Seagate Spins New 8TB HDDs With Incredible Random Performance

[It's me!]

1 hour ago, deviant88 said:

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.

You wont find a consumer SSD for a $100 bucks that gives you any amount of capacity. You are going to store 8TB of photos on a 256GB SSD?

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 hours ago, ChineseChef said:

 

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.

I know, I just wanted to point out that the 1TB drives are by far the most cost efficient (of the 500 GB+ drives). Also the whole idea of a 2TB+ SSD is relatively new so it isn't a bad comparison because I would be willing to bet most of the ssd mass storage infrastructure out now (even with enterprise SSDs) is sitting at the .75-1.5 TB per drive range.

 

4 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

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.

The m500 has also numerous times this past year been available for under 175 USD. I paid 159.99 for one myself. Outside of the Ultra II that was selling for 179-200 for the better part of the last three months, currently the OCZ Triton 100 (200 atm), and Munchkin Reactor (220 atm) have been straddling that mark.

 

I know it isn't a fair comparison, but the 2TB number that was thrown out was for a consumer SSD as well. I was merely noting that the 1TB ssd is currently the price to performance king.

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I know, I just wanted to point out that the 1TB drives are by far the most cost efficient (of the 500 GB+ drives). Also the whole idea of a 2TB+ SSD is relatively new so it isn't a bad comparison because I would be willing to bet most of the ssd mass storage infrastructure out now (even with enterprise SSDs) is sitting at the .75-1.5 TB per drive range.

 

The m500 has also numerous times this past year been available for under 175 USD. I paid 159.99 for one myself. Outside of the Ultra II that was selling for 179-200 for the better part of the last three months, currently the OCZ Triton 100 (200 atm), and Munchkin Reactor (220 atm) have been straddling that mark.

 

I know it isn't a fair comparison, but the 2TB number that was thrown out was for a consumer SSD as well. I was merely noting that the 1TB ssd is currently the price to performance king.

Perhaps I just wasn't vigilant enough. Either way, NVMe drives are here and prices are falling all around. The era of HDDs outside of long-time archival storage will end by the close of the decade at this rate. The speed is too great to pass up.

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

The era of HDDs outside of long-time archival storage will end by the close of the decade at this rate.

And that will be both good and bad for consumers. My biggest concern with SSDs for mass storage is that data recovery is still pretty poor on SSDs due to the way they function (and I don't see that changing anytime soon). So for us power users, who may have a NAS/archival setup of some kind, it's great, but most consumers won't have that. 

[patrickjp93]

31 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

And that will be both good and bad for consumers. My biggest concern with SSDs for mass storage is that data recovery is still pretty poor on SSDs due to the way they function (and I don't see that changing anytime soon). So for us power users, who may have a NAS/archival setup of some kind, it's great, but most consumers won't have that. 

There are always tradeoffs, and you should always have backups.
 

That will change with 3DXPoint and other Memristor technologies.

 

Buyer beware. The information is widely available.

[79wjd]

26 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

There are always tradeoffs, and you should always have backups.
 

That will change with 3DXPoint and other Memristor technologies.

 

Buyer beware. The information is widely available.

The average consumer doesn't have a clue what kind of hardware they have when it comes to important components like RAM/CPU let alone seemingly irrelevant components like storage. Expecting consumers to know that data recovery on an SSD is magnitudes harder is a bit naive. 

[Prysin]

13 hours 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

Seagate should make a 5-6TB SSHD.... atleast their 8GB SSHD cache IS fast... hell, digital foundry tested HDD vs SSHD vs SSD with the PS4, and SSHD is closer to a SSD in speed then a HDD. Still, it IS slower then a SSD. 

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Buyer beware. The information is widely available.

There is plenty of info and teachings of how sharp and dangerous knives can be. Yet somehow people still ignore this info and gets seriously hurt.

 

So if people are dumb enough to hurt themselves despite 3000+ years of human experience with  sharp and pointy objects suggesting they should have learned by now. Do you still think they will know that a 8TB disc is slower then a SSD let alone that the SSD is extremely hard to recover data from?

