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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#2551

Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. :)

Whaaaat? I thought bits were _logical_ objects, not physical ones???

;-)=)

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]

#2552

Arno wrote:
> Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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. :)
>
> Whaaaat? I thought bits were _logical_ objects, not physical ones???

Of course I did ask for some kind of specifics.  I don't know how it could 
be ambiguous to anyone familiar with the history of the rate of growth in 
capacity.


-- 

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

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

#2559

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

> Arno wrote:
>> Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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. :)
>>
>> Whaaaat? I thought bits were _logical_ objects, not physical ones???

> Of course I did ask for some kind of specifics.  I don't know how it could 
> be ambiguous to anyone familiar with the history of the rate of growth in 
> capacity.

It is not. But platter density has been staganating for some
time now and doubling is way in the past.

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]

#2568

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?

What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
that we were suppose to get any day now ?

Lynn

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

#2570

Lynn McGuire wrote:
> 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?
>
> What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
> that we were suppose to get any day now ?

And bubble memories.


-- 

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

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

#2573

Lynn McGuire wrote
> 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?

> What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
> that we were suppose to get any day now ?

Just another fantasy time wise. 

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

#2574

Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> wrote:
> 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?

> What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
> that we were suppose to get any day now ?
> Lynn

Lost in hyperspace? I also remember something like 200TB
holographic tapes that never materialized. Seems progress
is still hard and incremental, mostly in small steps.

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]

#2579

Arno wrote:

> Lynn McGuire wrote:
> 
>> What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
>> that we were suppose to get any day now ?
> 
> Lost in hyperspace? I also remember something like 200TB
> holographic tapes that never materialized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage

> InPhase Technologies, after several announcements and subsequent
> delays in 2006 and 2007, announced that it would soon be introducing
> a flagship product. InPhase went out of business in February 2010 and
> had its assets seized by the state of Colorado for back taxes.

Even though the site is still running...
http://www.inphase-technologies.com/

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

#2582

Noob <root@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> Arno wrote:

>> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> 
>>> What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
>>> that we were suppose to get any day now ?
>> 
>> Lost in hyperspace? I also remember something like 200TB
>> holographic tapes that never materialized.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage

>> InPhase Technologies, after several announcements and subsequent
>> delays in 2006 and 2007, announced that it would soon be introducing
>> a flagship product. InPhase went out of business in February 2010 and
>> had its assets seized by the state of Colorado for back taxes.

> Even though the site is still running...
> http://www.inphase-technologies.com/

Why am I not surprised. Most "revolutionary" technologies
never materialize. Some can later directly be identified
as fraud, others are just over-enthusiastic researchers
(which is unprofessional) or marketing people (where this
is expected of them).

Rule of thumb: If it looks to good to be true, it practically
always is.

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]

#2595

In the last episode of <9phdhbFratU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno
<me@privacy.net> said:

>Why am I not surprised. Most "revolutionary" technologies
>never materialize. Some can later directly be identified
>as fraud, others are just over-enthusiastic researchers
>(which is unprofessional) or marketing people (where this
>is expected of them).

Don't forget researchers who describe what they've got and what it might
mean with an appropriate level of enthusiasm who publish in an
appropriate venue with an equally appropriate level of enthusiasm. Works
fine until someone else writes a "next big thing" article as though the
research is ready for production and we'll see products in the next few
weeks.

Despite the technology for something existing, it's not necessarily
feasible to bring it to market (or even to package it up as a sellable
package without other pieces)

Imagine you design a read/write head for a hard drive that can work at
100,000rpm. All it takes is one idiot journalist to write up a "hard
drive speeds improving 10x-500x with new head" to fail to notice that
spinning platters at that speed isn't particularly feasible or practical
for a variety of other engineering reasons.

However, there are plenty of "revolutionary" technologies that we see
become evolutionary products. SSDs are a perfect example, we've had
flash drives for years, but only once all the pieces evolved did we
start to see practical primary storage.

-- 
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]

#2599

DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In the last episode of <9phdhbFratU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno
> <me@privacy.net> said:

>>Why am I not surprised. Most "revolutionary" technologies
>>never materialize. Some can later directly be identified
>>as fraud, others are just over-enthusiastic researchers
>>(which is unprofessional) or marketing people (where this
>>is expected of them).

> Don't forget researchers who describe what they've got and what it might
> mean with an appropriate level of enthusiasm who publish in an
> appropriate venue with an equally appropriate level of enthusiasm. Works
> fine until someone else writes a "next big thing" article as though the
> research is ready for production and we'll see products in the next few
> weeks.

Indeed. In this case the researcher may be enthusiastic because 
"maybe in 50 years we will have this hard problem solved!!!", 
which is perfectly fine to be enthusiastic for when you are
doing research.

> Despite the technology for something existing, it's not necessarily
> feasible to bring it to market (or even to package it up as a sellable
> package without other pieces)

Or it may be demonstrable, but efficiency is just far, far too 
bad. See, e.g.,  flying cars for normal people (not feasible 
before fundamental breakthrough in both portable energy sources 
and AI for steering)

> Imagine you design a read/write head for a hard drive that can work at
> 100,000rpm. All it takes is one idiot journalist to write up a "hard
> drive speeds improving 10x-500x with new head" to fail to notice that
> spinning platters at that speed isn't particularly feasible or practical
> for a variety of other engineering reasons.

Nice example!

> However, there are plenty of "revolutionary" technologies that we see
> become evolutionary products. SSDs are a perfect example, we've had
> flash drives for years, but only once all the pieces evolved did we
> start to see practical primary storage.

FLASH technology is about 25 years on the market now. EEPROM as 
predecessor is older. Just not in sizes and at prices where using 
them as ordinary storage made sense. We are there now and as soon 
as the right cost ratio was reached, things exploded. But the first 
lab demo is maybe 30-35 years in the past.

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]

#2600

In the last episode of <9pl3jqF3alU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno
<me@privacy.net> said:

>DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>> In the last episode of <9phdhbFratU1@mid.individual.net>, Arno
>> <me@privacy.net> said:
>
>> Imagine you design a read/write head for a hard drive that can work at
>> 100,000rpm. All it takes is one idiot journalist to write up a "hard
>> drive speeds improving 10x-500x with new head" to fail to notice that
>> spinning platters at that speed isn't particularly feasible or practical
>> for a variety of other engineering reasons.
>
>Nice example!

Doubly so because even if this phantom disk head only solves one of
several engineering problems, it is still a worthwhile step forward. If
it were cheap enough, might make 10,000rpm-15,000rpm drives more
practical for consumer/prosumer use overnight, so while the underlying
tech might be revolutionary, the resulting product will generally be
evolutionary.

That's not a bad thing, it's just important to remember when reading
hype styled articles.

>> However, there are plenty of "revolutionary" technologies that we see
>> become evolutionary products. SSDs are a perfect example, we've had
>> flash drives for years, but only once all the pieces evolved did we
>> start to see practical primary storage.
>
>FLASH technology is about 25 years on the market now. EEPROM as 
>predecessor is older. Just not in sizes and at prices where using 
>them as ordinary storage made sense. We are there now and as soon 
>as the right cost ratio was reached, things exploded. But the first 
>lab demo is maybe 30-35 years in the past.

Flash was potentially revolutionary when it was first invented but by
the time it hit the market as storage for general purpose computing, it
was just an evolutionary step forward from the on-market alternatives.

Remember the first USB key flash drives to hit the market? Thousands of
write cycles, no wear leveling, performance that beat out floppy drive
alternatives, but not by much, etc. It was only barely an evolutionary
step forward in terms of practical use when compared to a ZIP drive or
similar.

SSDs were just a series of small steps forward, densities increased,
reliability increased, production costs decreased, along with software
to cover over the rough edges (wear leveling, limited write cycles,
write reliability in general)

Each of those small steps could have been sensationalized in the media,
had anyone caught wind of one on a slow news day.

Still, many of the sensationalized stories have potential to be realized
over the long term.

-- 
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]

#2611

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:48:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>What happened to the 10 TB holographic cubes
>that we were suppose to get any day now ?

Here's another one:

Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording (HAMR):
http://kd63.seagatestorage.com/6A7EEB3777?elqPURLPage=4019&elq=767E7C6098DC4837964DF258F71C6625
http://hddscan.blogspot.com/2011/01/hamr-or-path-of-jedi.html

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web