Welcome to Slashdot The Internet Games Space Hardware IBM
 faq
 code
 osdn
 awards
 privacy
 slashNET
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 jobs
 hof

Sections
12/15
apache
12/19 (11)
askslashdot
1/27
awards
12/15
books
12/16
bsd
12/17
features
12/14
interviews
11/17
radio
12/19 (4)
science
12/18
yro
OSDN
Freshmeat
Linux.com
SourceForge
ThinkGeek
Question
 Exchange

IBM announces a 25 gigger
Hardware Posted by Hemos on Wednesday November 11, @10:11AM
from the why-i-could-put-3/4-my-cd-collection dept.
Booker writes "So IBM announces a 25 gig hard drive... does the world need this yet? Unless this is in a RAID, would you really want to trust 25 gigs on a single drive? What would you use this for? 400+ hours of MP3s comes to mind... "

Interview with Bob Young | Reply | ThreadedFlattened | Broadway Releases code to Drivers  >

 

Related Links
  • IBM announces
  • More on Hardware
  • Also by Hemos
  • The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.

    Back in the day... (Score:1)
    by ChadG (chadg at redrose dot net) on Wednesday November 11, @10:14AM
    (User Info)
    I'm sure you said the same thing back when 9Gig drives came out ;)

    "In true sound..." -Agents of Good Root
    Back in the day... (Score:1)
    by Bryan Ischo (bji at pobox.com) on Wednesday November 11, @11:03AM
    (User Info) http://www.pobox.com/~bji
    I still have never used more than about 1 gig with any personal Linux installation. Of course, at work we use Linux w/a wicked fast 18 gig U2W drive to serve as an SMB server for our Windoze NT desktops. Files copy to and from the Linux fileserver faster than they copy from directory to directory on the same NT machine.

    Back in the day... (Score:1)
    by Vbottom on Wednesday November 11, @10:21PM
    (User Info)
    you haven't used more then one gig? wow i got a 1.2 gig in my box that is nearly full, and i still got a lot of crap i want to install
    Back in the day...
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:42PM
    Well.. perhaps some people would like to have a low-priced drive that would work well in a RAID configuration, or perhaps not necessarily in RAID to ... gasp ... RUN A BUSINESS? Or maybe do something productive rather than download 25GB of porn off the net onto their half-Linux/half-Windows pee-cees (the Linux half running KDE, of course).

    --BOFH

    50 Gig (Score:1)
    by i_hate_windows on Wednesday November 11, @10:17AM
    (User Info)
    Seagate announced a 50 gig SCSI a couple of weeks ago.
    Porn
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:18AM


    No Subject Given
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:18AM
    Do people with clues run RAID systems with drives that are IDE and *not* SCSI? I hope not.
    IDE RAID (Score:1)
    by Raxxon (despite.all.my.rage.i.am.still.spam AT airmail.net) on Wednesday November 11, @10:31AM
    (User Info) http://hazer.is.god.com/dont/go.here/from/Windows/or.youll/BSOD
    Well I do know that there was a BIOS "uofrage" out a few years ago that gave you the option to raiz0 stripe drives together in an IDE system. I saw it in action on a friend's machine and I must say that it was a smooth piece of work. DOS/Win3.1 had no probs with it and linux didn't seem to mind it too much (certain things gave us hell), but installing Win95 trashed the drives. ;) Good old reliable M$......


    Hack me, Crack me, Make me bleed
    a faster box would be all I need

    Yeah...... and BillGatan's bank account.
    IDE RAID
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:34PM
    I believe the issue is speed. SCSI is faster for multiple-drive access. IDE is damn slow when accessing multiple devices at the same time.
    I could see a specialized controller that accepted IDE drives, and just looked like one IDE drive to a normal IDE controller, or something along those lines, but doing raid with IDE i'd think was a pathetically slow way to go.

    IDE RAID (Score:1)
    by Erbo (erbo@silcom.com) on Wednesday November 11, @01:16PM
    (User Info) http://www.silcom.com/~erbo/
    Better yet...a RAID controller that connects to IDE drives, and connects to the host computer through a SCSI interface. The best of both worlds...

    I think at least one of these devices exists right now. If it doesn't, it should.

    Eric
    --
    "Free your code...and the rest will follow."

    IDE RAID
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @02:51PM
    It does exist.

    www.promise.com

    IDE RAID
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @03:31PM
    They claim Fast-Wide SCSI-2 interface with a maximum sustained of 25M. What's wrong with this picture?

    Last I seriously looked at this, they were using master/slave functionality on the FastTrack card to get their four supported drives. This is, um, bad.

    The FasTrack *sucks*
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @03:58PM
    This is not an IDE RAID controller. It's a dual-channel IDE controller with hardware-assisted RAID software. (We have one in the lab. It probes as 4 separate IDE disks.)

    IDE RAID
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @05:23PM
    Well, here is one. Looks rather decent if you ask me...

    http://www.infortrend.co.uk/

    It's the RAIDkit 260 and 360.

