Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Seagate Releases 6TB Hard Drive Sans Helium

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the platters-like-to-breathe dept.

Data Storage 147

Lucas123 (935744) writes "Seagate has released what it said is the industry's fastest hard drive with up to a 6TB capacity, matching one released by WD last year. WD's 6TB Ultrastar He6 was hermetically sealed with helium inside, something the company said was critical to reducing friction for additional platters, while also increasing power savings and reliability. Seagate, however, said it doesn't yet need to rely on Helium to achieve the 50% increase in capacity over its last 4TB drive. The company used the same perpendicular magnetic recording technology that it has on previous models, but it was able to increase areal density from 831 bits per square inch to 1,000. The new drive also comes in 2TB, 4TB and 5TB capacities and with either 12Gbps SAS or 6Gbps SATA connectivity. The six-platter, enterprise-class drive is rated to sustain about 550TB of writes per year — 10X that of a typical desktop drive."

cancel ×

147 comments

~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (5, Informative)

PaulBu (473180) | about 4 months ago | (#46689379)

I thought that in 21st century we are talking about Gbits/inch^2, not just bits...

Paul B.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (5, Funny)

cheater512 (783349) | about 4 months ago | (#46689395)

Its just sad that in the 21st century we are still using Gbits/inch^2 and not Gbits/cm^2.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689527)

Its just sad that in the 21st century we are still using Gbits/inch^2 and not Gbits/cm^2.

Why is that sad? An inch is 2.54 cm, so a square inch is 2.54*2.54=6.45 cm^2. If we switched from inches to cm, instead of 6 TB, this disk would not even hold 1 TB.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (-1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 4 months ago | (#46689585)

... that statement is just plain dumb. bytes of data are the same 8bits regardless of storage density. if they switched it to cm^2, they would just change the number from 1000/inch^2 to 1000/2.54/cm^2

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689651)

Whoosh!

And you got the unit conversion wrong! Gold!

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 4 months ago | (#46689889)

yea... i noticed after i posted, but sadly there is no edit..

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689765)

Imperial or metric bits?

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about 4 months ago | (#46689839)

^ winner.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 months ago | (#46690407)

You don't get into the imperial or metric part until you're talking Kilo bits

Metric Kilo = 1000
Imperial Kilo = 1024

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691545)

what about cubits? why isn't anyone using them? (if you don't get the joke there, this place is worse than I thought.)

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#46691059)

Imperial bits automatically reject the force.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (1)

Smerta (1855348) | about 4 months ago | (#46689867)

Dude, sorry but you just got tripped up by Muphry's Law [wikipedia.org] .

Happens to all of us, sooner or later...

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 4 months ago | (#46689885)

And that is the perfect example of why we aren't using Gbits/cm^2. You went for it hook line and sinker and said something *really* stupid. :P

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46690103)

After that comment, I think your "Funny" mods above are undeserved.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46690155)

whooooosh!

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (2)

Ghaoth (1196241) | about 4 months ago | (#46690321)

Yes, but the disk is rotating at 198,374 furlongs/fortnight.
It's all getting a bit bitty methinks.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689575)

Yes, very sad we continue to use outdated and imprecise forms of measurement. We should stop mucking about and start counting moles, atoms, and elementary particles.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691619)

Yes, very sad we continue to use outdated and imprecise forms of measurement. We should stop mucking about and start counting moles, atoms, and elementary particles.

Its very sad that people worry about truly inconsequential things like Gbits/cm^2 when we could call it 1*10^13b/(m^2s)

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689589)

Dammit Sir,
  Don't you know in the 21st century we use Libraries of Congress per Football Field.
or for small denominations, sometimes the Relevant Slashdot Submissions per Postage Stamp.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 4 months ago | (#46689841)

Slashdot is hiring fired AP writers now?

H2 drive (1)

c4tp (526292) | about 4 months ago | (#46690453)

I'm just glad we've learned the lesson of the Ultrastar Hindenburg. Oh, the capacity!

(Too soon?)

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691537)

when the richest country (the one that buys everything) says its one set of units, it doesn't matter what other units exist, the units the richest country wants are the ones used.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689489)

Pishposh. The hillbillies of the world with their crazy units again. How many nibbles does it store per library of congress floor tile?

