Mechanical roadmap points to hard drives over 100TB by 2025

If you want to know what the future of hard drives holds, the Advanced Storage Technology Consortium is probably a good place to start. Otherwise known as the ASTC, the group was founded by a collection of industry heavyweights that includes HGST, Seagate, and WD. It's billed as a "forum for collaborative joint R&D efforts," giving its projections credible weight.

According to the ATSC's latest roadmap, mechanical storage densities will increase at an accelerated rate starting in a few years, when heat-assisted and bit-patterned recording kick into gear. The good times will supposedly continue until at least 2025, when areal densities should be high enough to enable 100TB hard drives.

Source: ASTC

Right now, we're in perpendicular territory, with areal densities under 1Tb/in². Shingled magnetic recording has already appeared in datacenter drives optimized for cold storage. Along with two-dimensional recording, a similar and potentially complementary approach, shingled tech looks poised to drive density scaling until at least 2017. That's when heat-assisted hotness is slated to take over, the crystal ball says.

If the ASTC's projections are accurate, heat-assisted and bit-patterned recording will combine around 2021, pushing areal densities up to 10Tb/in² by 2025. In a four-platter consumer unit like Seagate's Desktop HDD.15 4TB, which packs only 625Gb/in², that density would theoretically fuel 64TB of storage. Well over 100TB would be possible with a seven-platter monster like HGST's enterprise-oriented Ultrastar He8.

Now, the ASTC's members won't necessarily hit all of their targets—a lot can happen over the course of a decade. But this is the plan as it stands right now. Kudos to Forbes contributor Tom Coughlin for being the first to publish the roadmap.

Comments closed
    • itachi
    • 5 years ago

    By then there will probably be 20 Tb Ssd’s for 200$ lol. if not less.

    • SetzerG
    • 5 years ago

    Anyone willing to bet solid-state storage will beat mechanical drives to 100TB? SanDisk already has 4TB SSDs – capacity is growing at an incredible pace. And the costs are falling just as quickly. I spend $360 on an 80GB SSD in 2009, and I’m seeing sales on 960GB-1TB SSDs for roughly the same price this weekend. Every mechanical hard drive I’ve owned over 500GB has failed in one way or another. I can’t even imagine going back to mechanical storage, and I’m quite interested in seeing if they manage to stick around until 2025.

      • Beelzebubba9
      • 5 years ago

      There are hard limits to how far you can shrink NAND due to write endurance and other scaling factors, so I suspect it’ll take an emerging technology like MRAM before we can really match spinning disk on capacity even 10 years from now.

    • internetsandman
    • 5 years ago

    Are we certain that data centres needing this much storage won’t simply stick with tape? And if they need the performance this could offer, I would think it more practical to augment it with flash memory, due to the savings on power consumption and increased performance. I’m sure this stuff has a market, they wouldn’t develop it without one, but there’s gotta be a better solution than cramming tens or hundreds of terabytes on single drives

      • davidbowser
      • 5 years ago

      disclaimer: I used to work for EMC.

      I know of exactly ONE enterprise customer (Japanese pharmaceutical that I will not name) that told me they are keeping tape as the standard with no plans to move towards near-line tiered storage.

      One of the things driving near-line tiered storage architectures is the move towards “big data, fast data” for business analytics. The idea is that any data worth saving is also worth mining for business value.

      • Waco
      • 5 years ago

      Augmenting an archive with flash storage (or even disk) is a waste.

      Write once, read occasionally workloads are impossible to cache as you usually only read the data back once, if ever.

      • Beelzebubba9
      • 5 years ago

      IME tape is really only useful for very cold storage, typically for the really long tail backups certain regulatory compliance requires. There’s obviously still a large market for it, but managing tape libraries and recovering data from backups adds a non-trivial overhead and cost.

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 5 years ago

    I’m sure the server market or any companies that have to store huge amount of data would appreciate being able to store more data within the same room.

    • echo_seven
    • 5 years ago

    Here’s a thought….at storage levels of 100 TB on a single disk, we’re starting to reach a tipping point of where it makes more sense to leave cameras on, and black out undesired/private parts, rather than vice-versa. 70 years, a lifetime, worth of video at SD quality is…. (doing the math) ……about 600 TB.

    • Delphis
    • 5 years ago

    For most things there’s SSDs, for everything else there’s a big box with hard drives in RAID6. Just keep upgrading the drives and once they’re all at the next tier of size, grow the RAID and the filesystem. Easy.

    Losing data shouldn’t be happening if people are sensible. Oh yea, and offsite backup a-la Crashplan or something similar.