    IDE RAID cards (Score:1)
    by slicer1 on Friday November 13, @12:34AM
    (User Info)
    my work just got in ultra dma ata/eide raid cards

    holds four drives

    www.compgeeks.com
    Interesting but... (Score:1)
    by tgd on Wednesday November 11, @10:18AM
    (User Info) http://www.blowtorch.com
    This probably would've been more interesting if news of it came out before that story of the 45 or 50 gig drives last week. :)
    "Biggest drive"
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:19AM
    The press release I read had IBM claiming this was the biggest desktop hard drive ever. Where did that come from? Seagate has had 36 gig drives for awhile, and just recently started selling 50 gig drives.

    Its the PR Spin, that's all
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:32AM
    I believe the operative word in that press release is *desktop.* Rest assured, IBM knows about Seagate's drives, but I guess they are classifies as "server drives" or some such. I've seen it before. My wife works at a high-tech PR firm and all press releases need to contain something "new", "revolutionary", or "industry-leading".
    Are you clueless? (Score:1)
    by Raxxon (despite.all.my.rage.i.am.still.spam AT airmail.net) on Wednesday November 11, @10:33AM
    (User Info) http://hazer.is.god.com/dont/go.here/from/Windows/or.youll/BSOD
    SCSI is not considered "mainstream desktop" unless you're on a Mac. :P

    Granted for most of us, SCSI is a way of life..... chain in 7 devices and you're ready to party. ;) (lessee...... 3 friends, 2 w/ girlfriends..... and 2 kegs.... there's my typical 7)


    Hack me, Crack me, Make me bleed
    a faster box would be all I need

    Yeah...... and BillGatan's bank account.
    Life without SCSI...
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:57AM
    I find it all pretty hilarious that the parallel port has become the poor man's SCSI port. Zip drives, CD writers, scanners, and of course your printer all hanging off of that itty bitty low speed port. Yeesh.

    I find it equally hilarious that USB is touted as the great saviour that will solve all of our peripheral connection needs. Good God! This is the freakin' Commodore serial bus all over again. Yeah, I can see hard drives, scanners, digital speakers, and the soon to be released USB monitors (and don't forget your 1541!) all hanging off of that USB chain. And what is the USB throughput when you get all these devices going at once?

    I think I'll stick with SCSI, thank you.

    RAID args don't hold (Score:1)
    by Pustule (pustule@disease.org) on Wednesday November 11, @10:20AM
    (User Info)
    The same thing could be said when 1 GB drives came out. This just means the size of each of your RAID drives increases vastly over time (while the cost remains about the same, if trends are an indicator).

    If you're like most home/small business users, you don't use RAID, and you simply rely on backup tapes in failures.
    RAID args don't hold (Score:1)
    by GeeWiz (jlillich at dynamis dot de) on Wednesday November 11, @10:33AM
    (User Info) http://www.dynamis.de/~jlillich/
    > If you're like most home/small business users,
    > you don't use RAID, and you simply rely on
    > backup tapes in failures.

    On what tape system would a home user backup 25GB of data???

    Regards, Jochen
    A large one! (Score:1)
    by Pustule (pustule@disease.org) on Wednesday November 11, @10:51AM
    (User Info)
    Touche.
    RAID args don't hold
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:23AM
    About the only thing that could back one of these up without spanning multiple tapes would be a DLT drive, and considering what both the drives and the tapes cost, RAID would be cheaper, even if it wouldn't be that great with IDE.
    RAID args don't hold (Score:1)
    by Jeremiah Cornelius (jeremiah.cornelius@SPAM.nur.net) on Wednesday November 11, @11:51AM
    (User Info)
    RAID 5 is only good for the loss of a single spindle. If you have even two drives out, there's no way to reconstruct the data on spares.

    One good brownout could toast your array, and "Whoops, no tape!"

    Arrays are good, but they are fault-tolerant, not fault-proof. You'd better have tape!
    RAID args don't hold
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:17PM
    I've personally never seen 2+ drives go bad simultaneously or within such a short amount of time that the first one doesn't have a chance to restore before the next one goes bad.

    Anyway, if you're doing something that needs RAID, then I would hope you have the commonsense to get a power backup. I think ALL computers should have backup systems.
    RAID args don't hold
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:37PM
    Yes.
    UPS is good.
    UPS on a Raid controller is REALLY good.
    Raid may not be fault-proof, but what is?


    RAID does more than increase reliability
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @01:45PM
    It dramatically increases throughput also. Dirve size is a trivial concern anymore, they are so cheap that you can just get another cheaper, bigger, drive whenever you need one. Performance is a much bigger problem, RAID can help you out a lot.
    RAID & tapes complementary
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @05:20PM
    I run a small business from home. I use both RAID and tapes.

    RAID only protects you against the physical failure of one drive. As somebody else pointed out, if you are out two drives, you lose everything.

    More importantly, RAID does not protect you against user errors. If you happen to delete some files accidentally, RAID will be of no help to recover that data.

