[Newegg.com] Western Digital 1TB Black Hard Drive Availible

2008-07-04 01:03:12

#1

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6450|The Twilight Zone

A new Western Digital Hard Drive.

1TB with 32 MB cache. First Western Digital with these specs.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6822136284

Thought I'd post this if anyone wants huge internal storage.

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-07-04 01:06:18

#2

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|6826|Grapevine, TX

1TB for $209??!!

2008-07-04 01:08:39

#3

**LiLp-DeFiNeD: Banned; +54|6152|Vancouver, BC, Canada

HOLY SHITCAKES.

IF I had the $$ and IF Newegg shipped to Canada, I'd but one before yoo could blink.

I only have $160 and need it to fix my bike, and i live near the border but dad aint gonna drive me for a harddrive

2008-07-04 01:10:03

#4

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6534|Long Island, New York

I'd rather get two 500 gb Barracudas.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6822148288

Cheaper.

2008-07-04 01:13:16

#5

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6450|The Twilight Zone

Poseidon wrote:
I'd rather get two 500 gb Barracudas.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6822148288

Cheaper.

2 drives-more heat, more energy consumed

2008-07-04 01:13:44

#6

**LiLp-DeFiNeD: Banned; +54|6152|Vancouver, BC, Canada

Oh, well I got a 500GB Barracuda already.

Apple computer inc's newest product, the iPhail

2008-07-04 01:14:43

#7

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6534|Long Island, New York

.Sup wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'd rather get two 500 gb Barracudas.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6822148288

Cheaper.
2 drives-more heat, more energy consumed

So? It's still 40 bucks cheaper. So much for that whole price-performance argument that ATi fans put up...

2008-07-04 01:14:49

#8

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6450|The Twilight Zone

**LiLp-DeFiNeD wrote:
Oh, well I got a 500GB Barracuda already.

Apple computer inc's newest product, the iPhail

iPhail

2008-07-04 01:27:53

#9

**LiLp-DeFiNeD: Banned; +54|6152|Vancouver, BC, Canada

lololol, I've been doing the iPhail shpeil for months now, proly just not enough on BF2s.

Note to self...

2008-07-04 06:24:26

#10

mikkel: Member; +383|6598

.Sup wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'd rather get two 500 gb Barracudas.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6822148288

Cheaper.
2 drives-more heat, more energy consumed

More flexibility, for both backup and increased performance.

Can't really run RAID properly on a single drive, y'know.

2008-07-04 06:38:05

#11

Slayer: ---hates you; +1,137|6753|Hell, p.o box 666

I dont want, I dont need...

Got 4x Barracuda 500GB already... Paid 47€ for each... so..........

2008-07-04 07:04:33

#12

=Karma-Kills=: "Don't post while intoxicated."; +356|6581|England

.Sup wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'd rather get two 500 gb Barracudas.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6822148288

Cheaper.
2 drives-more heat, more energy consumed

1 drive = 1 point of failure.

2 x 500GB > 1 x 1000GB any day for me.

2008-07-04 13:22:49

#13

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6450|The Twilight Zone

=Karma-Kills= wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'd rather get two 500 gb Barracudas.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6822148288

Cheaper.
2 drives-more heat, more energy consumed
1 drive = 1 point of failure.

2 x 500GB > 1 x 1000GB any day for me.

you can't compare 2 HDD vs 1. 2x1000TB WD>2xSeagate 500GB

2008-07-04 13:24:53

#14

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6704|67.222.138.85

=Karma-Kills= wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'd rather get two 500 gb Barracudas.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6822148288

Cheaper.
2 drives-more heat, more energy consumed
1 drive = 1 point of failure.

2 x 500GB > 1 x 1000GB any day for me.

ummm...two hard drives, two points of failure. That's worse.

2008-07-04 13:25:08

#15

=Karma-Kills=: "Don't post while intoxicated."; +356|6581|England

Im comparing how you go about allocating your storage space.

Following your example:
2 x 1000GB WD<4 x 500GB

.Sup wrote:
2x1000TB

And id be interested to know what you'd need 2,000 TB of storage for!

EDIT:
@ FM:
Probabilities. Using completely arbitrary numbers here.
Chance of failure of a hard drive = 1 x 10-8

So, chance of failure of one larger hard drive = 1 x 10^-8

Chance of failure of two smaller hard drives = (1 x 10^-8) x (1 x 10^-8) = Smaller number.

Thats the whole idea behind RAID (apart from the gains in perfomance as well). Its better to have more (lower capacity) drives than fewer (higher capacity) drives.

Last edited by =Karma-Kills= (2008-07-04 13:28:44)

2008-07-04 13:29:20

#16

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6450|The Twilight Zone

=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Im comparing how you go about allocating your storage space.

Following your example:
2 x 1000GB WD<4 x 500GB

.Sup wrote:
2x1000TB
And id be interested to know what you'd need 2,000 TB of storage for!

EDIT:
@ FM:
Probabilities. Using completely arbitrary numbers here.
Chance of failure of a hard drive = 1 x 10-8

So, chance of failure of one larger hard drive = 1 x 10^-8

Chance of failure of two smaller hard drives = (1 x 10^-8) x (1 x 10^-8) = Smaller number.

Thats the whole idea behind RAID (apart from the gains in perfomance as well). Its better to have more (lower capacity) drives than fewer (higher capacity) drives.

2 more drives-100 more watts.

2008-07-04 13:30:22

#17

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|6714|Riva, MD

**LiLp-DeFiNeD wrote:
HOLY SHITCAKES.

IF I had the $$ and IF Newegg shipped to Canada, I'd but one before yoo could blink.

