Seagate 6TB 7200RPM internal drive for $299

[Kaido]

Update: $229 until 26-Jan (thanks j03h4gLund)

$369 everywhere else: (p/n STBD6000100)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822178520

Specs:

* 3.5" internal drive (note: screw spacing is off, no center hole, read review comments)
* 6 terabytes (single disk, six 1TB platters)
* 7200rpm
* 128mb cache
* 6 Gb/s SATA interface (backwards compatible with 3 Gb/s)
* Usable with non-UEFI Bios (using Seagate Disk Wizard software for 3TB+ drives in Windows, including XP support)
* 2-year parts & labor warranty
* $0.05 cents per gigabyte

Notes:

1. These seem to be compatible with Drobo, QNAP, and other NAS devices (ex. Synology) based on people posting their upgrade results on other forums.

2. The only competitor I'm aware of is HGST's He6 helium-filled 6TB drives, but those go for over $650 online & are labelled as Enterprise drives.

3. You are paying a premium for the latest & greatest size, although at 5 cents per gig, it's not too bad. Due to the six platters, you lose some screw holes, so be aware of that for mounting purposes. More platters increases the risk of drive failure as well, so consider a RAID setup or make sure you have this backed up (or acting as a backup).

4. No speed tests available online that I've found yet. Curious as to the read/write speeds IRL.

5. Holy buckets, it's 6TB for $300!

 

[It's Not Lupus]

I see some people complaining about the center screw holes missing. Why? The other 4 should be enough.

 

[TerryMathews]

I see some people complaining about the center screw holes missing. Why? The other 4 should be enough.

Some cases and drive bays depend on the middle and rear screw.

 

[It's Not Lupus]

ah, I see.

 

[Gast]

Speed tests & review:
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_enterprise_capacity_6tb_35_hdd_review_v4

 

[Kaido]

Speed tests & review:
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_enterprise_capacity_6tb_35_hdd_review_v4

Thanks! Do you know how the Enterprise version compares to the Retail version? The only difference I can see is the connector (SAS 12Gb/s, SATA 6Gb/s) and the warranty (5 years). The specs look awesome:

Overall we saw the Seagate Enterprise Capacity 6TB perform strong in our enterprise testing and ran strong against similar HDDs in our application performance analysis. In our 4K random performance, the Seagate 6TB came out on top with 234 IOPS write and 155 IOPS read. It also had the greatest throughput in our 8K 70/30 test. And overall the Seagate had the lowest average latency of the drives tested. In our 128K synthetic workload the Seagate 6TB put out some pretty impressive numbers with 223MB/s in both read and write putting it at the top of the group.

Their writeup of the helium-filled sealed drives from HGST worries me a little, especially since they mentioned upcoming 8TB & 10TB models. I'm curious as to how those pan out long-term, but I'm also very glad that Seagate stuck with a traditional design (and at less than half the cost!).

 

[Kaido]

Also, it appears to be 5.45 TB formatted. That's amazing, losing 500 gigs due to formatting

 

[child of wonder]

Also, it appears to be 5.45 TB formatted. That's amazing, losing 500 gigs due to formatting

No, it's because 6 trillion bytes does not equal 6 terrabytes.

 

[SunRey]

Thank You!

 

[BenJeremy]

No, it's because 6 trillion bytes does not equal 6 terrabytes.

Because hard drive math.

 

[Kaido]

Because hard drive math.

1. Advertise 6TB drives
2. ?
3. Profit!

:awe:

 

[Kaido]

I see some people complaining about the center screw holes missing. Why? The other 4 should be enough.

Servers & Mac Pro workstations in particular. Here's an article on the issues system vendors are facing:

http://www.storagereview.com/6tb_hdds_causing_problems_for_system_vendors_but_not_the_way_you_think

And one a review regarding installation in a Mac Pro from user Medhat A.'s via Newegg:

Can be a problem installing in a Mac Pro

This review is from: Seagate STBD6000100 6TB 128MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive Retail Kit

Pros: Size is hug enough to accommodate my media library which is why I bought it in the first place. I like the drive as a whole.

Cons: I was elated about receiving the drive that was meant to house all my Media files in lieu of a RAID box. The shocked with dismay when I tried to install the drive in my Mac Pro (3,1 2008) using the HDD Sled. The placement of the screw holes on the drive have been changed. Bow rear 2 of the bottom holes have been moved back. I ended up drilling a hole in the sled in order to affix the drive to the sled at 3 points. The hight of the screw that the Mac uses makes inserting and removing the drive a very tight fit. Not an elegant solution but it works. If Your are a MAX USER ENSURE THAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH UNCONVENTIONAL INSTALLATION IN THE MACHINE. Another alternative is to install it in one of the optical drives using 5.35. to 3.5 adapter & one of the the onboard SATA connectors. That is a note elaborate installation which I may do whine I get the necessary tools from OWC.

For non-MAC users there is also another change, the side screw have also even been reduced from 6 to 4, removing the ones in the middle.

Why did Seagate change the placement of these installation holes, beats me. It is the only drive I have seen like this including the last 2 Seagate SSDH drives a bought just few months ago.

