Western digital to demo Dual-Actuator HDD's

[alex75871]

I am building a new storage server and require ~30 TB usage storage after RAID/parity. I have the following options...

 

4x 10 TB WD Reds ~$2000 NZD

or...

10x 4 TB Samsung Evo ~$11,000 NZD

 

Both the HDDs and SSDs come with similar warranties in my country.

 

I know which one I would choose LOL

[Stefan Payne]

13 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

"Conner Peripherals"... Founded by Seagate's Finis Conner... so I guess?

no, they were totally different companys at the time.

There were like 5-10 different HDD Manufacturers back in the day - and they all went under or closed.

The last one to go was Maxtor...

[vanished]

It's a cool idea but I'm not sure how popular this will be.  The market is firmly divided into SSDs and HDDs - it's a situation where you very easily and clearly know which you want for any particular use case, and would never be swayed into choosing the other by the variations or features of one particular offering on the opposite side.  The cause for this divide as far as I can tell is speed and GB/$.  The thing is, the speed is so insanely different that nothing HDDs can possibly do will make up that gap in any meaningful way, so any attempt is probably going to amount to wasted effort.  Sure improvements are always nice, but at the end of the day if someone's shopping for a HDD, they are looking to maximize GB/$ and don't really care about anything else, so if there is a traditional drive and one of these available in the same capacity, no one would choose this unless it's the same price or less which I very much doubt it will be.

[leadeater]

25 minutes ago, alex75871 said:

I know which one I would choose LOL

None of the above? 

[Stefan Payne]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

None of the above? 

You mean a mixture of both?

Or other variants (like 10x 4TB HDDs)

[RejZoR]

I'm actually shocked that hybrid drives (SSHD) are not a thing. Then again, given how garbage specs they made them, I'm not really that surprised. Giving them crappy 8GB of SSD cache is just insulting. Those 8GB is literally there to show flying colorful numbers in tests for Windows boot, few apps and 1 game. And then it trashes the cache once you go beyond that. Which happens just by playing one modern game.

 

If people knew how much of a difference 128GB cache that costs next to nothing makes, they'd be an awesome bridge between garbage HDD's and still expensive at large capacities SSD's. But from what I can see, both WD and Seagate killed them entirely. Gee, I wonder why.

 

This dual actuator drive with at least 256GB SSD cache would be a killer thing for gamers who want performance and huge capacity in one package. Instead, you need to do it yourself properly using software because multibillion corporations are apparently too stupid to do it.

[Real_PhillBert]

21 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

as far as SSD's go for archival or large file longer term storage, I agree we definitely aren't there yet. but most people can make do with a 250GB or even a 120/128GB SSD for basic everyday work. Which is where the incentive to buy them is still at.

Totally agree. People who are tech enthusiasts often get jaded by how much storage they use vs how much the average person actually uses. 

 

I recently built a new PC for my parents to send Emails, browse the internet and play solitaire on; They've had zero problems with their last PCs storage of a 120gb hard drive (this thing has been used far too long) and I was going to use a 500gb SSD, but my dad was adamant that they needed at least 1tb. So I used a 1TB ssd, but so far they've used almost none of it. 

[RejZoR]

Why ppl worry so much, just buy a larger SSD and keep it virtually forever until its interface goes dodo. SSD's are fast because of huge IOPS. Meaning almost any kind of SSD you have, it'll be fast enough for next 10 years. NVMe drives only really hugely ramp up sequential speeds that were limited to 550MB/s on SATA3. 100k IOPS or 300k IOPS, makes next to no difference. But 100k IOPS compared to 100 IOPS (yeah, without "k") HDD's can do, the difference is massive. SSD's are one of best investments as they don't depreciate or get outdated like graphic cards. And needs for capacities really haven't gone up that much. I've been on 2TB basically since first such drives came out like decade ago if not longer. Still on 2TB drive with no real issues with storage space shortage.

