future, but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather
>>> than an incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough,
>>> performance or reliability suffer greatly along with significant
>>> cost increases if
>>> you try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases,
>>> likely mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in
>>> other words, I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher
>>> capacity drives)

>>> More importantly, in the consumer space, few
>>> people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives.

>> Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with PVRs.

> PVRs are one usage case,

Which blows your silly claim completely out of the water.

> for the vanishingly small percentage of people

Even sillier.

> that 1) Have a PVR,

Thats nothing like a vanishingly small percentage.

> 2) Overload the PVR,

Even sillier. You dont have to overload it to need more than 2/3TB.

> 3) Have the will to upgrade their PVR,

Even sillier when PVRs would be supplied with the larger
drives if they  were available and reasonably priced.

> 4) Have a PVR that can be upgraded,

Or are buying a PVR.

> 5) Have a PVR that can handle larger than 2TB drives

Which they will certainly do when the larger
drives are available and are reasonably priced.

> and 6) Have a PVR that can only handle a single drive.

Even sillier.

> Like I said, "few people really need more than 2TB/3TB drives."

Repeating that stupid pig ignorant claim changes nothing.

> Some do, and pointing out specific narrow examples just makes my point.

Taint a narrow example at all, fool.

>>> In the high density storage business world, smaller,
>>> more power efficient drives are all the rage.

>> Not with the operations that need massive amounts of storage like google.

> Things work a little differently in the business world.

Not on the need for drives bigger than 2/3TB they dont except in the
sense that operations like google need immense amounts of storage.

> Google needs a lot of storage,

And they aint alone in that.

> but they also need very low latency, so having more spindles can make sense.

Like hell it does with the immense amount of storage they need.
They'd have plenty of spindles even with drives bigger than 2/3TB.

> Power efficiency:TB is probably a bigger factor than raw TB count,

Wrong, as always.

> get the power cost low enough and it makes sense
> to crank up the spindle count for performance reasons.

Not with the immense amount of storage operations like
google need, they already have vast numbers of spindles.

>>> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of
>>> the major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods
>>> will probably leave us around the current range for a while.

>> They didnt all build in Thailand.

> No, but a significant percentage of drives were manufactured
> in Thailand, so the market will be affected for a while.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made about MOST MANUFACTURERS. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2532

On 1/31/2012 8:05 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
> In the last episode of<jg6tq4$ijn$1@dont-email.me>, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid>  said:
>
>> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the
>> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
>> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?
>
> Right now we're at some physics limits with regards to densities. We
> were close to this point before, but perpendicular magnetic recording
> suddenly becoming stable/reliable helped get through the last time.
>
> That's not to say there won't be any capacity increases in the future,
> but at this point we're waiting on a breakthrough rather than an
> incremental increase. Until there is a breakthrough, performance or
> reliability suffer greatly along with significant cost increases if you
> try to ramp up density. Expect maybe 10% density increases, likely
> mostly being lost to additional redundancy in the drive (in other words,
> I'd expect to see more reliable drives before higher capacity drives)
>
> More importantly, in the consumer space, few people really need more
> than 2TB/3TB drives. In the high density storage business world,
> smaller, more power efficient drives are all the rage.
>
> Combining the current density limits with the fact that most of the
> major hard drive manufacturers are rebuilding after floods will probably
> leave us around the current range for a while. Once the manufacturers
> get rebuilt, expect to see better and faster drives at current densities
> (why build a factory to sell 500GB drives when it's the same factory
> costs for 2TB drives and 2TB drives see for more?)
>
> Given that we're up to 1TB per platter, 4TB drives should be possible in
> typical form-factors, but my guess is that 3TB drives didn't sell well
> enough to be worth investing in 4TB designs just yet.

Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
two client of hard drives after consumers right now
(saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
    http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars

The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2533

In the last episode of <jgbss4$cig$2@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
<lmc@winsim.com> said:

>Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>(saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
>    http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>
>The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.

I doubt they care. Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
where cost factors in the original purchase price and energy consumption
over it's lifespan (including cooling) vs some combination of
performance and size. Physical size and formfactor is also a factor, of
course.

In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1
PB drive"

Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they beat out the price
point that modern drives achieve.

-- 
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to 
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2534

DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In the last episode of <jgbss4$cig$2@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
> <lmc@winsim.com> said:

>>Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>>two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>>(saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
>>    http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>>
>>The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.

> I doubt they care. Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
> where cost factors in the original purchase price and energy consumption
> over it's lifespan (including cooling) vs some combination of
> performance and size. Physical size and formfactor is also a factor, of
> course.

> In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1
> PB drive"

> Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they beat out the price
> point that modern drives achieve.

I think another issue is more problematic: I/O bandwidth to
capacity ratio. It has gotten worse and worse over time for
HDDs. Not a surprise as data-density increases on a plane,
while r/w is done on circles. Unless you have rare access 
for most data, large disks are not very useful. Now, "the
cloud" (stupid term, it really is just client-server computing),
may turn out to be a gigantic data-heap, in which case the more
capacity, the better, but I somehow doubt that, as it clearly
is unreliable as a storage solution. These days, Megaupload
demonstrates the fundamental problem. It also demonstrates
thet "the cloud" is really a number of different special-purpose
clouds. For storage, large capacity may matter, but see the
lack of maturity of the whole idea. For computing, I do not
see this at all, and neither for presence (web-server, e.g.)
clouds.

