Seagate Spins New 8TB HDDs With Incredible Random Performance

[It's me!]

Seagate's latest 8TB HDDs are much much faster than their archive drives were, and they have a new caching mechanism that provides faster random performance than a 10 or 15K HDD, but in a 7,200 RPM. I think it might be too little too late to fight off HDDs, but it is interesting to see them trying to fight back . .

 

Quote

Seagate's AWC algorithms, at least on paper, provide an amazing performance boost. SSD vendors love to regale us with mind-bending random read/write IOPS, but we rarely see the IOPS entry on an HDD spec sheet. Seagate bucks that trend and brazenly lists the Enterprise Capacity v5 series' 164/342 read/write IOPS (QD16) in its specifications.

 

http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/seagate-8tb-enterprise-capacity-3.5-hdd-v5-review,2-17.html#fragment-3

 

http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/seagate-8tb-enterprise-capacity-3.5-hdd-v5-review,2-17.html#fragment-3

[DXMember]

SPINS - it's because they are still spinning their drives, ha-ha, get it?

[Si3Rra_7]

These are completely useless...

[Enderman]

yeah, "caching" is not "hard drive"

getting faster random reads from a tiny 32MB cache or whatever is not going to improve the performance when accessing the other 7900GB of data

[Coaxialgamer]

Oh wait... 

 

Whats a hard drive? 

 

/s

[captain cactus]

9 minutes ago, Si3Rra_7 said:

These are completely useless...

Are they?

 

What else gives you 8TB of storage in one single enclosure? SSDs don't, that's for sure.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Are they?

 

What else gives you 8TB of storage in one single enclosure? SSDs don't, that's for sure.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/samsung-unveils-2-5-inch-16tb-ssd-the-worlds-largest-hard-drive/

[Si3Rra_7]

Just now, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Are they?

 

What else gives you 8TB of storage in one single enclosure? SSDs don't, that's for sure.

We've seen reports of 8TB ssds even last year , and those won't have the noise of an 'effin jet engine 

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Are they?

 

What else gives you 8TB of storage in one single enclosure? SSDs don't, that's for sure.

Actually with those 3.84TB SSDs from Samsung that are the same 2.5" slim form factor as their 850 EVO/Po, you can fit 6 of those in the same space as a 3.5" HDD, so you can actually fit more TB/m^3 with SSDs than you can with HDDs, assuming you have SATA power cables with such short distances between the terminals.

[It's me!]

LOL but are you paying 16 GRAND for one of them? Are you insane? HDD are still relevant fellas!

[patrickjp93]

2 minutes ago, It's me! said:

LOL but are you paying 16 GRAND for one of them? Are you insane? HDD are still relevant fellas!

16TB for $5000 at full SATA 6Gbps speeds... http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/samsung-unveils-2-5-inch-16tb-ssd-the-worlds-largest-hard-drive/?comments=1

[It's me!]

....compared to 700 for the equivalent capacity. Seriously.

[VagabondWraith]

"Once you go SSD, you never go back."

[Vivilacqua1]

Oh my god the puns, worse than the news.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

yeah, "caching" is not "hard drive"

getting faster random reads from a tiny 32MB cache or whatever is not going to improve the performance when accessing the other 7900GB of data

If you read the article... It does. It trounces every thing on the market (7200rpm)  today from a performance perspective.  Only the hgst He drives are even remotely competitive (and they only win at efficiency). 

 

 

[It's me!]

They tested the random write for like three days straight, and the "cache" never ran out. They just use a small cache buffer to catch random writes, and then write them sequentially to make it fast. In other words, it isn't a normal cache - it never runs out.

[Enderman]

52 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

If you read the article... It does. It trounces every thing on the market (7200rpm)  today from a performance perspective.  Only the hgst He drives are even remotely competitive (and they only win at efficiency). 

 

 

in a benchmark sure, because a benchmark only reads and writes very little data, so it all fits on the cache.

It does not have an 8TB cache.

[patrickjp93]

2 hours ago, It's me! said:

....compared to 700 for the equivalent capacity. Seriously.

In enterprise? No, an 8TB HDD with power loss protection and ecc would set you back $3000.

[Doobeedoo]

Faster random performance than 10 and 15k RPM drives, oh? (and was there some 20k RPM drive prototype?) Would like to see a video compare, seems interesting.

Random performance HDD graph, would like to see that.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

in a benchmark sure, because a benchmark only reads and writes very little data, so it all fits on the cache.

It does not have an 8TB cache.

Uhh they do 35 hours random tests... That doesn't "fit" on the cache... They even test it on different OS's. (BTW it's normal cache is 254 MB and it has a secondary 2MB cache).

 

 

http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/enterprise-hdd-testing,2-896.html

 

 

[ChineseChef]

3 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

16TB for $5000 at full SATA 6Gbps speeds... http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/samsung-unveils-2-5-inch-16tb-ssd-the-worlds-largest-hard-drive/?comments=1

If that is an accurate price, that is pretty much on par with current prices, with barely any "premium".  Which is damn impressive.  Current 2TB drives are ~$600(US), which would be $4,800 for 8 of them.  Meaning only a $200 premium for having it all in a single drive.  Granted, SATA3 speed limitation, compared to SATA3 x8 but still.  If the goal was simply faster mass storage, these would be priced very very very competitively.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, ChineseChef said:

If that is an accurate price, that is pretty much on par with current prices, with barely any "premium".  Which is damn impressive.  Current 2TB drives are ~$600(US), which would be $4,800 for 8 of them.  Meaning only a $200 premium for having it all in a single drive.  Granted, SATA3 speed limitation, compared to SATA3 x8 but still.  If the goal was simply faster mass storage, these would be priced very very very competitively.

It is a pretty hefty premium over the 150-200 USD for 1TB ssds though (2400-3200). But from 2TB yea not too shabby.

[patrickjp93]

10 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

It is a pretty hefty premium over the 150-200 USD for 1TB ssds though (2400-3200). But from 2TB yea not too shabby.

The only close to $200 SSD I know of in recent memory is the Sandisk Ultra II 960GB that was sold for $200 at Black Friday. That's also an enterprise drive.

[ChineseChef]

30 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

It is a pretty hefty premium over the 150-200 USD for 1TB ssds though (2400-3200). But from 2TB yea not too shabby.

 

One thing to consider about the cheaper 1TB drives, is that you need 16 of them, compared to 8x 2TB.  Which means that you could get potentially double the speed of 8 drives, but you now need greater support infrastructure to handle that.  And sometimes support infrastructure can be more costly in either hardware or man hours, or potential hardware failures due to increased parts.

[deviant88]

With 100$ consumer SSD you can crap on seagate enterprise disk performance wise that costs at least 10 times.

These are irrelevant because they are enterprise, businesses buy whatever fits their budget/need, if they can get money back from using them they are relevant there, from a consumer view HDD will slowly die off by 2020.