Seagate Unveils Massive 10TB Hard Drives To Meet All Storage Needs

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
Seagate is releasing not one but three 10TB HDs: the Barracuda Pro, the IronWolf, and the SkyHawk, all of which belong to their new Guardian line. Respectively, these are suited toward desktop usage, NAS, and surveillance. I really like the animal branding their designers came up with.

According to Seagate, the Barracuda Pro 10TB desktop drive is a high performer that spins at 7,200RPM and includes a five-year warranty. The IronWolf 10TB NAS drive is a "tough, ready and salable" drive that's designed specifically for network attached storage (NAS) servers. It has rotational vibration (RV) sensors to to reduce vibration in multidrive systems, RAID optimization and power-saving features. Finally, the SkyHawk 10TB Surveillance drive is similar to the IronWolf but is designed as a 24-7 host of storage for surveillance cameras, supporting high-resolution images from multiple cameras simultaneously.
 

Kongar

Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
739
<-----

WHOA, the IronWolf? :eek: :p

Karma now says that today you'll fall down and break a leg, break up with your SO, and try to let out a silent fart in a public place - but instead s&%t your pants :LOL: Full of failure.
 

collegeboy69us

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
5,256
Giving your hard drives cool names isn't going to stop them from being a leader in failure rate.

I've seen the numbers and articles on their history, and I've had a mix of Seagate/HGST/Western Digital all working fine for years. Currently have about 25TB in my house... never had a single Seagate go bad on me yet *knock on wood*
 

Ryokurin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
10,560
Giving your hard drives cool names isn't going to stop them from being a leader in failure rate.

If you are going by the Backblaze results, it's Western Digital that has the highest failure rate now. Kind of ironic since HGST is the most reliable.
 

morningreis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
1,574
Do Seagate drives really have failure rates that bad? I haven't had to buy a hard drive in quite a long time, but I remember them being extremely reliable once.
 

Bigdady92

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Messages
5,767
Just another spin on the Western Digital Color Schema:

Blue=MidGrade useful for desktops
Green=Slow, Energy Saver
Red=NAS grade
 

Bigdady92

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Messages
5,767
Do Seagate drives really have failure rates that bad? I haven't had to buy a hard drive in quite a long time, but I remember them being extremely reliable once.


They were the Deathstars of another generation. They aren't that bad now. I have several 2/4 TB disks, haven't had a problem. There was a firmware update that really helped out the drives' lifespan but that was 3-4 years ago?
 

britjh22

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
385
What consumer would use this in anything other than a media server? The HDD players that didn't get into SSD's, are quickly being relegated to enterprise it seems. There is only so cheap you can make a 1/2/4 TB drive.
 

rive22

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
4,645
Notice the colors, green red and blue. Anything familiar there.

The 5 year warranty makes them appear much more promising. I wonder what the bit error rate is. And are they SMR.
 
Last edited:

Ryokurin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
10,560
They were the Deathstars of another generation. They aren't that bad now. I have several 2/4 TB disks, haven't had a problem. There was a firmware update that really helped out the drives' lifespan but that was 3-4 years ago?

It wasn't just the 7200.12 that had the problem, A lot of their drives made around the time Thailand had that bad flood that caused a major drive shortage failed quickly, which is where the rep came into play. Bad QA back then yes, but I wouldn't say they were like deathstars, where IBM was basically telling people they cause the failure by running their computer 24/7
 

Ryokurin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
10,560
Ever heard of backups? Or are you the one that cries because data loss will never happen to me?

Backups is probably what a lot of people would use it for. I'm just hoping that it will drop the prices of archive drives some. I could use them, but I don't want to pay $250 a drive for them.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,910
10TB is big.
Only problem I can see atm is they are Seagate.
Not ready to trust them yet until they are proven reliable again. (yet=probably 5 years, assuming no more gaffs)
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
18,929
10TB is big.
Only problem I can see atm is they are Seagate.
Not ready to trust them yet until they are proven reliable again. (yet=probably 5 years, assuming no more gaffs)
Buy me one and I'll test it for 5 years or until it fails.
 

OEM

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
20,483
I have a 6 year old Seagate that is kicking strong. I also have a 3 year old seagate drive that failed after 2.


Won't take my chances.
 

ir0nw0lf

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
6,403
Karma now says that today you'll fall down and break a leg, break up with your SO, and try to let out a silent fart in a public place - but instead s&%t your pants :LOL: Full of failure.
o_O Sharts are serious business!
 

Jovian

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
362
What could possibly be the difference between NAS and Surveillance, bigger cache on the surveillance? I dont think there is a need to separate these.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
Anybody that runs a 10TB drive by itself is asking to lose tons of information.
raid 1 with hot spare, raid5 or 10 but never single.

Never use Raid 5 with drives this large.
Even the smallest Raid 5 (3 drives) would be 20TB.
There is too high of a chance that if you replaced a failed drive, you would have a read error (and the raid would fail) during the rebuild.

Need to use Raid 1, Raid 10, or Raid 6.

