Seagate's Roadmap Calls for 18 TB, 20 TB Drives in 2020, 50 TB by 2026

[killster1]

I just wish they would work on quality and reliability, as 3 of the last 5 Seagates I've purchased have been faulty. I know there are other options, but I've always like Seagate.

i wonder what year your hdd's are from, i wonder if seagate has indeed got their reliability up, of course i would use a 18tb drive but i would need to use 2 more 18tb drives for redundant storage as well. personally i dont see how everyone has no storage needs, no one has personal photo / video or cartoons saved up from the years or anything, just your small steam game library and your happy! lulz at higher capacity ssd, just need lower priced ssd if anything or hdd's with ssd's built into them? (never used any of the hybrids personally but im sure they work pretty good)

 

[Tomgang]

Thermal flux in multi-layer ICs impose a very real performance limit on high density SSD performance. A single 8TB WD Red/White at 5400RPMs is capable of reading and writing at 250MB/s on the fast side of the platter. That's not too shabby, considering WD is putting these into external drives you can get for 125 USD on Amazon.

250 MB/s is still lower than a Sata SSD and far lower than a NVMe SSD and as HDD is being filled up it also getting slower and slower. No SSD over HDD any time for me. I hate to transfer large files to a HDD, so freaking slow compare to file transfer from SSD to SSD. The only reason i still use HDD is the price avantage over SSD when it comes to capacity. Lets say SSD prices drop to that of a HDD with the same capacity, i can say for sure if that happened i had drop kicked the HDD out of my pc and replaced it with a SSD faster than my HDD takes to spin op from sleep.

Well sit tight then, no one knows when SSDs will become cheaper then HDDs per GB but I can say it's going to be awhile. FYI larger capacity HDDs are typically faster. My 12TB drives get around 250 MB/s.

Yeah sadly there will be some years yet before SSD prices comes down to the level of a HDD with same capacity. But besides that i will take a SSD any time over a HDD for OS, games and so on. 250 MB/s for a HDD is good, but then a sata SSD is capable of up to around 550 MB/s and a NVMe SSD now can go up to 5000 MB/s and in the future i expsect PCIe 4 gen NVMe to hit up to around 7500 MB/s, then 250 MB/s compared really seems underwhelming.

Seagate's main HDD market is not users like you or I. Its enterprise, data centers, the cloud where SSDs are not king in that area. Dell is one of Seagates biggest customers.

I am an ASIC Engineer at Seagate btw.

Well now i am not a enterprise or data center costumer. For my needs SSD´s are far better and faster if it whas not for the price difference, i had replaced all my HDD with SSD. Besides price advantage, for me SSD is far better than a slow HDD.

Dell i am not a fan of and neither am i at Seagate. Then i chose HDD, i only trust Western Digital and for SSD it´s Samsung or Crucial. So far i have had zero SSD´s fail on me since i got my first SSD in 2011 while HDD 3 had failed on me: 2 two with the classic with bad sector and one 8 years old suddenly died with out a warning but as it whas old i had no important files on that drive.

 

[Tartaros]

The only OS that could even remotely fit this description is AIX Unix, and even it is not completely backwards compatible so... bad example.

Z/OS

 

[R-T-B]

Z/OS

Ah. Missed that in all my studies.

 

[John Naylor]

That all good and all. But what I really want is. Stop developing HDD and sped more time to increase SSD capacity and to lower prices. HDD are slow and annoying. Only good thing is large capacity for cheaper than SSD.

SSD's do great benchmarks ... but they don't erase the number 1 bottleneck .. the user. There are to variables here:

a) Is the user capable of noticing ?
b) Will they notice ?

We put a SSD and SSHD in every build .... haven't bought a HD in 8 years. Over that time have had 3 SSD failures (all 5+ years ago) and 0 SSHD failures.

Now certainly, if you run a benchmark, you can notice and time it, you can discern a difference.

a) You can run synthetic benchmaks ... but the relative question is, over the next 3 or 4 years, how often in the course of a year does this occur under your normal activity. Its like having a watch that will still run fine at 200 meters of water depth. That's kinda cool but since I will be dead, i don't really need to concern myself with it.

b) Windows Startup is a reasonable test ... or is it ? Do you hit the start button and stare at the screen while booting ? Or do you multi-tak ... check phone messages, grab cawfee, straighten your desk, put on your headphones. We measured difference in start up times between SSD and SSHD at 0.9 seconds ... can you measure it ? YES ... will anyone's productivity be improved by it ? NO

c) Software Installation ... Ok I start installing Libre office ... It takes 2 minutes on SSD and 3 minutes on a HD ... can you notice ? yes if you stare at the screen.... will you notice ? Not me, Im waiting a youtube video or reading the college football scores.

