4TB drive from Samsung!

Can't wait for that to hit the $99 price point. $100 is the max I pay for drives nowadays.
 
Scary.

That's a lotta data to be able to lose on a single drive.

I back-up my back-ups but still...

Where's the glut of cheap 3 TB units I was hoping to see? :confused:
 
Great news; i expected them to finish 750GB platters first and introduce 3TB drive; but 1TB platters now that is now! That is almost twice as much as 666GB platters in the Samsung F4!

So if Samsung F4 does 140MB/s at 5400rpm, and assume the rpm does not change. That means we should be able to push beyond 200MB/s on this new drive; i sure would love to find out!

If true, this could make another hot seller; Samsung has been my favorite HDD brand for several years.
 
I would rather have 3 TB drives from Samsung. The only 4-platter drive from Samsung till now is the F3EG 2TB (HD203WI) and this is loud, hot and causes a lot of vibrations (as much as my 7200rpm HD103UJ drives).
 
Well with 1TB platters i think they would roll out several products:
- half platter 500GB drive (much like F4 320GB)
- single platter 1TB drive
- double platter 2TB
- triple platter 3TB
- quad platter 4TB

Generally my preference would be 3 platters, 4 has a tendency of increasing idle power considerably. But still very exciting news! Going from 666GB platters to 1TB platters is progress.
 
This is going to make the 10TB+ thread even less impressive. Hi, I have three HDDs! :-/

This post is not be interpreted as hating on these 4TB drives. That is sweet.
 
Great news. Hopefully these new drives are nice and stable. There are going to be some serious servers being built when these come out.
 
When are these coming out? I may need to sell my 3tb drives very soon...
 
I barely have the confidence to use 2TB drives for fear of losing that much data. I have only two 2TB drives, in RAID1 of course.

Am I too paranoid?
 
Why would home users need 4TB at all? As was mentioned, watch out for failure rate and putting too much unto these suckers. There have been debates over using 32GB flash cards in photography forums out of fear of loss, deletion, failure, etc. Is it still better to use 4 8gb cards instead of one 32GB? I would rather get 4 1TB external HDDs than 1 4TB internal.
 
It wouldn't make much sense to buy a 4TB drive and not fill it up, either immediately, or over the course of it's life.

I honestly would consider buying one if hard drives generally had a more reasonable life expectancy. If a person only has around 500GB to 1TB of data that they've accumulated over a few years, that size will surely increase. The usefulness of a 4TB drive might be realized after a decade, or less. I'm sure many of us here have 40, 60, 80GB drives laying around, not because they died, but because they're just too small for our needs.
 
Holy crap! I figured it would be a while till we see bigger drives. I was actually surprised at the 3TB.

Now what they need to do is make a "Winchester" drive with today's platter density. I would love to see that LOL. It would need a dedicated 30 amp outlet.
 
Gomar said:
Why would home users need 4TB at all? As was mentioned, watch out for failure rate and putting too much unto these suckers. There have been debates over using 32GB flash cards in photography forums out of fear of loss, deletion, failure, etc. Is it still better to use 4 8gb cards instead of one 32GB? I would rather get 4 1TB external HDDs than 1 4TB internal.
Click to expand...

With raid, is where such big drives shine.

Imagine 3 of these in raid 5. You are safe from a failure, and have 8TB of data (well less, because they are not truly 4TB but let's not go there). But you still need backups.... lol

I actually only have 1TB drives at home. I find it more cost effective for me to buy a 1TB drive for under 100 bucks and add to my raid array, then buy a bigger drive as I'd have to buy at least 3 so I can rebuild the array properly. I will probably eventually jump to 3TB drives when the need comes.
 
Benny Blanco said:
I honestly would consider buying one if hard drives generally had a more reasonable life expectancy.
Click to expand...

They do have a reasonable life expectancy of 5 to 7 years. Although hard drives (of any size or type including enterprise drive) can die at any point from being DOA to their expected life or even longer. I am seeing annual failure rates of > 1% to around 7% at work over the last 15 years of using 100 to 300 hard drives 24/7/365. This is one reason why if you have important data you need to make backups.
 
I find hard drives have become less reliable over the years. You hear a lot about DOAs and premature failures it's not even funny.

I have some <1GB drives (don't know why I keep these) and they STILL work if I plug them in. They are like 15 years old. They don't make stuff like they used to.
 
How are the Samsungs with hardware RAID controllers? I haven't really been paying attention to them...
 
drescherjm said:
They do have a reasonable life expectancy of 5 to 7 years... I am seeing annual failure rates of > 1% to around 7% at work over the last 15 years of using 100 to 300 hard drives 24/7/365.
Click to expand...

I would like to agree with your expectancy numbers, but I suspect HDD's used in a consumer capacity might have a higher failure rate due to NOT being run 24/7, or more specifically, enduring daily spin-up/warm-up, shutdown/cool-down (even multiple times a day) might actually be worse than 24/7 operation.

Red Squirrel said:
I find hard drives have become less reliable over the years. You hear a lot about DOAs and premature failures it's not even funny.