    I use a Mylex DAC960PD-3 3-channel Wide SCSI controller with six 2 gig Wide IBM drives - two on each SCSI channel - in a RAID 5 setup. I also have an NCR810 controller where I connect the tape drive, an HP 1533A (DDS2 DAT, 4 gig native capacity on a 120m long 4mm wide tape). This gives me an online drive capacity of 10 gigs. Right now, it's only half full, but with the hardware compression of the tape drive, the 5 gigs of data still fit on a single 4 gig DDS-2 tape.

    IBM announces
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:28AM
    I guess you missed it. Seagate announced a 50 GB
    drive the other day. New baracuda & cheetah lines. Nice drives.
    Go IBM! (Score:1)
    by ninjaz on Wednesday November 11, @10:28AM
    (User Info)
    IBM hard drives are splendid. :) In fact, a non-tech type bought one just yesterday on my recommedation at Fry's. He said he went to CompUSA first, though, and their selection of hard drives consisted Western Digital, and a mystery brand that he said looked like a "Windows Harddrive" .. that is, it listed Windows under the system requirements. Anyone know if such a beast really exists? I fear the implications of that.. "Our spindle control is all done by Windows software drivers!" heh.. That should make you sleep good at night.
    Go IBM! (Score:1)
    by leoc on Wednesday November 11, @10:42AM
    (User Info) http://members.home.com/leoc/
    I agree! IBM drives are awesome! Mind you, I work at IBM, buut honestly I'm not biased... :)

    My work system with an IBM 4GB IBM EIDE drive and 200Mhz PPRO cpu blows away my home machine which is an overclocked 400Mhz PII with a newer Ultra/ATA western digital EIDE drive. I run Redhat 5.1 on both systems and while my home system gets bogged down with heavy IO traffic (while compiling the kernel or other big proggies), my work system just keeps chugging along...

    Mind you, my home system typically finishes stuff faster once it finally gets things off the disk...

    Go IBM! (Score:1)
    by jruschme on Wednesday November 11, @03:13PM
    (User Info)
    The "Windows Harddrive" sounds suspiciously like a Maxtor (at least some of the Maxtor retail packaging I've seen. I think that it is Clueless Marketing Speak(tm) written by someone who assumes that Win95/98 is the only OS capable of dealing with very large drives.

    That said... can any of the Open Source OS' handle a 25gb IDE drive?
    Maxtor
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @08:20PM
    Maxtor's boxes have windows required listed on them. This is, of course, not the case. I heard a rumor that maxtor was a devision of Western Digital as well.
    25G, big deal... (Score:1)
    by j.e.hahn on Wednesday November 11, @10:28AM
    (User Info)
    We purchased 47G drive from Seagate a few months back. It's pretty nice. As for what we'd use it for: Research results. Of course, we back that thing up regularly, but it was cheaper than buying the equivalent RAID array.
    I use a 23 gig, no problem (Score:1)
    by Particle Man (ascott@_nospam_.fnal.gov) on Wednesday November 11, @10:29AM
    (User Info)
    I've been using a Seagate 23gig SCSI drive for keeping physics data for almost a year now. I haven't had any problems, but it does take forever to fsck each of the 11.5 gig partitions!
    I use a 23 gig, no problem
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:31AM
    I have a RAID of 6 18GB SCSI drives setup as a 100GB ext2 partition. I was a little worried about fsck when I first set it up, but it actually runs fairly quick - faster then the fsck on a 9GB SCSI on another machine.
    I use a 23 gig, no problem
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:22PM
    fsck time is wholly dependent on the number of inodes. If you're just keeping a few large files on the drive, not a lot of little ones, you can retune the fs to have less inodes which will decrease fsck time. Or- switch to a journaling file system.

    A huge mirror? (Score:1)
    by plm on Wednesday November 11, @10:30AM
    (User Info)
    I would use it as a mirror for servers of interest.
    A weekly backup would do.
    Speed?
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:12PM
    This would be a terribly slow idea if you had a mirror of multiple sites on one HD. You might actually get to the point where a user's modem isn't the bottleneck, but the server's HD is!
    25? We use multiple 23s already. . .
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:31AM
    We use several 23 gig drives right now to store biological sequence analyses. I'm not biosciences person, but the updates come in every couple months on a box full of CDs and grows by about a CD per month. The analysis programs themselves hog about half a gig of RAM while searching through it all.

    I figure our next drive will be a 50 gig one.

    This is the kind of high end stuff UNIX is built for.
    Cache disk (Score:1)
    by GeeWiz (jlillich at dynamis dot de) on Wednesday November 11, @10:32AM
    (User Info) http://www.dynamis.de/~jlillich/
    Big disks make fine web caches. In that scenario data loss also isn't an issue.
    Regards, Jochen
    25? We use multiple 23s already. . .
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:32AM
    We use several 23 gig drives right now to store biological sequence analyses. I'm not biosciences person, but the updates come in every couple months on a box full of CDs and grows by about a CD per month. The analysis programs themselves hog about half a gig of RAM while searching through it all.

    I figure our next drive will be a 50 gig one.

    This is the kind of high end stuff UNIX is built for.


    No Subject Given
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:39AM
    > What would you use this for?

