Seagate's roadmap teases 100TBs of spinning rust by 2025

[Syntaxvgm]

https://hexus.net/tech/news/storage/123953-seagates-hdd-roadmap-teases-100tb-drives-2025/

HAMAR! 

Heat Assisted Magnetic Recording-they've been working on this shit since the 90s, finally seagate claims that they will be shipping drives with the technology this quarter, and it should be available to consumers by 2020, by then at least 20TB.

Their roadmap teases the idea of 100TB drives, and with that a new iteration of the HAMR technology. 

 

Quote

Going further, Seagate and the ASTC expect HAMR to result in HDD capacities approaching 50TB "early next decade" and then combining HAMR with bit-patterned media to build heated dot magnetic recording (HDMR) drives will enable us to reach the 100TB HDD milestone.

That may seem very far into the future, but it's not- less than 7 years. That's fairly fast, and I honestly would be surprised if they would be able to produce 100TB spinning rust by then. There's also the possibility that flash memory is cheaper by then, but honestly at the trend it's been at if they are able to make advancements these AMD style marketing graphics claim, we'll be using hard drives for cheaper storage for longer than most probably had hoped. 

[NeuesTestament]

This is definitely needed to save all that 8k schoolwork

[Alexzz_]

Pretty impressive, however i don't see speeds mentioned anywhere, which causes me concern because if i can have 100TB at 1 tenth the speed of a 1TB drive id rather have the 1TB and just back up the rest to cloud storage.

[WereCatf]

5 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

less than 7 years

At the speed that flash-based media has dropped in price and capacity has soared, I'm not sure 100TB spinning rust will even be competitive anymore in 7 years' time. Samsung, for example, is already producing 30TB SSDs, and it probably won't take too many years before such capacities are actually within regular consumers' reach.

 

I guess it all remains to be seen.

[jagdtigger]

@Alexzz_

Id rather have a local only storage even if its slower, at least that way i know for sure that only i can access my files and no-one else....

 

@WereCatf

For the price of the 1TB Samsung SSD i could buy a 8TB HDD. Still too far apart.

Edited November 7, 2018 by jagdtigger

[Alexzz_]

1 minute ago, NeuesTestament said:

This is definitely needed to save all that 8k schoolwork

Honey, why is your schoolwork folder taking up 50TB?

eehm, just large "data sets" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Alexzz_]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

@Alexzz_

Id rather have a local only storage even if its slower, at least that way i know for sure that only i can access my files and no-one else....

 

@WereCatf

For the price of the 1TB Samsung SSD i could buy a 8TB HDD. Still too far apart.

True if you are concerned about privacy, quite frankly I'm not all that concerned about it. I have no reason to believe google is going to do anything harmful with the vacation pictures that take up the biggest part of my hard drive. And if i had such sensitive data I would not store it on something that's connected to the internet 24/7

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, Alexzz_ said:

Pretty impressive, however i don't see speeds mentioned anywhere, which causes me concern because if i can have 100TB at 1 tenth the speed of a 1TB drive id rather have the 1TB and just back up the rest to cloud storage.

My first priority is density, cost, and reliability. I hoard a lot of data, but don't need it super quickly. I'm ok with archive style drives if the cost per GB is right (and currently on those shingle archive drives, they are not much cheaper, so I dont use them)

The way I use my file server is a dump something onto fast storage, it gets moved to slow storage, then data deduplication seriously saves me like 50% from there. It is then copied via bittorrent file sync for off site backup, which all works out to being fast enough for me. With 100TB per drive data density, I wouldn't even need data deduplication maybe. 

[Syntaxvgm]

1 minute ago, Alexzz_ said:

True if you are concerned about privacy, quite frankly I'm not all that concerned about it. I have no reason to believe google is going to do anything harmful with the vacation pictures that take up the biggest part of my hard drive. And if i had such sensitive data I would not store it on something that's connected to the internet 24/7

For almost every good, fast, reliable cloud solution you can use as FTP you are paying the cost of the raw storage in a month or two, redundancy in less than 6 months. I can afford to store so much more locally, and it's faster currently to read/write over my local network than over my 200Mbps connection. By then I'll have moved my local network to 10 gigabit. 

