Seagate Unveils 10TB HDD Whopper With Helium

[It's me!]

So Seagate has followed HGST's lead and is adding helium into its HDDs. For me, that seems to say that HGST has been right all along, and previously Seagate was saying that helium doesnt make sense and makes the cost too high. It's always funny to see these companies do an about-face. Oh well, i still want two of them

 

It does seem somewhat odd though, that Seagate is keeping the details of the performance, etc, somewhat secret for now. Maybe it isn't quite up to par? The article is interesting in pointing out all the stuff Seagate is hiding.

 

Seagate announced its new Enterprise 3.5 Capacity 10 TB HDD, and aside from the obvious advantage of the 25 percent increase in capacity, it also comes with the addition of a helium architecture. Seagate is keeping many of the details of its latest addition secret for now; the company did not reveal the spindle speed (RPM), though one would assume it is the standard 7,200 rpm typically found in the nearline HDD space. The company also is not revealing any performance metrics or the amount of cache employed, and it is possible that the drive employs two distinct types of cache.

 

http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/seagate-hdd-10tb-enterprise-capacity,1-3106.html

[GodSpoon]

Im still sticking with HGST  

 

Glad the market is looking this direction though, prices should go down even more 

[Notional]

Nothing from Seagate has been up to par in a long time. Sure my WD 2 TB black is dying, but at least it's 5+ years old, and I get to do some backup. That was not possible with my Seagate 1 TB drive. I would never trust 10 TB data to Seagate.

[kameshss]

Cool man.

 

Time to get HGST.

[asim1999]

10TB HDD when there are 10TB SSDs. Hopefully it will be A LOT cheaper though 

[SurvivorNVL]

Yeah.. I'll just stick to SSD's.  I like the Seagtae packaging, though.  Looks very.. silver and blue.

[ChineseChef]

10TB HDD when there are 10TB SSDs. Hopefully it will be A LOT cheaper though 

 

I can't see the HDD version of 10TB being too costly, likely $500-800 at release.  Though it might be less, Seagate's current 8TB drives are around $250.  But it does raise a lot of questions about how long large scale HDDs will be relevant.  Everyone kept saying that SSDs will not replace HDDs for a long long time, which I used to agree with.  But this idea was entirely based around HDDs being so much larger and overall cheaper.  Yet with Mushkin releasing a $500 4TB SSD, and FixStar releasing 10TB and 13TB SSDs, it looks like large scale SSDs might be arriving sooner than everyone thought.  Which I doubt will replace the HDD versions, simply due to the sheer cost difference, but the SSDs will definitely put some downward pressure on the pricing of large scale HDDs.

[Bob Jim]

Nothing from Seagate has been up to par in a long time. Sure my WD 2 TB black is dying, but at least it's 5+ years old, and I get to do some backup. That was not possible with my Seagate 1 TB drive. I would never trust 10 TB data to Seagate.

Let me guess, you had a basic baracuda or something. Their enterprise drives are VERY good. Not all products from them are bad. That's like saying the AX1600i is bad because the cx500 is bad, makes no sense.

[multifrag]

I can't see the HDD version of 10TB being too costly, likely $500-800 at release.  Though it might be less, Seagate's current 8TB drives are around $250.  But it does raise a lot of questions about how long large scale HDDs will be relevant.  Everyone kept saying that SSDs will not replace HDDs for a long long time, which I used to agree with.  But this idea was entirely based around HDDs being so much larger and overall cheaper.  Yet with Mushkin releasing a $500 4TB SSD, and FixStar releasing 10TB and 13TB SSDs, it looks like large scale SSDs might be arriving sooner than everyone thought.  Which I doubt will replace the HDD versions, simply due to the sheer cost difference, but the SSDs will definitely put some downward pressure on the pricing of large scale HDDs.

The problem with HDDs is that we didn't see that substantial growth in size through out the years, while SSDs get double the capacity every year. I remember people paying 400 USD for 160Gb ssd 5 years ago. Now you can get 4TB for 500. Next year that 4TB will cost 250

[Notional]

Let me guess, you had a basic baracuda or something. Their enterprise drives are VERY good. Not all products from them are bad. That's like saying the AX1600i is bad because the cx500 is bad, makes no sense.

It was the infamous 7200.11 drive. Why would I buy an enterprise drive as a consumer? They are way too expensive. Then again this was back when 1tb drives was completely new.

Seagate are still generally bad.

Would love to get a wd black again, but the 2tb drive has hardly lowered in price in 5 years. Mechanical drives cannot die fast enough.

[Doobeedoo]

Would be nice to have 10TB HDD for mass storage. Would like to see performance. Just imagine it with 20K RPM

[Bob Jim]

It was the infamous 7200.11 drive. Why would I buy an enterprise drive as a consumer? They are way too expensive. Then again this was back when 1tb drives was completely new.

Seagate are still generally bad.

Would love to get a wd black again, but the 2tb drive has hardly lowered in price in 5 years. Mechanical drives cannot die fast enough.

Compare a modern day Barracuda with a modern blue and that would be fair. Comparing a black, high end wd to a normal seagate is stupid. You said that 'Nothing from Seagate has been up to par in a long time'. This is flat out WRONG. The enterprise drives and 99% of their other drives are fine.

[LAwLz]

Nothing from Seagate has been up to par in a long time. Sure my WD 2 TB black is dying, but at least it's 5+ years old, and I get to do some backup. That was not possible with my Seagate 1 TB drive. I would never trust 10 TB data to Seagate.

Seagate are still generally bad.

Seagate are still generally considered bad, but only because people keep saying they are bad without checking facts first.