I only have $160 and need it to fix my bike, and i live near the border but dad aint gonna drive me for a harddrive

You couldn't get someone from Washington on this site to order it and then send it to you?

2008-07-04 13:32:51

#18

=Karma-Kills=: "Don't post while intoxicated."; +356|6581|England

@ Sup,

Less power or more reliability? I know which id want.

2008-07-04 13:38:57

#19

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6450|The Twilight Zone

=Karma-Kills= wrote:
@ Sup,

Less power or more reliability? I know which id want.

I just want smaller electricity bill. I know your point and its a good one. I personally wouldn't want more than 2HDDs in my PC. A HDD already failed on me once but i got it back to the store where i bought it and they saved all my data, burned it on a DVD and replaced the HDD with a new one. Its so hard to destroy an HDD.

2008-07-04 13:39:02

#20

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6704|67.222.138.85

=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Im comparing how you go about allocating your storage space.

Following your example:
2 x 1000GB WD<4 x 500GB

.Sup wrote:
2x1000TB
And id be interested to know what you'd need 2,000 TB of storage for!

EDIT:
@ FM:
Probabilities. Using completely arbitrary numbers here.
Chance of failure of a hard drive = 1 x 10-8

So, chance of failure of one larger hard drive = 1 x 10^-8

Chance of failure of two smaller hard drives = (1 x 10^-8) x (1 x 10^-8) = Smaller number.

Thats the whole idea behind RAID (apart from the gains in performance as well). Its better to have more (lower capacity) drives than fewer (higher capacity) drives.

This is comparing the probability that one drive will fail and the probability that BOTH drives will fail. To find the probability of either drive failiing (losing at least some of your data and being a pain in the ass) you have to add the probabilities, not multiply.

RAID has nothing to do with the number or size of hard drives, it has to do with the method of storing data. RAID 1 protects your data by writing in parallel to two different drives, so if either drive fails, you still have all your data on one drive. The size of the drives is irrelevant.

If you want to keep all your data (and who doesn't?) you want fewer high capacity drives.

2008-07-04 13:44:42

#21

=Karma-Kills=: "Don't post while intoxicated."; +356|6581|England

FM wrote:
This is comparing the probability that one drive will fail and the probability that BOTH drives will fail

Agreed. To compare the same "effect" (ie loosing all data), thats what i thought was fair.

RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive / Independant Drives.

Inexpensive implies lower capacity (ie smaller, cheaper drives).

RAID is about redundancy, which it achieves by "spreading" the data over more drives (compared to a single drive setup).
RAID1 over 2.
RAID5 over 3.
RAID6 over 4.
RAID10 over 4 etc etc.

2008-07-04 13:58:23

#22

VicktorVauhn: Member; +319|6389|Southern California

=Karma-Kills= wrote:
.Sup wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
I'd rather get two 500 gb Barracudas.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6822148288

Cheaper.
2 drives-more heat, more energy consumed
1 drive = 1 point of failure.

2 x 500GB > 1 x 1000GB any day for me.

reliability of 2 drives = failure rate of one drive * 2

Not that I care what way anyone goes, but if you are going to talk about failure rates having two increases the chance that one will fail...its a fact.

HOWEVER, it does mean that in the event of a failure... you will still have a working HD, and that is a positive... But if hard drive with important date eats it, the fact that you have a back up drive already installed isn't much consolation.

2008-07-05 02:16:03

#23

Sup3r_Dr4gon: Boat sig is not there anymore; +214|6324|Australia

I'd rather have 1 x 1TB then 2 x 500GB, as you only need half the number of SATA/power ports.

I'm hoping to get either a 750GB or a 1TB soon, so I hope the prices fall a bit more - here they're still around $150 and $200 (AU) respectively.

2008-07-05 03:04:47

#24

CrazeD: Member; +368|6670|Maine

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
=Karma-Kills= wrote:
.Sup wrote:

2 drives-more heat, more energy consumed
1 drive = 1 point of failure.

2 x 500GB > 1 x 1000GB any day for me.
ummm...two hard drives, two points of failure. That's worse.

What are the chances both drives will fail at the same time? Seriously...

The point is, if you dump a 1TB HDD that is full, you just lost 1TB of data. If you dump one of two 500GB drives, you lost 500GB data...the damage is less extensive.

Any very important data can be saved onto both drives, ensuring that if one drive fails, you still have a copy. If both drives fail, at the same time, however unlikely that is, then well...sux2bu.

I'd rather have multiple drives.

2008-07-05 03:12:00

#25

VicktorVauhn: Member; +319|6389|Southern California

CrazeD wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
=Karma-Kills= wrote:

1 drive = 1 point of failure.

2 x 500GB > 1 x 1000GB any day for me.
ummm...two hard drives, two points of failure. That's worse.
What are the chances both drives will fail at the same time? Seriously...

The point is, if you dump a 1TB HDD that is full, you just lost 1TB of data. If you dump one of two 500GB drives, you lost 500GB data...the damage is less extensive.

Any very important data can be saved onto both drives, ensuring that if one drive fails, you still have a copy. If both drives fail, at the same time, however unlikely that is, then well...sux2bu.

I'd rather have multiple drives.

Yeah, but two is twices a likely to have a failure... It doesn't matter if the whole thing dies, or just one... If your data is on the one that bites the dust sucks to be you.

If you are saving it on both drives, then yeah your half as likely to loose it... but then again you are also taking up twice the space, and you don't really have 1tb available anymore now do you?

BF2S Forums [Newegg.com] Western Digital 1TB Black Hard Drive Availible

Poseidon wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

**LiLp-DeFiNeD wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

.Sup wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup wrote:

**LiLp-DeFiNeD wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup wrote:

FM wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

.Sup wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

=Karma-Kills= wrote:

Board footer