In 3 Years, Your HDD Will Hold 100TB or More

Unfortunately, current motherboard BIOSs do not support addressing hard drives over 2TB, and only 64-bit versions of windows 7 or vista can address larger drives.
So if you want a 3TB drive when they start selling them you'll need to buy a new motherboard and upgrade to 64bit if you haven't already

i think you are slightly misinformed the problem is the lba
logical block addressing limit on bios's

i can't remember the name of it but there is allready work being donw on the bios replacement, the problem is many people are reluctant because the size of the progra which they are calling a mini os
will be too big to fit on most if not all motherboards allready in circulation

this means that many manufacturers will be unwilling to support or use it a bit like intel and usb3.0 becasue it will make all there current products obsolete

Not worried about the motherboard,OS & 64bit cpu requirement. Whats concerns me is having a 100TB HDD.

1) I'll loose stupid ammounts of data unless I run a raod 0 or raid 5 array.

2) I'll need to rent a warehouse, just to hold the backup pile of dvdr's or bdr's I've used to back the thing up :-/

It is true that if you need to bu your data you will need a warehouse, but stop asuming that you will lose data it depends on how you use it and what sh*t you install on it,or partitioning it...

In that time 2013-2015 you won't be using the same motherboard/OS,unless you want it.

Iron-Platinum? Forgive me, but even in trace amounts, isn't that going to cost a fair bit?

The LBA is OS based, not hardware based. New versions of 64 bit windows have a workaround called Long LBA addressing which allows higher capacities.
The problem with the BIOS is the master boot record.





Not everyone buys new hardware/software as soon as it's released, and the new BIOSes will take a while to show up on lower to mid-range boards.

In 2013 there will be queues of people outside PC World complaining that their new 3TB drives don't work

i just hope they start using 1024 in their calculations, instead of 1000.
if you buy a 100 TB HDD, that would mean 90.95 TB if they keep using 1000 kb=1 mb. that would feel like a big rip-off

EFI, or UEFI

there is a simpler way to backup

why not just use another hdd?

after all hdd's are cheaper than blu-ray and dvd's

you can buy a 2tb hdd for £80-90
thats 40 dual layer blu rays

i can seem to find them cheaper than £3-5 a disk so spare hdd is cheaper for backups

and anyway by the time this is released they will have faster conection speeds becasue at min it takes 1-2 hours for me to backup and highy compress 200gb boot partition from bootcd


i dont want to think how long it would take to backup a 100tb drive with todays technology it would take 500 times as long (for me anyway)

so 500-1000 hours or about a month (thsi is asuming you are using a drive that only has a write speed of 30MB/s

this would require a write speed of over 1.158GB/s transfer rate to do it in 24 hours or to do it in 2 hours a whoping speed of 347GB/s

the problem isnt getting a big enough hdd becasue we can allwasy add more

the problem is getting the read and write times of the computer a lot faster

I'm not that worried about finding a way to back up my new 100TB drive (if it ever comes out and i actually get one).

What i am REALLY worried about is the internet downloading speed. I really hope they can give us speeds like a GigaByte per second (or something like that) and for a cheap price. That way i can fill my drive up with all the goodies.

I'm already paying a heck of an amount for only 21 MegaBits per second. And i'm only getting like 5 Mbps out of the 21

nah normally on computer they show it in megabtyes (MB)

you can get better than that, if you have fibreoptic you can get 50MB+
i heard that some countries have 500MB-1GB/s

1) Dude, you'll lose *ALL* your data if you run RAID 0. Remember boys and girls, the "zero" in "RAID 0" indicates how much data you'll get back if one of the drives fails.

2) That isn't a problem, just use the new 5TB Greenray disks to back up onto.

The scary part, in my opinion, isn't so much the risk of losing all 100TB in one go – which can be prevented – but the gradual loss of random data in corrupt sectors on the disk. With disks that large, the chances for one-off write errors would be immense and you would not know about this corruption. Either modern disks need better checksumming built-in, or this functionality needs to be implemented by the file system.