    Office 2001

    No Subject Given
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:07AM

    Umm...perhaps. As long as you don't do a FULL install, or you won't have any room left for Windows2000 Service Pack 1. :-)
    Re: No Subject Given
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:52AM
    Oh wait... that's just for the new common control DLL. :-)

    Actually, I would find a wonderful use for these 25 GB puppies: direct to hard disk recording. 16-bit 44.1-kHz stereo tracks eat up disk space like nothing else. Multiply that by the number of simultaneous tracks, factor in tracks you may want to keep around for later use, finished songs, etc., etc., and I'd find great use for that space.
    SCSI? (Score:1)
    by Meleschi (meleschi@utep.edu) on Wednesday November 11, @10:40AM
    (User Info)
    Does anyone know if IBM will make these drives available in an SCSI format?

    Ricardo

    I bet the SCSI version will cost nearly twice as m
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:39AM
    I really hate those big extra prices you pay for
    SCSI drives. There's absolutly no technical reason
    for it. And desktop SCSI drives aren't much better
    than their IDE counterparts anymore. :-(
    (Quantum SCSI drives are even worse!)

    I hate it, I hate it, I hate ist!!!
    Fight the spin doctors! SCSI much faster than IDE!
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:14PM
    >There's absolutly no technical reason for it.

    Sure there is: Supply and demand.

    >And desktop SCSI drives aren't much better than their IDE counterparts anymore.

    Ahh, the single user mind at work. Well, duh, when you're only accessing a single IDE or SCSI device at a time under Windoze or D0S, of course there isn't much speed difference. Now go to a Real multitaksing, multi-user OS like Linux and the SCSI advantage becomes blatantly apparent. Note that this argument is *still* relevent even you are the only user on your Linux box. To the SCSI drive chain, there is no difference between multiple users' jobs and multiple jobs run by the same user. Both will gain tremendously from SCSI's ability to optimally order and serve multiple parallel requests. IDE just can't compare. Oh yeah, and how many free slots do you have on that IDE chain? Four? That's it? Hmmmm.

    Fight the spin doctors! SCSI much faster than IDE!
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:47PM
    >Oh yeah, and how many free slots do you have on that IDE chain? Four? That's it? Hmmmm.

    Unless you have a full size tower, or many external devices you won't use more than four connectors. Most PCs have (2) 5.25" (2) 3.5" and (1-2) 3.5" internal. I do like SCSI but for the price difference I will stick with dma/33. I do have a scsi card but can't afford the large scsi drives.

    Fight the spin doctors! SCSI much faster than IDE! (Score:1)
    by shimpei (shimpei+fake.slashdot.org@socrates.caltech.edu) on Wednesday November 11, @01:43PM
    (User Info) http://www.submm.caltech.edu/~shimpei/
    >Unless you have a full size tower, or many external devices you won't use more than four connectors. Most
    >PCs have (2) 5.25" (2) 3.5" and (1-2) 3.5" internal. I do like SCSI but for the price difference I will stick
    >with dma/33. I do have a scsi card but can't afford the large scsi drives.

    Ever heard of external enclosures? Zip and Jaz drives? Non-disk SCSI peripherals (like scanners)?
    Not everything has to go in the case.
    Fight the spin doctors! SCSI much faster than IDE! (Score:1)
    by illuminaut (eric_at_liquidsilver_dot_com) on Wednesday November 11, @02:25PM
    (User Info)
    >There's absolutly no technical reason for it.

    Sure there is: Supply and demand.


    Not to nitpick, but supply and demand wouldn't be a technical reason, now would it?


    - illuminaut, arbiter elegantiarum.

    Fight the spin doctors! SCSI much faster than IDE!
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @02:26PM
    > >There's absolutly no technical reason for it.
    > Sure there is: Supply and demand.
    These are no *technical* reasons!!!

    > >And desktop SCSI drives aren't much better than their IDE counterparts anymore.
    > Ahh, the single user mind at work. Well, duh,
    > when you're only accessing a single IDE or SCSI > device at a time under Windoze or D0S, of course
    > there isn't much speed difference.

    Have you ever benchmarked an IDE and a similar SCSI drive under your OS? (bonnie looks quite usuable for this IMHO). I did!

    Unless you don't have a DMA capable IDE-driver you really won't see any big difference in bandwidth/accesstimes/cpu-usage.

    That's a reason I'm using a IDE disc in my machine
    - a similar sized SCSI disc would be *much* more
    expensive. And BTW: I have an USCSI controller...

    Of courese you get better bandwidth if you stripe two discs (especialy on write-accesses! - I benchmarked it.), but let's just compare single desktop-drives: SCSI is not better - just more
    expensive. This is what I've said.
    Fight the spin doctors! SCSI much faster than IDE!
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @03:49PM
    Have you ever benchmarked an IDE and a similar SCSI drive under your OS? (bonnie looks quite usuable for this IMHO). I did!

    Unless you don't have a DMA capable IDE-driver you really won't see any big difference in bandwidth/accesstimes/cpu-usage.

    Um, actually, I did. You, um, shut down all your other processes before the benchmark? Shame on you, that doesn't simulate a multitasking load.