Other Thoughts: I was tempted to call NewEgg to return it because of the incompatibility but decided it to keep it and improvise a work around. Seagate lists this drive as compatible with MAC, aim sure they mean the OS because it is definitely HARDWARE INCOMPATIBLE with MacPro. This is the no-enterprise version, whether the enterprise version has the same problem I am not sure.

 

[Gast]

They're 6TB drives, not 6TiB drives. It'd be nice if modern OS's started using the proper prefixes to help bring this issue into better light for the uninitiated masses.

TB= 1000^4 bytes
TiB= 1024^4 bytes

So 1TB = 0.91TiB, about a 10% "loss" in drive space due to marketing.

Then I think there's like a 1-2% overhead for NTFS formatting. But I can't remember where I found the calculations for that.

 

[Elixer]

They're 6TB drives, not 6TiB drives. It'd be nice if modern OS's started using the proper prefixes to help bring this issue into better light for the uninitiated masses.

TB= 1000^4 bytes
TiB= 1024^4 bytes

So 1TB = 0.91TiB, about a 10% "loss" in drive space due to marketing.

Then I think there's like a 1-2% overhead for NTFS formatting. But I can't remember where I found the calculations for that.

It isn't that simple... Only in metric is TB = 1000^4, both JEDEC & IEC define with a base of 1024 for kilobyte (KB or KiB). They should slap HD makers upside the head for using metric, when everything else doesn't.

Anyway, back to the HD in question, I really don't like the fact that seagate has a 2yr warranty on these things, but, that price is not bad at all... you would almost need to purchase two of these beasts to keep a active backup.

 

[Kaido]

It isn't that simple... Only in metric is TB = 1000^4, both JEDEC & IEC define with a base of 1024 for kilobyte (KB or KiB). They should slap HD makers upside the head for using metric, when everything else doesn't.

Anyway, back to the HD in question, I really don't like the fact that seagate has a 2yr warranty on these things, but, that price is not bad at all... you would almost need to purchase two of these beasts to keep a active backup.

Yes, losing 500+ gigs of usable space (to the average consumer) is pretty horrendous. You pay for 6TB and get 5.45TB. It's as simple as that. I'm curious to see if it will ever change like car's EPA numbers...my modern cars are pretty much spot-on with what the manufacturers advertise in terms of getting the MPG they state. Obviously both stories are more complicated, but how much do you really want to lie to consumers? And if we're going to be totally honest, this is straight-up lying to the consumer:

http://i.imgur.com/78HlGue.jpg

Yeah, it's curious - 2-year warranty on the consumer model, 5 years on the enterprise model. Which I'm assuming are probably exactly the same outside of some firmware that allows for 12Gb/s SAS.

 

[Doomer]

Kilo = 1000, not 1024.

 

[OctaneZ]

Also $299 at Amzon but backordered weeks:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00JBJ34WC

 

[Elixer]

Also $299 at Amzon but backordered weeks:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00JBJ34WC

Heh, they are also using the wrong pics for the HD...

 

[TwiceOver]

<-- Looks at his stack of 4TB drives waiting to go into new server. Sigh, time to start over.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

1. Advertise 6TB drives
2. ?
3. Profit!

:awe:

If you use their logic as stated on their website and on the box it makes sense. They call a gb 1000mb when its actually 1024, formatting takes a little more and you end up with that.

 

[reallyscrued]

I hope my children grow up in a society where hard drive manufacturers advertise their products correctly.

I know you'll let me down, cruel world.

 

[Kaido]

If you use their logic as stated on their website and on the box it makes sense. They call a gb 1000mb when its actually 1024, formatting takes a little more and you end up with that.

And as the "IT guy" for everyone I run into, that's always the complaint when people upgrade drives - "the box said X but after I plugged it in it said Y". I mean, just look at the screenshot:

http://i.imgur.com/78HlGue.jpg

It's easy to see the reason for the confusion

 

[Centauri]

At least Apple got on the same page as the HD manufacturers. I think it's the latest Journaled that formats/reads as 1,000MB = 1GB. So your 6TB drive will actually format and read as such.

 

[polarmystery]

They should just advertise in bits on newegg like this...

6 * (2^40) bits HD for $299

I'd love that

 

[Lean L]

It isn't that simple... Only in metric is TB = 1000^4, both JEDEC & IEC define with a base of 1024 for kilobyte (KB or KiB). They should slap HD makers upside the head for using metric, when everything else doesn't.

Anyway, back to the HD in question, I really don't like the fact that seagate has a 2yr warranty on these things, but, that price is not bad at all... you would almost need to purchase two of these beasts to keep a active backup.

How is it not that simple?

TB != TiB

TB is terabyte and TiB is tebibyte. There is no confusion between the two regardless of what system you subscribe to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebibyte

I agree that the HDD industry probably uses metric for marketing reasons but it's a fundamental fault of every OS that labels TiB as TB. That is plain incorrect whereas TB = TB for hdd manufacturers. The confusion is caused by OSs.