Seagate Develops World’s Highest Density Mobile Hard Drive Technology

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Seagate Technology, a world leader in storage solutions, today announced it has achieved a major milestone in areal density with a new hard disk that can offer as much as 2TB of capacity in a slim 7mm package. This achievement is significant because in final product form it will give OEMs freedom to design a new generation of elegant mobile products that are extremely thin and stylish, light-weight, fast, power-efficient and cost-effective.
 
Looks like they are playing catch up, as 7mm thick, 2TB SSD's are already shipping.

Only real advantage 2.5" mechanical drives have left is price, and hopefully that will disappear with the newer 3d flash memory.

(3.5" mechanical drives still have an advantage, as they are shipping 8tb drives)
 
It says 1 TB per platter. I have a 2 TB drive from 2 years ago with 2 platters. Are the platters smaller or am I missing something?
 
Seagate Technology, a world leader in losing your data, today announced it has achieved a major milestone in areal density with a new hard disk that can offer as much as 2TB of capacity in a slim 7mm package. This achievement is significant because in final product form it will allow for users to lose even more data all at once than any time in history.

I would never voluntarily run a Seagate drive. Their reliability is shit. If you value your data, don't buy Seagate.
 
trparky said:
Seagate Technology, a world leader in losing your data, today announced it has achieved a major milestone in areal density with a new hard disk that can offer as much as 2TB of capacity in a slim 7mm package. This achievement is significant because in final product form it will allow for users to lose even more data all at once than any time in history.

I would never voluntarily run a Seagate drive. Their reliability is shit. If you value your data, don't buy Seagate.
Click to expand...

LMAO, you beat me to it.

Forget Seagate,
 
It says 1 TB per platter. I have a 2 TB drive from 2 years ago with 2 platters. Are the platters smaller or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Is that a 2.5 inch drive?
 
As said above ^
Problem is they are put in Seagate drives.
 
I've had more Western Digital Drives fail then Seagates. IMHO, its all luck, some people are going to have worse luck than others. People still aren't over the 7200.11 Firmware fiasco.
 
Yep... no thank you Seagate. Until you can increase your reliability by about 5000% I will not be buying any drives that your company makes.

I have 3x dead Seagate laptop drives on my desk right now.. and some dead Seagate laptop and desktop and enterprise drives at home.

Your drives die about 5-6x as often as any other brand I have used. You need to focus on reliability above everything else.
 
Galvin said:
It says 1 TB per platter. I have a 2 TB drive from 2 years ago with 2 platters. Are the platters smaller or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

You drive is thicker (likely 9mm to 15mm) than the 7mm height of this drive.
This drive is as thin as current a SSD's
 
Steve said:
Seagate Technology, a world leader in storage solutions
Click to expand...

I stopped reading right about there. I would trust literally any other drive in my possession thrown against a wall several times before I would trust a brand new Seagate drive in any machine I build.

The only Seagate I deal with is in my workstation at work, and that's because I didn't get a choice in the matter :mad:
 
Daeyx said:
I've had more Western Digital Drives fail then Seagates. IMHO, its all luck, some people are going to have worse luck than others. People still aren't over the 7200.11 Firmware fiasco.
Click to expand...

Dell uses way to many Seagate drives, especially in their servers. Almost ever Dell OEM drive I have had die over the past few years has been a Seagate, even though Dell/Seagate are a small part of my drives. I've had much better luck with WD and Hitachi drives.
 
nutzo said:
Dell uses way to many Seagate drives, especially in their servers. Almost ever Dell OEM drive I have had die over the past few years has been a Seagate, even though Dell/Seagate are a small part of my drives. I've had much better luck with WD and Hitachi drives.
Click to expand...

Knock on wood i have not had a Seagate drive die in their 10k and 15k range in 14 years....

Desktop drives i still do not trust.
 
trparky said:
Seagate Technology, a world leader in losing your data, today announced it has achieved a major milestone in areal density with a new hard disk that can offer as much as 2TB of capacity in a slim 7mm package. This achievement is significant because in final product form it will allow for users to lose even more data all at once than any time in history.

I would never voluntarily run a Seagate drive. Their reliability is shit. If you value your data, don't buy Seagate.
Click to expand...

If you value your data, you will make proper backups, regardless of who you think is a better hard drive manufacturer this month.
 
with drives these big, you need to buy 2. one for backup.
That's way too much porn to lose all at once.
 
dr.kevin said:
with drives these big, you need to buy 2. one for backup.
That's way too much porn to lose all at once.
Click to expand...

nailed it. This is what i've done for a number of years now. Simple, fast, best redundancy of any method. And very easy and quick to restore if a drive dies. Just grab your offline mirror drive, whack it in the system, do a copy to the new drive straight up - and you're off and ready to rumble.
 
The floods happened, a memo went out saying lower the test/fault tolerances to increase yield and shipping rates.

After the floods/demand calmed down no memo saying to re-instate the original certifications appeared.

That's my take on it.
 
It's too bad backblaze does not include non enterprise drives in their research. You wonder if they have higher endurance rates in practice.
 
Why all the hate on Seagate? I've seen so many WD Blue's die, honestly, I think it has more to do with luck than anything else. I've used Seagate for many years and have not had any issues. My brother has had a few WD's die in that time frame, my Seagates are still chugging along.
 
daglesj said:
The floods happened, a memo went out saying lower the test/fault tolerances to increase yield and shipping rates.