d) Demanding applications ... here is one place where the SSD can have a real advantage ... working with large files and doing significant editing will result in observable productivity increases on the scratch drive. However, once done and saving that file to archival storage ?... who cares, Im doing something else.

e) Game Level Loading - Usually that's the 1st thing folks do ... stare at the screen and yell in triumph they level loaded 5 seconds faster. Can ya notice ? Sure ... will ya notice ... Not me, I'm old... I had my legs crossed the last 20 minutes waiting for the next level ... I need to gooooo. My kids ... its time to do get a snack, text their friend, take a bio or go out to the garage and do "whatever they do out there"

But what it comes down to is .... again, we put a SSD and SSHD in every build. SSD might get OS... OS and Programs ... or a 2nd SSD just for games. The SSD gets a partition which is a mirror of the SSD ... the 2nd partition is everything else. When we, unbeknownst to the user disable the SSD ... have gone 6 weeks w/ no one to the wiser.

That being said ... we still put at least 1 SSD and 1 SSHD .... are we affected in any positive way by the additional expense ? I doubt it, it's speed advantage is lost cause I either can't keep up or Im multiasking doing something else. I just like knowing it's there, I guess. If I was doing production rendering, animation or video editing , I'd be all in.

As for reliability... quoting backblaze data doesn't say it all ... it says here's a bunch of irrelevant data showing this is what happens when when a low budget operation installs storage devices in direct conflict with manufacturers recommendations. There was a lawsuit when this data was 1st published.

a) Server drives are intended to be used in data canters with strict storage requirements ... including climate control and stable structurally sound racks on solid concrete foundations. Server drives are designed for that environment and are optimized for that usage. Backblaze was found to be storing the drives in cases, on tables and literally holding them in place with rubberbands. Rather than purchase storage drives for server usage, Backblaze was purchasing consumer drives in large quantities as it was cheaper to keep replacing them after the died prematurely in their rickety storage scenario.

b) Consumer drives are designed for a different environent. They have to be able to handle when the guy delivering the office xerox paper bumps into your desk with his hand truck ... they have to be designed so that when ya dog that was sleeping under your desk hears the door bell ring jumps up and bumps ya desk, the HD arm doesn't crash the platter. So consumer drives are designed with a feature called head parking whereby the arm is "docked" when not reading or writing. Server drives have no need for this feature ... unless of course it's rubberband type server farm.

c) Now consumer drives are not a very intense usage so they are not designed for excessive "parking cycles" and are typically raged fro 250 - 500k cycles. With the extreme I / O associated with server usage they can see 90k cycles in a month. It's the very feature that makes consumer drives suitable for consumer usage that makes them unsuitable for server operation. What backblaze does is akin to putting snow toires on a vehgicle used in Florida where it never snows and then complaining about poor gas mileage.

In short ... if ya want data on consumer drives in a consumer environment, look at a data set that includes that:

Overall failure rates for two consecutive month periods:

• Seagate 0,72% (0,69%)
• Toshiba 0,80% (1,15%)
• Western 1,04% (1,03%)
• HGST 1,13% (0,60%)

Specific Model Failure rates (Data not shown when sales were inadequate to provide reliable sample size)

2 TB :

• 2,39% Toshiba DT01ACA200
• 1,25% WD Red Pro WD2001FFSX
• 1,10% WD Blue WD20EZRZ
• 0,82% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14
• 0,81% WD Red WD20EFRX
• 0,77% Seagate Enterprise NAS HDD ST2000VN0001
• 0,74% WD Purple WD20PURX
• 0,72% WD Green WD20EZRX
• 0,56% Seagate NAS HDD ST2000VN000
• 0,45% WD Black WD2003FZEX
• 0,43% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST2000DX001
• 0,41% Seagate SpinPoint M9T ST2000LM003
• 0,36% WD Re WD2000FYYZ
• 0,00% Seagate Surveillance HDD ST2000VX000
• 0,00% WD SE WD2000F9YZ
• 0,00% Seagate Enterprise Capacity ST2000NM0033
• 0,00% Toshiba E300
• 0,00% Toshiba P300

3 TB :

• 3,04% WD Black WD3003FZEX
• 2,89% Toshiba DT01ACA300
• 2,29% Seagate Enterprise NAS HDD ST3000VN0001
• 2,23% WD Red Pro WD3001FFSX
• 2,18% WD Green WD30EZRX
• 1,52% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001
• 1,41% Seagate NAS HDD ST3000VN000
• 0,96% Western Red WD30EFRX
• 0,75% Seagate Surveillance HDD ST3000VX000