Side note: The main selling-point for SSDs is that they
have a far saner I/O to capacity rating. This also explains
why they sell so well, despite being massively more expensive.

Arno
-- 
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
GnuPG:  ID: 1E25338F  FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C  0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2535

On 02/02/2012 06:44, Arno wrote:
> DevilsPGD<boogabooga@crazyhat.net>  wrote:
>> In the last episode of<jgbss4$cig$2@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire
>> <lmc@winsim.com>  said:
>
>>> Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>>> two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>>> (saw that somewhere but dont remember where).
>>>     http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars
>>>
>>> The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.
>
>> I doubt they care. Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,
>> where cost factors in the original purchase price and energy consumption
>> over it's lifespan (including cooling) vs some combination of
>> performance and size. Physical size and formfactor is also a factor, of
>> course.
>
>> In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1
>> PB drive"
>
>> Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they beat out the price
>> point that modern drives achieve.
>
> I think another issue is more problematic: I/O bandwidth to
> capacity ratio. It has gotten worse and worse over time for
> HDDs. Not a surprise as data-density increases on a plane,
> while r/w is done on circles. Unless you have rare access
> for most data, large disks are not very useful.

There are a number of uses of large disks, that could always benefit 
from even larger disks.

In some cases, the I/O bandwidth you need is limited and doesn't have to 
scale, such as for PVR's or home media servers.  There is a limit to how 
many streams you can watch at the same time, but there is no limit to 
the number of movies you might want to store on the system.

Sometimes your main priorities are to have cheap (and power-efficient) 
space, but bandwidth and latency don't matter much - backup and archives 
are typical cases.

The other thing that large drives give you is more flexible raid options 
for larger arrays.  Typical tradeoffs mean people often use raid5 or 
raid6 to get redundancy without too much wasted space.  Raid10 is often 
faster and safer, but much less space efficient.  With bigger drives, 
that becomes less relevant.  I have a server with 5 500GB disks in a 
raid5 (2TB total) - I would rather have 3 2TB disks in a 3-way raid10 
mirror (same 2TB total) with greater redundancy, safer rebuilds, and 
faster access for many usage patterns.  But 2 TB was not an option when 
it was built.


In many other cases, you are correct that there is no point in adding 
more data space without correspondingly more I/O bandwidth - and that 
can be best done by adding more disks, not bigger disks.


> Now, "the
> cloud" (stupid term, it really is just client-server computing),
> may turn out to be a gigantic data-heap, in which case the more
> capacity, the better, but I somehow doubt that, as it clearly
> is unreliable as a storage solution. These days, Megaupload
> demonstrates the fundamental problem. It also demonstrates
> thet "the cloud" is really a number of different special-purpose
> clouds. For storage, large capacity may matter, but see the
> lack of maturity of the whole idea. For computing, I do not
> see this at all, and neither for presence (web-server, e.g.)
> clouds.
>
> Side note: The main selling-point for SSDs is that they
> have a far saner I/O to capacity rating. This also explains
> why they sell so well, despite being massively more expensive.
>
> Arno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2537

DevilsPGD wrote
> Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> wrote

>> Don't forget that the cloud systems are the number
>> two client of hard drives after consumers right now
>> (saw that somewhere but dont remember where).

>> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/the-big-disk-drive-in-the-sky-how-the-giants-of-the-web-store-big-data.ars

>> The cloud systems would love to have 1 PB drives.

> I doubt they care.

Corse they do, 50 times less physical drives is a hell of a lot easier to handle.

> Rather, they care about the cost:efficiency ratio,

Sure.

> where cost factors in the original purchase price and
> energy consumption over it's lifespan (including cooling)
> vs some combination of performance and size. Physical
> size and formfactor is also a factor, of course.

Waffle.

> In other words, I agree, but it's more complicated than just saying "a 1 PB drive"

> Sure, large drives would be great, but only once they
> beat out the price point that modern drives achieve.

Duh.

But you stupidly claimed that there is no market for drives bigger than 2/3TB. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2530

Tom Del Rosso;1326515 Wrote: 
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for
> the 
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the
> gates 
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?
> 

Probably cost, and competition with SSD, among other factors--> 
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ask_doctor/why_2tb_ceiling.

That said, Samsung has already broken the 3TB limit, and they claim 10TB

drives are on the way--> 
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/samsung_hits_1tb_platter_%E2%80%93_4tb_desktop_1tb_notebook_drives_shipping_soon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2536

On 1/30/2012 2:12 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?

Amazon is selling a 4 TB Seagate for $425:
    http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barracuda-ST4000DX000-SATA-Drive/dp/B005WX3NEU/

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2550

On 31/01/12 4:12 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Capacity seems to be progressing very slowly.  We were stuck at 2TB for the
> longest time (a lot longer than we were stuck at 528MB) but when the gates
> opened we got 3TB, and not 8TB.  Is there another obstacle?

Increasing the size of a hard disk is NOT just 1+1=2, 2+2=4... ! It's 
more about physics. :)

-- 
   @~@   You have the right to remain silence.
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora 15 i686)  Linux 3.2.1
   ^ ^   03:16:01 up 1 day 23:23 0 users load average: 0.01 0.03 0.08
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

csiph-web