Seagate offers low-cost 8TB hard drives

Seagate offers low-cost 8TB hard drives | ZDNet
http://www.zdnet.com/article/seagate...b-hard-drives/

"Sold by Seagate under the "Archive Label" brand and aimed at those
looking for a cost-effective storage solution, the drive retails for
around $270, which is far more palatable than the $1,000 or so that 8TB
drive from HGST are currently going for.
That works out at around $0.033 per gigabyte."

On Monday, December 15, 2014 9:31:40 PM UTC+8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Seagate offers low-cost 8TB hard drives | ZDNet
http://www.zdnet.com/article/seagate...b-hard-drives/

"Sold by Seagate under the "Archive Label" brand and aimed at those
looking for a cost-effective storage solution, the drive retails for
around $270, which is far more palatable than the $1,000 or so that 8TB
drive from HGST are currently going for.
That works out at around $0.033 per gigabyte."

So I guess these are "consumer" grade like WD Blue crap.
I don't want to run a scandisk on 8 TB - would take about a day....

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 01:39:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 9:31:40 PM UTC+8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Seagate offers low-cost 8TB hard drives | ZDNet
http://www.zdnet.com/article/seagate...b-hard-drives/

"Sold by Seagate under the "Archive Label" brand and aimed at those
looking for a cost-effective storage solution, the drive retails for
around $270, which is far more palatable than the $1,000 or so that 8TB
drive from HGST are currently going for.
That works out at around $0.033 per gigabyte."

So I guess these are "consumer" grade like WD Blue crap.
I don't want to run a scandisk on 8 TB - would take about a day....
The drives as "shingled", so you can't write random blocks without
having to rewrite a bunch of partially overlayed nearby stuff.

( "Seagate SMR (Shingled Magnetic Recording)" is what Seagate calls
the shingling technique.)


https://www.seagate.com/files/www-co...4-3-1411us.pdf

"Workload Rate Limit" (TB/year) 180
data rate, sequential is 150 MB/second.
180 TB/(150 MB/second) = 1.2 * 1 million seconds /year

Doesn't seem like acceptable for use in full time sequential
recording, also could keep up with 1 compressed HD camera full time
without getting close to the limit

On 16/12/2014 6:26 PM, Mark F wrote:
The drives as "shingled", so you can't write random blocks without
having to rewrite a bunch of partially overlayed nearby stuff.

( "Seagate SMR (Shingled Magnetic Recording)" is what Seagate calls
the shingling technique.)


https://www.seagate.com/files/www-co...4-3-1411us.pdf

"Workload Rate Limit" (TB/year) 180
data rate, sequential is 150 MB/second.
180 TB/(150 MB/second) = 1.2 * 1 million seconds /year

Doesn't seem like acceptable for use in full time sequential
recording, also could keep up with 1 compressed HD camera full time
without getting close to the limit

So I wonder if they do something similar to what they do in SSD's where
every write gets done to a completely new block, and the block gets
remapped dynamically and invisibly by the drive to appear like the old
block to the OS?

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 16/12/2014 6:26 PM, Mark F wrote:
The drives as "shingled", so you can't write random blocks without
having to rewrite a bunch of partially overlayed nearby stuff.

( "Seagate SMR (Shingled Magnetic Recording)" is what Seagate calls
the shingling technique.)


https://www.seagate.com/files/www-co...4-3-1411us.pdf

"Workload Rate Limit" (TB/year) 180
data rate, sequential is 150 MB/second.
180 TB/(150 MB/second) = 1.2 * 1 million seconds /year

Doesn't seem like acceptable for use in full time sequential
recording, also could keep up with 1 compressed HD camera full time
without getting close to the limit

So I wonder if they do something similar to what they do in SSD's where
every write gets done to a completely new block, and the block gets
remapped dynamically and invisibly by the drive to appear like the old
block to the OS?

Yousuf Khan

Probably. And unlike SSDs, this is going to get dog-slow with
too many random small writes. This thing is more like tape than
a hdd and should primarily be regarded as tape relacement (there
is a significant market for that) or as read-mostly storage
(also a significant market). This is not general-purpose HDD
storage.

Arno

On 24/12/2014 8:55 PM, Arno wrote:
Probably. And unlike SSDs, this is going to get dog-slow with
too many random small writes. This thing is more like tape than
a hdd and should primarily be regarded as tape relacement (there
is a significant market for that) or as read-mostly storage
(also a significant market). This is not general-purpose HDD
storage.

Good point! It's more of a serial storage mechanism rather than a
random-access storage.

Yousuf Khan