Insanely huge hard drives

[GaliemVaelant]

Originally Posted by Eomer

He's right, actually. They're thinking it'll be really handy in basically "printing" fuses for bombs or fireworks and stuff that are perfectly timed by the length of the ink line.

Aye, he is right. We're already using that stuff in the lab to draw circuits for experiments. It's a hell of a lot more cost effective for the school than to burn out tons of circuit boards.

The ink's nothing special though. It's really just a type of paste impregnated with copper or iron powder. Actually, I was under the impression that the stuff has been around for a while, but if it is new, then that settles my curiosity as to why they didn't issue tubes of it to electricians in the Army when I was in. When no wiring is handy, some of that stuff in rolled up cloth would work in a pinch.

I wouldn't compare that stuff to petabyte hard drives or paper thin monitors though because it's more like post-it notes; really handy idea, but very simple.

[Taehoon]

Some other things regarding that 8TB pc. Max disk size in Windows XP/2003 is 2TB (volumes, on the other hand, can be a lot larger, I forget what XP is, but 16TB at least? 2003 is 64TB?). Volumes are composed of more than 1 disk.

As for 16 drives for a home user...you definitely would want at least 1 hot spare. Also what about the system drive(s). Do they count that in the "8TB?"

So if they count 2 system disks, that's 1TB of space lost. Then your 1 disk hot spare. That's already minus 1.5TB from your "multimedia" drive. Then you need to work with the 2TB Windows disk limit. 13 disks * 500GB = 6500. You would need 3 RAID 5s, leaving you with an extra disk (another hot spare? or don't buy a 16th disk). Three 4-drive RAID 5s, giving you 4.5TB (500*3*4) of space (and since HDD manufacturers don't count like the rest of the world, it will be more like just over 4TB).

4TB for $9,000. Sounds terrible doesn't it?

Now if they went this route: Four 4-drive RAID 5s. 1.5TB each * 4 = 6TB Volume. No hot spare (I pity the fool), but surely they can have at least an e-mail notification alert program.

RAID math is fun (not really).

Edit: Actually since you need to install Windows you would need a separate disk or install it on a 1.5TB volume, leaving you with a 4.5TB media volume. You could do a 2 drive RAID1 for the system disk (if they count all the hard drives in the system as 16), then 14 drives left for RAID5. Two 4-drive RAID 5s. Two 3-drive RAID 5s = 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.0 + 1.0 = 5TB.

Fucking RAID.

[The Dauntless One]

Originally Posted by Taehoon

Some other things regarding that 8TB pc. Max disk size in Windows XP/2003 is 2TB (volumes, on the other hand, can be a lot larger, I forget what XP is, but 16TB at least? 2003 is 64TB?). Volumes are composed of more than 1 disk.

max hard drive space for fat32 is 2 terrabyte
i don't think there is a limit for ntfs....

[Taehoon]

If you can break the 2TB barrier with Windows 2003 Enterprise on a single disk, let me know.

[Taehoon]

nt

[Kasonic]

Originally Posted by The Dauntless One

max hard drive space for fat32 is 2 terrabyte
i don't think there is a limit for ntfs....

NTFS can theoretically address 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes. What's after petabytes?

[Benito Fireslinger]

exabyte

10^18 bytes

[Nikkohung You]

1st off, this guy is so clearly a kook and charlatan that I can't believe there is anybody who fell for his psuedo-scientific babble. There's absolutely nothing credible about the website, and none of the "science" makes much sense. You can't get electron spins to stay in a pure state in a molecule. If you could, quantum computing wouldn't be so hard. There's really no point in addressing why it won't work, since it doesn't make any sense, anyway. It's just a bunch of gibberish, talk about "Bohr Atomic Postulate" (whatever that is) and how optically excited electrons will stay in place until readout by another light (not true), blah blah blah. The guy is fucking insane.

The basic problem is: you can't identify individual electrons. No way. Not ever. When they're circling an atom they're not discernible particles per se- they're an anonymous and homogenous cloud of probability. You can apply some energy and peel one electron off, but it's not like you're picking a particular electron. It's not like a bag of marbles and you're picking a particular one of a particular color. It's more like a jar of molasses and you're scooping out a spoonful.

Also electron spin isnt something that's latched to any one electron. Electrons exchange virtual photons many millions of million of times per second, which scrambles their properties.

So to beat this dead horse again: there's absolutely nothing to this story.

[Tingteng]

I have to agree with nikko although I don't have the scientific background to prove it. When I see someone mentioning a fountain of youth anything I need to throw the bullshit flag.