Storage Density Beyond 10 Tb/in2 Possible For Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A team of physicists have developed simulations that realistically model the heat-assisted magnetic recording write process and found that it could achieve an optimal storage of more than 13 Tb/in2.

The hard disk drives that currently store the majority of the world's data have storage densities of just under 1 Terabit per square inch (Tb/in2). One of the promising technologies being researched for increasing the storage density is heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR), which uses lasers to heat individual magnetic grains that are just a few nanometers long. The method requires controlling heat and magnetism on a tiny scale, which has made developing HAMR very challenging.

 
HAMR sounds a lot like old MO tech
 
Laser and heat every time you write to the disk.
Seems like it would increase power usage and heat in the drive. Not likely a solution for laptops.
 
Spidey329 said:
I don't think you'd ever want to run these without some form of RAID. That's a lot of data on one disk.
Click to expand...

A lot of data is relative. A 10 MP image and a 1MP image of the same are very different sizes but still the "same thing".

Furthermore, anybody who says "without some for of RAID" is also confused in that RAID isn't a backup. Having a RAID doesn't prevent failure...it actually increases the chance of a failure occurring (more shit = more shit to break)...but what it does do is reduce downtime when a failure does occur.
 
Trepidati0n said:
A lot of data is relative. A 10 MP image and a 1MP image of the same are very different sizes but still the "same thing".

Furthermore, anybody who says "without some for of RAID" is also confused in that RAID isn't a backup. Having a RAID doesn't prevent failure...it actually increases the chance of a failure occurring (more shit = more shit to break)...but what it does do is reduce downtime when a failure does occur.
Click to expand...

Unless you are talking about RAID0 I don't see how it can increase your chances of failure, either that or every enterprise and server manufacturer is doing it wrong
 
FLECOM said:
Unless you are talking about RAID0 I don't see how it can increase your chances of failure, either that or every enterprise and server manufacturer is doing it wrong
Click to expand...

If you have 4 drives in a raid, the chance one of the drive will fail is 4 times as high as a single drive.
The difference is that if your single drive fails, you are down until the drive can be replaced and the data restored from backup. There is also the loss of any data that changed since the last backup.
With Raid, you are more likely to have a drive fail, but you don't have the risk of data loss (barring multiple drive failures).
I've moved most my larger drive arrays to raid 6, so even a 2 drive loss will not result in data loss.
 
FLECOM said:
Unless you are talking about RAID0 I don't see how it can increase your chances of failure, either that or every enterprise and server manufacturer is doing it wrong
Click to expand...

Drive failure..system failure...motherboard failure....RAID card failure....power failure...PEBKAC failure. Lots of failures can take a RAID offline. But to think adding in more things to anything reduces the chance of a failure occurring just isn't true unless where we are in bizaro land where 1+1 does not equal 2.
 
ok, let me know how that works out in the real world... enterprises do backups, but if you EVER have to use them, it's because something has gone horribly wrong
 
Parja said:
Wut?!
Click to expand...
I think he was saying whether the picture is 10MP or 1MP, it is still one picture. Same amount of "stuff" (# of photos/videos/ect) on the drive and memories to lose, but one set takes up a lot more storage space than the other.
 
It never takes long for someone to chime in with some stupid comment about how a drive is too big to be careful with.

Newsflash: they've always been too big.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top