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (1)

nmb3000 (741169) | about 4 months ago | (#46689565)

I thought that in 21st century we are talking about Gbits/inch^2, not just bits...

Paul B.

That caught my eye as well. Assuming 1000 bits per square inch, we're talking about:

6 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 * 8 / 1000 = 48,000,000,000 square inches to store 6TB at 1000 bits per in^2.

1 Mbit per square inch makes a lot more sense, putting it at 48 square inches, or about 8 square inches per platter.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (4, Informative)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 4 months ago | (#46689631)

Better check your math on that. It's actually 1Tb/inch^2.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (1)

nmb3000 (741169) | about 4 months ago | (#46689821)

1 Mbit per square inch makes a lot more sense

Oh, derp. Make that 1000 Gbit per square inch. Worst part of no edit on Slashdot is all the simple math mistakes irrevocably left for posterity :)

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (1)

durrr (1316311) | about 4 months ago | (#46689893)

Who cares, at least my music will no longer have a funny pitch on playback.

Re:~1000 *Bits* per square inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46690093)

Why do you folks who put your name as your ID feel the need to use the same damn thing as your sig?

Let me just (1)

CSMoran (1577071) | about 4 months ago | (#46689383)

write the partition table.

Re:Let me just (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689461)

I don't even bother with partition tables, just raid6 the entire block device.

Re:Let me just (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689563)

You think you could afford enough of these to facilitate raid 6, eh? Lol.

Re:Let me just (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 4 months ago | (#46689731)

RAID 6 is only one more than RAID 5.

Re:Let me just (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689809)

You think you could afford enough of these to facilitate raid 5, eh? Lol.

Re:Let me just (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689911)

given probability of failure during recovery with raid5, you can't afford to not raid6 such large drives

Re:Let me just (1)

schitso (2541028) | about 4 months ago | (#46690369)

Yeah, I pity anyone who runs RAID5 on such large disks. Enjoy your UREs.

Big Drive (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689387)

6 TB drive... 1000 bits/square inch... So... 6 billion square inches of real estate (14.67 mile sides of a square)?

Re:Big Drive (2)

war4peace (1628283) | about 4 months ago | (#46689725)

Also, "increase in capacity over it's last 4TB drive".

1000 bits per square inch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689403)

It's like magic!

oops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689415)

Whoa, the summary is orders magnitude off on the density. (or the drive is way bigger than an aircraft carrier.)

Re:oops (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 4 months ago | (#46689609)

Whoa, the summary is orders magnitude off on the density. (or the drive is way bigger than an aircraft carrier.)

So is the info in the forwarded Computerworld article. As this is a first gen HAMR [seagate.com] drive, the density is actually 1 terabit per square inch.

Oops in title - "sans" ? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 4 months ago | (#46691219)

Whoa, the summary is orders magnitude off on the density. (or the drive is way bigger than an aircraft carrier.)

I think that you can't get past the title without an oops: "Seagate Releases 6TB Hard Drive Sans Helium"

Doesn't "sans" mean without?

Re:Oops in title - "sans" ? (2)

dylan_- (1661) | about 4 months ago | (#46691903)

Doesn't "sans" mean without?

Yes, that's because WD's 6TB Ultrastar He6 was hermetically sealed with helium inside, something the company said was critical to reducing friction for additional platters, while also increasing power savings and reliability. Seagate, however, said it doesn't yet need to rely on Helium to achieve the 50% increase in capacity over it's last 4TB drive.

At least, I'm sure I read that somewhere.

My bad ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 4 months ago | (#46692183)

Ah, I missed WD. I thought the summary was describing the Seagate drive as being filled with He. Gotta stop that skimming through torrents of information ... oh wait, that's a different article.

Let the 4K porn revolution commence! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689433)

North's law is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of bytes on magnetic storage doubles approximately every two years. The law is named after legendary porn star Peter North.

Why not? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#46689441)

And why would you not use helium? They already seal the hard drives and it is just as easy and cheap to leave helium in the drive as some form of super clean air.