Raid 1 if you just need 10 TB
Raid 10 if you need performance or only 20 TB
Raid 6 if write performance is not as important and you need massive storage (10 drives would give you 80TB) :nailbiting:
 

OregonLAN

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 20, 2001
Messages
2,627
Some of earlier Seagate 1.5TB and 3.0TB hard drives had defective controllers which caused them to fail prematurely. Due to price and availability at the time, the Seagate 7200.11 1.5TB and 3.0TB hard drives were huge sellers and Seagate's reputation suffered greatly from it.

Personally, I've had my issues with each and every hard drive manufacturer. I have Seagate hard drives that have been in service for 7+ years, and I have others that have failed in less than a month. Same goes for Western Digital, Hitachi, IBM and Samsung hard drives. You should always accept that a hard drive might fail at any time and keep a backup of your data regardless of their perceived reliability.

FWIW, Backblaze continues to purchase most of their hard drives from Seagate despite the higher failure rates. The newer 2TB and 4TB seagate hard drives are much more reliable...
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,025
What could possibly be the difference between NAS and Surveillance, bigger cache on the surveillance? I dont think there is a need to separate these.
NAS has firmware for faster hardware error recovery, if the controller supports it.
Surveillance has firmware for recording several streams at once, and can recover from stream drops faster.

Other than that they should be identical hardware unless surveillance is DVR grade, which means its fine baking at 45-55c all day long.
 

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
What could possibly be the difference between NAS and Surveillance, bigger cache on the surveillance? I dont think there is a need to separate these.
Surveillance drives are supposed to handle more concurrent writing streams.
 

Trepidati0n

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
9,210
Never use Raid 5 with drives this large.
Even the smallest Raid 5 (3 drives) would be 20TB.
There is too high of a chance that if you replaced a failed drive, you would have a read error (and the raid would fail) during the rebuild.

Need to use Raid 1, Raid 10, or Raid 6.

Raid 1 if you just need 10 TB
Raid 10 if you need performance or only 20 TB
Raid 6 if write performance is not as important and you need massive storage (10 drives would give you 80TB) :nailbiting:

RAID6 is no longer viable (by the math) either with many drives of this class. Currently file management systems for the consumer are very much behind the times. For big industry...they have fairly good systems but we don't have access to them. Even then, the chance of a URE is pretty much guaranteed with this size drive if reading the "whole thing". We really need file systems that have strong enough hash/encoding systems (e.g. enhanced parity) such that a failed read on a block is repairable by looking at the data around it and not just dumping the whole array.

As for a lot of data to lose..that is relative. The question is, how long does it take to produce that 10TB of data. If it takes you 5 years..then a 10TB drive is a foolish choice. If it takes you a day...then a 10TB is a smart choice.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,560
Ever heard of backups? Or are you the one that cries because data loss will never happen to me?

It happens. Recovery can be time consuming.

I'd grab a couple of these and go RAID1 with good offsite backup (I use Crashplan, which has worked amazingly great in the past). If I had a good 10TB external drive, I'd use that as a backup, too. :)
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
At 10TB it really needs to be reliable. That's a lot of info to lose.
Someone needs to generate a script that will just automatically make this the first post anytime a bigger hard drive is invented.

As always, hard drives can fail no matter what size they are, which is why raid arrays exist. Not everyone will need multiple 10TB drives, and for them, they can buy two or more smaller drives. But someone will love throwing four of these in their server.

BTW: Personally, I just throw giant drives in a RAID0 array, but have duplicate servers for data redundancy that are synced. I figure this is safest, and for whatever reason I never have drives fail. *knock on wood* I have to wipe and give away 512GB drives, because mine somehow never break. Luck of the draw I suppose.
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,025
RAID6 is no longer viable (by the math) either with many drives of this class. Currently file management systems for the consumer are very much behind the times. For big industry...they have fairly good systems but we don't have access to them. Even then, the chance of a URE is pretty much guaranteed with this size drive if reading the "whole thing". We really need file systems that have strong enough hash/encoding systems (e.g. enhanced parity) such that a failed read on a block is repairable by looking at the data around it and not just dumping the whole array.

As for a lot of data to lose..that is relative. The question is, how long does it take to produce that 10TB of data. If it takes you 5 years..then a 10TB drive is a foolish choice. If it takes you a day...then a 10TB is a smart choice.
Im out of the loop. What is beyond raid6 in a single box? You can chuck 2 drives with raid6.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,927
I have a 6 year old Seagate that is kicking strong. I also have a 3 year old seagate drive that failed after 2.

Won't take my chances.

With any storage media you are taking chances unless you have multiple backups. Having a single drive die out of a small handful means nothing at all statistically. Around 4% annual failure should be expected from most desktop class drives however with a small quantity luck plays a part in who will have their drives fail.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,927
bigger cache on the surveillance?

Surveillance from WDC and Seagate usually means the drive has the tler set to a very short period and these tend to have lower advertised reliability.
 
Top