    If you’re storing data on only one hard drive (or SSD) that cannot be recreated quickly and simply then no storage technology can help you there.

      • Waco
      • 5 years ago

      RAID 6 is useless with drives you can buy today…it’ll only lead to data loss with larger drives.

        • just brew it!
        • 5 years ago

        TBH I agree the risk of this is real, but I also believe it is exaggerated. For those who haven’t followed the debate, the argument is that capacities are becoming so large you are very likely to get a read error during the array rebuild (following a single drive failure), which will cause a second drive to get kicked from the array, thereby killing it.

        My previous workplace ran a RAID-6 array for years. Once a month, it runs a complete scan of the array looking for bad sectors. As of when I left that job (about a month ago), it had never found an error during any of the monthly scans.

        Just don’t use Seagate drives and you should be fine. 😉

          • Waco
          • 5 years ago

          I have thousands of Seagate drives in RAID6 arrays, I just don’t trust them. Weekly scans for bad sectors can only do so much if the drive returns read errors during a rebuild.

    • tipoo
    • 5 years ago

    My main hope is that most mechanicals will at least come with a flash cache strapped on in the next few years, a la Momentus XT. The difference between a hybrid like that in a laptop and a standard HDD is astoundind. It’s not pure-SSD fast obviously, but that little cache makes a world of difference, so much more bearable.

    • moose17145
    • 5 years ago

    Well guess I should just throw this 15TB raid array away then….

    • oldog
    • 5 years ago

    Sure, why not, I’ll just Google my hard drive!

    • anotherengineer
    • 5 years ago

    TV roadmap points to ‘Digital Hoarders’ & ‘Buried Alive Digitally’ shows in 2025.

      • BIF
      • 5 years ago

      Hah, but we’re all “Digital Hoarders”, so nobody would watch them. Problem solved!

    • ptsant
    • 5 years ago

    All I know is that I bought a WD RE 2TB several years ago for $130 and it now costs $140. Its price increased after a factory flood or something of the sort (cheap excuse?) and never really got down to the previous levels.

    On the other hand, I bought a 750GB SSD for $280 just a few months ago. If we get to the point were SSDs cost approximately 2x per GB the price of HDs, I don’t see why I should buy a HD.

    So, they really should add the $/GB of SSDs on that same graph and convince us that they can do much better, otherwise it’s the way of the dodo.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 5 years ago

    It’s ironic the line only starts somewhere after 2013 because that chart would be VERY amusing if they showed the “progress” of hard drives in the years before SSD’s became big.

    I’m pretty sure there’d be a plateau where they were just milking us year after year. Every once in a while, they’d cry about a flood or fire (usually about a year apart) to keep the “collusion” police off their scent, but then somehow in spite of those “disasters” they’d make record profits.

    And when I say, “they” I mean WD or Seagate, the Coke and Pepsi of hard drives. HGST is Snapple.

    • orik
    • 5 years ago

    Intel is supposed to have 10TB SSD’s within the next two years.

    I’m sure it won’t be long until SSD density is greater than HDD’s.

      • Deanjo
      • 5 years ago

      Intel was supposed to be just under 2 years away from fuel cell powered laptops over a decade ago…… still waiting….

        • the
        • 5 years ago

        It is not difficult to see how Intel can get to a 10 TB SSD though. The combination of VNAND and TLC equates to roughly a 4 times increase in density per die at the same process node. A die shrink in that time frame would be another 2 times increase (8x with both factors). The rest of the capacity increase can easily come from adding more NAND channels to a controller.

        The interesting question is what capacity hard drives will be at during that time frame.

          • Deanjo
          • 5 years ago

          Desn’t change the fact that when intel says something is just a couple of years away it is usually much longer if it ever comes to be.

      • BIF
      • 5 years ago

      This too is “good progress” in my book!

      • just brew it!
      • 5 years ago

      Only if HDD density gets stuck where it is today.

    • LaChupacabra
    • 5 years ago

    Making a couple of assumptions here (1 TB = 1024 GB) and USB 3 Super Speed transferring at 625 MB/s a 100 TB would take a little over 51 hours of time to transfer in a best case scenario using existing cabling.

    If USB 4 is an order of magnitude improvement that number decreases to about 5 hours.

    Is USB 5 is an order of magnitude improvement over 4 that number becomes 30 minutes.

    USB 1 came out in 1996. USB 2 in ’00 and USB 3 in ’08. I’ve always been a fan of the continual march of progress part of technology. It’s a little silly to correlate USB versioning to simple orders of magnitutde, but dumping a hundred Terabytes of information in half an hour over a simple cable is pretty cool. If it happens I’ll be impressed.

