10TB Hard Drive, can't even be accessed by modern OS's yet!

"Drew" wrote in message
...
On 3/14/2015 2:11 AM, Paul wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Sadly This 10TB Hard Drive Is Designed For Servers, Not Your Laptop
http://gizmodo.com/sadly-this-10tb-h...not-1691245306


Hitachi Global Storage Technologies—aka HGST, aka a subsidiary of
Western Digital—was recently showing off its gigantic new 10TB hard
drive at the Linux Foundation Vault tradeshow in Boston. But
unfortunately you won't be packing 10,000 gigabytes into your laptop
anytime soon because the drive is designed for use in servers, and
mostly because it requires special software to work.

Originally revealed back in September of last year, HGST will finally
be shipping its 10TB SMR HelioSeal HDD sometime in the second quarter
of this year. But the drive will require special updates to an OS like
Linux in order for a server to actually be able to read and write to
it thanks to the radical new storage technologies it employs.

The HelioSeal technology simply means the drive is actually pumped
full of helium to help reduce friction between the read/write heads
and the platter which allows HGST to squeeze more platters inside
since there's less heat to have to deal with. It's the SMR technology
that poses the software problems.

SMR stands for Shingled Magnetic Recording and it basically describes
how data is written to the platters. In a traditional hard drive the
data is written in thin lines with a tiny gap in-between each one to
help minimize corruption. It's similar to how grooves of music are
laid out on a vinyl record. With SMR those data tracks slightly
overlap instead, like waterproof shingles on the roof of a home. There
are no longer any gaps in-between each track which allows more data to
be stored on a single platter, but at the cost of more complicated
software on the OS to properly read, write, and over-write data
without destroying neighboring tracks.

It sounds complicated, and it is, which is why HGST's new 10TB drive
has been slow to come to market. Everyone involved wants to make sure
the technology and supporting software works perfectly to avoid
disastrous data loss. But there's no reason to think the technology
won't be ready for desktop PCs and eventually laptops in a few years.
Who needs that cloud anyways?

http://www.storagereview.com/seagate...hdd_review_8tb

"SMR drives are not designed to cope with sustained write behavior"

"We found large sustained backup tasks to take longer than a
traditional
PMR HDD, averaging about 30MB/s"

"The SMR drives took much longer for a traditional full backup,
averaging 30MB/s.

However we saw sustained read speeds during a 400GB VM recovery
in excess of 180MB/s, which is really the core metric.
"

It's possible the slightly smaller drives are not affected
like that. Some of the 6TB ones are OK. I saw a review comparing
a few products in the 6TB range, and they had decent sustained
numbers (for home users who care about such things).

This isn't that review, but it'll have to do. It's for a
Seagate 6TB drive, with numbers over 200MB/sec for large
enough block size operations.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...4_review/4.htm


If you have external disk enclosures, some of the new disks
have a different hole pattern on the bottom, so for drives
that are held into place with screws from the bottom,
only two screws will mate.

I think home users will be staying "one step behind the curve",
to get the best possible secondary storage. SSD for C:,
conventional (non-SMR) secondary storage.

The flying height, the last time I checked, was 3nm. HGST is
experimenting with zero flying height. If you thought your
old drives seemed to have a "wear phenomenon", we're just
getting started. The experimental zero flying height setup
HGST used, lasted one month before the head was ruined. But
they'll figure it out eventually.

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping my current set of
drives last a long time. I'm very happy to not have
30MB/sec writes.

Why would a home user need 10,000 gigabytes of storage?

I've already got that, just not in a single drive, mostly for
the PVR overflow that I haven't got around to watching yet.

By the time you fill it something new would come along or it would die
first.

That isn't what happened with the 10TB+ I already have.