[patrickjp93]

3 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

The average consumer doesn't have a clue what kind of hardware they have when it comes to important components like RAM/CPU let alone seemingly irrelevant components like storage. Expecting consumers to know that data recovery on an SSD is magnitudes harder is a bit naive. 

You have a right to be stupid. You don't have a right to blame companies for the consequences of your willful ignorance and stupidity. No, it's not naive. It's Social Darwinism.

[patrickjp93]

53 minutes ago, Prysin said:

There is plenty of info and teachings of how sharp and dangerous knives can be. Yet somehow people still ignore this info and gets seriously hurt.

 

So if people are dumb enough to hurt themselves despite 3000+ years of human experience with  sharp and pointy objects suggesting they should have learned by now. Do you still think they will know that a 8TB disc is slower then a SSD let alone that the SSD is extremely hard to recover data from?

We have a distribution of intelligence levels. Let the stupid end up killing themselves or becoming useless dregs who can't get jobs. Just don't force me to support them. Adapt or die. If you can't be bothered to do a little research to inform yourself, you don't deserve the privilege to complain.

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

We have a distribution of intelligence levels. Let the stupid end up killing themselves or becoming useless dregs who can't get jobs. Just don't force me to support them. Adapt or die. If you can't be bothered to do a little research to inform yourself, you don't deserve the privilege to complain.

I wish it was acceptable to put that in the ToS/EULA

[Enderman]

6 hours ago, Prysin said:

Seagate should make a 5-6TB SSHD.... atleast their 8GB SSHD cache IS fast... hell, digital foundry tested HDD vs SSHD vs SSD with the PS4, and SSHD is closer to a SSD in speed then a HDD. Still, it IS slower then a SSD. 

no...

an SSHD is exactly that, a hybrid HDD.

its not even close to an SSD.

having 8TB of slow storage with like 64GB or whatever of SSD-speed cache does not mean that the 8TB are faster. Only 64GB are.

an 8TB SSD is faster on ALL 8TB, not just a tiny useless fraction of it.

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

no...

an SSHD is exactly that, a hybrid HDD.

its not even close to an SSD.

having 8TB of slow storage with like 64GB or whatever of SSD-speed cache does not mean that the 8TB are faster. Only 64GB are.

an 8TB SSD is faster on ALL 8TB, not just a tiny useless fraction of it.

thing is though, how fast is a chace filled or emptied?

 

i think it was samsungs 850Evo has a 3GB cache, after it was filled, the write speeds drop to nearly a THIRD. however, to hit that limit, you must continuously  write 3GB+ of data in ONE go. AND it needs to be a single file, if not, the controller will seek out smaller files and move those quickly, doing the heavier stuff once its free to write  them.

 

a 32-64GB SSD grade cache would allow THE ENTIRE Witcher 3 to be in cache, ready for use at any moment. Seagates SSHDs also has a learning algorithm, so files it recognizes as commonly used is near permanently stored on the SSD portion to ensure it is always ready for grabs.

This is especially noticeable with tests on consoles, as if you launch and close a game several times, once you get past the third launch + close, you will notice that each consequtive launch will be a bit faster, as teh SSHD learns which files to permanently cache for rapid start.

 

 

If you want a proper FAST cold storage, for like huge games, SSHDs are good.

Personally, i will forever move towards SSDs, however that is because i am in a financially position where i can afford blowing loads of money on computer parts. Many others aint.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

no...

an SSHD is exactly that, a hybrid HDD.

its not even close to an SSD.

having 8TB of slow storage with like 64GB or whatever of SSD-speed cache does not mean that the 8TB are faster. Only 64GB are.

an 8TB SSD is faster on ALL 8TB, not just a tiny useless fraction of it.

In any case, the point here is that they're using a different type of caching. It's just for in-flight data, it's not like particular data is selected to reside in the faster cache indefinitely. So the cache benefits performance across all 8TB of capacity.

[Enderman]

8 minutes ago, Prysin said:

thing is though, how fast is a chace filled or emptied?

 

i think it was samsungs 850Evo has a 3GB cache, after it was filled, the write speeds drop to nearly a THIRD. however, to hit that limit, you must continuously  write 3GB+ of data in ONE go. AND it needs to be a single file, if not, the controller will seek out smaller files and move those quickly, doing the heavier stuff once its free to write  them.