      • Bauxite
      • 5 years ago

      USB is not the primary interface for spinning rust, thank god. USB has cheap cables and eleventy billion device install base, but it still sucks.

      SATA and SAS are so much better that its not even funny. It will be a long time before hard drives even under ideal scenarios (single streaming large non-fragmented files) can surpass the 12Gbps per port of SAS3.

      Even so, I would expect hard drives to eventually join the pci express bus more directly, just not as quickly as SSDs are doing it. SSDs need the raw bandwidth badly and already push enough I/Os that the lower latency comes into play.

      Expect more hybrid storage concepts as well, like an ultra fast pci SSD with SAS ports and a controller that manages all the caching transparently.

        • Waco
        • 5 years ago

        COW file systems make it a lot easier to saturate disks when writing. 🙂

        I’d be shocked if spinning rust ever gets attached directly to PCIe unless it’s through the use of an expander (which is what SATA hubs do now anyway).

        It’d be nice if disk bandwidth would scale with capacity, and if they keep the physical size the same, we’re looking at 2 GB/s+ HDDs based on the density improvement alone.

          • the
          • 5 years ago

          2 GB/s is beyond what current cabling can do, but I’d expect something faster by 2025 as not to worry.

          All else fails, just use multiple channels of existing cabling, like SFF-8087 cable at 12 Gbit per lane would enable such bandwidths to a single device.

            • Waco
            • 5 years ago

            A standard external SAS connector is usually 4 lanes. Even at 6 Gbit each that’s not an issue, with 12 Gbit per lane it’s trivial.

            That said, I highly double we’ll be seeing 2 GB/s streaming from these drives when they are released.

    • Narishma
    • 5 years ago

    Anyone remember that hilarious video Hitachi made to explain PMR when it was first introduced?

    [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb_PyKuI7II[/url<]

      • JosiahBradley
      • 5 years ago

      I loved that video when it came out. I also spent like 300$ on a brand new 320GB perpendicular drive soon after.

    • smilingcrow
    • 5 years ago

    How long to upload 100TB to my unlimited MS Cloud account using ADSL?
    By the time I’ve finished I’d have upgraded to a 200TB drive! 🙂

    • Shambles
    • 5 years ago

    With no competition in this industry that’s a wish and a prayer. If they do manage to do it you know they’ll charge $3000 for it while 3TB drives continue to be $90 in 2024 and people are still buying external drives because it’s cheaper to shuck those instead of buying the simpler internal drives.

    The only HDD road map I believe is the one where there profit margins keep getting larger and larger.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 5 years ago

      Well, 480GB and larger SSDs are already fairly affordable, and with 3D NAND we should have 2-4TB SSDs for around $500 by 2017/2018. So HDD makers will have too keep on their toes.

    • geekl33tgamer
    • 5 years ago

    Looks like Defrags completion time in 2025 will be measured in weeks…

    • TwoEars
    • 5 years ago

    You do realize that that stupid chart is just an interpolation, and probably made by an intern, right?

    Mechanical hard drives with a 100TB size? One read and write head for 100TB? NO… just NO. Bad Tech Report. Bad Tech Industry. Bad intern. Bad boss for not rejecting it.

      • ShadowTiger
      • 5 years ago

      I believe that there are already drives with more than one head per platter side (And way more than 1 head for the entire drive). What is your point exactly, regarding the head count?

        • TwoEars
        • 5 years ago

        My point is that that interpolated chart is a joke. SSDs will overtake mechnical harddrives before any of this happens.

          • dragontamer5788
          • 5 years ago

          With a ton of datacenters still using LTO-6 Tape Drives… I don’t think so.

          Technology classes rarely disappear. Even BluRay / Optical is about to get a pickup with the 1TB Archive discs that are expected in 2015.

          • Waco
          • 5 years ago

          Not a chance, unless a big player somehow comes up with a way to increase density by 10X while reducing costs by 50X…

          • Krogoth
          • 5 years ago

          It all depends on the scale of economics at this point.

          It can go either way. I suspect that both camps will hit physical and economical limitations relatively soon (probably towards the end of this decade).

          • just brew it!
          • 5 years ago

          SSDs will overtake current HDDs soon, but future HDDs will continue to outpace SSDs in capacity. Mechanical storage will continue to be useful for near-line and archival storage, eventually taking over the niche that tape has historically filled.

            • NovusBogus
            • 5 years ago

            I agree, mechanical will be the second coming of tape. Consumers have made it pretty clear that they don’t want or need more than 1-2 TB so once that becomes economical for an SSD, it’ll become the new standard.