4 TB :

• 2,37% WD Purple WD40PURX
• 2,02% WD Red WD40EFRX
• 1,89% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST4000DX001
• 1,53% Seagate Desktop HDD.15 ST4000DM000
• 1,04% Seagate NAS HDD ST4000VN000
• 1,02% WD Blue WD40EZRZ
• 0,95% WD Green WD40EZRX
• 0,90% WD RE WD4000FYYZ
• 0,56% Toshiba MD04ACA40
• 0,40% Seagate Constellation ES ST4000NM0033
• 0,39% Hitachi Deskstar 7K4000
• 0,37% Toshiba X300
• 0,21% Hitachi Deskstar NAS
• 0,00% WD Black WD4003FZEX

5 / 6 TB :

• 3,42% Toshiba Toshiba X300 5 To
• 3,37% WD Red WD60EFRX
• 2,67% WD Green WD60EZRX
• 1,43% WD Red WD50EFRX
• 0,87% Seagate Enterprise NAS HDD ST6000VN0001
• 0,74% Seagate Desktop HDD ST6000DM001
• 0,00% Seagate NAS HDD ST6000VN0021

 

[killster1]

SSD's do great benchmarks ... but they don't erase the number 1 bottleneck .. the user. There are to variables here:

a) Is the user capable of noticing ?
b) Will they notice ?

We put a SSD and SSHD in every build .... haven't bought a HD in 8 years. Over that time have had 3 SSD failures (all 5+ years ago) and 0 SSHD failures.

Now certainly, if you run a benchmark, you can notice and time it, you can discern a difference.

a) You can run synthetic benchmaks ... but the relative question is, over the next 3 or 4 years, how often in the course of a year does this occur under your normal activity. Its like having a watch that will still run fine at 200 meters of water depth. That's kinda cool but since I will be dead, i don't really need to concern myself with it.

b) Windows Startup is a reasonable test ... or is it ? Do you hit the start button and stare at the screen while booting ? Or do you multi-tak ... check phone messages, grab cawfee, straighten your desk, put on your headphones. We measured difference in start up times between SSD and SSHD at 0.9 seconds ... can you measure it ? YES ... will anyone's productivity be improved by it ? NO

c) Software Installation ... Ok I start installing Libre office ... It takes 2 minutes on SSD and 3 minutes on a HD ... can you notice ? yes if you stare at the screen.... will you notice ? Not me, Im waiting a youtube video or reading the college football scores.

d) Demanding applications ... here is one place where the SSD can have a real advantage ... working with large files and doing significant editing will result in observable productivity increases on the scratch drive. However, once done and saving that file to archival storage ?... who cares, Im doing something else.

e) Game Level Loading - Usually that's the 1st thing folks do ... stare at the screen and yell in triumph they level loaded 5 seconds faster. Can ya notice ? Sure ... will ya notice ... Not me, I'm old... I had my legs crossed the last 20 minutes waiting for the next level ... I need to gooooo. My kids ... its time to do get a snack, text their friend, take a bio or go out to the garage and do "whatever they do out there"

But what it comes down to is .... again, we put a SSD and SSHD in every build. SSD might get OS... OS and Programs ... or a 2nd SSD just for games. The SSD gets a partition which is a mirror of the SSD ... the 2nd partition is everything else. When we, unbeknownst to the user disable the SSD ... have gone 6 weeks w/ no one to the wiser.

That being said ... we still put at least 1 SSD and 1 SSHD .... are we affected in any positive way by the additional expense ? I doubt it, it's speed advantage is lost cause I either can't keep up or Im multiasking doing something else. I just like knowing it's there, I guess. If I was doing production rendering, animation or video editing , I'd be all in.

As for reliability... quoting backblaze data doesn't say it all ... it says here's a bunch of irrelevant data showing this is what happens when when a low budget operation installs storage devices in direct conflict with manufacturers recommendations. There was a lawsuit when this data was 1st published.

a) Server drives are intended to be used in data canters with strict storage requirements ... including climate control and stable structurally sound racks on solid concrete foundations. Server drives are designed for that environment and are optimized for that usage. Backblaze was found to be storing the drives in cases, on tables and literally holding them in place with rubberbands. Rather than purchase storage drives for server usage, Backblaze was purchasing consumer drives in large quantities as it was cheaper to keep replacing them after the died prematurely in their rickety storage scenario.

b) Consumer drives are designed for a different environent. They have to be able to handle when the guy delivering the office xerox paper bumps into your desk with his hand truck ... they have to be designed so that when ya dog that was sleeping under your desk hears the door bell ring jumps up and bumps ya desk, the HD arm doesn't crash the platter. So consumer drives are designed with a feature called head parking whereby the arm is "docked" when not reading or writing. Server drives have no need for this feature ... unless of course it's rubberband type server farm.

c) Now consumer drives are not a very intense usage so they are not designed for excessive "parking cycles" and are typically raged fro 250 - 500k cycles. With the extreme I / O associated with server usage they can see 90k cycles in a month. It's the very feature that makes consumer drives suitable for consumer usage that makes them unsuitable for server operation. What backblaze does is akin to putting snow toires on a vehgicle used in Florida where it never snows and then complaining about poor gas mileage.