[O_Bedstew]

22 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

It's first but not world's first

 

 

Regardless, SSD prices are plummeting. 1TB for $100 nowadays. Only thing they're really good for is archive storage and speed doesn't matter that much at that point, especially since storage tiering is becoming mainstream.

Please, where do you find 1TB SSD for 100 USD?

[RejZoR]

Just now, O_Bedstew said:

Please, where do you find 1TB SSD for 100 USD?

Samsung 860 QVO or Intel 660p or WD Blue 1TB SSD or Crucial MX500 1TB etc. They are all a bit over 110€ which means they should be around $100 in American region.

[rcmaehl]

4 minutes ago, O_Bedstew said:

Please, where do you find 1TB SSD for 100 USD?

 

[O_Bedstew]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

Samsung 860 QVO or Intel 660p or WD Blue 1TB SSD or Crucial MX500 1TB etc. They are all a bit over 110€ which means they should be around $100 in American region.

Thank you! Haven't been able to find a 1TB SSD for under 170USd (1100DKK) here in denmark yet, but the 660p cost about 140USD!

[bcredeur97]

1 hour ago, Real_PhillBert said:

Totally agree. People who are tech enthusiasts often get jaded by how much storage they use vs how much the average person actually uses. 

 

I recently built a new PC for my parents to send Emails, browse the internet and play solitaire on; They've had zero problems with their last PCs storage of a 120gb hard drive (this thing has been used far too long) and I was going to use a 500gb SSD, but my dad was adamant that they needed at least 1tb. So I used a 1TB ssd, but so far they've used almost none of it. 

we do 128GB desktops at work. most people don't even use half... but we also stress all the time for them to use the network drives which we actually have a gazillion backups of.. they aren't intended to be used for anything more than temporary storage. Though we still have to back them up because people..

[Real_PhillBert]

1 minute ago, bcredeur97 said:

we do 128GB desktops at work. most people don't even use half...

My current work desktop is also 128gb which is getting very tight, but we have a lot more going on that everyone else in the company. We have products in three different CAD systems. The next workstation is 500gb, should be on my desk anyday. Woot Woot.

[Blademaster91]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I'm actually shocked that hybrid drives (SSHD) are not a thing. Then again, given how garbage specs they made them, I'm not really that surprised. Giving them crappy 8GB of SSD cache is just insulting. Those 8GB is literally there to show flying colorful numbers in tests for Windows boot, few apps and 1 game. And then it trashes the cache once you go beyond that. Which happens just by playing one modern game.

 

If people knew how much of a difference 128GB cache that costs next to nothing makes, they'd be an awesome bridge between garbage HDD's and still expensive at large capacities SSD's. But from what I can see, both WD and Seagate killed them entirely. Gee, I wonder why.

 

This dual actuator drive with at least 256GB SSD cache would be a killer thing for gamers who want performance and huge capacity in one package. Instead, you need to do it yourself properly using software because multibillion corporations are apparently too stupid to do it.

Weren't there reliability issues with SSHD's, like either the HDD or SSD part failing?

It would be nice if these dual actuator drives are around the same price as single actuator HDD's and have speeds similar to cheaper SSD's, but I wouldn't trust a dual actuator drive for reliably storing data on.

[NinJake]

10 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

we do 128GB desktops at work. most people don't even use half... but we also stress all the time for them to use the network drives which we actually have a gazillion backups of.. they aren't intended to be used for anything more than temporary storage. Though we still have to back them up because people..

I can't wait for my next phase of upgrading some of our Windows 7 machines and replacing them with Windows 10 and SSDs in the coming months. Even after countless emails and warnings telling people to save to the network drive I know we'll get a good amount of "WHERES MY FILES!?"

 

Then I'll spin up the drive and help them restore what they need just to find out it's a picture of their cat.

 

For most single-user computers we aim to stay in the 120-250gb range and any multi-user computer we get a minimum of 500gb drives. For the nearly 3 years I've been here I've been pushing hard to swap SSDs in all future builds and everyone loves how quick they are.