          • ImSpartacus
          • 5 years ago

          [quote<]interpolated[/quote<] You keep using [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation<]that word[/url<]. I don't it means [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrapolation<]what you think it means[/url<].

        • the
        • 5 years ago

        I recall a few odd ball SCSI drives in the late 90’s having multiple arms+heads for a each platter. The concept was that the drive could perform two independent reads simultaneously to reduce latencies in a multitasking environment.

        Unfortunately these drives were a bit of a novelty at the time and faded into history. I haven’t heard of any modern drives utilizing a similar setup. (It wouldn’t surprise me if there were a few drives with multiple heads per arm for distinct read/write capabilities or technical reasons due to density).

          • just brew it!
          • 5 years ago

          It is possible that the massive increase in track density on newer drives has made this impossible for technical reasons. (Not sure, just speculating.)

    • Wirko
    • 5 years ago

    8K compressed video data rate is 500 Mbps, according to [url=http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/130238-8k-uhdtv-how-do-you-send-a-48gbps-tv-signal-over-terrestrial-airwaves<]this[/url<] source. 500,000,000/8*3600*24*18 = 97,200,000,000,000 So. 100 TB seems a lot but, converted to more popular units, it amounts to just 18 days of uninterrupted 8K porn.

      • Milo Burke
      • 5 years ago

      Wake me up when it gets to 19.

      • emvath79
      • 5 years ago

      My question is if we will have the bandwidth to download 8k (or 4k) porn. It’s going to seem like Napster on dial-up all over again.

      • Farting Bob
      • 5 years ago

      You could make 8k using much less than that though. You can get pretty good 1080p movies around 2Mbps using x264, and really good quality for 5-10Mbps. 8k video is 16 times as many pixels, so a very high quality 8k video could be between 80-150Mbps. And that is using x264 which is the best we have right now, but in 2025 x265 or it’s successor will be much more efficient.

      Sure, higher bitrate is always awesome if the source is high enough quality and you have the storage, but it’s not essential. 500Mbps using the best codecs in 10 years time will be very much overkill.

        • Milo Burke
        • 5 years ago

        Take your science elsewhere, it’s getting in the way of our emotional discussion!

          • Wirko
          • 5 years ago

          I like science too. 100 TB is one byte for every eight inches between us and Voyager 1. At the same time, eight inches is about decent for those who are into homemade p__n. Coincidence?

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    Question is, by 2025 would HGST, Seagate and WD still be three separate companies?

      • Shambles
      • 5 years ago

      WD owns HGST. There is only WD and Seagate.

        • nanoflower
        • 5 years ago

        And Toshiba.

          • Bauxite
          • 5 years ago

          They got at least one of the good factories from hitachi

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    They’d better make sure they come up with faster ways of diagnosing those drives. Hitachi’s Drive Fitness Test takes a few hours to check my 1TB (Hitachi) drive. I reckon testing times have been steadily climbing, at least with the drives I’ve owned.

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    Still holding on to my Hitachi 1TB drive which I got way back in May 19, 2011. 100GB space left. Then again I have an external 1.5TB WD Essentials external drive where I throw everything else I deem non-essential (pun intended). It’s got about 400GB left but I plan to do some spring cleaning one of these days to free up even more space. Been thinking about getting a bigger internal drive but for now things are just fine. Still, at just around $80, those 2TB drives look compelling.

      • nanoflower
      • 5 years ago

      Mine are going away. I bought two around that same time from. One had to be removed when it went over the reallocated sector count limit and finally hit an uncorrectable error. The other is now only being used for non-critical temp storage because it’s at that same limit on reallocated sectors.

    • Chrispy_
    • 5 years ago

    So, they’re extrapolating capacity based on a mix of theory and current data.

    If they extrapolate reliability based on a mix of theory and current data, how many minutes will a new 100TB hard drive last before it fails?

      • hubick
      • 5 years ago

      They probably have working prototypes for all of these in their R&D closet already, just waiting for the right time to bring them out as part of the planned obsolescence.

    • SomeOtherGeek
    • 5 years ago

    Well, they are gonna have to come up with a better way to hot swap drives cuz I can’t imagine the time it is going to take to fix a RAID. It would almost be better just the have the drive imaged and then if it fails, throw it out and replace it with the image drive.

      • just brew it!
      • 5 years ago

      That helps a little, but it doesn’t really fix the problem since you still need to re-make the image drive before its “partner” fails too. RAID-6 with multiple redundant parity stripes probably gets you a similar level of reliability.

