3tb EHD

[jevans64]

and the greater the capacity, the higher the density to achieve it, and such high densities create problems of their own that cause a higher likelihood of the HDD failing. While I would never bother to exceed 3TB, I recognize that even 3TB is entering the density crap-shoot. I generally stick to no larger than 2TB for externals, but I did get a 3TB for my TiVo to replace the internal one. And, yes, there are some who say even the 2TB is asking for some trouble, but considering the risks and real-world reports, I feel OK with 2TB, and breath easier with 1TB.

Certainly true for the most part. As time goes by, and maybe currently on new 1TB and 2TB drives, the actual data density would likely be the same as their 4TB to 6TB brothers. Only the number of platters inside would be different. Not sure which would be better -- lower density with 4 platters or the current 1TB/platter with only one or two platters. Now the current 5TB and 6TB drives will probably have a high failure rate because of the 5 and 6 platters respectively. The only benefit I see out of these " storage wars " is that the " smaller " drives will be cheaper.

I'll soon have 38TB of raw storage ( after bit-loss and redundancy ), which is enough for my entire 600+BD collection AND its backup. That doesn't include the various 1TB and 1.5TB drives I have sitting on a shelf in their anti-static bags. I keep system backups and music on those.

 

[DishSubLA]

Certainly true for the most part. As time goes by, and maybe currently on new 1TB and 2TB drives, the actual data density would likely be the same as their 4TB to 6TB brothers. Only the number of platters inside would be different. Not sure which would be better -- lower density with 4 platters or the current 1TB/platter with only one or two platters. Now the current 5TB and 6TB drives will probably have a high failure rate because of the 5 and 6 platters respectively. The only benefit I see out of these " storage wars " is that the " smaller " drives will be cheaper.

I'll soon have 38TB of raw storage ( after bit-loss and redundancy ), which is enough for my entire 600+BD collection AND its backup. That doesn't include the various 1TB and 1.5TB drives I have sitting on a shelf in their anti-static bags. I keep system backups and music on those.

I think the way Solid State is improving and I thought there was something in the press last month about some new tech that can just about solve Solid State's limited re-write limitations compared to traditional HDD, that in the near future, HDD's will become obsolete (and it is reaching the limit of just how well we can make them with their concomitant limitations as a coming legacy technology) and we will find Solid State (with it's inevetiable drop in price to match the current prices of HDD's) ubiquitous as our physical media replacing HDD's. So, I don't think there is really too many more resources into fixing the limitations of HDD's including all that heat from the larger capacity HDD's, but more resources into solving Solid State's current limitations. We will be all Solid State faster than we might imagine.

 

[Tampa8]

Not only do I agree, but I thought sometime ago we might be there by now.