[bcredeur97]

5 minutes ago, NinJake said:

I can't wait for my next phase of upgrading some of our Windows 7 machines and replacing them with Windows 10 and SSDs in the coming months. Even after countless emails and warnings telling people to save to the network drive I know we'll get a good amount of "WHERES MY FILES!?"

 

Then I'll spin up the drive and help them restore what they need just to find out it's a picture of their cat.

 

For most single-user computers we aim to stay in the 120-250gb range and any multi-user computer we get a minimum of 500gb drives. For the nearly 3 years I've been here I've been pushing hard to swap SSDs in all future builds and everyone loves how quick they are.

I push SSD's for everything since we have such little storage needs here. even our fancy new SAN is all SSD's lol. I made them love them

[wisex]

I'm not sure that its safe to say that "hard drives are dead now" because although the prices of SSD's has fallen darastically, they still don't beat hard drives on a dollar per GB ratio, the thing is that many people just want a cheap laptop with a bunch of storage with the intention of dumping ALL of their family photos on it. Although I can't wait for the day that SSD's surpass hard drives in price per GB, frankly right now the best way to give the most storage in budget builds/ affordable laptops isn't with an SSD but with a hard drive. Now personally after getting a laptop with an SSD in it, its very difficult to go back to using a hard drive because of how fast they are, but unfortunately they're still relatively expensive

[RejZoR]

On 3/12/2019 at 1:57 PM, O_Bedstew said:

Thank you! Haven't been able to find a 1TB SSD for under 170USd (1100DKK) here in denmark yet, but the 660p cost about 140USD!

Use geizhals.eu as some sort of shop aggregator. It lists basically all major European online stores. I don't necessarily always buy the cheapest because some stores don't ship to Slovenia or some others have better payment options like wire transfer for more expensive purchases where credit card limits are too limiting and maybe just experience. But it's a good way to find where you can find what and at what prices. I regularly check stuff here and it's very useful webpage if you're European. Plus, it's not only for computers, they list literally everything, but mostly tech related stuff as whole.

[Crossbred]

/summarize

Is this even useful?

Forum:

 

[Bravo1cc]

On 3/11/2019 at 2:16 PM, CarlBar said:

 

Europe does not.

I agree, there is a significant differnce between the cost of a 1TB HDD and a 1TB SSD

[LukeSavenije]

7 minutes ago, Crossbred said:

/summarize

[LukeSavenije]

8 minutes ago, Bravo1cc said:

I agree, there is a significant differnce between the cost of a 1TB HDD and a 1TB SSD

and my Europe pricing is different from yours

 

I'll keep my statement on part of europe, as said a while back

[Hellion]

It all depends on the price.

 

SSD's have gone up again since the new year (at least up north) so having a cheaper solution as a secondary drive is still a viable option depending on the workload.

[crystal6tak]

I'd be interested if it came in 8tb. Dump my entire steam library, movies, other *cough movies, and just a bunch of other stuff without worrying about running out of space.

 

On 3/12/2019 at 11:00 AM, RejZoR said:

I'm actually shocked that hybrid drives (SSHD) are not a thing. Then again, given how garbage specs they made them, I'm not really that surprised. Giving them crappy 8GB of SSD cache is just insulting. Those 8GB is literally there to show flying colorful numbers in tests for Windows boot, few apps and 1 game. And then it trashes the cache once you go beyond that. Which happens just by playing one modern game.

 

If people knew how much of a difference 128GB cache that costs next to nothing makes, they'd be an awesome bridge between garbage HDD's and still expensive at large capacities SSD's. But from what I can see, both WD and Seagate killed them entirely. Gee, I wonder why.

 

This dual actuator drive with at least 256GB SSD cache would be a killer thing for gamers who want performance and huge capacity in one package. Instead, you need to do it yourself properly using software because multibillion corporations are apparently too stupid to do it.

Would using a separate 128gb ssd as cache have similar performance boost as a built in one?