    • Zizy
    • 5 years ago

    I think this is irrelevant for personal use.
    Why would you need 100TB?
    Downloads? Most normal people have finally figured out they don’t have to keep every porn movie they have downloaded, as they can simply download it again (or even stream).
    Homemade? Unless you film your own movies, no way to fill that up.

      • blastdoor
      • 5 years ago

      Maybe you want to keep a continuously journaled record/backup of every change you make to every file over the course of your life, so that on your deathbed you can go back and see the 3rd revision to your master’s thesis and your wedding photos before you edited them.

        • Zizy
        • 5 years ago

        I store all diploma/PHD versions, presentations etc, together with all pictures I or family members took.
        I will either need to either speed up content generation significantly or live about 1000 years to fill those 100TB.

          • blastdoor
          • 5 years ago

          Go through a couple of divorces and remarriages — that should help

          • UnfriendlyFire
          • 5 years ago

          Or install games that require 40-60GB of storage.

          And I expect their storage requirement to balloon rapidly.

            • travbrad
            • 5 years ago

            Now if only our internet speeds would balloon rapidly to be able to download them.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 5 years ago

          As photos and videos get bigger and bigger, you’ll start to fill that space faster and faster.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 5 years ago

        The entire text-portion Wikipedia database is ~13GB (without history).

        With edit history, it still comes in under a TB. [url<]https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20141106/[/url<] All your journals / backups of all your text files ever will probably be smaller than the Wikipedia database. We're gonna get to 100TB because of 8k video. Almost nothing else will get there. (Even lossless FLAC audio can be stored on 3tb / 4tb drives today rather easily)

      • bthylafh
      • 5 years ago

      In the early ’90s we thought the same thing about 1GB drives. We were as wrong then as you are now.

        • ClickClick5
        • 5 years ago

        I’m still waiting on the first 100GB game, then the first 1TB game…

        What was the first 1GB game? I remember installing Red Alert 2, with the Yuri’s Revenge expansion consuming some 1.6GB off of my 20GB drive. At the time, that hurt.

        Format capacity of 18GB – OS of 2GB + RA2 of 1.6GB + music of 4GB + other games totaling 8-10GB = 3.4GB free!

          • Ninjitsu
          • 5 years ago

          FreeSpace 2? Halo?

            • moose17145
            • 5 years ago

            I was thinking Star Citizen…. that game is going to have native 4k textures…

            • Ninjitsu
            • 5 years ago

            I meant first 1GB game!

            • moose17145
            • 5 years ago

            My bad… I was still speculating on the first 100GB game.

        • geekl33tgamer
        • 5 years ago

        This. Give users more space and they will fill it.

          • stdRaichu
          • 5 years ago

          Data is a gaseous element at regular temperatures and pressures. It expands to fill all available space.

            • geekl33tgamer
            • 5 years ago

            Yep, and larger disks mean I don’t ever need to perform housekeeping on my file system – because I’m lazy like that.

        • Zizy
        • 5 years ago

        If you thought that way about 1GB drives, you were pretty dumb. Even audio could easily fill that space and you couldn’t stream it back then.

        100TB, where you can stream everything you don’t personally generate? What are you going to fill it with? The only current way (or in the near/imaginable future) is homemade porn. Every other scenario requires a library of music, movies or games and ignores the fact you will be able to simply stream most of that stuff.

          • Flying Fox
          • 5 years ago

          You must be living somewhere that there is no caps and throttling. IMO the power of streaming is overestimated, at least in “backwards” countries like US and Canada. 😮

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 5 years ago

            I’m in Canada and I can already stream 1080p video for the entire month and not be over my current cap… maybe 4k will be another bump in requirements (~2x if h265 delivers as promised) and games are becoming relevant in terms of the initial download, but unless something fundamental changes I don’t see needing – for instance – an order of magnitude more bandwidth in the near future.

            Similar for HDD size really. I really am quite happy with 1TB on a client machine and a few TBs on a network server. As noted, I simply don’t generate video content all day long or anything so my needs for local storage just aren’t that large.

            I’m totally open to this all changing in the future, but you can’t just draw the line upwards as it was in the past… there are actual limits on how much data someone “creates” in a day depending on what you do, and the need for everyone to have their own copies of shared data (i.e. most video, audio, etc) is diminishing rapidly. As with all “caches”, only a fraction of what’s available in the cloud needs to be stored locally at any given time.

            • Flying Fox
            • 5 years ago

            Not with Robbers and its tiny 80 gigs (60 if you grandfathered from an older plan) cap on the Express plan?

