WD to launch 2TB drives, lose data

Mercutio said:
Sporting a 2000GB capacity and an unrivaled lack of reliability, the WD20EADS will cost $300 and all of your precious memories in the form of digital photos and videos when it invariably dies. It's also a "power saving" (read: slow) green model, which is just WD's little kiss off to those unfortunate souls desperate enough to want to try data recovery software.
Click to expand...

cynicism noted Merc, we all know your prior bias against WD :p.

However, 'green' is just the Obamasized buzz word these days... marketing PR, doesn't mean the drives are slower because of that.

WD is just adding another 500GB platter, kind of like the old Hitachi 500GB drive.

Only time until Seagate puts out a 4 platter 7.2k12 Baracuda, don't you think? Seagate claims higher area density, gets better reliability, lol. Also claims SSD like performance :p. 160MB/s sustained (Eugene says this is not important 'metric' in his insular world, and by definition, implies this is so for everyone else :D).

http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...toid=3aae0e8b467ae110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD

So with 7.2k 11 baracuda's not doing so well,even after firmware update:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/01/22/seagate-releases-an-actual-fix-for-freezing-hdds/



what do you recommend these days Merc? 15.7 600GB Cheetah's with expensive SAS 2.0 6Gb/s interface?

http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...toid=cb5dcfc7e21de110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD
 
Yikes! Presumably the price will fall after a while, but I was hoping for less than $300.
 
Oh wel;, I oculd use some of those, but no working slto for the RIAD controller.
Just out of teh cureosity, 2Tb is teh max single drive for XP right? I mean you dont; need Vista for it to work.
 
No, 2TB is not the maximum size for an NTFS volume under XP. It is the maximum size of a FAT32 drive, and many hardware RAID controllers don't support arrays larger than 2TB, but Windows itself can handle NTFS volumes much larger than that.
 
Basically, you'll need to use dynamic disks (or switch to GPT) to format a single partition greater than 2TB.

Maximum Volume Size
In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 264-1 clusters. However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows XP Professional is 232-1 clusters. For example, using 64 KiB clusters, the maximum NTFS volume size is 256 TiB minus 64 KiB. Using the default cluster size of 4 KiB, the maximum NTFS volume size is 16 TiB minus 4 KiB. (Both of these are vastly higher than the 137GB limit in unpatched Windows XP due to lack of 48-bit LBA hard drive addressing support) Because partition tables on master boot record (MBR) disks only support partition sizes up to 2 TiB, dynamic or GPT volumes must be used to create bootable NTFS volumes over 2 TiB.
Click to expand...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS#Limitations
 
OK, but as I mentioned Windows XP Pro supports dynamic disks which can surpass the 2TB size.
 
What a kludge... I wonder if this will stall HD development at 2TB?

Some RAID controllers will let you carve up an array into 2TB chunks, but obviously a stand alone HD on a SATA controller lacks that capability.
 
Dynamic disks do work, unless you are looking for *nix compatibility (tried it with mixed results). But everything from XP x64 forward (Vista, 2003, 7) supports GPT...so it isn't that big a deal.
 
I don't think it will stall future storage development. Newer OS's might have others ways around this as we're seeing with dynamic disks and GPT. We've seen issues like this in earlier hardware with 137GB limitations etc, but drives progressed on since then. it'll be a pain for some to get used to the new ways, but we still have time as people even begin to buy 2TB drives.
 
GPT is the easy and painless fix. It isn't a workaround, it really does just solve the problem. It is compatible with *nix and (I think) Mac. No performance penalties or funky drivers. This problem has been solved for at least 6 years.
 
So this is just everyone being bitter that there actually IS a reason to upgrade an 8 year old OS? All my systems with >2TB arrays run XP x64.

Also, this drive is at the limit, not above it. So we really haven't hit this issue, yet.
 
I'm not bitter, I agree we need to move on. Even if people continue to use XP, dynamic disks allow us to go beyond 2TB... I don't even see this being an issue in the prime for at least several more years. Only exceptions like us will want larger than 2TB in a single device using a desktop OS such as XP under 32-bit. Anyone else would be using a sever class OS, likely 64 bits.
 
Weeeell, of coruse you can use the Dynaimc Dicks, but I dont; llke them. I tried that 5 jahre ago without succes. :mrgrn:
 
I didn't know you swung both ways? Well, glad you figured out what was and was not successful.
 
Doesnt the Windowens 7 has two versiones, 32 bit and 64 bots. What is if we get the 32 bit one in a laptop and no gPT then? even the consumeres will want external large drives in a few years.
 
Wow, that was a long time ago.

IIRC, only XP was limited to GPT/64-bit. Server 2003 supports it in all versions, and I think Vista/7 does as well.
 
LOST6200 said:
Doesnt the Windowens 7 has two versiones, 32 bit and 64 bots. What is if we get the 32 bit one in a laptop and no gPT then? even the consumeres will want external large drives in a few years.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, you receive the 32 bit version of Windows Vista when you purchase an OEM PC. Some OEMs allow users to trade the 32bit version for 64bit, and you can do the same thing if you have a retail copy. In Technet-land, the same product keys are good for both.

It appears that Windows 7 is going to use the same harebrained layout of SKUs that Vista did; there's an Ultimate and a Starter and a Basic, at least.

Current-generation notebooks will support 8GB RAM, by the way.
 
Handruin said:
I'm not bitter, I agree we need to move on. Even if people continue to use XP, dynamic disks allow us to go beyond 2TB... I don't even see this being an issue in the prime for at least several more years. Only exceptions like us will want larger than 2TB in a single device using a desktop OS such as XP under 32-bit. Anyone else would be using a sever class OS, likely 64 bits.
Click to expand...

No, *anyone* else would likely be using Mac OS X Snow Leopard or a version of Linux, lol. So PC centric of you Handy :D, reminds me of Eugene and his rants on what he claims are the important vs useless performance metrics :p.

Well sever my dynamic dick! lol...that would hurt :D (as an Admn, at least Handy can edit his posts more than 5min after submitting).
 
This discussion had nothing to do with a mac, so of course it is PC-centric. Until I see a compelling single reason to own one, I won't. Nor will I care about the <10% of people who enjoy paying for over-priced hardware and/or form over functionality.

Linux aside...mac has no viable server platform worth mentioning so don't bother. It can remind you all you want of Eugene, but this wasn't a rant.
 
LunarMist said:
WTF does mac have to do with this?
Click to expand...

Nothing, just udaman trying to state how superior Mac's are in comparison your standard Windows PC.

While having 2TB drives are nice and all, I seem to be doing okay storage wise with my 100GB array (4x 36GB drives) in my pc, backed with 500GB of storage (which is about 75% full) in an external enclosure.

I'm just waiting for high performance SSDs to become reasonably priced. (like the Intel X25-E) before buying anything new.
 
I only see quoted fragments of some user's posts. ;)

The X25-E is a lot cheaper now than just a few months ago. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top