Re:Why not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689493)

No. drives are *not* sealed. Making a sealed drive that won't implode if you, say, take it on an aircraft in your laptop, or to ship it to the client (for example) is non trivial.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689509)

Not as cheap. Industrial helium costs for grade A helium are incredibly high, +1 for them finding a way to do it without driving up a cost on something that doesn't have to happen 'yet'.

Re:Why not? (5, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 4 months ago | (#46689541)

Fun Fact, retail helium for recreational used is often salvaged from used 'pure' helium from MRI machines and such.

So children's party balloons are filled with medical waste, yay!

Re:Why not? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689913)

Fun Fact, retail helium for recreational used is often salvaged from used 'pure' helium from MRI machines and such.

So children's party balloons are filled with medical waste, yay!

I wondered where Big Bang Theory got most of their scripts for Sheldon. Now I know ... Slashdot!

Re:Why not? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689513)

actually, the drives aren't usually sealed. there's a porous frit plug that allows the pressure inside and outside to be equalized, and which has pores small enough not to let water vapor in.

Designing a hermetic container that lasts for years is non-trivial, particularly one to hold Helium, which has very, very small atoms that can go through the interstices in the metal. By comparison, pulling a vacuum would be easier, but disk drives need something to fly the heads on. He is nice because it is also very low viscosity

Re:Why not? (3, Funny)

war4peace (1628283) | about 4 months ago | (#46689749)

He is nice because it is also very low viscosity

But she is nicer than him, that's for sure, mainly because her viscosity is spot on.

Re:Why not? (4, Interesting)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 4 months ago | (#46689759)

.......

Designing a hermetic container that lasts for years is non-trivial, particularly one to hold Helium, which has very, very small atoms that can go through the interstices in the metal. .....

This is important.....
I have seen thick wall steel pipe with blisters inside the metal.
The pipe contained high pressure hydrogen at high temperatures and
the hydrogen would react with the carbon in the steel and grow bubbles
a little like Swiss cheese.

The diffusion dimension of H2 and He is also interesting.

Re:Why not? (1)

dargaud (518470) | about 4 months ago | (#46691789)

Designing a hermetic container that lasts for years is non-trivial

Huh ? My cheap plastic watch is hermetic to 4 atm, and for years. Plenty of things are. And for a HD you don't have to stand more than 1/3 atm of pressure differential, something trivial. Having used hard drives at high altitude and seen them die quickly, I always wondered why they don't simply seal the damn things with air at 1 atm inside.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691917)

Surely that would be water resistant rather than helium-proof though. And water exists as rather large molecules compared to individual helium atoms.

Re:Why not? (2)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 4 months ago | (#46689535)

Because they're trying to maintain their quality. [backblaze.com]

(Seriously, though, they actually don't seal their hard drives. Hard drives typically have a small hole in the casing with a extremely fine dust- and moisture-proof filter attached. It allows the drive to equalize its pressure with the environment and reduces the mechanical strain on the housing and seals.)

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691319)

Because they're trying to maintain their quality. [backblaze.com]

(Seriously, though, they actually don't seal their hard drives. Hard drives typically have a small hole in the casing with a extremely fine dust- and moisture-proof filter attached. It allows the drive to equalize its pressure with the environment and reduces the mechanical strain on the housing and seals.)

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html

That comparison (and the community response) is like getting angry when you put a heavy equipment trailer behind a couple of compact cars and the transmission explodes on one faster than the other; in other words if you put desktop, or god forbid, drives that were destined to live there lives in consumer external drive enclosures, in some sort of commercial application, you're asking for a LOT of trouble, regardless of HD vendor.

Re:Why not? (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 4 months ago | (#46689715)

And why would you not use helium? They already seal the hard drives and it is just as easy and cheap to leave helium in the drive as some form of super clean air.

Ask the question differently..... why you would use helium.
A partial answer is thermal... revisit the old TCM (thermal conductive modules)
used in system components like IBM 3081. H has good thermal properties.
Another is the H or He have vastly better dynamic fluid properties to let the head seek
and perhaps fly better.
Pressure and seal is an issue but an expansion bladder can establish a way for
pressure changes to have minimum impact on the case.
Helium is inert allowing a wider choice of internal materials.