    My Linux box has Ultra Wide SCSI and UDMA IDE. IDE throughput is about 9.5M/s, SCSI is about 9M/s. However, when I'm running a compile on the other drive of the same type, the throughput is about 8.5M/s SCSI and 2.5M/s IDE.

    I guess you're right. Not much of a difference.

    Who needs striping when you run processes with data files off of multiple drives? Striping is really only for large files and lazy system configurers (I know, I'm a lazy system configurer. Unfortunately, too lazy to mess with RAID (yet))
    Fight the spin doctors! SCSI much faster than IDE!
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @06:56PM
    From bonnie's documentation:

    * 3. Random Seeks
    *
    * This test runs SeekProcCount processes in parallel, doing a total of
    * 4000 lseek()s to locations in the file specified by random() in bsd systems,
    * drand48() on sysV systems. In each case, the block is read with read(2).
    * In 10% of cases, it is dirtied and written back with write(2).

    (SeekProcCount was 3 in my case, this should give
    a realistic scenario IMHO.)

    BTW: Is the write back cache of your IDE switched
    off? Or is it's cache size of a small size? (
    Scsi is best as as server solution
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12, @08:39AM
    Maximum pc which url is www.maximumpc.net did a comparison with IBM's deskstar drives and it beats sci in cpu utilizaiton and performance. Scsi is slightly faster in huge enviroments but ordinary users like us wouldnt notice and wouldnt pay for one. Fact is Eide is more appropriate for 95% of computing. Even workstations don't need scsi and adaptec just throws fud and IDE and eide. Even multitasking showes only single % points difference.
    I bet the SCSI version will cost nearly twice as m (Score:1)
    by pksings on Wednesday November 11, @02:25PM
    (User Info)
    Hmm, I don't know where you've been pricing SCSI drives, I just bought two of them, 4 GB each, Ultra-Wide, Quantum, very fast. $179 each. Is that twice as much as IDE? I don't think so. They had IBM's the same size for $20 more.

    Fry's, Fountain Valley.
    comon' peoples... (Score:1)
    by Unternewt on Wednesday November 11, @10:44AM
    (User Info)
    comon' people... don't ya think that a 25 gig harddrive is good for anything else but mp3's??? I mean, that can make it possible to have even bigger files when your working with video... thats a long long long media 100 movie...
    The city as a text, as signs and inscriptions by human beings in space, so that users, people moving through the city, can be seen as readers of poems...
    Comon' Unternewt
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:07PM
    If you're really using Media 100 without a RAID of scsi drives, you're nuts.
    IBM HDD's
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:49AM
    Those LARGE drives from Seagate aren't really considered desktop hard drives. I'm wondering how much these will cost. Pricewatch doesn't have prices on them yet, but I found a 9GB Cheetah for 500 bucks..... My next box will have a few of those...................
    Akira1 aka Michael Villiger

    throw a JFS on it..
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @10:51AM
    ... and fsck no more!
    Usage
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:04AM
    Scan all invoice in true color and index them.
    Is driver for // scanner available, specifically for the new (?) Canon 620.

    25G ? (Score:1)
    by mitrian on Wednesday November 11, @11:12AM
    (User Info)
    ...you _know_ you're going to need that much space for y2k..er...w2k. not to mention msoffice2k.

    aside from that, though....hmm....partition the hell out of it, and run as many OSs as possible? that could be fun. 5 - 10 G per OS? :)
    Uncompressed HDTV video (Score:1)
    by cirby on Wednesday November 11, @11:24AM
    (User Info)
    Or even regular NTSC video. Or film images. Think about it... uncompressed HDTV resolution is pushing 3 megs per frame. You can use up a medium-sized drive array very quickly.
    Windows 2000 swap file.
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:44AM
    Need I say more?

    Will
    HDs can't get too spacious (Score:1)
    by xdc on Wednesday November 11, @11:54AM
    (User Info) http://www.cerman.net/dan/
    My computer currently has a 16GB IBM EIDE HD. It was the largest HD I could get a few months ago that wasn't SCSI (and therefore terribly expensive). It's 150 times bigger than my previous HD, which was supposed to be plenty big enough for anything (in 1992).

    Without even trying, I am almost out of space on this 16 gigger. It's not nearly enough for everything I'd like to do. It would be nice to have a 50, but I'm sure I'd fill that up as well. By my estimation, terabyte HDs will be available in a few years. And you know what? I'll fill those up too. :) Yep. Windoze probably won't seem so bad, then, weighing in at a mere 69 gigs... ;-P

    HDs have huge capacities that keep getting better, but I think we'll always have more than enough data to write to them. Now we just need those TeraStor drives to come out so we can back things up! CDs are starting to seem like floppies in comparison to these gargantuan HDs.
    What can you do with a terabyte? (Score:1)
    by xdc on Wednesday November 11, @06:32PM
    (User Info) http://www.cerman.net/dan/
    Read "The Slater Perspective" in the Microprocessor Report. I think he's a bit conservative about space requirements and uses for HD space, but he still makes a case for how a terabyte could be put to use by a video collection.

    http://www.mdronline.com/q/slater/perspective/1214sp.html
    Re: What can you do with a terabyte? (Score:1)
    by pen on Thursday November 12, @09:39AM
    (User Info)
    I once read this somewhere:
    "Software is a gas - it expands to fill its container."
    Yes, we do need it.
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:55AM
    eric@baton~/package/netcat df -k /ext2
    Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on
    /dev/md/dsk/d0 41580238 20183823 17238395 54% /ext2
    e

    Those simulation wave forms get awfully big.
    /ext2 is 6 9 gig drives in a RAID configuration. It's not for data security (although that's good too) We just need the space. We'll probably have to upgrade again in the spring.