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 5 years ago

            I’m on the west coast, but I’m sure Rogers offers higher limits too, no? The existence of less expensive plans with low limits doesn’t really alter my argument, and there’s little doubt that prices will eventually go down given time (once the cable companies stop trying to fight for their traditional cable businesses, and/or regulators catch up).

            • Zizy
            • 5 years ago

            Yeah, but with your caps you cannot fill 100TB 🙂
            EDIT: Quick calculation gives: 200GB monthly cap = 2.5TB/year = 40 years. I kind of doubt drive will be alive that long 🙂

          • Waco
          • 5 years ago

          Or you’re too young to remember…

          • GTVic
          • 5 years ago

          Clueless comments. In the early 90’s there was no such thing as storing music on your hard drive. CDROM drives for computers were non-standard, computers were not portable and the vast majority were not equipped with speakers or headphones.

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      Well, if you can get 100TB for just $80 by 2028, who cares if we can only fill up 5TB?

        • Andrew Lauritzen
        • 5 years ago

        What if you could get a 5-10TB SSD for the same price? 🙂

          • ronch
          • 5 years ago

          Should I start thinking about that now already? 😀

        • Kaleid
        • 5 years ago

        Exactly. And a 100TB will be faster than a 10TB HDD anyway so there is nothing to complain about.

        (Personally I have 5TB and I can easily see that by 2028 100TB won’t be enough)

      • dmjifn
      • 5 years ago

      No, but the same tech then would enable 10-20TB 2.5″ consumer drives, which is still useful.

      • Xajel
      • 5 years ago

      We said the same before when we had 1GB and later 1TB…

      In few years, Full HD movies will be like VCD, 8K will be the standard… and peoples might actually talking about 16K and 24K… FLAC Audio will be the standard, no need to have any MP3 as storage and internet speed is not a problem at all…

      Even basic things like the OS we use, Windows 3.1x was small enough to be in few floppy disks, now Windows & OS X requires DVD and even DVD DL, wait before 2020 and OS’s will need BD by that time ( if they will still offer it in discs actually )…

      Now a high quality Full HD movie backup can reach 6GB+, 4K movies requires 20GB and can reach over 120GB depending on quality… so how can you imagine an 8K, 16K or even 24K ?

        • Antimatter
        • 5 years ago

        AFAIK there will be no 16K TVs. A 60″ 16K TV would have 300 PPI. Which would only be beneficial if you sit 1 foot away from the screen.

          • Waco
          • 5 years ago

          Sure, but a 120″ 16K TV would only have 150 PPI…:D

            • Antimatter
            • 5 years ago

            Then you only need to sit 2 feet away from the 120″ screen to see the difference, unless you have super human vision.

          • Kaleid
          • 5 years ago

          Don’t forget the power of marketing combined with public ignorance. The higher number will sound nice and can therefore be sold to the masses.

        • Zizy
        • 5 years ago

        8K will be probably the last TV tech and even that one might not matter except for those 2m+ diagonals. Eyes have limits. Anyway, even if you have 16K, why would you keep a copy when you can stream it? Storage requirements for a consumer are irrelevant.

      • f0d
      • 5 years ago

      i remember getting my first mfm 20mb hard drive for my 286 and thinking
      “no way would i ever need a hard drive bigger than this”

      i was wrong and so are you

      as far as my own usage i could fill a 25tb hard drive right now which would be 2019 or so i guess

      • cygnus1
      • 5 years ago

      I think you underestimate the growth of media. Games are now coming in over the size of a dual layer Blu-Ray. 4K movies are going to be the standard long before we he hit 100TB capacities. Those will likely be in the 50 to 100GB each range.

        • UnfriendlyFire
        • 5 years ago

        And meanwhile the internet bandwidth for United States will remain stagnant or even decrease over time.

        • demani
        • 5 years ago

        Just ripping my DVD collection takes over 10TB, and the things I have to do to keep that data available and clean are a pain. I’d love to have a mirrored pair of drives with a backup drive. Much smaller, cooler and simpler.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 5 years ago

      “Data expands to fill the storage space available to it.”

      • MadManOriginal
      • 5 years ago

      Krogoth?

        • Zizy
        • 5 years ago

        Nah, I am impressed by 100TB drives (assuming they manage to pull this off). I just find them pointless for consumers.

        • Krogoth
        • 5 years ago

        He is too impressed….

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 5 years ago

      640k should be enough for anyone.

      Not a direct analogy but the same kind of thinking.

        • TwoEars
        • 5 years ago

        You haven’t destroyed all monsters yet, shut up and get back to work.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 5 years ago

          I’m not Godzilla. Or Minya for that matter. 🙂

          Or Niagara or Ron Asheton.

          Still, time to get back to work!

      • BIF
      • 5 years ago

      Stop thinking your own story is the only one to be told, and stop thinking your friends and family are the only ones from which to base your own small world view.

      There are lots of content requirements, and they grow every year.

      10 years ago I probably barely had need for a 300 GB partition outside of my C partition.

      But in just 10 years’ time I’m up to 10 times that amount. Times TWO for two PCs; laptop and Desktop.

      3D objects, music instrument sample libraries, and high definition texture images (for modelling) are just a few reasons why some of us have multi-terabyte drives in use.

      And I haven’t even told you about my backup drives.

      So 100TB is “good progress” in my book. And since I’m not a company, it’s all for “personal use”.

      • jihadjoe
      • 5 years ago

      In the days of 360KB floppies, my first HDD was 20MB and I thought I’d never fill it up. Ever.

        • UnfriendlyFire
        • 5 years ago

        I still have a 32MB USB 1.1 flash drive.

      • Kougar
      • 5 years ago

      People that forget history are doomed to repeat it. And a good many people have made the same mistake about such claims regarding 1GB, 10GB, 100GB, 1TB, 6TB…

      By the time 100TB shows up who knows what the world will look like? If virtual reality is the norm it would require tons of disk space for all the data required to create 3D virtual environments, just to name one possibility.

      Or maybe the world will have moved beyond the need for discs, and all movies would be released at 4K resolution in digital formats. That would also require a considerable amount of space…

    • psuedonymous
    • 5 years ago

    Additional technologies under development: sandbags, stilts for factories, waterproof fab lines.

      • dmjifn
      • 5 years ago

      Cue JAE’s relevant buggy whips comment!

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 5 years ago

        As requested:
        [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kxPyNZF3Q&t=01m15s[/url<]

    • jihadjoe
    • 5 years ago

    Anyone got a NAND/SSD roadmap for comparison?

    My guess is unless we see graphene semiconductors, or that molecular RAM thing take off soon the density gap to will almost surely widen. HDDs have a lot of headroom left, while silicone is already pushing at the limits of what’s possible.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 5 years ago

      What about that 3D NAND stuff? Doubt it has 100TB of headroom, but we may at least hit 10TB on ~20nm VNAND, I’d suppose.

    • blastdoor
    • 5 years ago

    So maybe SSD won’t replace HDD entirely after all.

      • Thrashdog
      • 5 years ago

      HDDs are going to be extremely relevant for near-line storage for many, many years to come. Hard drives are more than an order of magnitude less expensive on a $/GB basis, and a high-capacity drive is hard to beat in terms of pure physical density, too. SSDs are amazing for applications where speed of access is the critical factor, but whether it’s storing personal photos and videos at home or archiving ten years of business records at work, hard drives will be the kings of capacity for a very long time.

      • btb
      • 5 years ago

      I would prefer the 10TB SSD over the 100TB HDD 🙂

      But the more choices, the better 🙂

        • f0d
        • 5 years ago

        why not both like we have 250gb ssd’s with 4tb hard drives now?

      • Shambles
      • 5 years ago

      Enjoy taking 60 days to copy/rebuild an entire 100TB drive.

        • Ninjitsu
        • 5 years ago

        I’d assume interfaces will get faster too, plus denser drives should see an increase in sequential rates at least.

          • James296
          • 5 years ago

          Forget about faster Interfaces, what about download speeds?! 100tb of loss data that you have to re-download…it’s…it’s.. GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER!!!

          • BIF
          • 5 years ago

          Interfaces will indeed get faster as manufacturers see the need.

            • the
            • 5 years ago

            For the most part, storage interfaces traditionally have crept up in speed long before drives capable of saturating the previous generation link have hit the market. For example, only in the past few years have hard drives been able to saturate the original 1.5 Gbit SATA link.

            The big exception is SSD which of course didn’t follow the glacial pace of hard drive speed improvements. The first consumer drivers were able to saturate the original 1.5 Gbit SATA link and peak near the 3.0 Gbit SATA link. The second generation was easily saturating the 3.0 Gbit and it wasn’t long before the 6.0 Gbit SATA link came out . By the time 6.0 Gbit SSD controllers hit the market, they were able to nearly saturate it upon launch. It was clear that a faster interface than 6.0 Gbit SATA was necessary: thus SATA Express and M.2. Unfortunately consumers are still mainly waiting for SATA Express drives and PCIe M.2 based SSD’s (only Plextor offers non-OEM models last I checked). The delays on the controller side have me puzzled since the Z97 chipset refresh happened 6 months ago and controller manufacturers were doing SATA Express demos months before that.

