Large 1024 gigabte IDE disks

Hi robrodp,
Yes they are for real, and provide your bios supports them you will need nothing extra.

Cheers!

I unstalled a 200GB disk in my XP PC.MY bios recognized it all right bou I had to run a program to allow XP use the 200 MB (MAxblast or something) otherwise it only recognized 127 GB. an XP Limitation?.

Kust curios how much do they cost ?

XP is not limited to 127gb, I have a SATA 160gb hard drive in my pc, with out any extra software or hardware.

XP is limited to 127 GB, but SP1 onwards removed that limitation.

Where have you seen these drives?  The largest drives I've heard of (commercially available) is 400 GB.  Where were they advertised?  What company selling them?  What brand.  I would suggest they don't exist yet.  You probably saw a RAID set that uses four 250 GB Drives.

Again, can you post information as to WHERE they are advertised?  I checked Pricewatch (they are usually on top of technology) and there is no listing for a TB drive.
A google search reveals the LaCie drive, but then a further search reveals that the LaCie drive is almost certainly using RAID:
http://www.cooltechzone.com/reviews/drives/hddnewsstory_001.php 

Unless someone can post some verifiable links to contradict the above, I would say 1 TB drives using a SINGLE drive do not yet exist, at least commercially.

Cyberdevil - why would the drives have to be 300 GB?  Why wouldn't a 4 disk RAID 0 using 250 GB Drives equal 1 TB?

I'm not aware of any single drive over 350 gigs, although it would be easy to make a raid array of a terabyte or more.

For any drives connected directly to a motherboard IDE port, if the drive size is above 137 decimal gigabytes (127 binary gigaytes), you need to use 48-bit LBA addressing.  This requires support in the motherboard hardware, the motherboard bios and the operating system.  Windows 9x, NT, 2000 and XP (initial release) have no such support.  XPSP2 does have it; with 2000 SP3 or later and XPSP1, it can be turned on by making a manual registry entry but is off by default.

The source of this limitation is very often misunderstood.  It's in the IDE drivers, not in Windows itself.  So, consequently, it doesn't apply and is not a factor for storage devices not connected to the motherboard IDE ports.  For example, Windows 98SE can use a 250 gig drive if it's SCSI, Raid, USB or connected to an IDE port on PCI IDE card (providing, of course, that the PCI card itself supports 48-bit LBA), because none of those would use the motherboard IDE port drivers (Raid and PCI IDE ports are seen by the system as SCSI).

However, this still leaves the motherboard, both the hardware and the BIOS.  If they won't support 48-bit LBA, then it doesn't matter if the operating system will support it or not, because the support is required everywhere.  If the limitation is in the bios, a bios update may resolve the issue.

Watzman, very odd number - 350 GB?  No one makes a 350 as far as I've seen.  400 GB, yes.  320 Yes.  But 350?  400 GB drive for sale here (and MANY other places):  http://24x7pc.com/storageibm.htm
reference
http://www.pricewatch.com/h/prc.aspx?i=26&a=17244

I would have to agree with leew. Never seen a 350GB drive and never seen a single drive larger than 400GB. And the LaCie does use RAID 0 which would be scary if you were to save data on the drive.

The largest I had been aware of was a 300 gig drive, but a couple of weeks ago I saw a 350 gig advertised.  I don't remember where or the brand, and I'm not even certain if it was IDE or SATA.

"And the LaCie does use RAID 0 which would be scary if you were to save data on the drive."

Carzijoe, just wondering why you consider RAID 0 more scary than using just a single drive?

Don't you?

RAID 0 combines multiple drives into one with NO redundancy.  If one of the drives fail, ALL the data is LOST.  

By the way, if it does use 4x250GB drives, then your odds of loosing the disk are 4x greater - any ONE drive failing causes everything to be lost

"RAID 0 combines multiple drives into one with NO redundancy.  If one of the drives fail, ALL the data is LOST."

Well, yes, but so it also would be if you just had one large drive.

"then your odds of loosing the disk are 4x greater - any ONE drive failing causes everything to be lost"

OK, I agree with that. Thanks.

"Carzijoe, just wondering why you consider RAID 0 more scary than using just a single drive?"

It does have to be a failed drive to loose a RAID 0 array. If one of the Disks become corrupt. The whole array is awashed. At least with a single drive you have a chance to pull the data off with recovery options.

"If one of the Disks become corrupt. The whole array is awashed. At least with a single drive you have a chance to pull the data off with recovery options."

OK, thanks. I don't have much experience with RAID and wasn't aware that it's hard to get any data off the non-failing drives.

robrodp,

please explain your answer selection.  Multiple people, including myself explained these drives don't exist.

Thanks

But these drives do exist... They sell for around $1200 (US)

"But these drives do exist... They sell for around $1200 (US)"

Please post a link if possible. We are definitely interested. Thanks.

Do what I did, google them.

I am in Australia and the magazines down here are advertising them.

What brand are they?  Seagate?  Hitachi?  Western Digital?  Maxtor?  Someone Else?  I DID google them - the only result was the Lacie Drive or other RAID drives.  Google them yourself (only you knows what key words you used to find them) and post the links.

Hitachi and IBM and at least one other company were working on High Density drives, but if they existed - SINGLE DRIVES NOT RAIDED - eweek, tom's hardware, all the big sites would be talking about them.  They aren't.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong... just prove me wrong and help everyone out!

Well if you read the articles, you'll know that the HD technology has changed and we will be seeing 6 tb by the end of the year as well.

why, Why, WHY are you insistant on not showing us the evidence?  We want to see these.  Hell, I'll buy one now if they exist... COMMERCIALLY.  I'm well aware of the technological leaps forward, but the commercially available products DO NOT EXIST yet.  PLEASE show us!!?!?!?!?!

Yet MORE information that these don't exist yet:
http://www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsroom/coverage/article/1,1113,2425,00.html
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=32289

Here's my google Query - http://www.google.com/search?q=TB+Hard+Disk&sourceid=mozilla&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 - There is no mention of anything other than the LaCie drive, which, because it uses RAID, cannot be counted.

leew,

It's certainly not available yet. cyberdevil may have seen some pre-announcement or maybe those raid packages. My guess is it's probably the end of the year at least before anything real is available. Even then you may not want to be the first one to buy one :)

I know - I'm all but 100% certain it doesn't exist.  I'm just trying to give cyberdevil the chance to provide evidence.  Lacking any, I may consult EE for an answer change - because this answer is not accurate without proof.

Well, that's your call, though anyone reading this thread probably won't be misled.

It does remind me of a time in the mid-80's when the large university where I work embarked on a "terabyte storage" project. It was a large off-campus facilty connected by (then new) 10 mbps ethernet. It consisted of a couple of VAX/750's that controlled a robot that would physically move disk cartridges in and out (there was a large room full of these removable disks). The thought was that 1 terabyte might be enough to back-up all computers on campus. How time flies! I think by the time the thing got finished storage was cheap enough that no one needed it.