    Yes, we do need it.
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @01:17PM
    We could use it too!

    df -k
    251265024 234516590 16484776 94%


    New standard?
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @11:58AM
    I've noticed a trend around here lately of classifying hard drives by how many hours of MP3s they can hold. :-)
    how many partitions? (Score:1)
    by morbid (morbid@delphinus.demon.co.uk) on Wednesday November 11, @12:11PM
    (User Info) http://www.delphinus.demon.co.uk
    just a thought
    We need XFS
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:21PM
    We need XFS and the realtime plexing stuff
    on Linux..

    New press release
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:22PM
    Microsoft releases a press release today offering a $5.00 discount coupon on your next purchase of a 50 gig drive which is required for Windows NT 5^H^H^H^H2000.

    Linus says "Oh."

    Details at 3.14159pm.
    what was that (Score:1)
    by HBK-4G (shrike@altavista.net) on Wednesday November 11, @04:06PM
    (User Info)
    ok, somebody's being a smart ass. nice try on recreating the amazon/B&N press release war.

    seriously though, I like these new drives. 25 gigs is just a tad outside of Joe Average's home desktop budget, but as prices drop (they always do) i'm sure we can find uses for them. I know I'll create a partition and put every single game I own in it....no more boxes cluttering the room. :)
    With the remaining 23 gigs...what was that about mp3s? hehe..
    Too Big?!?
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:26PM
    Redhat's install chokes on my 8gig drive, and linux freaks out when I tell it I have more than 64 meg memory. Maybe HW is getting to big for the OS.
    BTW, it's interesting that it took a while for HDs to catch up to CD's in storage capacity... we already have HD's bigger than DVDs!!! Hurry up you optical weenies!
    Too Big?!?
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @03:57PM
    That's funny. It doesn't blink over my two 9GB SCSI drives. It also recognizes my 128M without my telling it anything about it.

    Anonymous Coward peers at Anonymous Coward

    What version of RedHat are you refering to? Mine is RH5.1 from LinuxMall.

    Course, I wouldn't recommend RH to anyone these days. SuSE seems to have much more potential. It's a shame that it seems everyone has some annoying problems with their distributions.
    Too Big?!?-->That's it, blame the OS (Score:1)
    by matty (mattyt@oz.NOSPAM.net) on Wednesday November 11, @05:47PM
    (User Info)
    Add to your /etc/lilo.conf:

    append="mem=128M"

    Make sure to run lilo as root again, natch. As far as your HD problem is concerned, who knows? Obviously you can see from everyone else here that they are running HD's much bigger than 8gb with no problems. Maybe you should post an message to a newsgroup or email a help list?

    Don't blame Linux for problems that are obviously configuration based and not OS based, otherwise you sound like a Troll.
    The uses of a 25 gig harddrive
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @12:27PM
    Well, actually I simply would use it for video purposes. Since I got my video card I hardly can have enough disk space ;-)

    The only problem is maybe that backups are getting more difficult as big backup devices are expensive and somehow the harddrives are faster getting bigger than the backup stuff..

    Anyway, what's missing for Linux is some cool video editing software. Don't people who produce for SGI want to port some apps to Linux and make them open source? ;-)
    (And actually making a video editing program mainly would consist in doing a framework where plugins can do the rest, e.g. the GIMP plugins).

    cu,
    mr topf
    The uses of a 25 gig harddrive (Score:1)
    by El (elhoward@SPAMMERS.MUST.DIE.hotmail.com) on Wednesday November 11, @12:47PM
    (User Info) http://home1.gte.net/elhoward
    The only problem is maybe that backups are getting more difficult as big backup devices are expensive and somehow the harddrives are faster getting bigger than the backup stuff.

    Just do what my friend does -- back up from one hard drive to another!

    The uses of a 25 gig harddrive (Score:1)
    by GrenDel Fuego (gboyce@world.std.com) on Wednesday November 11, @02:49PM
    (User Info) http://www.velvet.net/~grendel
    Well, actually I simply would use it for video purposes. Since I got my video card I hardly can have enough disk space ;-)

    I'm curious about what you did before you had a video card..
    just about right (Score:1)
    by gaheris on Wednesday November 11, @12:31PM
    (User Info) www.kowabunga.org
    Should be just about big enough to hold Windows 2001.
    Back in the day (Score:1)
    by MrSnazz on Wednesday November 11, @12:38PM
    (User Info)
    I said the same thing in 1992. "Would you really want to trust one gig of data to a single drive?"

    I vowed that I'd never get a one gig drive. I'd just get "two 540's".