"pjp" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

On 3/14/2015 2:11 AM, Paul wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Sadly This 10TB Hard Drive Is Designed For Servers, Not Your Laptop
http://gizmodo.com/sadly-this-10tb-h...not-1691245306


Hitachi Global Storage Technologies?aka HGST, aka a subsidiary of
Western Digital?was recently showing off its gigantic new 10TB hard
drive at the Linux Foundation Vault tradeshow in Boston. But
unfortunately you won't be packing 10,000 gigabytes into your laptop
anytime soon because the drive is designed for use in servers, and
mostly because it requires special software to work.

Originally revealed back in September of last year, HGST will finally
be shipping its 10TB SMR HelioSeal HDD sometime in the second quarter
of this year. But the drive will require special updates to an OS like
Linux in order for a server to actually be able to read and write to
it thanks to the radical new storage technologies it employs.

The HelioSeal technology simply means the drive is actually pumped
full of helium to help reduce friction between the read/write heads
and the platter which allows HGST to squeeze more platters inside
since there's less heat to have to deal with. It's the SMR technology
that poses the software problems.

SMR stands for Shingled Magnetic Recording and it basically describes
how data is written to the platters. In a traditional hard drive the
data is written in thin lines with a tiny gap in-between each one to
help minimize corruption. It's similar to how grooves of music are
laid out on a vinyl record. With SMR those data tracks slightly
overlap instead, like waterproof shingles on the roof of a home. There
are no longer any gaps in-between each track which allows more data to
be stored on a single platter, but at the cost of more complicated
software on the OS to properly read, write, and over-write data
without destroying neighboring tracks.

It sounds complicated, and it is, which is why HGST's new 10TB drive
has been slow to come to market. Everyone involved wants to make sure
the technology and supporting software works perfectly to avoid
disastrous data loss. But there's no reason to think the technology
won't be ready for desktop PCs and eventually laptops in a few years.
Who needs that cloud anyways?

http://www.storagereview.com/seagate...hdd_review_8tb

"SMR drives are not designed to cope with sustained write behavior"

"We found large sustained backup tasks to take longer than a
traditional

I have almost 10Tb (9+) attached to main pc

I actually have more than 10TB myself.

and almost as much again if I want to mount network shares.
Mix mash of internal and external 1,2 & 3Tb drives.

Me too.

All are used

Me too.

but I try and keep them all over 50% clean

I don't do anything like that.

to facilitate if I need to copy from one to another in
case one goes bonkers I have a place to save what
I can first before sending back or replacing.

I'd just buy another in that situation, they are so cheap.

I don't even bother to carefully edit the PVR files that have
had part of them watched, too much farting around, drives
are now so cheap I don't bother.

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 05:39:04 -0700, Drew wrote:

This was going to be my reply:

MY PLAN
Why would a home user need 10,000 gigabytes of storage? By the time you
fill it something new would come along or it

or the user

would die first.
/MY PLAN

but before doing it I read the other replies.

Obviously I didn't realize what some users' needs are.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 3/14/2015 7:11 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 05:39:04 -0700, Drew wrote:

This was going to be my reply:

MY PLAN
Why would a home user need 10,000 gigabytes of storage? By the time you
fill it something new would come along or it

or the user

would die first.
/MY PLAN

but before doing it I read the other replies.

Obviously I didn't realize what some users' needs are.

Just think of what a backup would take!

On 14/03/2015 8:39 AM, Drew wrote:
Why would a home user need 10,000 gigabytes of storage? By the time you
fill it something new would come along or it would die first.

I'm pretty close to that amount if I count all internal drives and
external USB drives too.

Yousuf Khan

On 14/03/2015 8:49 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Yousuf
Khan escribió:
but at the cost of more complicated software
on the OS to properly read, write, and over-write data without
destroying neighboring tracks.
This is bull****. The OS has nothing to do with it, the drive firmware
does it and this process is invisible to the OS.

Maybe the special write procedures for these drives can't be fully
handled by the drive firmware, and so it needs an assist by the OS? It
wouldn't surprise me if the write timing operation is so complex that
it's best handled by a subroutine that can only run on the host machine.
The host machine would have better understanding of the high-level file
system data structures, which the firmware wouldn't understand. Perhaps
it's best to not consider these hard drives but something between a hard
drive and a tape drive?

