[mythtv-users] Multiple directories

f-myth-users at media.mit.edu f-myth-users at media.mit.edu
Wed Nov 21 20:09:35 UTC 2007

    > Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:06:40 -0500
    > From: "Michael T. Dean" <mtdean at thirdcontact.com>

    > Seagate, themselves, said (
    > http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=Seagate_Swings_%22HAMR%22_To_Increase_Disc_Drive_Densities_By_A_Factor_Of_100&vgnextoid=46e18adc5448d010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD
    > ), "HAMR, combined with self-ordered magnetic arrays of iron-platinum
    > particles, is expected to break through the so-called superparamagnetic
    > limit of magnetic recording by more than a factor of 100 to ultimately
    > deliver storage densities as great as 50 terabits per square inch."

"[U]ltimately" does not mean "by 2010".

Other sources have claimed their arial density by 2010 is more
consistent with a much smaller drive than 300TB (I'm still guessing
5-6TB, but perhaps we'll get lucky and see 30TB).  The 300TB figure is
their current -guess- for what the technology will top out at---and
they don't expect to hit its limit in 3 years (e.g., by the -end- of

    > So, is the Seagate press release the "-single- article which seems to
    > have zero independent verification" that was misquoted?

Pretty much:  there were a few hundred "articles" which were basically
rephrasings of the same press release, and many of those, plus sources
farther down in the game of telephone, have apparently confused Tb
with TB, which hasn't helped.

    >                     Or are you saying that Seagate is expecting more
    > like 5Tb/in^2 from first-generation HAMR drives and that we won't see
    > 50Tb/in^2 for a long time?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  Actually, I'm saying more like 1Tb/in^2.
Still an impressive achievement---just not a 2.5-orders-of-magnitude-in-3-years

More information about the mythtv-users mailing list