    • odizzido
    • 5 years ago

    I am amazed I still don’t mirror drives. I have like 4TB of crap to lose.

      • colinstu12
      • 5 years ago

      back it up. I remember when one of my 36GB Raptors in Raid 0 took a crap and I lost everything & was devastated. Never again have I lost data since then! Backups & raid! (Raid 10 now).

        • odizzido
        • 5 years ago

        I keep copies of important files on multiple drives but I have to do it manually and I don’t always keep them up to date.

        • ClickClick5
        • 5 years ago

        Even backups of RAID?!?! And backups of the backups of RAID?!

      • Bauxite
      • 5 years ago

      RAID is not a backup, but often still worth doing for availability. Just remember RAID will happily replicate every human, software, memory and bus or other hardware failures on every drive in the array simultaneously.

    • Krogoth
    • 5 years ago

    So much p0rn, so little time…..

      • UnfriendlyFire
      • 5 years ago

      Why not 4K/8K saved in 100% JEPG or PNG quality setting?

      • sweatshopking
      • 5 years ago

      why not not be a nasty pervert? maybe view people as people rather than objects?

      DOWN VOTE ME YOU PERVERTS. I KNOW IT’S COMING.

        • Kaleid
        • 5 years ago

        Nasty pervert is a compliment.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 5 years ago

          It certainly beats sanctimonious sex- negative feminist.

        • albundy
        • 5 years ago

        sorry ma’am. didn’t know there were any ladies around these parts. all men are perverts. it has been scientifically proven! and thanks for the compliment!

        • Krogoth
        • 5 years ago

        >doesn’t get a silly 20+ year old joke…..

      • BIF
      • 5 years ago

      Seriously?

      Are we still spelling “porn” with a zero?

      It’s a legitimate abbreviation of a legitimate word. Might as well use it; the NSA already knows what you mean and your employer already knows to look for it whether with a zero or Left+Right parenthesis or some other iteration, so you can’t get away with “p()rn”, or even “pørn” either.

      I say we should just “own it” at this point. Uhhh, maybe not the best way to say it…

      😉

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      Not for SSK…

    • sweatshopking
    • 5 years ago

    geoff, let me be the first to say that 100tb seems like an awful lot of data to lose.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 5 years ago

      You stole my post!

        • sweatshopking
        • 5 years ago

        THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID.

      • nico1982
      • 5 years ago

      Ahahah.

      • dmjifn
      • 5 years ago

      I love that old chestnut!

      • Ninjitsu
      • 5 years ago

      100 Tb isn’t [i<]that[/i<] much. 😛

      • UnfriendlyFire
      • 5 years ago

      Back when Windows XP first launched, the concept of 1TB was unheard of, and 40GB consumer HDDs were just gaining traction.

        • sweatshopking
        • 5 years ago

        that doesn’t change the fact that 100TB is a lot of data when it fails. I didn’t say the drive had no purpose, i said the loss would be staggering.

          • f0d
          • 5 years ago

          the same thing has been said about every increase in hard drive size since hard drives were introduced

          losing 1gb of hard drive data would be staggering.! 1992
          losing 1tb of hard drive data would be staggering.! 2007

          “a lot of data” is relative for the time
          1 gb was a lot in the 90’s
          4/6tb is a lot now

          in 10 years time 4tb will be on flash sticks and wont be considered much
          but
          losing 100tb of hard drive data would be staggering.! 2025

            • Waco
            • 5 years ago

            This. There’s nothing new about this – remember when losing a 32 MB flash drive sucked?

          • BIF
          • 5 years ago

          If all you own is one single PC with a 128 GB SSD and you lose it, your loss is 100%, even if it only held 50GB at the time of failure.

          I’d say a 100% loss is just about as staggering as you can get, even if all your crap can fit on a small drive.

          So why are you picking on new technology even before it is born, hmmmm?

        • derFunkenstein
        • 5 years ago

        The “concept” of 1TB was way totally heard of, because theoretical limits of NTFS were available. Even here it says “volumes much bigger than 2TB are possible”

        [url<]http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/choosing_between_ntfs_fat_and_fat32.mspx?mfr=true[/url<] But of course, 2TB was the max for LBA. It took advanced format 4K drives to get beyond that.

      • Deanjo
      • 5 years ago

      They used to say the same thing about 10 MB MFM drives….

        • MadManOriginal
        • 5 years ago

        10MB? I take it MFM doesn’t stand for Mother F-ing Massive?

          • Deanjo
          • 5 years ago

          Yes, 10 MB and that was considered Mother F-ing Massive.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This