I have some <1GB drives (don't know why I keep these) and they STILL work if I plug them in. They are like 15 years old. They don't make stuff like they used to.
Click to expand...

I think you're right, but I don't think it's because they don't make stuff like they used to. I think when you push the limits of performance, you usually increase risk and have greater likelyhood of discovering new weak points and experiencing total failure. Case in point: NASCAR lol (or any other motorsport)

I'd much rather see RADICALLY increased reliability and capacity in existing densities than increased densities and performance. Since that isn't happening, I'll probably be investing in a tape drive.
 
Trepidati0n said:
Every time the next bigger HDD is released, SOMEBODY says this. My guess is if you say it enough times, eventually somebody will get it right.
Click to expand...

Because large drives = more density more possibility for errors, alignment issues et cetera.

Red Squirrel said:
With raid, is where such big drives shine.

Imagine 3 of these in raid 5. You are safe from a failure, and have 8TB of data (well less, because they are not truly 4TB but let's not go there). But you still need backups.... lol

I actually only have 1TB drives at home. I find it more cost effective for me to buy a 1TB drive for under 100 bucks and add to my raid array, then buy a bigger drive as I'd have to buy at least 3 so I can rebuild the array properly. I will probably eventually jump to 3TB drives when the need comes.
Click to expand...

your worse off in raid with these large drives because rebuild times take so long and stress the other drives your more likely to have a 2nd drive die during a rebuild and then your screwed.
 
your worse off in raid with these large drives because rebuild times take so long and stress the other drives your more likely to have a 2nd drive die during a rebuild and then your screwed.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on your raid controller and how many drives you have ...
At work in my latest build with 9 x 2TB hitachi drives in raid6 I have an 8 hour to 8.5 hour rebuild time with linux software raid6 on a core2quad. I do not consider that too long a wait. I believe that this is actually shorter rebuild time than a 10 drive raid6 array I had installed 6 years ago using WDC 250GB SATA1 drives. Of course that machine was only a 2 processor 2.0 GHz Opteron with 4GB of memory and 64 bit linux and the 4 core 2.83 GHz core2quad is quite a bit faster and the SATA ports do not have the bottlenecks on the Intel SASUI PCIe card versus dual promise sx8 PCIX cards.
 
i seriously doubt samsung is gona make 4TB drives,
so far most or all of their drives havnt had more then 3platters, 333x3 for 1tb; 750x2 for 1,5tb; 666x3 for 2tb
having 1tb platters will give em decent 3platter 3tb capability, but for 'em to reach 4t they will need to bump up to 1,33tb ;P
 
Gomar said:
Why would home users need 4TB at all? As was mentioned, watch out for failure rate and putting too much unto these suckers. There have been debates over using 32GB flash cards in photography forums out of fear of loss, deletion, failure, etc. Is it still better to use 4 8gb cards instead of one 32GB? I would rather get 4 1TB external HDDs than 1 4TB internal.
Click to expand...
You have obviously never ripped a DVD or BD, you need much more than 4 TB for a media server.
I use 24 TB / 14 disks for only half of my movie/series collection, I'd certainly prefer six 4 TB drives rather than quadrupling my risk of mechanical failure.
And I have two 32 GB SD cards already, why would you stop filming every 15 minutes to replace 4 GB cards?
 
Prediction time. When is the earliest we can expect -

- 3TB drive for $90? (is Q3 2011 too much to hope for?)
- 4TB drive for $100?
 
WD announced their 2TB drive in january 2009 and started showing up over the summer... They were $240 in the summer of 2009.
3TB drives are just starting to show up now so it'll prob be <$100 in 18 months give or take the rest of the market.... Since SSDs are taking market share from drives in general, the drive makers may drop prices to increase sales or keep them high to make money...
We'll also have to see when the new drives with 1TB platters start shipping... but I'd guess Winter 2012 at the earliest to hit <$100
 
MrGuvernment said:
Because large drives = more density more possibility for errors, alignment issues et cetera.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that nothing else improves other than density? Serioulsy? Every single time the next bigger drive is released, somebody says this. When has somebody been right on a density increase being "bad". Next thing you know somebody will be telling me a "die shrink" is bad too.

Can somebody link me a study that shows a direct correlation between platter density and failure rates? I mean, if this is such a big deal..it should be easy.

If you can't..stop FUD'ing.
 
Trepidati0n said:
So you are saying that nothing else improves other than density? Serioulsy? Every single time the next bigger drive is released, somebody says this. When has somebody been right on a density increase being "bad". Next thing you know somebody will be telling me a "die shrink" is bad too.

Can somebody link me a study that shows a direct correlation between platter density and failure rates? I mean, if this is such a big deal..it should be easy.

If you can't..stop FUD'ing.
Click to expand...

I think it's similar logic to playing the the lottery. The more tickets you buy, the more likely you are to win. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

Hence, with larger capacity hdd's, the more capacity, the more likely you are to experience failure. Makes sense to me.
 
I personally would prefer 2 platter 2Tb drives with more time and money spent on reliability, that'd be a sweet spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top