 

a 32-64GB SSD grade cache would allow THE ENTIRE Witcher 3 to be in cache, ready for use at any moment. Seagates SSHDs also has a learning algorithm, so files it recognizes as commonly used is near permanently stored on the SSD portion to ensure it is always ready for grabs.

This is especially noticeable with tests on consoles, as if you launch and close a game several times, once you get past the third launch + close, you will notice that each consequtive launch will be a bit faster, as teh SSHD learns which files to permanently cache for rapid start.

 

 

If you want a proper FAST cold storage, for like huge games, SSHDs are good.

Personally, i will forever move towards SSDs, however that is because i am in a financially position where i can afford blowing loads of money on computer parts. Many others aint.

the cache on a HDD is filled and empties at the max speed of the HDD

so unless youure using something thats already on that tiny cache, it will be just as slow as using a regular HDD

 

of course benchmarks use so little data that it all fits on the cache and shows "ssd like" speeds

but the rest of the HDD is still slow, because its an HDD

[Sakkura]

 

Just now, Enderman said:

the cache on a HDD is filled and empties at the max speed of the HDD

so unless youure using something thats already on that tiny cache, it will be just as slow as using a regular HDD

 

of course benchmarks use so little data that it all fits on the cache and shows "ssd like" speeds

but the rest of the HDD is still slow, because its an HDD

That's not how HDD caches work. All data benefits from the cache.

 

And you can see in the Tom's IT Pro review that the benchmarks are not using "so little data" that it "fits on the cache" - they're using VASTLY more data than that.

 

Quote

We hammered the drive with a 4k random write workload over the entire LBA range for 35 hours to ascertain if the caching would suffer a performance loss after sustained use, and it did not.

 

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

 

That's not how HDD caches work. All data benefits from the cache.

 

And you can see in the Tom's IT Pro review that the benchmarks are not using "so little data" that it "fits on the cache" - they're using VASTLY more data than that.

 

 

you cannot put 8TB of data on a 64GB cache

that is impossible, and if you believe otherwise then you need to do some research on how HDD caching works

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

the cache on a HDD is filled and empties at the max speed of the HDD

so unless youure using something thats already on that tiny cache, it will be just as slow as using a regular HDD

 

of course benchmarks use so little data that it all fits on the cache and shows "ssd like" speeds

but the rest of the HDD is still slow, because its an HDD

you should watch this video then. then PLEASE explain to me how the SSHD keeps up with the SSD, whilst it IS slower, it is in almost every test faster then the HDD by far.. Please. do tell me how you think this SSHD works.

 

Here is a nice, trustworthy, reliable source. Unless you do not trust Digital Foundry

 

 

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

you cannot put 8TB of data on a 64GB cache

that is impossible, and if you believe otherwise then you need to do some research on how HDD caching works

You were talking about HDDs, and they do not have 64GB caches (of NAND flash). They have DRAM caches in the megabyte range. These caches are not used to store data indefinitely, but instead used as buffers for in-flight data. That helps random IO performance because some data can be combined into larger chunks and transferred as more of a sequential task.

 

SSHD caches, consisting of gigabytes of NAND flash, are different, in that particular chunks of data are selected to permanently (well, semi-permanently) reside in the cache.

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Prysin said:

you should watch this video then. then PLEASE explain to me how the SSHD keeps up with the SSD, whilst it IS slower, it is in almost every test faster then the HDD by far.. Please. do tell me how you think this SSHD works.

 

Here is a nice, trustworthy, reliable source. Unless you do not trust Digital Foundry

 

As I said, benchmarks only use very little data. If all that data fits on the cache of course it will be as fast as an SSD.

 

You take any SSHD and try to read multiple GB files from all over the disk, and watch how slow it is

this is because its not on the cache, it needs to be moved to the cache first before you get those speeds

 

so the first time you open something it will be slow like a HDD

the second time and after that it will be fast

 

when you try opening more things and the cache is already full, the speed will just be HDD speed because you get NO benefit from the cache

 

[Prysin]

59 minutes ago, Enderman said:

As I said, benchmarks only use very little data. If all that data fits on the cache of course it will be as fast as an SSD.