Some of these properties are not dependent on a 100% H atmosphere.

And if you crack one open you can sound funny.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46690507)

He also has the advantage of not turning your computer into a conflagration like H.
an expansion bladder?
a wider choice of internal materials???
holy shit.
I can tell you are one of those really smart guys that has never built anything in his life.
please
please
please
SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46690111)

+2 moron mods. Thanks for making a thousand unsuspecting wanna be computer guys a little stupider today.
Seriously, why don't you people that know nothing STFU.

Re:Why not? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 months ago | (#46692053)

it is just as easy and cheap to leave helium in the drive as some form of super clean air.

Have you ever wondered how Helium and Hydrogen filled balloons, even metal ones will deflate and fall despite no obvious signs of a leak? It is very difficult to properly seal either element into a permanent storage container. There's nothing cheap or easy about designing a case like that.

Helium leak? (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 4 months ago | (#46689451)

Finally a way to detect if your drive is about to crash: you start to sound like a munchkin.

<highvoice>Oh oh, I better make a backup fast!</highvoice>

Re:Helium leak? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689611)

What's wrong with using Acetylene? You'd be notified of a drive failure from the other side of the DC.

Cloud Compatible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689473)

Complete with humidity sensor.

Yeah, yeah. What's it cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689491)

Been a long time since I've bought Seagate as I've had great reliability from WD but out of curiosity, what's the cost?

Re:Yeah, yeah. What's it cost? (1)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#46690433)

Been a long time since I've bought Seagate as I've had great reliability from WD but out of curiosity, what's the cost?

We won't know shit until Newegg begins to stock them, maybe in about 5 years. Cost data from manufacturers, even when you can get it, is always useless because in the real world nobody pays anywhere near list price.

Calculations (4, Interesting)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#46689505)

At 1000 bits per square inch, to get 6TB you need about a third the size of Manhattan.

According to Wolfram Alpha at least:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in... [wolframalpha.com]

Re:Calculations (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 4 months ago | (#46689769)

The He-filled WD version is just a bit larger, and has a giant laser in the center that can blow up a city.

Re:Calculations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689919)

I liked the 0.09-0.2x the average range of a male cougar better. Although I thought a male cougar was just called a pedophile...

Re:Calculations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46690011)

What I really want to know is how many stadiums would be required to store a library of congress.

Re:Calculations (4, Funny)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 4 months ago | (#46690071)

At 1000 bits per square inch, to get 6TB you need about a third the size of Manhattan.

It takes a couple of hours to get up to 5800RPM, but when that bitch is spinning don't even try to tilt your computer.

"relying" on helium (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689511)

Seagate, however, said it doesn't yet need to rely on Helium to achieve the 50% increase in capacity over it's last 4TB drive

Seagate previously made 4 x 1 TB platters and 5 x 800 GB platters. Now this drive stores 1.25 TB per platter (according to El Reg [theregister.co.uk] ). I bet WD/HGST can replicate that very easily... 7 x 1.25 = 8.75 TB. From what we know Seagate could use shingles (shingled magnetic recording) to boost capacity but with a penalty to write speed. There was also a suggestion they could cram 6 platters in a drive without helium. Both companies are working on HAMR to replace PMR in the coming years.

It's not that WD is relying on helium, it's that WD has better technology than Seagate. By including two more platters, WD can match Seagate's capacity with older PMR platters.

Re:"relying" on helium (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46690227)

Who cares about who can cram more bitdicks in to more dickplatters. Which is more reliable?

Sorry, but Seagate is total shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689571)

And we all know it.

Re:Sorry, but Seagate is total shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46690151)

I dont, in 27 years I have had 1 seagate fail, and it was still under warranty, meanwhile every single WD I have ever bought has shit its shoes and hit the dumpster

Re:Sorry, but Seagate is total shit (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#46691693)

WD has a know problem is sulfur-rich environments (e.g. former east-bloc) as they use silver-plating instead of gold on their PCBs. Other than that they are perfectly fine. Seagate is by far the most flaky vendor with often good disks and often lemons.

Its, not it's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46689993)

it's last 4TB drive

NO, NO, BAD Unkown Lamer!

