[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/[/newsimage] Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/hdds-in-2016-will-have-10-to-20-times-the-capacity-of-current-drives-61691/](http://www.myce.com/news/hdds-in-2016-will-have-10-to-20-times-the-capacity-of-current-drives-61691/) Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
That would make great back-ups for my back-ups
Bigger yes, but will they be more reliable?
Lost count of the number of drives that have selfdestructed since the introduction of IDE and SATA. Still have a 25 year old ST251 (mfm) that is going strong. Drives may be cheap these days but my data isn’t! Nor is my time spent backing up and restoring to yet another NEW drive.
More reliable Probably Not
But I have 28 1 and 1.5 TB drives filled with movies right now , if I could cut that down to 2 or 3 that would be great.
I back up at night when I am sleeping.
[QUOTE=olddancer;2635098]Bigger yes, but will they be more reliable?
Lost count of the number of drives that have selfdestructed since the introduction of IDE and SATA. Still have a 25 year old ST251 (mfm) that is going strong. Drives may be cheap these days but my data isn’t! Nor is my time spent backing up and restoring to yet another NEW drive.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with the premise that reliabilty has been on a steady downward spiral or linear decline… since the days of your old st251 drive, coding schemes and data redundancy/recovery and remapping as well as compression techniques have greatly IMPROVED reliability in the newer parallel drives which recently took us to 4tb… this does not mean that there haven’t been pitfalls… improperly developed firmware and hardware missteps have been costly to those who implement large data networks in raid… that’s why a commerical class of drive was introduced for these kinds of redundancy & reliability requirements… to expect that your going to get that in the consumer grade pre-flood prices is rediculous…
I also disagree with the premise that in 4 years we will get to 40tb hard drives… the HAMR (heat assist magnetic recording) technology has been on the drawing boards for years and got shelved due to blowback from the consumer market. This foward looking innovation relies heavily on this technology to make the substrate materials hold more data and operate within a narrow temperature profile which will be harder and harder to maintain when the drive AGES! This is controversial to make a hard drive that has the long-term data integrity of a ford from 1996-2003… which is to say virtually ZERO resale value after 5 years, while at the same time shrinking warranties to 3 years and less.
I also disagree with the huge exaggeration.
With historic reference, I’d suggest 2-3x current capacity is more likely, that’s 6-9TB, and I still suspect that’s optimistic.
It’s HAMR time !!!
Yeah, this will be the new HDD advertising…
[QUOTE=tmc8080;2636112]Yeah, this will be the new HDD advertising…
I doubt it … that was a FLASH mob
[QUOTE=debro;2636120]I doubt it … that was a FLASH mob ;)[/QUOTE] An ADOBE FLASH mob?
[QUOTE=DrageMester;2636137]An ADOBE FLASH mob? :p[/QUOTE]
If it was an Adobe Flash mob, they were probably just owned by passing 0-Day exploits …
I was thinking more along the lines of Flash Memory … you know, that instant at 2:34am in the morning when you wake up and remember that thing you were trying to remember sometime that day, but couldn’t.