    Next thing you know, I'll be using my hampster style.
    IBM announces a 25 kegger
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @01:20PM
    Bring your own glass.
    That's Funny (Score:1)
    by Nick (nshreders@netscape.net) on Wednesday November 11, @01:34PM
    (User Info) http://www.sunflower.com/~nds
    I remember reading an article in PC Week about 4 or so years ago, and a column by John C. Dvorak was raising questions to the 1GB hard drives.

    "Who in their right mind could possibly fill all this space?"

    And other questions to that effect were being asked. It's funny to remember things like that. I remember 1GB seemed alot back then.
    That's Funny (Score:1)
    by Plutor (ingall@rpi.edu) on Wednesday November 11, @02:09PM
    (User Info) http://ingall.stu.rpi.edu/
    even better were the comments when lotus 1-2-3 originally came out.

    "A megabyte? There will never be a storage medium that can hold that much data!"

    It took up three 5 1/4 disks

    Log

    Give people more space.... (Score:1)
    by kwisti (kwisti1@yahoo.com) on Wednesday November 11, @01:57PM
    (User Info) http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/2417/
    ...and they'll find a use for it without a problem!

    (Besides, for a while, for some of us, that's less time spent clearing up space and more time doing the things we really like to do! Clearing up disk space is becoming almost as dreadful as house cleaning.)

    :)
    Is there an issue? (Score:1)
    by ODD on Wednesday November 11, @02:08PM
    (User Info)
    I feel it is quite obvious that people are needing more and more storage space. The fact that 25gig is much larger than average shouldn't be an issue, mainly because people buy what they need, regardless of current trend. A multiple 9gig raid would presumably be safer, but more expensive. People realize this. What are people arguing about?
    What matters more -- size, or cost/GB? (Score:1)
    by JMarsden (jonathan@xc.org) on Wednesday November 11, @02:15PM
    (User Info) http://www.xc.org/jonathan/
    Big drives are nice, and we'll all find ways to
    use them ... when they get down to commodity
    prices.

    The reason I like seeing these announcements is
    not that I have an urgent need for a 25Gb or 50GB
    drive... it is that this will make 9GB and 11GB
    drives fall in price, so cost per GB goes down
    for 'normal' office workstations and small
    servers.

    We do have a 10 disk * 9GB RAID array at work,
    with space for 10 more drives (probably will get
    10 18GB drives early next year)... but that's not
    necessary for the average useful machine.

    A single 9GB drive on a cheap Celeron 300A/440BX
    mbd/128MB RAM machine is becoming an affordable
    'low end' desktop machine now. I suspect that
    is the real news for most of us, not the bleeding
    edge 50GB drives.

    Needed: Better Filing/Searching Tools
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @02:26PM
    We obviously need better file classification, organization, and searching tools. I've misplaced things, I know I have several tools which are similar to each other but I have to know their names to find them, and I can't easily rearrange my filed email/news. And that's just in my 1.5GB notebook which usually has a CD-ROM full of RedHat RPMs, never mind the three Linux desktops and the Web server...
    The tools exist (Score:1)
    by eGabriel (egabriel(*at*)io.com) on Wednesday November 11, @02:53PM
    (User Info)
    The tools are out there, and many of them are probably on your system already. If you can't find anything it is because of a lack of discipline and failure to use the available tools and conventions.


    -Gabriel
    Thanks for the help! :-)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @09:17PM
    Thanks for the helpful pointer. :/

    -Booker (a fellow *at*io.com 'er)

    Sam Goodies (Score:1)
    by hank (ahdiii@NOSPAM.webspan.net) on Wednesday November 11, @02:54PM
    (User Info) http://www.madmzone.com/de
    You could probably turn all of the CDs fom a Sam Goody's into mp3s and put it on the drive. :)


    "Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end."
    "God is only as powerful as the person who believes in him."
    Does Linux Support Ultra-ATA/66 ?
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @02:58PM
    This is different than the current interface...

    Anyway, IBM doesn't lie when it claims that it is
    the biggest. the 47GB and the 50GB are SCSI. And
    very expensive. IBM has the biggest IDE disk, and
    it is going to be cheap.

    In addition, you cannot wonder who needs so much.
    The first rule of disks defines the size of the
    disk as "20MB less than what you need", no matter
    how much you have. The capacity is at least 99%
    (in the best case) or 100% (in the worst case).
    Perhaps we will begin to see capacities of 80%,
    70%, and even 60%. We will start to have enough
    spare space.
    does size really matter? (Score:1)
    by diakka (diakka@localhost) on Wednesday November 11, @03:13PM
    (User Info) http://
    I heard lots of people say that size doesn't matter. But what if it does?. I heard that there was this operation you could get to make your disk bigger. Has anyone else heard of this? I think that 25 gigs is too big... I don't think I would want one that big.. it might hurt your PC if you tried to put it all in.
    --
    Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
    Remember the Atari
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @03:22PM
    When I got my first Atari in 1982 it was 48K bruiser with a whopping 88k floppy drive. I filled and filled tons of 88k disks with every chunk of software I could. Then the came the 1 meg hard drive. What a godsend!
    With the advent of the 5 meg drive I was in storage junkie heaven.
    I have never asked myself if I could use up the space. If it is built, then I can fill it!!