Yousuf Khan

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 04:38:39 -0400, Charlie wrote:

On 3/14/2015 7:11 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 05:39:04 -0700, Drew wrote:

This was going to be my reply:

MY PLAN
Why would a home user need 10,000 gigabytes of storage? By the time you
fill it something new would come along or it

or the user

would die first.
/MY PLAN

but before doing it I read the other replies.

Obviously I didn't realize what some users' needs are.

Just think of what a backup would take!

Another 10T disk? Unless I messed up the arithmetic, that's about a
day or two to do a complete backup.

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 04:38:39 -0400, Charlie wrote:

On 3/14/2015 7:11 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 05:39:04 -0700, Drew wrote:

This was going to be my reply:

MY PLAN
Why would a home user need 10,000 gigabytes of storage? By the time you
fill it something new would come along or it

or the user

would die first.
/MY PLAN

but before doing it I read the other replies.

Obviously I didn't realize what some users' needs are.

Just think of what a backup would take!

I have a total of about 50TB here, consisting of two volumes, (using Drive
Bender), and made the decision long ago that I wouldn't be backing up all of
it under any circumstances. Instead, you decide what needs to be backed up
and do it selectively, and the rest either gets protected with parity so
that you can lose a drive or two and still recover, or you simply decide to
ride bareback and treat the data as expendable or replaceable.

--

Char Jackson

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 04:38:39 -0400, Charlie wrote:

On 3/14/2015 7:11 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 05:39:04 -0700, Drew wrote:

This was going to be my reply:

MY PLAN
Why would a home user need 10,000 gigabytes of storage? By the time you
fill it something new would come along or it
or the user

would die first.
/MY PLAN

but before doing it I read the other replies.

Obviously I didn't realize what some users' needs are.

Just think of what a backup would take!

I have a total of about 50TB here, consisting of two volumes, (using Drive
Bender), and made the decision long ago that I wouldn't be backing up all of
it under any circumstances. Instead, you decide what needs to be backed up
and do it selectively, and the rest either gets protected with parity so
that you can lose a drive or two and still recover, or you simply decide to
ride bareback and treat the data as expendable or replaceable.

How unhappy would you be, if you lost the entire array ?

Common mode failures do happen.

All it takes is a power supply failure, the 12V rail rising
to 15V for around 30 seconds, and it's all over for your array.

*******

One problem I see with that 10TB drive, is it's not going
to fit into the typical IT guys "backup window value".
You'd be surprised how important that is to some people.

I'm also surprised there's no "reach" program at Seagate
or WD, to change the basics of hard drive design. And
crank up the bandwidth. If you're going to make a 10TB
drive, it should have 500MB/sec bandwidth. They should
at least have enough heads, to write the entire shingle
in one pass.

Paul

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 11:58:32 -0400, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 04:38:39 -0400, Charlie wrote:

On 3/14/2015 7:11 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 05:39:04 -0700, Drew wrote:

This was going to be my reply:

MY PLAN
Why would a home user need 10,000 gigabytes of storage? By the time you
fill it something new would come along or it
or the user

would die first.
/MY PLAN

but before doing it I read the other replies.

Obviously I didn't realize what some users' needs are.

Just think of what a backup would take!

I have a total of about 50TB here, consisting of two volumes, (using Drive
Bender), and made the decision long ago that I wouldn't be backing up all of
it under any circumstances. Instead, you decide what needs to be backed up
and do it selectively, and the rest either gets protected with parity so
that you can lose a drive or two and still recover, or you simply decide to
ride bareback and treat the data as expendable or replaceable.

How unhappy would you be, if you lost the entire array ?

Common mode failures do happen.

I'd be unhappy, but not devastated. The financial loss would be the biggest
thing if all of the drives got toasted; i.e. drive replacement cost. The
important data is backed up, and the rest can be replaced. Having said that,
common mode failures are a pretty rare event these days, so I accept the
risk (as I see it).

--

Char Jackson