"Using a refinement of the Giant Magneto-Resistive (GMR) read/write head commonly used today, they expect their "Current-Perpendicular-to-Plane (CPP)" head will generate one-third-terabyte (360 gigabyte) notebook hard drives by 2006"

720 Gigabytes in an Empeg.. hmmm, Is there workaround's for the 128gb IDE limitation? like the BIOS limitations that were broken with software patches for PC's

At least I should be able to afford 2 x 60GB drives by then I hope my EMpeg is still working. you could nearly fit all the music in the world

http://www.fcpa.fujitsu.com/news/press-releases/press-releases/pa-05-08-2002.html

Gazz.

Although I don't use Hijack, I believe the 128GB limit has been taken care of.

Hmm, do I hear someone about to commit another faux pas with this famous-in-the-futureTM last word:

"720 GB of music ought to be enough for anyone"?

Imagine fsck'ing those beasts.

<shudder>

The 60GB drives take about 45 minutes. Just expanding that out to a 360GB drive...

Naah...ext3 on the empeg will be well proven by that time.

Hugo said that the newer version of Linux does support drives larger than 120gb and that it would be a simple task to move the empeg software to it. Later however, it was pointed out that software limited the number of tracks to like 15,000 or something... Although the software can be fixed, Rob mentioned that there is a hardware limitation that will limit the number of tracks to 21,000 or something... I'm pulling these number out of my rear because I havn't done a search for that thread.

Regardless, 60gb has been the "top dog" for WAY too long, esp. by computer standards. We were promised larger drives by last holiday season.

actually it is a proven fact that all the recorded music in the world backdated to the beginning of time fits snuggly into 500 GB's. Therefore, 720 GB's is actually more than enough to cover recorded music between now and the year 2005.

You can use the extra space for userland apps and web interfaces.

Greetings!

limited the number of tracks

I think that was based more on the size of the database file and the amount of memory available to load it. It would depend on how much data was included in the database for each track (tags, etc.), the number of files and the amount of available memory to load the database. I currently have nearly 16,000 tracks, and am not having any trouble.

60gb has been the "top dog" for WAY too long

I am eagerly awaiting the day that changes. I am starting to run out of space again.

In reply to:

---

actually it is a proven fact that all the recorded music in the world backdated to the beginning of time fits snuggly into 500 GB'

---

Does that imply that my ~100GB collection represents 20% of all music recorded. Ever ?!

And that's only direct CD rips. Now napser/edonkey/ftp/irc downloads.

I don't think so.....

Yeah I agree, that number is way off.

Is there workaround's for the 128gb IDE limitation?

Yes, it is in the most recent versions of Hijack.

There's of course the issue of actually having a bigger-than-128 drive to even test it with. And also you'd need the builder-image to support drives that big (dunno if it does yet or not). But yeah, when the new drives come out, we'll probably have support for them pretty quick, I wouldn't worry about it.

actually it is a proven fact that all the recorded music in the world backdated to the beginning of time fits snuggly into 500 GB's.

I don't know about that... I'd like to see that proof.
Even if you average album compressed down to 50 Megabytes,
that still only 20 Albums per Gigabyte or so... times 500 would mean
that there were only ever 10,000 albums recorded ???

I thought someone has tested it by using a drive converter and the Maxtor 160gb drive. Could just be that someone suggested that as a test though.

That was Mark when he added support for 2TB.
Thread here.
As mentioned earlier in present thread though, the image builder may not support it.

Current Hijack kernels include tested+working support for drives over 128GB in size (tested with a 160GB maxtor desktop drive, using cable adaptors).

The stock kernels in the builder images won't handle them though, but that's easy enough to fix when the time comes.

-ml

Mark, though it's been said time and time again, i just wanted to reiterate how awesome it is to have you around in the community. Thanks again.

Coming from you, Loren, that's a mighty compliment.

Thanks, dude.

Don't recall 500GB but there was an opinion piece on Wired or Cnet about a year ago that assumed a compression, storage, and bandwidth were increasing per Moores law. Therefore, at some point in the near future, it would be possible to have the entire world's collection of digital music on your hardrive. The jist of the article was that RIAA was trying to hold the sea back with a broom. I'll dig it up if anyone is interested.

In reply to:

---

Naah...ext3 on the empeg will be well proven by that time.

---

If it takes another 4 years to get that working properly I am going to be very disappointed.

-Mike

IF you like this kind of numbers, a few months ago an interview on the Wayback Machine was published, with some ideas of archiving all web pages, music etc

" (...) So if all books are 20 TBs, and 20 TBs are $80,000, that's the Library of Congress. Then something big has changed. All music? It's tiny. It looks like there're only one million records that have been produced over the last century. That's tiny. All movies? All theatrical releases have been estimated at 100,000, and most of those from India. If you take all the rest of ephemeral films, that's on the order of a couple hundred thousand. It's just not that big. It allows you to start thinking about the whole thing (...)"

I was actually making a funny about the size that can store all recorded music. However, as the above post states, you are close to having enough storage space for all the music you can possible own/collect on two harddrives on your empeg.

Is'nt more of an issue the amount of space the resulting database is going to take up? Sure if you have 300 tracks all of 5 hours each, it is easy to manage but what is the space requirement of the average 3 minute track in a database? Extrapolate that to the number of 'average' songs stored in 300Gb and that database starts to get quite big!

Yeah, you are right. The memory in the empeg limits the size of the database, not the harddrive limit of the actual mp3s. I think it was suggested in one of the threads that you could actually change the database to hold less data about each track, but I dont really think that is an option, as it would make the searches inoperable. You would probably like to have the search working though if you had 300 GB!