"Its last 4TB drive", as opposed to "It's..... Monty Python's Flying Circus!"

So with the Helium inside, is drive lighter? (1)

Glasswire (302197) | about 4 months ago | (#46690043)

In a big storage server, that could amount to few kilos, perhaps

Re:So with the Helium inside, is drive lighter? (4, Funny)

gargleblast (683147) | about 4 months ago | (#46690267)

In a big storage server, that could amount to few kilos, perhaps

Absolutely. That's astute! They're going for cloud storage.

Press blurb is junk (2)

m.dillon (147925) | about 4 months ago | (#46690305)

The press blurb is full of nonsense. Not one real performance statistic. Not one.

-Matt

Re:Press blurb is junk (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#46691699)

You ask for facts? These have been eliminated from marketing a long time ago, as they tend to get in the way. There are enough suckers that will buy this thing anyways, despite Seagates consistently bad reliability track record.

obsolete (-1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46690401)

Does anyone buy platters of very slow piles of rust anymore? I use 2 ssds. Will never go back due speed and reliability. Seagates do not last long and latest ssds can do 70 tbs before failing

Re:obsolete (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#46690533)

yes. as you will find out in a couple years, SSD are more reliable in the first 2-1/2 years, then they go to shit faster than hard drives after that.

Re:obsolete (4, Interesting)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about 4 months ago | (#46690885)

Hmmm Let me think about this

Intel Enterprise grade SSD 800gb - I can find them for about $1800
HGST Ultrastar - Enterprise grade with Helium - 6tb - $865.

I currently have a 21tb Nas machine in this office. I don't need speed I need capacity. The cost differential is MASSIVE. So yes people buy spinning platters all the time.

Re:obsolete (4, Informative)

WuphonsReach (684551) | about 4 months ago | (#46690941)

Does anyone buy platters of very slow piles of rust anymore?

For bulk storage (measured in terabytes and petabytes), platters of spinning rust are the only economical solution. So for a secondary storage SAN where capacity is more important then IOPS, you fill it out with spinning rust. A 4TB enterprise SATA 7200RPM drive is about $330 right now, or about $0.08/GB. The cheapest enterprise SSDs are about 10x-20x that price.

Rust is also better for drives (or tapes) used as backups. It has better shelf stability then a SSD. Most SSDs will start to lose data after a few months of being disconnected (maybe as few as 6 months). Barring mechanical issues, traditional magnetic media holds up well over the span of years (at least a decade in most case).

Now I just wish WD would come out with a 2TB 10k RPM SATA Velociraptor 3.5" drive...

Re:obsolete (4, Funny)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#46691143)

I'll link the above post next time you pretend to know what is going on in server rooms so that everyone can have a laugh.

Re:obsolete (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691345)

Some people need capacity at a low cost over speed.

Facebook for example archives billions of photos nobody will ever look at again, because among them are millions of photos that people will look at again, and it's impossible to figure out a-priori which ones will be.

At a recentish lecture they gave at Stanford, they said what they really want is write-once solid-state memory with zero standby power, and lower costs than magnetic disks.

If you think about it, the vast majority of non-cache storage is write-once, so the idea of large low-cost write-once capacity should be broadly appealing.

Re:obsolete (1)

jabuzz (182671) | about 4 months ago | (#46692109)

No, they are all spinning aluminium or glass that are coated with none iron based magnetic materials. I don't think iron based platters have existed for many many years.

That said your post is amusingly clueless as to real world bulk storage. Unless there is some major breakthrough there is at least another five years before SSD world wide production can match spinning hard disk capacity, and that assumes hard disks stand still. On the other hand expect 15k and 10k disks to disappear over that time frame. Shipments of the faster drivers are already dramatically down as people are replacing them with SSD.

I'm surprised no one said, yet... (1)

kauaidiver (779239) | about 4 months ago | (#46690739)

That's a lot of porn...

Rebuild time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691061)

Would love to know what the rebuild time would look like for a disk of this size. Seems impractical.

Don't buy Seagate drives... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#46691161)

Sometimes, just sometimes, they are on par with the competition reliability-wise. But many of their drives are lemons, far more than from other manufacturers and that has been a very long-term trend. Seagate just does not know or does not care to make drives reliable. Latest data:
http://blog.backblaze.com/2014... [backblaze.com]

This one is unlike to be any better in that regard.