    I just dream of the day when I can run 4 terabyte IMAX quality movies off of my computer. And currently, we are living in a 2-d visual media world. What kind of space will be needed to store holographic images.

    When I think of how primative my beautiful little Atari is and how far things have come in such a short while, I get all warm and fuzzy knowing that the pace of change is picking up.

    80 Octagigs of storage space, pshaw. My grandmother could fill that in a day.

    Wild_dog!
    msander@umich.edu
    Enabling Desktop Digital Motion Pictures
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @04:28PM
    I remember Seagate releasing a 50 gigger last week.


    You could purchase about 10 of these and about five SCSI controllers for a very nice 100GB raid5 array


    50GB is the amount currently recommended for digital motion picture editing. If you want DVD quality then its probably 100GB.


    Wheeee!

    Enabling Desktop Digital Motion Pictures
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @04:48PM
    Yeah try 50GB drives are out, IBM hurry up and put out the crystal drives that hold terra-flops!

    http://www.seagate.com/corp/vpr/releases/cuch1836.shtml


    Whopee!!!
    Old news...
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @05:44PM
    At the physics lab here we are using a few 43 gig drives made by digital. If I remember correctly we got them some time around july/august.
    --Eric Corwin
    Mirror
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @05:51PM
    How many of these would it take to mirror Dejanews?
    Mirror
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @06:35PM
    You could use 4 of these drives with change left over.
    Where is IDE RAID? (Score:1)
    by K8_Fan (chrisw at wwa dot com) on Wednesday November 11, @06:15PM
    (User Info)

    Is there some technical reason one couldn't build an intellegent controller board with multiple I486 processors linked to multiple EIDE controlers? It could appear to the rest of the system as a SCSI controller, with it's own BIOS.

    Is this insane? Even if this board cost $400, it would be worth it to defeat the "SCSI Tax" levied by the HD makers. RAID could once again mean "Redundant Arrays of INEXPENSIVE Drives". Video editing could really use a PCI controller that could do RAID 3 across multiple EIDE chains.

    P.S. If this inspires someone to build one of these puppies, and market it as a commercial product, send me one, OK?


    Backing this drive up
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @06:28PM
    How would one go about backing up a drive this big or even around the 12-16GB range? The biggest consumer backup tape drive I've seen is something from Iomega and I think that's around 10GB. I know you could probably spread the backup across a couple tapes, but I really don't trust those apps after my last crash.

    Backing this drive up
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @08:33PM
    Buy two. Back up to the spare harddisk.

    Next question?
    Backing this drive up (Score:1)
    by Nick (nshreders@netscape.net) on Thursday November 12, @12:42AM
    (User Info) http://www.sunflower.com/~nds
    RAID
    ???? $$$$ COST $$$$ ????
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11, @08:48PM

    Any idea how much this drive will cost????

    We collect about a Gig of data an hour and are getting killed by the high cost of SCSI.

    If only Linux/Freebsd would get their NFS act together a few of these in a PC would make a swell file server.

    As to backups Sony's AIT will hold 25 Gig for 3 Grand, DLT4000 will do 20GB for 4 grand and DLT 7000 will hold 35GB for 6 grand.

    Yikes! At that price you might as well buy spare computers and hard drives to back everything up to......

    Keep on Keeping On!


    There was a 47 gig at onsale a while back
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12, @12:45AM
    There was a 47 gig Seagate (refurbished) at onsale.com a while back, starting at $1799.
    Trouble is...
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12, @04:30AM
    ...you can't really back these things up to floppy disks anymore. Tsk...

    Bet I could fill one, though. My trusty old Acorn machine has a 400Mb drive, of which 150Mb is a redundant PC partition, and as far as I can remember, I've only filled it once in the past three years. Now, my PC - that's a different matter. 4Gb of HD, and 3 of 'em are used. God only knows what with, because I don't really have that much stuff installed. I keep looking for that elusive 1.5Gb unused demo of something or other that I've missed, but just can't seem to find it.


    Oh well, on with the search...


    Paul

    You need the 25 gig for windows 2000 and office 20
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12, @08:32AM
    The subject says it all . :-)
    Putting all your eggs in one basket... (Score:1)
    by pen on Thursday November 12, @09:29AM
    (User Info)
    Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. I'd rather have five 5G hard drives (I probably won't need this much space for a few more years) than one 25G one. Although this drive is from IBM, there still is a chance of it deciding to crash and burn.
    25 Gigger (Score:1)
    by kenscott on Thursday November 12, @01:32PM
    (User Info)
    They must have heard about the 2000 problem (NT5). You need a huge disk to store the OS and office.
    ide raid cards (Score:1)
    by slicer1 on Friday November 13, @12:37AM
    (User Info)
    my work just got some
    ide raid cards in
    they are ultra ata/eide
    and hold 4 drives
    for info
    www.compgeeks.com

    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.

      'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky! -- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest � 1997-2000 OSDN.

    [ home | awards | supporters | rob's homepage | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertising | past polls | about | faq ]