 

You take any SSHD and try to read multiple GB files from all over the disk, and watch how slow it is

this is because its not on the cache, it needs to be moved to the cache first before you get those speeds

 

so the first time you open something it will be slow like a HDD

the second time and after that it will be fast

 

when you try opening more things and the cache is already full, the speed will just be HDD speed because you get NO benefit from the cache

 

again, this entirely depends on how Seagates SSHD controller works.

And honestly, there is so few tests done on those, that i cannot prove or disprove anything you said. But, i can tell you this. If they have a proper flush system in place, it should be rather un-problematic.

 

the wast issue with SSHDs is the constant write hammering of the flash eating away its endurace REALLY fast. However, if you play games, you mostly READ. So once onto the cache (8GB is way too little cache), the game will be working with SSD speeds.

So initial speeds ARE not great. once you let the disc learn, it IS great. However, again, there is REALLY few tests on this. Only good test was done by Linus over at the NCIX channel....

 

 

 

[patrickjp93]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

no...

an SSHD is exactly that, a hybrid HDD.

its not even close to an SSD.

having 8TB of slow storage with like 64GB or whatever of SSD-speed cache does not mean that the 8TB are faster. Only 64GB are.

an 8TB SSD is faster on ALL 8TB, not just a tiny useless fraction of it.

That's not true. If the cache is striped across various files, the heads can move into place while the first kilobytes are read, and then the data starts streaming from the platters seamlessly. Caching on the CPU makes everything more quickly read if your data organization in a program is good. And that cache holds your most-often accessed data, including the OS. I'd hardly call it useless.

[Enderman]

11 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

That's not true. If the cache is striped across various files, the heads can move into place while the first kilobytes are read, and then the data starts streaming from the platters seamlessly. Caching on the CPU makes everything more quickly read if your data organization in a program is good. And that cache holds your most-often accessed data, including the OS. I'd hardly call it useless.

"streaming from the platters seamlessly"
AND HOW DO YOU THINK YOU WILL GET SSD SPEEDS IF YOU STREAM FROM THE PLATTERS

39 minutes ago, Prysin said:

again, this entirely depends on how Seagates SSHD controller works.

And honestly, there is so few tests done on those, that i cannot prove or disprove anything you said. But, i can tell you this. If they have a proper flush system in place, it should be rather un-problematic.

 

the wast issue with SSHDs is the constant write hammering of the flash eating away its endurace REALLY fast. However, if you play games, you mostly READ. So once onto the cache (8GB is way too little cache), the game will be working with SSD speeds.

So initial speeds ARE not great. once you let the disc learn, it IS great. However, again, there is REALLY few tests on this. Only good test was done by Linus over at the NCIX channel....

 

As I said before, of course you will get fast speeds with a benchmark or a game

those only use a few GBs

People dont buy an 8TB HDD because they want to have a few programs and games

People like linus buy those HDDs for video storage and archiving

you cannot fit 8TB of video on a 64GB cache

only the "most used" files go on the cache

reading or writing to ANYTHING that isnt on the cache is exactly as slow as an HDD

how is it so hard for you to understand that 8TB =/= 64GB or however large that cache is

[patrickjp93]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

"streaming from the platters seamlessly"
AND HOW DO YOU THINK YOU WILL GET SSD SPEEDS IF YOU STREAM FROM THE PLATTERS

As I said before, of course you will get fast speeds with a benchmark or a game

those only use a few GBs

People dont buy an 8TB HDD because they want to have a few programs and games

People like linus buy those HDDs for video storage and archiving

you cannot fit 8TB of video on a 64GB cache

only the "most used" files go on the cache

reading or writing to ANYTHING that isnt on the cache is exactly as slow as an HDD

how is it so hard for you to understand that 8TB =/= 64GB or however large that cache is

How big is your biggest video? Each write under 32GB should theoretically zip right by. The only time you'll notice the hit is during a big backup.

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

How big is your biggest video? Each write under 32GB should theoretically zip right by. The only time you'll notice the hit is during a big backup.

Enderman only operates with archives that fill his entire disc. This is why he has issues with this technology. The rest of us normal human beings are fine if 20 bucks more for a 1-2TB drive shaves off 5-20 seconds in file loading times.