Re:Don't buy Seagate drives... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691303)

Sometimes, just sometimes, they are on par with the competition reliability-wise. But many of their drives are lemons, far more than from other manufacturers and that has been a very long-term trend. Seagate just does not know or does not care to make drives reliable. Latest data:
http://blog.backblaze.com/2014... [backblaze.com]

This one is unlike to be any better in that regard.

I swear, it seems if you can generate the right kind of FUD that seems to resonate with "storage nerds" biases, it will be keep being thrown around like that damn Wakefield vaccine paper. If I were building network storage (and yeah, I suppose I'm not Backblaze trying to do it on the super cheap), there's no way I would do something as stupid as go buy a bunch of external drives and rip the drives out and put them in server application. Try doing that with HGST, WD, Seagate or Toshiba branded products, and you're going to get bitten.

    Using a car analogy, it's like John Doe crying foul because his Camry fell apart quicker than his Sentra when he put a tow hitch on there and was using them routinely to pull heavy equipment. Those drives were NOT designed to be run full-bore in a server environment. If you were actually thinking about the problem (which the a lot of the johnny-come-lately "cloud/app" folks who want to reinvent everything don't seem to do), you should have come to the conclusion, "I need enterprise grade drives", NOT desktop hardware. I want to pull heavy equipment--I should buy a full-ton truck or a dump trucker, not a compact car. Using drives in this capacity is really an invalid metric, and doesn't apply to the average user, where the heads actually get parked once in a blue moon, and the PC isn't necessary always on (or at least hopefully not always writing). Also, if Seagate drives were actually a bad value proposition, why does Backblaze keep buying them?

Also:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html

Re:Don't buy Seagate drives... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#46691393)

Nice attempt at diversion. What you say is complete BS though, and rather obviously so.

First, you always get bitten when doing storage. There is no way around that.

Second, "enterprise grade" disk hardware is a myth today. Backblaze recognized that and quite a few other people do it too. Sure, you can get things like lower vibration, but they do not matter to drive lifetime these days, only access time and that you can measure. Your argumentation relies on 20 year old tech and that is not being used in modern drives anymore.

And third, they bought Seagate a) before they had that data and b) why do you think they were bad value? They were far worse than the competition, but as there was a HDD shortage, they can still be better having than not having.

The "story" by tweaktown you link has all the hallmark of cleverly disguised corporate "spin", which aims to muddle the waters but does not actually disprove anything or even explain anything. It is either paid-for disinformation or the work of idiots that do not understand engineering basics. The data and explanation by Backblaze is solid though.

55TB / year? (2)

zdzichu (100333) | about 4 months ago | (#46691299)

Since when mechanical drives degrade during writes? Isn't that a SSD 's illness?
And 55TB / year for desktop drive sounds ridiculously low.

Re:55TB / year? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691553)

It's 550 TB/year. Which is 18.3 MB/second. Most desktop disks I have used cap at around 50MB/second writes to a real file system (not just dd) - they need RAID for better performance.
Anyway, it's a pretty good rating for sustained writes if it's guaranteed to perform well and not crap out.

Unfortunately, Seagate's reliability is garbage (4, Informative)

cpm99352 (939350) | about 4 months ago | (#46691377)

There was a time when Seagate was a gold standard, but nowadays certainly not. I would not trust a Seagate drive if someone gave it to me. A truly sad state of affairs. I just pity the consumers who don't know any better. Even worse that they're now tarnishing the Hitachi brand.

Re:Unfortunately, Seagate's reliability is garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691995)

Hitachi is a subsidiary of WD

fir57 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691459)

www.Anti-slash.0rg

Helium drives (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 4 months ago | (#46691533)

...work at a very high pitch!

Computerworld screwup (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46691635)

The blurb quotes Computerworld correctly, but the Computerworld author was fuzzy headed or didn't think that the number was *WAY* low or doesn't understand that 'computer something technical stuff'. The aerial density of this drive is now at 1 Terabit per square inch, not 1000 bits per square inch (a mere difference of only 1 billion times).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...