Perhaps we'll move to a two-tier system for storage, one with crucial data on expensive but checksummed disks, and indecently large storage systems for streaming and other "dumb" data where a few misplaced bits won't mean the end of the world. SSD and traditional HD seem to be moving that way already...

Actually the Samsung drive is in the 400+ Gbpsi areal density. This is probably the highest 3.5-inch HDD areal density. 2.5-inch drive areal densities are currently as high at 540 Gbpsi from multiple manufacturers. It is easier to get higher areal density on smaller form factor disk drives. This year we will probably see introduction of HDDs with areal densities of 650-700 Gbpsi but probably in the 2.5-inch form factor. Overall areal density growth by the end of 2010 should make 3 TB 4-disk 3.5-inch drives and 1 TB 2-disk 2.5-inch drives possible. By 2015 I estimate that 3.5-inch drives with 10 TB and 2.5-inch drives with around 5 TB will be possible. By that time we may see the commercialization of one or more of the new recording technologies that extend the capabilities of current perpendicular magnetic recording. These are shingled write, patterned media and heat or thermally assisted magnetic recording.

Tom Coughlin, www.tomcoughlin.com

repel, that is the reason you partition your hdd and why you should allways backup your data

for example i am about to upgrade main hdd and at same time use old as backup device for data and otehr drive for system files

2^28 times 512 bytes for the original ATA specification.
2^48 times 512 bytes for LBA48 specification.

Which is 134,217,728 GB, or 131,072 TB

Once Windows loads it replaces, or remaps over, large parts of the system BIOS.

The 2TB limit you are thinking about is purely file-system limition that has already been solved. GPT and the like will become more mainstream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table

On a non-quote-reply note:

320GB to 3.2TB is all most consumers will ever really need/want for the next several generations. (That order of magnitude).

Assuming that SSD's (both MLC and SLC varieties) continue to receive typical die shrinks, the same as any other component; it is almost certain that they will become mainstream parts. Once the price/performance and price/capacity ratio's meet what businesses are after.

yes but most consumers dont even now what a harddrive is

ask someone who has a skyplus box where the data is saved and they cant tell you

and the 2tb limit was only in xp you can have higher in vista and windows 7

and it was only a limit on the boot partition so you could have a 3tb partition on there but not as boot partition

I haven't seen anybody crying for space needed on a 1 TB HDD yet,I am wondering who's going to use them? Maybe big servers as Youtube?

Me, I'm running out of space on my 1.5TB HDD and my other drives are starting to get low on space as well.

i dont see why people keep saying 1tb is all people will ever use

this answer is only for people who keep mp3's and not very high quality videos

a lot of people like me who like to use the best quality we can get, will use up very high amount of storage in comparision and becasue most people who have a computer dont watch or store videos on there computer they dont need much space


1 low quality 30min video on my computer averages about 80-100MB this is about 50-100 mp3's

where as i can only store 10,000 videos on my computer of low quality
the average person who only uses mp3's can store nearly 1million songs

but to have a good 720p 30min video in mp4 format can use 500Mb at 30fps
this means i can only store a max of 2000 videos and at 1080p 60fps i dred to think how much space it would require

i think you are getting confused

unless you are using fibreoptic the further you are away from the exchange the weaker the signel so therfore lower speeds

they are still using coper wire for internet so they have the same problem you have with aireials, the long the cable the weaker the signel and if the wire's insulation gets damaged or close to other wires it gets interference

as a sidenote if your nabors use the internet alot yuo will have lower speeds becasue usually the exchange's bandwith is split between 50-100 people in some cases so ofcourse they cant allways give you max speeds

that why they advertise it as UP TO

oh i know that already - i just want a new technology which will make the data transfer across the world at light speed or something.

And i use a wireless usb dongle. The telecom is in Australia so i only get 5 Mbps from where i am located. But over there they get 18-20 Mbps which is awesome The only problem is that the little bugger heats up more than a GTX 480

Do you think they can change all the internet cables into fibre-optic?