Larger than 1TB HDD in MacPro 2009

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by bantrybay, Mar 19, 2009.

  1. bantrybay macrumors newbie

    bantrybay

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    #1
    New to Mac desktops, and need to know if the new MacPro 2.26 machine will work with larger than 1TB HDD's, which is the largest I've seen offered by Apple.
     
  2. CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    #4
    To elaborate, any SATA compliant drive that fits on the Mac Pro's backplane will work.

    Apple just doesn't offer 1.5TB drives in their CTO options, that's all.
     
  3. bantrybay thread starter macrumors newbie

    bantrybay

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
  4. fridgeymonster3 macrumors 6502

    fridgeymonster3

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #6
    What type and size HDD are you looking at? I'm interested because I'm leaning towards filling my 4th bay with either a 1TB or something larger.
     
  5. fatespawn macrumors member

    fatespawn

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoish
    #7
    I have the stock 640 in Bay 1, My own WD 750 in Bay 2, and a pair of the Seagate 1.5TB's in Bay 3 and 4.
     
  6. Trivial rock macrumors regular

    Trivial rock

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #8
  7. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #9
    YES. There is NO size limitation.

    Oh, and before someone comes in with their rant about the eventual size limitation with 64-bit OS', let me remind them that by the time that solid state hard drives reach that size (because spinning disk ones will NEVER get that large), we'll already be at 256-bit computing, rendering their point moot. :p
     
  8. Ploki macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #10
    i was just thinking today about how HDD's are becoming a real bottleneck in an average computer..
     
  9. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #11
    Size or speed? If you mean speed... try out some Vertex or Intel SSDs in RAID0! :D
     
  10. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #12
    I think about this often. :eek: ;)

    Fortunately, it can be solved. With a little help from RAID. :D

    Nah...RAID can kick the crap out of SSD's single drive performance :eek:, and at less money. ;) Granted, it takes more drives to do it, and maybe even a controller card for more drives than the MP can handle, (or any computer via on-board SATA ports), but hey, it's better than nothing. ;) :p
     
  11. hayduke macrumors 65816

    hayduke

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    is a state of mind.
    #13
    What about a 2006 Mac Pro? Presumably the same deal? I'm thinking about a RAID5 with 4x 2TB.
     
  12. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #14
    There hasn't been a size limitation since before the introduction of the G4 QuickSilver in aught two.;)
     
  13. fridgeymonster3 macrumors 6502

    fridgeymonster3

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #15
    I have two of these in the 1 TB size and I really like them. Thinking of getting one of these or two of the new Samsung F2EG 1.5 TB EcoGreen drives that I saw announced a few weeks ago.
     
  14. Fomaphone macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    #16
    my .02 is that i would never want 2tb of anything on a single disk. hard drives fail, or if not they still become slower and less reliable when filled up.
    the flipside to that is that you may be able to comfortably put a tb of information on a 2tb drive without seeing any performance hit like you would on a 1tb drive, and that you could always use one of these things for a system backup should one or two of your smaller drives fail. i guess it's as logical as any other computer purchase... but still, having that much data on one component scares me unless you're planning to invest in an equally sizable backup solution
     
  15. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #17
    Larger capacities/platter density are making things difficult in terms of RAID. Greater odds of a failure occuring while in the middle of a rebuild, totally trashing the data. :( (RAID 5 & 6).

    2TB drives are worrying me a little, particularly the consumer versions that only have UBE ratings of 1E14. :( At that capacity, I'd think models with 1E15 would be a minimum, not an option. Most of these being enterprise drives, though exceptions do exist. WD's Caviar Black series are such an example. (I haven't yet checked out the new Green 2TB model).
     
  16. Macpropro80 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    #18
    In other news: In response to the increased speed caused by raid 0, programers have invented what they describe as "uncompressed High Definition Video" Which they say can, "make even raid seem slow." Professional editors who require high speed had no comment.
     
  17. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #19
    LMAO! :D

    Now if the software wasn't so bloated... :eek: :p

    So say ~1.0 to 1.6GB/s is even too slow for Uncompressed HDV?
     
  18. Rick Here macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #20
    This is because Apple doesn't want the Seagate firmware problems presently affecting the Seagate SATA drives.
     
  19. Macpropro80 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    #21
    My external raid 0 via firewire 800 can't handle 10bit uncompressed HD. :( Idk about internal.
     
  20. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #22
    FW800 is just under 100MB/s throughput (786Mb/s). I was under the impression that it would need something around 400MB/s min, and I'd think more would be rather desireable.
     
  21. bantrybay thread starter macrumors newbie

    bantrybay

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    #23
    In looking over the replies, I'm thinking I'll go with the stock 640, an additional 1TB in bay 2, with a 1.5 in bay 3 for hourly Time Machine backups. I'll be using a NAS for nightly backups. I don't like packing the onboard HDD's full, so I should be fine on capacity. Thanks again....
     
  22. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #24
    I had the same attitude when those newfangled 20MB drives came out... :D

    -hh
     

Share This Page