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, Alexzz_ said:

I have no reason to believe google is going to do anything harmful with the vacation pictures that take up the biggest part of my hard drive.

You better think that over, i would bet that at the very least a bot is scrubbing through all the files stored on gdrive...  And im sure there are interesting clauses in their TOS too.

[Alexzz_]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

You better think that over, i would bet that at the very least a bot is scrubbing through all the files stored on gdrive...  And im sure there are interesting clauses in their TOS too.

Probably, the point i made with that sentence was that the bot would most likely not be very interested in a few generic vacation pictures.

[Alexzz_]

9 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

For almost every good, fast, reliable cloud solution you can use as FTP you are paying the cost of the raw storage in a month or two, redundancy in less than 6 months. I can afford to store so much more locally, and it's faster currently to read/write over my local network than over my 200Mbps connection. By then I'll have moved my local network to 10 gigabit. 

In your use case it makes sense, I was more talking about if from an average Joe point of view.

[AlTech]

@Syntaxvgm Typo in title.

[Mira Yurizaki]

25 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

At the speed that flash-based media has dropped in price and capacity has soared, I'm not sure 100TB spinning rust will even be competitive anymore in 7 years' time. Samsung, for example, is already producing 30TB SSDs, and it probably won't take too many years before such capacities are actually within regular consumers' reach.

 

I guess it all remains to be seen.

Flash memory is one of the technologies that theoretically gets worse when you apply Moore's law to it. The failure mechanism for flash memory is that when you erase a cell, not all of the electrons that were kept in the floating gate are cleared. Eventually enough electrons get stuck in there that it permanently keeps the cell at some voltage.

 

The thing is, the less material the cells have to store charge, the lower durability they have. This can be compensated by error correction techniques, but that can only carry you for so long.

 

27 minutes ago, Alexzz_ said:

Pretty impressive, however i don't see speeds mentioned anywhere, which causes me concern because if i can have 100TB at 1 tenth the speed of a 1TB drive id rather have the 1TB and just back up the rest to cloud storage.

If the disk is spinning at the same rate, then increasing data density passively increases sequential read performance due to picking up more bits per distance traveled.

[MyName13]

Will anyone want HDDs beyond 2020?

[Syntaxvgm]

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

@Syntaxvgm Typo in title.

Where? I copied the site headline. 

[AlTech]

Just now, Syntaxvgm said:

Where? I copied the site headline. 

 

[Syntaxvgm]

3 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

 

oof in the body too, I misspell seagate all the time. I probably saw the red underline for the name and corrected it to "segate" even though it was fine as is. 

[AlTech]

5 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Will anyone want HDDs beyond 2020?

I'm gonna say yes unless SSDs become as cheap as HDDs.

[MyName13]

8 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I'm gonna say yes unless SSDs become as cheap as HDDs.

Their prices have dropped significantly few months ago.

[mynameisjuan]

We have already past the point where amount of data/drive is too high due to failure reason. I cant imaging 10, 20 or 100TBs of data gone in seconds and the months of writing to restore it. 

[Syntaxvgm]

42 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

At the speed that flash-based media has dropped in price and capacity has soared, I'm not sure 100TB spinning rust will even be competitive anymore in 7 years' time. Samsung, for example, is already producing 30TB SSDs, and it probably won't take too many years before such capacities are actually within regular consumers' reach.

 

I guess it all remains to be seen.

these were my thoughts, but price scaling is important to. SSDs for the high end aren't really price scaling, they're just putting more memory into the enclosure and charging even more. Typically, the biggest mechanical drive available is within consumers reach in a year or two, and is less than 1000$. 

[jagdtigger]

11 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

We have already past the point where amount of data/drive is too high due to failure reason. I cant imaging 10, 20 or 100TBs of data gone in seconds and the months of writing to restore it. 

It depends on the raid type, raid1 and 10 would be finished in a few days in case of 10TB. 5 and 6 is heavily dependent on CPU.

[Mooshi]

Would only take a decade to index all that.

[BuckGup]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

We have already past the point where amount of data/drive is too high due to failure reason. I cant imaging 10, 20 or 100TBs of data gone in seconds and the months of writing to restore it. 

Yeah no way would I trust 100TBs of something on one single drive. Maybe in a raid setup but then that's double the failure rate technically.