After the floods/demand calmed down no memo saying to re-instate the original certifications appeared.

That's my take on it.
Click to expand...

My room mate in college bought one of the first seagate drive, a 20MB for his commodore 64 for like $500.. It was not reliable then, so this is nothing new.

Toshiba 5TB Canvio Desktop External Hard Drive (HDWC250XK3J1) has decreased from $139.99 to $129.99
 
davewolfs said:
It's too bad backblaze does not include non enterprise drives in their research. You wonder if they have higher endurance rates in practice.
Click to expand...

hmmm i thought they actually ran NONE enterprise drives because their data showed there was no difference... so best off saving coin and just getting the cheapest. They all died anyway.

I've used that theory for some time given the exuberant prices for these "better" drives. Saved me $hit-tonnes!
 
Enterprise drives usually are faster.. They also had higher bandwidth interfaces and ran at higher RPM's. So the higher costs is not as simple as it seems, when you had only 4-8 drive arrays, those faster speeds and lower latency made a huge difference. But when you start putting in 40-100 drives per array, the advantages goes down. If not for SSD's power users would be moving onto enterprise drives now. When you only look at capacity standard drives makes a lot more sense. BUT these days they are also degrading drives so large arrays of standard drives dont work very well. So you have to pick and choose the drives. Drive array performance can drop to a 5th of normal when these degraded drives are used. SMR drives on top drops the performance even further. The trend seems tobe that in a few years you will end up with NAS drives instead of enterprise drives.. Standard drives will only work as backups and archive drives on systems. Because of people using them in NAS and Enterprise systems. They are not higher performance drives.. They are just performance limited drives to environments outside than that specified.

The new trend of warranty specification that drives run for 8x5x365 instead of 24x7x365.. I have not heard of them insisting on number of on Hours or usage but they will.
 
AliceCooper said:
Why all the hate on Seagate? I've seen so many WD Blue's die, honestly, I think it has more to do with luck than anything else. I've used Seagate for many years and have not had any issues. My brother has had a few WD's die in that time frame, my Seagates are still chugging along.
Click to expand...

Only had two HDDs fail on me. That's a pretty good run over 25 years.

One was a 74GB WD Raptor and the other was a 5900rpm 1TB Seagate Barracuda that I had in a old QNAP NAS.

However, in terms of customers HDDs? I have a stack of Samsung/Toshiba/Seagate and WD HDDs that all have SMART errors littered throughout them. Older drives (pre flood) seem to hold up better than post flood drives. Hence why I reckon quality standards dropped around that time.
 
AlienTech said:
Enterprise drives usually are faster.. They also had higher bandwidth interfaces and ran at higher RPM's. So the higher costs is not as simple as it seems, when you had only 4-8 drive arrays, those faster speeds and lower latency made a huge difference. But when you start putting in 40-100 drives per array, the advantages goes down. If not for SSD's power users would be moving onto enterprise drives now. When you only look at capacity standard drives makes a lot more sense. BUT these days they are also degrading drives so large arrays of standard drives dont work very well. So you have to pick and choose the drives. Drive array performance can drop to a 5th of normal when these degraded drives are used. SMR drives on top drops the performance even further. The trend seems tobe that in a few years you will end up with NAS drives instead of enterprise drives.. Standard drives will only work as backups and archive drives on systems. Because of people using them in NAS and Enterprise systems. They are not higher performance drives.. They are just performance limited drives to environments outside than that specified.

The new trend of warranty specification that drives run for 8x5x365 instead of 24x7x365.. I have not heard of them insisting on number of on Hours or usage but they will.
Click to expand...

You are talking SAS enterprise HDDs there. Most here would be wanting to use SATA enterprise HDDS.

The only difference I've found with SATA enterprise HDDs over domestic is they have longer warranties and run a little louder.
 
These days SAS mostly uses SATA drives but this was not always true. SCSI was enterprise but you could get destop drives as well as used by all old apple machines. You cant just take the last 5 years as a trend, Seagate only started using enterprise designs for SATA drives since like 2007. Before that they were different. But even now, you cant buy 10k and 15k desktop drives. Latency is another area where enterprise drives were faster. There are other features, usually mostly just software these days. NCQ was an enterprise feature now in "some" desktop drives and almost all SSD's.. But see not all desktop drives have NCQ now.. Hot plugging was standard with sata2 specs but I have not tested this feature as I have lost a number of drives by hot plugging them.

And as I stated, the new trend is again to differentiate between enterprise and desktop drives with software rather than hardware.. And with warranty claims and such. The trend is again not to allow desktop drives to be used as enterprise drives. When raid controllers were changed so desktop drives would work in arrays they started removing NCQ, without which raid arrays would slow down drastically and potentially take out the drive out of raid due to delays. Considering we had NCQ on my sata1 seagate drive made over a decade ago, the only reason to not have them in al current drives is.. to not allow companies like backblaze to use desktop drives.. And to stop people pulling drive out of external cases to use as desktop drives etc.. These are just easily understood gimmicks..
 
trparky said:
Seagate Technology, a world leader in losing your data, today announced it has achieved a major milestone in areal density with a new hard disk that can offer as much as 2TB of capacity in a slim 7mm package. This achievement is significant because in final product form it will allow for users to lose even more data all at once than any time in history. You can now lose multiple terabytes of data faster than ever!
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top