Seagate's 8TB HD

rsutoratosu

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2011
2,716
4
81
well you'll probably buy 2 at once if it isn't solid.. tough to lose 8tb at a time.

price probably wont drop for a while if seagate is the only maker.

problem for me is will my existing controllers see these things..
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,541
10,167
126
Are the 6TB Seagates using SMR?

Edit: How does SMR interact, say, with four 8TB SMR drives in a RAID-5 config? Writes would slow way down, right?
 
Last edited:

poohbear

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2003
2,284
5
81
wow, so that can hold about six to seven 4k resolution movies? "yay! I can finally start my 4k movie collection!" said nobody ever.
 
Last edited:

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,327
12,559
126
www.anyf.ca
Wow that is incredible. That would be about 14.9TB with only 4 drives if you do raid 10. (I probably would not do raid 5 with these)

And I thought 6TB was incredible, and now 8 already. I guess the platter drive makers are feeling pressure from SSDs so are pushing faster for more capacity. Sadly I imagine this is at the expense of reliability, making raid even that much more important.
 

code65536

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2006
1,006
0
76
From what I've been seeing, SMR suuuucks so badly. It's great if you're using the drive for mostly write-once data, but otherwise... meh. Like if you want to treat your hard drive as a tape backup except with good readback.
 

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
From what I've been seeing, SMR suuuucks so badly. It's great if you're using the drive for mostly write-once data, but otherwise... meh. Like if you want to treat your hard drive as a tape backup except with good readback.
Might actually work well in conjunction with an SSD where the system won't bog down while writing. I wonder if at some point they will pair this with hybrid SSD :sneaky:
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,485
2,363
136
It's good to see capacities go up. About time. I don't mind if these are poor drives for random read/writes. This is what my SSD is for. I have SSDs for all my boot drives and I only use mechanical drives for data storage. So bring it on. Hopefully, the prices won't remain stagnant like they did for the last 3 years though. The hard drive manufacturer consolidation really took a bite out of market competitiveness.
 

AdamK47

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,488
3,199
136
Any specifics on the number of platters, platter size, read/write performance, price, or even a model number? I'm assuming it's a 7200 RPM drive, correct?
 

rsutoratosu

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2011
2,716
4
81
dont assume anythng but for reference the ST5000DM000 is a SMR drive, its using 5900RPM

ST5000DM000 is 5TB.
 

boed

Senior member
Nov 19, 2009
472
7
81
wow, so that can hold about six to seven 4k resolution movies? "yay! I can finally start my 4k movie collection!" said nobody ever.

I already said it. I'm building a 70+TB array as soon as LSI releases a 9361-16i controller.
 

code65536

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2006
1,006
0
76
dont assume anythng but for reference the ST5000DM000 is a SMR drive, its using 5900RPM

ST5000DM000 is 5TB.

I thought that's PMR? The 6TB is PMR, too. AFAIK, they haven't released a SMR internal drive to consumers yet.

The STBV5000100 is SMR, though. If you look at the reviews on Newegg, you get little gems like this:

Started backing up about 3TB of data to the drive.. Initially sequential writes were around 250 MB/s, but after a few minutes writes speeds dropped to an average of 11-16 MB/s, with random spikes to 70-90MB/s and random drops to as low as 3 MB/s. The files were large files and, as mentioned earlier, sequential.

Or...

For real world write tests, I built a massive test file containing my Steam games directory, a chunk of music, and a large picture collection – for 417GB worth of data being written from a 480GB SSD RAID 0 stripe. This test write could be similar to what an average user might backup to a drive like the STBV5000100. Real world performance was all over the place, ranging from 189MB p/s to…11.1 kb p/s. Not a typo there. There were multiple instances of this abysmal performance that sometimes lasted from just a few seconds, up to 22 seconds.


That having been said, Anandtech really needs to do a review of this drive and especially the consequences of using SMR, with a steady-state test like what's done with SSDs.
 
Last edited:

Elixer

Lifer
May 7, 2002
10,371
762
126
Since the writes are staggered, I am thinking that fragmentation will be a huge performance penalty, possibly requiring defrag programs to have a different layout than they otherwise would.
 

*NixUser

Member
Apr 25, 2013
29
0
0
Looks like the new 8TB HDs that Seagate is (will be) shipping will be using SMR tech.
D: D:

I was worried about reliability when HDD's moved to multi-platter designs. Now these are multi-platter AND use SMR tech? Damn...