In short ... if ya want data on consumer drives in a consumer environment, look at a data set that includes that:

Overall failure rates for two consecutive month periods:

• Seagate 0,72% (0,69%)
• Toshiba 0,80% (1,15%)
• Western 1,04% (1,03%)
• HGST 1,13% (0,60%)

Specific Model Failure rates (Data not shown when sales were inadequate to provide reliable sample size)

2 TB :

• 2,39% Toshiba DT01ACA200
• 1,25% WD Red Pro WD2001FFSX
• 1,10% WD Blue WD20EZRZ
• 0,82% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14
• 0,81% WD Red WD20EFRX
• 0,77% Seagate Enterprise NAS HDD ST2000VN0001
• 0,74% WD Purple WD20PURX
• 0,72% WD Green WD20EZRX
• 0,56% Seagate NAS HDD ST2000VN000
• 0,45% WD Black WD2003FZEX
• 0,43% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST2000DX001
• 0,41% Seagate SpinPoint M9T ST2000LM003
• 0,36% WD Re WD2000FYYZ
• 0,00% Seagate Surveillance HDD ST2000VX000
• 0,00% WD SE WD2000F9YZ
• 0,00% Seagate Enterprise Capacity ST2000NM0033
• 0,00% Toshiba E300
• 0,00% Toshiba P300

3 TB :

• 3,04% WD Black WD3003FZEX
• 2,89% Toshiba DT01ACA300
• 2,29% Seagate Enterprise NAS HDD ST3000VN0001
• 2,23% WD Red Pro WD3001FFSX
• 2,18% WD Green WD30EZRX
• 1,52% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001
• 1,41% Seagate NAS HDD ST3000VN000
• 0,96% Western Red WD30EFRX
• 0,75% Seagate Surveillance HDD ST3000VX000

4 TB :

• 2,37% WD Purple WD40PURX
• 2,02% WD Red WD40EFRX
• 1,89% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST4000DX001
• 1,53% Seagate Desktop HDD.15 ST4000DM000
• 1,04% Seagate NAS HDD ST4000VN000
• 1,02% WD Blue WD40EZRZ
• 0,95% WD Green WD40EZRX
• 0,90% WD RE WD4000FYYZ
• 0,56% Toshiba MD04ACA40
• 0,40% Seagate Constellation ES ST4000NM0033
• 0,39% Hitachi Deskstar 7K4000
• 0,37% Toshiba X300
• 0,21% Hitachi Deskstar NAS
• 0,00% WD Black WD4003FZEX

5 / 6 TB :

• 3,42% Toshiba Toshiba X300 5 To
• 3,37% WD Red WD60EFRX
• 2,67% WD Green WD60EZRX
• 1,43% WD Red WD50EFRX
• 0,87% Seagate Enterprise NAS HDD ST6000VN0001
• 0,74% Seagate Desktop HDD ST6000DM001
• 0,00% Seagate NAS HDD ST6000VN0021

which sshd do you recommend then? I guess most people dont do data hording or take much photos / vacations / videos if never buying storage drives. trying to see which sshd is even good, the firecuda is slower then a regular hd ;( max size of sshd? id be excited if 4tb for 100 was the norm.

 

[yotano211]

which sshd do you recommend then? I guess most people dont do data hording or take much photos / vacations / videos if never buying storage drives. trying to see which sshd is even good, the firecuda is slower then a regular hd ;( max size of sshd? id be excited if 4tb for 100 was the norm.

I think the max size of a SSHD is around 4tb.

 

[Tartaros]

Ah. Missed that in all my studies.

It's held in a sort of mystery fog and obscurity. Unless you are in a mainframe related job it's normal not knowing about it.

 

[kapone32]

I think the max size of a SSHD is around 4tb.

It is and they still only come with 8GB of Flash storage. It is cheaper and faster to buy a 256GB SSD and a 4TB HDD and use Store MI (AMD) or Windows Storage Spaces.

 

[yotano211]

It is and they still only come with 8GB of Flash storage. It is cheaper and faster to buy a 256GB SSD and a 4TB HDD and use Store MI (AMD) or Windows Storage Spaces.

I never really liked those SSHD. I have one on my laptop, to me its used for cheap storage. I bought one because I saw it for $50 on a Christmas sale on ebay.

 

[kapone32]

I never really liked those SSHD. I have one on my laptop, to me its used for cheap storage. I bought one because I saw it for $50 on a Christmas sale on ebay.

Yeah they are not very good all purpose drives. Where I find they perform best is loading Windows and using them as game drives. Theoretically they should load games (as long as you are playing a single game) faster due to the programming that puts the most used files on the flash array.