 

 

Last year Seagate had the lowest failure rates of any HDD manufacturer. These are the % of drives RMA'd within a year after purchase:

Seagate - 0.68%

Western Digital - 1.09%

HGST - 1.16%

Toshiba - 1.34%

 

 

The top most unreliable hard drives, and their RMA rates were:

WD Red WD60EFRX - 4,58%

Toshiba 3 To DT01ACA300 - 3,40%

WD Green 4 To WD40EZRX - 2,93%

WD SE 3 To WD3000F9YZ - 2,78%

Hitachi Ultrastar A7K2000 - 2,14%

[ChineseChef]

The problem with HDDs is that we didn't see that substantial growth in size through out the years, while SSDs get double the capacity every year. I remember people paying 400 USD for 160Gb ssd 5 years ago. Now you can get 4TB for 500. Next year that 4TB will cost 250

 

I agree about the prices and lack of growth in HDD sizes.  The other major issue I see is that HDDs are slow, even for sequential transfers.  HDD top speeds are around 200MB/s for sustained transfer, where SSDs are currently easily able to maintain 550MB/s for sequential transfers.  This means a 10TB HDD will take nearly 3 times as long to fill compared to an equal sized SSD.

[ChineseChef]

-snip-  

 

What do you think you are doing?  Using real facts?  You are supposed to just hate Seagate, because you read all those backblaze reports about how Seagate are the worst drives since ever, they should be called the Hitler drives!!!

 

On a serious note, I have like 30 Seagate drives, and have only lost 1, and that was my fault (don't ever touch live PSU 4 pin molex wires to an HDD).  But I have lost most of my WD drives, like 4 of the 6 I've owned, and a few Toshiba's.   But people just love to hate on Seagate.

[Notional]

Seagate are still generally considered bad, but only because people keep saying they are bad without checking facts first.

Last year Seagate had the lowest failure rates of any HDD manufacturer. These are the % of drives RMA'd within a year after purchase:

Seagate - 0.68%

Western Digital - 1.09%

HGST - 1.16%

Toshiba - 1.34%

The top most unreliable hard drives, and their RMA rates were:

WD Red WD60EFRX - 4,58%

Toshiba 3 To DT01ACA300 - 3,40%

WD Green 4 To WD40EZRX - 2,93%

WD SE 3 To WD3000F9YZ - 2,78%

Hitachi Ultrastar A7K2000 - 2,14%

No they are considered bad because they have released several models with an insanely high failure rate. The 7200.11 being the worst (the one I had), but the 14 model apparently sucked donkey too.

I don't know why people are so much against the backblaze numbers. They are some of the most reliable as they are all tested similarly in very large numbers.

Apparently 4tb drives looks to be a lot more reliable than 3tb drives.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-for-q2-2015/

[Daegun]

Inb4 Seagate ha... Oh. That was quick.

[ZetZet]

No they are considered bad because they have released several models with an insanely high failure rate. The 7200.11 being the worst (the one I had), but the 14 model apparently sucked donkey too.

I don't know why people are so much against the backblaze numbers. They are some of the most reliable as they are all tested similarly in very large numbers.

Apparently 4tb drives looks to be a lot more reliable than 3tb drives.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-for-q2-2015/

Seagate failed with 1.5TB and 3TB and then they got hammered by people like you. "Oh no this one product I had was bad, whole company is bad"

[Notional]

Seagate failed with 1.5TB and 3TB and then they got hammered by people like you. "Oh no this one product I had was bad, whole company is bad"

It was an entire product line. Mine was the 1tb, not the 1.5tb (which also sucked).

It's like the entire maxwell geforce line of nvidia, crapping out. No one would accept that. This is even people's data dying with it. Seagate done goofed, and did it repeatedly.

[ZetZet]

It was an entire product line. Mine was the 1tb, not the 1.5tb (which also sucked).

It's like the entire maxwell geforce line of nvidia, crapping out. No one would accept that. This is even people's data dying with it. Seagate done goofed, and did it repeatedly.

Except it wasn't as bad as you are picturing it. I can bet there still are people today who run that infamous 7200.11 and don't even know what's wrong with it.

[Notional]

Except it wasn't as bad as you are picturing it. I can bet there still are people today who run that infamous 7200.11 and don't even know what's wrong with it.

I very much doubt it considering it was a firmware error bricking the drives. With a new firmware update, maybe.

But seagate still has issues. Look at these graphs:

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

[ZetZet]

I very much doubt it considering it was a firmware error bricking the drives. With a new firmware update, maybe.

But seagate still has issues. Look at these graphs:

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/

backblaze is bad comedy

 

 

also what do you mean still, this is first gen 3tb barracuda, the exact drive that HAD issues. 

[Notional]

backblaze is bad comedy

also what do you mean still, this is first gen 3tb barracuda, the exact drive that HAD issues.

They use all drives similarly unlike rma figures, making them even more representative. The number of drives are also more than representative (with the exception of the low number drives they themselves claim to not be representative).

It's the second product line crapping out with extremely high failure rates. No other hdd company has such high failure rates on anything.

[ZetZet]

They use all drives similarly unlike rma figures, making them even more representative. The number of drives are also more than representative (with the exception of the low number drives they themselves claim to not be representative).

It's the second product line crapping out with extremely high failure rates. No other hdd company has such high failure rates on anything.

Yes, they use consumer drives in servers and report high failure rates. 

[Notional]

Yes, they use consumer drives in servers and report high failure rates.

Indeed yet only the seagate consumer drives crap out massively.

Like I said though, the failure rates on the 7200.11 drives are similar to the rma numbers. Go ahead and Google seagate 7200.11.