I guess the platter drive makers are feeling pressure from SSDs so are pushing faster for more capacity. Sadly I imagine this is at the expense of reliability, making raid even that much more important.

I really hope these products are reliable. A 5-year warranty would definitely be good to boost confidence.
 

code65536

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2006
1,006
0
76
I downloaded the spec sheet for one of Seagate's 1TB-platter drives. It said it had an areal density of 625Gbit per square inch. Assuming that bits are roughly square/circular in size, then we're looking at a linear density of around 790Kbit/in. A 3.5" drive has a circumference of around 11" or so near the outer edge, so we're looking at something like 8-9Mbit per track.

The problem with SMR is that when you write track x, you destroy track x+1. And when you go and rewrite track x+1, you destroy track x+2, and so on. Eventually, we reach a track, x+n, that isn't shingled (otherwise we must rewrite the entire disk). The question is, how many tracks are in a single "band"? If there are too many tracks in a band, then there's going to be a lot of re-writing that needs to happen. If there are too few tracks in a band, then you won't get much in the way of density benefits from shingling.

The illustrative graphics that Seagate provided all showed 7 tracks in a band. No idea if this is real or if it's just something that the illustrator came up with. But with 7 tracks per band, and, say, 9Mbit per track, that means that, in the worst case (if writing to the start of a band), we'd need to rewrite something around 63Mbit of data, or around 8MB. That's a lot, seeing as how the NAND erase blocks on a SSD are only about 2MB in size. And of course, HDDs are going to be much slower at this to begin with...
 

*NixUser

Member
Apr 25, 2013
29
0
0

Damn, these are really old. I wasn't even born at the time.

But I'm talking about 3.5-inch form factor HDD's manufactured in the last 10 years or so :biggrin:

Seagate's Chief Technology Officer Mark Re told the IDG News Service on Monday that the company is shooting to actually begin delivering HAMR drives in 2016. The tech has only been in active development at the company since around 2005, which is a shorter timeframe than the ten+ year period NAND flash used.

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...f-hamr-to-jam-more-data-into-hard-drives.html

Maybe Seagate is using this tech sooner than expected?
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,228
1,603
136

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
68,327
12,559
126
www.anyf.ca
Would also make great backup drives. Or simply large data pools where performance is not really needed such as archiving data or spinning disks backups.
 

Atreidin

Senior member
Mar 31, 2011
464
27
86
Damn, these are really old. I wasn't even born at the time.

But I'm talking about 3.5-inch form factor HDD's manufactured in the last 10 years or so :biggrin:



Maybe Seagate is using this tech sooner than expected?

Multiple platters have been used extensively in the last 10 years, and far before that. I remember the IBM "Deathstar" 75GXP had 5 platters, I think. That was in the year 2000, I don't think that was a revolution in platter count either. You'd have to do research and go out of your way to get a hard drive with only one platter. Manufacturers might use multiple, less-dense platters instead of the latest available sizes to make the lower ranges of their product lines.

According to this, the first with GMR heads was introduced in 1997 with 5 platters.
 
Last edited:

Elixer

Lifer
May 7, 2002
10,371
762
126
I don't buy the reliability remark, at least not yet.
There is nothing inherently more reliable in using SMR than the older tech, and in fact, it is less reliable because there has been no long term stats to back it up.

MTBF means nothing these days, and the same applies for a paltry 3 years warranty for 8TB.
When you have new tech, and real want to stand behind it, you slap on a 10 year warranty, like Sammy did with their 850 PRO SSD.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,485
2,363
136
Awesome news. I'm surprised Seagate decided not to price it as a premium tier product, the per TB price is only $32.5 which is only a touch higher than what you'd get by buying 4TB drivers. These would do very well in my file server (backups and media). However, I'm not running out of space just yet, so I'll wait on the actual reliability reports. As always, data is more important.
 

Concillian

Diamond Member
May 26, 2004
3,751
8
81
From what I've been seeing, SMR suuuucks so badly. It's great if you're using the drive for mostly write-once data, but otherwise... meh. Like if you want to treat your hard drive as a tape backup except with good readback.

It's really not THAT bad.
How many people are putting write heavy workloads on 4+TB drives?

Those 3 people should avoid SMR drives.

Writing is slower than a non-shingled drive, but it really doesn't feel that much different in actual use.
 
Last edited:
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |