Comments Locked

21 Comments

Back to Article

  • AstroGuardian - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Is it me? Or is it that people care less and less. I would never consider buying such a huge disk drive. I would gladly pay more for 3 x 1Tb disks instead of a single 3Tb disk. What is the drive dies? What happens to my data? People say "never carry all of the eggs in a single basket".
    Unless manufacturers offer some simple PLAN B solution when a drive fails i would say NO THANKS. A single 3Tb disk is too much risk!
  • azmodean - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Right, you definitely shouldn't have all of your important data just on one of these disks. If you're shopping for a reliable place to store your data for around $300, this doesn't fit the bill, but then again, what does?

    I see this product as targeting either users that just want all of their storage handled in one place, or users that will use it as one piece of their more robust data storage.
  • talozin - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I wouldn't consider buying "a" 3tb disk, but I would consider buying two (or more) and using them in a RAID-1. But then, I wouldn't considering buying one of just about any disk to store anything truly important on.
  • Taft12 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Repeat after me: RAID 1 is a solution for uptime, not backups.

    Corrupted data will be happily mirrored from 1 drive to the other. Keep all your important data in 2 or more places at all times!
  • talozin - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Yes, and? If you're worried about losing data, having a second mirrored drive is not as good as having a reliable backup system, but it's way better than having neither a second mirrored drive <i>or</i> a reliable backup system, and most home users lack the resources and the ability to set up a reliable backup system for a volume holding 3tb of data. (Setting cron to rsync your data from one drive to another is not a "reliable backup system" either.)

    I also wouldn't keep 3tb of data on 3 1tb disks, for reasons that should be obvious. This is a far, far worse idea than keeping 3tb of data on 1 3tb disk (unless the 3tb disk has truly horrific reliability), and should be discouraged at every opportunity.
  • wolrah - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Let's back the bus up a few years....

    "Is it me? Or is it that people care less and less. I would never consider buying such a huge disk drive. I would gladly pay more for 3 x 320Gb disks instead of a single 1Tb disk. What is the drive dies? What happens to my data? People say "never carry all of the eggs in a single basket".
    Unless manufacturers offer some simple PLAN B solution when a drive fails i would say NO THANKS. A single 1Tb disk is too much risk!"

    I agree with the point that putting all your data on one drive is stupid, but the size of the drive has nothing to do with that.
  • MrBrownSound - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    My words exactly. I have two WD 1TB's for robust backup of large, not very important video's and scrap. Although it has given me expected performance and reliability, I wouldn't trust anything important on it. Protected raid array's are the way to go. Instead of backing up and buying extra HDD's for mirroring and what not, I would pay to have my TB's of storage put up in the cloud. For a reasonable price of course. Let them worry about maintenance of their server's and backup's, I'm tired of it.
  • nbjknk - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - link

    Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
    Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently
    launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable
    and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please
    plut:==== http://www.vipshops.org ======

    ==== http://www.vipshops.org ======

    ==== http://www.vipshops.org ======
  • Voo - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Let's see:
    - If I have one 3tb drive I need to backup 3TB of data.
    - If I have three 1tb drives I need to backup 3TB of data.

    Umn, yeah the difference is.. not existing? Sounds like you prefer to not backup your data, which is a bad idea in either case, unimportant if you use 1, 3 or 50 drives. The only risk is NOT backing up your data, which is what you're doing at the moment.. if you value your data stop doing that right now :p

    Larger drives are great, space is limited, but I usually go with the cheapest on a gb/€ basis (starting from a reasonable minimum size).. so usually one or two sizes smaller than the largest.
  • taltamir - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    You should not think to replace a 3TB drive with 3x1TB drives... you should actually use neither configuration
    get 2 x 3TB drives to store 3TB and backup 3TB.
    or get 6x 1TB to store 3TB and backup 3TB.
    using only 2 instead of 6 drives to store the data and its backup is more convenient... which is where the market is at. I currently cannot fit all my fileserver data on a mere 2TB drive.
  • magreen - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I got a little bit excited when I saw it was USB3.0. I thought we might see a real alternative to eSATA and maybe a discussion of how USB may be developing into the new internal and external components standard, to replace/merge with SATA.

    Then I saw they stuck a 5400 RPM green drive in there. Go figure.
  • AstroGuardian - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    So what? The performance sacrifice irrelevant. Especially with this kind of setup where top speed is not crucial.
  • MikhailT - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    The 5400RPM hard drives are getting faster every generation, I’m sure this new 5400RPM is faster than 7200RPM drives 2 generations back.

    Beside, the more USB 3.0 devices we have, the faster everybody move forward.

    Even a 4200RPM hard drive would be faster on USB3.0 than USB 2.0.
  • GoodBytes - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    But we have a small problem. You see in order for this drive to work, you need a 64-bit OS. As the max number of addresses that one can use in a HDD, is 2TB (32-bit long, or if you prefer 11111111111111111111111111111111 <- 2TB - last data block)

    Which is fine for most of us, but so many people still run a 32-bit Windows, mainly XP. Would be fun to see their face when they'll only see 2TB, and complain where is that missing 1TB.
  • Roland00 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    If they are still using XP they shouldn't be buying a drive greater than 2TB, simple as that.

    Now for the server people that are still using 32 bit windows, their IT guys should know not to buy 3TB drives for they are wasting their money.
  • -=Hulk=- - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    "are still using 32 bit windows"

    Vista/7 32bit support GPT partition, in other words they support 3TB drives.
    The only difference is that to be bootable a GPT HDD needs EFI, and only Windows 64bit supports EFI.

    That means that you can use 3TB drives on 32bit systems, but not as an OS drive. I don't think that is a problem.
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Certainly no reason for WD not to build this drive ;)

    MrS
  • yuhong - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    Yep, I think the support was introduced in Windows Server 2003 SP1.
  • Pastuch - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    All of you saying "why 3tbs?" need to understand that high def audio/video can eat up 3tb in no time. I have 7 Terabytes right now and it's expanding rapidly. I need three 10tb drives to scale for the next couple of years. 3tb is not nearly enough. A single blu-ray image is 30 to 50GBs. Disks are the past, HTPCs are the future. As much as I enjoy my SSD for my OS I'm afraid that the SSD evolution is pulling important R&D dollars from building 1tb platters. 3 years ago Seagate and WD were promising us 5 and 10TB hard drives by 2010.
  • zwizard666 - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    You are obviously a stupid fucking douchebag moron that has zero idea about storage or data utility. FUCKING RETARD
  • psosuna - Monday, February 20, 2012 - link

    (necroposting for the sake of literacy)

    Hey, troll, calm down.

    In terms of performance, SSD is definitely leaps and bounds ahead traditional HDDs. However, because it is a recent technology, anything more than 512GBs on SSD is expensive. Not to mention impractical if the mere purpose is to STORE data.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now