Seagate Confirms 3TB Hard Drive Coming In 2010

rated by 0 users
This post has 11 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,190
Points 1,186,110
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Mon, May 17 2010 2:39 PM
3TB. It's a milestone that we all knew would be reached at some point, but the same probably could not be said in 1980. Decades ago, the original LBA (logical block addressing) standard was developed, which isn't capable of assigning addresses to capacities in excess of 2.1TB. No one would ever use that much space, anyway. Right? Wrong. But now that the world needs 3TB+ drives, Seagate is ready to make the required adjustments to bring it to life.

According to a new report at Thinq, Seagate has confirmed to them that the company will be "announcing a 3TB drive later this year." That's great news for consumers for a couple of reasons. One, a 3TB unit will be available, which will be 50% larger than the biggest single HDD now (2TB). Second, it will drive down prices of 2TB and 1TB HDDs, making it cheaper to craft a new RAID box with "old" 2TB drives.


But the shift to 3TB won't come easy, and it's going to take the support of a lot of companies not named Seagate to make it happen. For starters, you'll need updated drivers and BIOSes to make use of all three terabytes, and you'll need equipment capable of understanding Long LBA Addressing. Seagate says that Windows XP won't be able to see the drive (or if it does, only a small portion of it), and only the 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and Windows Vista will be eligible to see it. Talk about forced upgrades, but then again, only a small sector will need a 3TB hard drive, and that sector is probably already using the 64-bit version of Windows 7.

No pricing details are being talked about yet (nor details on spindle speed), but we could see the first HDD to break the 2TB barrier on sale before 2010 ends. Exciting times, folks.
  • | Post Points: 170
Not Ranked
Posts 72
Points 660
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: CT
Oblio211 replied on Mon, May 17 2010 4:06 PM

Wow, i am curious how reliable it will be. The reviews for the 2TB (crashes and failures) had made me adverse to buying those so I can imagine what 3TB might bring. Hopefully making the drive bigger will fix those issues. I would love to have (4) 3TB drives in RAID 5 array...if my NAS supports it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,795
Points 40,670
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: New York
Inspector replied on Mon, May 17 2010 4:34 PM

Glad i choice to install the 64 bit version of windows 7 when i upgraded :). Lets just see how good this HDD will perform.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,747
Points 42,815
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: United States, California

These will be a real boon for those wanting to rip their BDs to a HDD.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,830
Points 45,790
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Mon, May 17 2010 5:41 PM

Why though really. Yes you would get 3TB of space, but I personally would rather have 4 500-750 GB drives in a raid 5 stripe. You get a performance increase, stability/data security, and if you outfit it right hot swappable drives, and or an external one. This becomes a much better picture when you think of E-SATA or SATA/USB3 performance levels, and for the same price or about the same as one of these when released.

OS:Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit
MB:ASUS Z87C
CPU:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 4770 ***
GPU:Geforce GTX 770 4GB
Mem:***ingston 16384MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,747
Points 42,815
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: United States, California

Yeah, but 5 600GB Velociraptors would set you back well over a grand.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,792
Points 28,435
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: South Carolina

 That would be nice to have but I would rather have 2 Raptors instead. I would end up partioning the drive in 500 gb each or however Windows 7 would let me sort it out but brring in the Raptors.

 

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 498
Points 6,040
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: South Carolina

Or, you could wait for SSD's to hit the big time.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 318
Points 3,180
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Louisiana
la_guy_10 replied on Mon, May 17 2010 10:45 PM

I agree SSD is the way to go.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,651
Points 104,115
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
MembershipAdministrator
Moderator
realneil replied on Tue, May 18 2010 7:36 AM

I could see utilizing a few Raptors in a RAID array until SSD prices come down to earth.

I won't be buying one of these 3TB drives until they have been out for a while, tested and have the bugs worked out of them.

While I can appreciate the huge amount of storage and the leading edge technology in these drives, I have found that the 'leading edge' too often becomes the 'bleeding edge' with brand new tech toys.

Sometimes it pays to wait.

Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 654
Points 5,930
Joined: May 2008
Location: Stockholm
mhenriday replied on Tue, May 18 2010 8:35 AM

«... and that sector is probably already using the 64-bit version of Windows 7.» Perhaps Ray Willington doesn't know any Linux users (modern distros shouldn't have any difficulty handling Long LBA addressing - for example, ext4 on 64-bit Ubuntu Lucid) ? Is he opposed to slumming ?...

Henri

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,913
Points 24,635
Joined: Jul 2001
Location: United States, New York
digitaldd replied on Tue, May 18 2010 9:16 AM

I bet there will be another snafu with certain motherboards being incompatible with the 3TB drives. time will tell.

 

I knew there were some odd hurdles keeping 2TB as the max hard drive size for such a long time. Once this barrier gets passed it won't be long before we see single 8 - 16 TB drives.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS