Seagate announces BarraCuda Consumer SSDs and they're a Timed Exclusive for Amazon Prime Customers

[79wjd]

49 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

RAID can also mean Redundant Array of Individual Disks. RAID isn't the only form of drive redundancy. Besides the umpteen levels of RAID, there is unRAID (which uses parity instead of striping like RAID uses), and others that are unique to server manufacturers. The redundancy scheme Backblaze uses was developed by and is unique to Backblaze. Backblaze is keeping its scheme a secret but it has far more redundancy and is probably far more complex than even the nested RAID levels to compensate for the higher failure rates of the cheaper drives Backblaze uses.

 

Btw, except for Backblaze, most, if not all, commercial servers use the far more expensive server grade drives despite using RAID or some other kind of redundancy rather use the extra redundancy that would be needed to compensate for higher failure rates.

The fact that many companies choose Enterprise drives isn't all that relevant as a lot just do whatever Dell/HP offer, and yes, today, RAID stands for both, but it was originally about inexpensive disks.

[ARikozuM]

Why is Seagate only matching the prices of their competitors? We've had Crucial's MX500 for like two years at a better price. Seagate is simply touching the status quo for storage rather than trying to make it obtainable to the masses. 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

34 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

RAID stands for both, but it was originally about inexpensive disks

Actually, which was first has been more hotly debated than the old chicken/egg topic. I lean more toward independent since RAID was needed more to increase the size of a data pool way back when drives were still tiny compared to now rather than to cut costs.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Other than Nvidia does anyone actually spam people letting them know there's any kinda update?  Not saying it's good or bad, but I don't see most companies going out of their way to let everyone know.  Usually, it's like LTT or another like OC3D addressing it.   Also, isn't the 7200.11 line like nearly a decade old and kinda irrelevant?  My point is that most people are clinging to older problems.  I'm not saying it's a good or bad or whatever, but at the same time, it's not really relevant to newer drives.  The most relevant I remember, in terms of failure/issues, was this...





I'd honestly avoid that 4tb Seagate like the plague.   But, it's not like every single Seagate drive coming out now has massive issues.  Ya, if you're looking for a 4TB definitely avoid that one with a high failure rate.  I'd suggest Toshiba or HGST if you want lower failure rates.  As for the warranty part/the part I forget to address since I was looking for that chart, okay ya that sounds like false advertising and something I could see people suing Seagate over.  

I'm avoiding all HDDs now. If I need any more 4TB drives, I'll get more 4TB SSDs to add to the stable of them I have now.  All seriousness (?) aside, lugging all my backup HDDs to and from my Credit Union safe deposit box was destroying my back. SSDs are so much easier on my old carcass and take up a whole lot less room.

[Razor Blade]

12 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Actually, which was first has been more hotly debated than the old chicken/egg topic. I lean more toward independent since RAID was needed more to increase the size of a data pool way back when drives were still tiny compared to now rather than to cut costs.

Originally in the late 80's David Patterson, Randy Katz and Garth Gibson published their tech report called  "A Case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks"

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~garth/RAIDpaper/Patterson88.pdf

 

It was about a bunch of inexpensive disks grouped into an array outperforming top of the line expensive disks of the time. I've always heard it as "inexpensive" but I can see how time marches on how the "I" in RAID could be considered "independent" since arrays of disks are the norm.

[S w a t s o n]

1 hour ago, Razor Blade said:

Originally in the late 80's David Patterson, Randy Katz and Garth Gibson published their tech report called  "A Case for Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks"

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~garth/RAIDpaper/Patterson88.pdf

 

It was about a bunch of inexpensive disks grouped into an array outperforming top of the line expensive disks of the time. I've always heard it as "inexpensive" but I can see how time marches on how the "I" in RAID could be considered "independent" since arrays of disks are the norm.

JBOD or Bust

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Go back and reread the article you linked (assuming you even read it the first time). The author essentially said the same things I did only he drew the wrong conclusion. The reports only contain raw data without details such as the age of the drives, the drive models, etc.

what?  3 articles, all form professionals in the field and you call them all wrong?  I didn't know we had such omnipotence on this forum.

7 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

One has to compile data from several of the reports over time to draw any actual conclusions. Even then, the conclusions you can draw will only be broad percentages that will be somewhat skewed due to the varying sample sizes between brands and models.

 

What most people can gather without doing a lot of careful charting and tracking of reports from several years is to watch for trends from which broadly generalized conclusions can be drawn. One would also have to take into consideration the age of the drives that fail, someting not reflected in the charts but usually will appear in the footnotes, something most people seem to ignore.

 

A couple of other things the author missed was why Backblaze continues to use drives with high failure rates. First, by the time Backblaze finds out certain drives have high failure rates, they have already bought thousands of them. So what are they going to do? Throw them out without using them? it makes far more sense to go ahead and use them, espeically since they utilize enough redundancy to prevent data loss from the higher failure rates.

 

Second, Backblaze has a unique business plan that employs a proprietary redundancy scheme that allows the use of far less consumer drives that have higher failure rates, the theory being it will be less expensive in the long run to replace less expensive drives more frequently than to use higher priced serve grade drives that would last longer. Backblaze makes its own storage pods using a greater amount of redundancy to ensure protection from data loss due to the higher failure rates rather than use conventional servers that use conventional redundancy, such as RAID, unRAID, etc. I was skeptical when Backblaze first started up but, over time, their bizzare business plan has proven to be very successful.

 

I still maintain that the Backblaze reports are useful as long as people accept that they are just raw, uninterpreted data and treat it accordingly.

Just so you know, blackblaze is not only wrong in their report, but their methodology was shot down and there are claims many of the drives they tested were refurbished/secondhand. 

 

Blackblaze is literally the last source for anything useful when it comes to hdd information.

 

 

And here are some actual hdd return statistics from that time by a french mob who actually considered all brands and models:

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-6/disques-durs.html

 

 

[Derangel]

On 7/7/2018 at 10:29 AM, 2Buck said:

Well, in my experience, Seagate has been horrible. Over the last almost decade, I've owned many drives from WD and Seagate, Never once had a WD die on me but I've had 7 Seagates die, one of which was a 1TB carrying very valuable data, and yes, I was an idiot who didn't back up back then.

 

Because of my horrible experiences, I never trust them with anything important. I'm sure I'm just being paranoid, but whatever. I have 3 1TB seagate barracudas that are probably perfectly fine, but I'm only ever gonna use them if I get desperate.

That's the thing. Everyone uses their anecdotal evidence to claim that x brand is better than y brand. Across the board, consumer hard drives have high failure rates. They used to be one of the most common things to die or develop problems in a PC. I've seen HDDs from every major brand die over the years from WD (had some of the worst, most annoying faults with WD drives), Seagate, Maxtor, IBM, Toshiba, Quantum, etc.

 

14 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Basically, what happened was there was 3TB model sold in 2010 that failed by 2013 and it caused a class action lawsuit.  Ever since then people have been acting like anything Seagate makes is unreliable.  To be fair, they had a few other models that had some higher than normal failure rates, but that was like 2 others.  WD and Seagate are the two most people look at, but actually/iirc, it's WD's other brand HGST and Toshiba that have the lowest failure rates.  I'm not really loyal to any brand, but right now I'm mixing Toshiba, Seagate, WD, PNY, and a few others in a couple of systems.  I just get whatever is cheaper that has what I need.  My 3TB Barracuda from 2013 lasted me 5 years before it got the click of death, and my first WD blue was DOA.  Can't hold that against either of them because no line is going to have 100 percent perfect drives.  I'd also like to ask people who actually have experience with Seagate drives that failed is if they got basic consumer ones or far more reliable NAS/Server or big business ones, did they buy them new, or did they buy them from a 3rd party off Amazon, and so on.  Like, don't just tell us "Oh, I got this drive..and that's why it's unreliable!"  No, tell us all the other factors too.  I mean I even wonder if they have experience with the drives, or if they just got one DOA and then said.."Never again!  Fuck Seagate!"   

Pretty much every major HDD company has had bad products at one time or another. There is a reason IBM's consumer Deskstar line earned the nickname Deathstar at one point.

[Amazonsucks]

16 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Why is Seagate only matching the prices of their competitors? We've had Crucial's MX500 for like two years at a better price. Seagate is simply touching the status quo for storage rather than trying to make it obtainable to the masses. 

Because they still need to make a profit and arent making complete garbage?

 

Once you reach a certain threshold for price, you cant go lower without making a net loss instead of profit. 

 

Contrary to the way the vast majority of consumers act, hardware manufacturers are not charities handing out things for free. We already have enough instantly e-waste grade electronics floating around. Better stuff would be better than cheaper stuff.

[bcredeur97]

I can't believe we have 2TB ssd's already. it'll be 8TB before we know it... heck ppl might soon not even buy hard drives for normal use anymore if they get cheap enough and capacity keeps growing like it is

 

also is it just me but has general *need* for storage slowed down a bit lately, outside of the enterprise?

[TVwazhere]

35 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

I can't believe we have 2TB ssd's already. it'll be 8TB before we know it... 

They've had 4tb drives for a few years now

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Inch-Internal-MZ-76E4T0B-AM/dp/B07864XY8B/ref=dp_ob_title_ce?dpID=41qR7C253KL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=detail

 

Also:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/21/samsung-now-has-an-8tb-ssd-thanks-to-3d-memory-tech/ 8TB is already here (for data centers anyways)

[The Benjamins]

19 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

I can't believe we have 2TB ssd's already. it'll be 8TB before we know it... heck ppl might soon not even buy hard drives for normal use anymore if they get cheap enough and capacity keeps growing like it is

 

also is it just me but has general *need* for storage slowed down a bit lately, outside of the enterprise?

Western Digital already has a 2TB M.2 Sata drive for sale, I don't know of another drive like it (their are NVME 2TB M.2 Drives)

[JoeCoke]

9 hours ago, Derangel said:

That's the thing. Everyone uses their anecdotal evidence to claim that x brand is better than y brand. Across the board, consumer hard drives have high failure rates. They used to be one of the most common things to die or develop problems in a PC. I've seen HDDs from every major brand die over the years from WD (had some of the worst, most annoying faults with WD drives), Seagate, Maxtor, IBM, Toshiba, Quantum, etc.

 

Pretty much every major HDD company has had bad products at one time or another. There is a reason IBM's consumer Deskstar line earned the nickname Deathstar at one point.

Except for the fact that I never claimed anything, I clearly said that was all just my personal experience.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

2 hours ago, 2Buck said:

Except for the fact that I never claimed anything, I clearly said that was all just my personal experience.

Stating your personal experience is anecdotal evidence.

[Linus_torvalds]

WTF? I bought my Crucial BX100 250 GB 2 years ago for 64$ NEW! I was expecting to buy 500 GB SSD after 3 years for the same price. It looks like prices are increasing not dicreasing?

[JoeCoke]

30 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Stating your personal experience is anecdotal evidence.

No shit, but I didn't "use it" to claim that Seagate was more unreliable. Was simply saying that because I have had lots of Seagate failures I have developed a bias against them, that's not me trying to say "Seagate is factually bad".

[JoeCoke]

26 minutes ago, mate_mate91 said:

WTF? I bought my Crucial BX100 250 GB 2 years ago for 64$ NEW! I was expecting to buy 500 GB SSD after 3 years for the same price. It looks like prices are increasing not dicreasing?

Yep, it's disappointing to say the least. But at least prices are coming down again, for a while a 240GB was almost 100$ again, but somehow they've managed to come back down to 50$, so maybe we'll finally start to see some progress again. Maybe.

[Crunchy Dragon]

On 7/7/2018 at 6:53 AM, WikiForce said:

where is 120GB model?

Honestly, I wouldn't buy a 120GB SSD. It's enough for a Windows 10 install and a few applications, but 120GB will fill up quickly.

 

I would imagine that's the main reason for companies dropping it from their lineups.

[JoeCoke]

13 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Honestly, I wouldn't buy a 120GB SSD. It's enough for a Windows 10 install and a few applications, but 120GB will fill up quickly.

 

I would imagine that's the main reason for companies dropping it from their lineups.

Yep, this. It's just like when 64GBs FINALLY went out of style. Only reason I went with a 120GB for my laptop is one, I don't do much on it and two, I got it for like 35 bucks and I was broke at the time.

[aezakmi]

On 07/07/2018 at 7:33 AM, AluminiumTech said:

250GB for $79.99 USD

haha... no.

 

 

[Thony]

Normal pricing, just another option for consumers. Dont see why its exclusive to amazon. Cut $20 of each tier and we can talk.

[AlTech]

13 minutes ago, Thony said:

Normal pricing, just another option for consumers. Dont see why its exclusive to amazon.

Apparently, it's cos they're starting off with limited production and they're gonna ramp up production later.

[seagate_surfer]

On ‎7‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 6:59 AM, Spotty said:

@seagate_surfer Great to see you guys entering the consumer SSD market... But did you really have to carry on the "Barracuda" branding for it? New product line up should have a new name. Doesn't make much sense to me sharing product family names for your HDDs and your SSDs. There's plenty more fish in the sea you could have named it after.

Hello Spotty,

 

I cannot share further details but I can tell you that there are more SSDs to come! The name BarraCuda for this series is pretty much to label the drive with a name that can be recognized by the market as the series that is usually asked to deliver and it does deliver as much as possible to end users at the lowest possible price, as well as his older brother.