Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Seagate Announces First SSD, 2TB HDD 229

Lucas123 writes "Seagate CEO Bill Watkins said today that the company plans to put out its first solid state disk drive next year as well as a 2TB version of its Barracuda hard disk drive. Watkins also alluded to Seagate's inevitable move from spinning disk to solid state drives, but emphasized it will be years away, saying the storage market is driven by cost-per-gigabyte and though SSDs provide benefits such as power savings, they won't be in laptops in the next few years. A 128GB SSD costs $460, or $3.58 per gigabyte, compared to $60 for a 160GB hard drive, according to Krishna Chander, an analyst at iSuppli. 'It will take three to four years for SSDs to come to parity with hard drives,' on price and reliability."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seagate Announces First SSD, 2TB HDD

Comments Filter:
  • Me Too! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gewalt ( 1200451 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @06:49PM (#23605499)
    The SSD from Seagate is a total "Me Too!" product. Seagate thinks they are in the "Mass storage" market, but they are not. They never have been. Their market is the one that includes "rotating magnetic platters". The only reason they are trying to break into this market (that they continuously decry as useless, futile, and too expensive) is because they are afraid of what "might" happen ten years down the road.

    It's so nice to see a company that fought this at every step pretend to embrace it.
  • by poeidon1 ( 767457 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @06:52PM (#23605519) Homepage
    which utilizes both SSD and a mechanical disk to get the best of both worlds in a way similar to processor caches L3 >> L2 >> L1. Ofcourse, current drives already use buffering but the buffer data gets lost when the drive is switched off.
  • Re:Every news source (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:02PM (#23605597) Homepage
    Yup, I'd love a 2TB SSD, man.

    Truthfully, I'm really looking forward to hybrid drives with, say 64-128 GB of flash, where all the "load-often, change rarely" data goes, like applications, OS, etc., and 2^N (N >= 8) GB of classic HD storage space for stuff that may need gazillions of writes (browser cache, working documents, SVN repositories, etc.).

    In fact, wouldn't it be great if the drive could be smart about it and--over time--identify files that were mostly read-only (iPhoto archives, MP3s) and migrate them to the flash storage area where fast, low-power reads would be a benefit.

    While we're dreaming, database engines could even be optimized to read only from the SSD-portion of a hybrid drive if a particular data point had not been written to in over N minutes, or since the last collation (explained later), but would write to the platters, and then during quiet cycles, it could do a collation. The collation would move data which was on the platters, but which did not have a pattern of large volumes of writes back to the SSD volume.

    And... I'd like a pony...
  • Analysts are dumb (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:18PM (#23605709) Homepage Journal
    SSD will never reach parity with hard disks because of the economics of spinning disk storage. Yes folks, a 160GB drive costs $60.

    SAMSUNG Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM. Cache: 32MB. Form Factor: 3.5". $184.99

    Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31000340AS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM. Cache: 32MB. Form Factor: 3.5". $209.99

    Next year these will be 4TB, 8TB, 16TB? $100-$200 range. Call me on it; by December 2009 (i.e. in 2009, next year) it'll happen. Where will we see the SSD price point?
  • by StCredZero ( 169093 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:23PM (#23605755)
    I'd buy a $460 128 gigabyte SSD in a laptop. Not to long ago these options were about $1000. If you do this right (and often it's been done wrong) you get better performance, much longer battery life, and enhanced reliability. With the right software monitoring of repeated writes, you could also know about hard drive failures coming in advance. That's fantastic, in my book. $460 is still a tad high, but I'd bite.
  • We would disagree (Score:5, Interesting)

    by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:27PM (#23605781)
    Spinning hard disks will go the way of tubes in ten years, more likely faster than that. Scaling the manufacturing up will drive SSD drive costs down. There are long-life reasons why:

    - SSDs aren't as vibration sensitive (both will not take a bullet, but only SSD can likely survive a normal drop of 2M on to concrete)
    - SSDs don't have the temperature/altitude constraints
    - SSDs don't have latency and no rise/shutdown time for green needs, in fact, they use hardly any power at all
    - SSDs are generally faster, although there are algorithms needed in flash to prevent bucket overuse because reads are almost infinite, but writes are not
    - SSDs take less in terms of precious metals and present fewer QA problems
    - No electromechanicals to wear out.

    The price point? Going down. It's an obvious solution to a long time problem. Magnetic versus flash storage will tend to favor flash, as magnetism decays sooner than flash will-- when flash is written to correctly.

  • by irc.goatse.cx troll ( 593289 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:29PM (#23605797) Journal
    Someone else posted something similar and to both of you I say: Why does this have to be a single drive? Why can't you do this today with 1 high storage drive(or raid) and 1 ssd?

    Obviously you'd need to write some good software to get full use of it, but the same is true for an all in one with any intellligence (i.e logfiles are low-use but deserve to be on solid state since it means not spinning up the disk for idle activity)

    It's not too different from the old scene setup of /archive on a multi-tb slow IDE raid and /incoming on a superfast scsi disk of only 100gb or so.

    New release comes out, it hits /incoming as fast as it can and everyone else rushes to grab it, all getting use of the fast disk. After a week demand drops dramatically as most people that want it already have it so it hits the slow but large storage.

    No reason you couldn't do similar on a desktop with one "fast&small" and one "slow&large". It's all about being able to define what goes where, and preferably having software take care of that for you.
  • by Bluesman ( 104513 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:39PM (#23605875) Homepage
    I remember getting the expensive 52Mb Supra hard drive for my Amiga 500, and being amazed at how much faster than floppies it was.

    An extra 2Mb of RAM came with that drive, for a system-wide total of 2.5Mb. Of course, with such a limited system, all I could do was run office and desktop publishing software, paint programs, 3-d modeling and ray-tracing software, and the latest games like Turrican, Lemmings, and the Indiana Jones adventure game.

    It's amazing to see how far we've come these past 18 years.
  • Re:Every news source (Score:4, Interesting)

    by v1 ( 525388 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:46PM (#23605945) Homepage Journal
    basically using the SSD part of it as a giant buffer? Not a bad idea really. I could use that. I reboot my laptop maybe every three weeks, so a lot of my OS probably doesn't get reaccessed much after a restart. A lot of what's on my HDD is media - movies and other entertainment for when I'm stuck somewhere on the road. Again not stuff I need access to very frequently.

    My HD has 186gb usable, and I'm using 172 of it. (eek...) I bet I only access at most 20 gb of that most of the time. Even making a say, 32gb or 64gb buffer would work great for how I use the computer - I'd be running entirely off the SSD part most of the time.

    Most users could probably accommodate a dual drive anyway. One partition for the SSD and one for the HDD. Put your media and other things you don't need access to often but want to have on tap on the HDD.
  • Re:Me Too! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lupis42 ( 1048492 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:46PM (#23605951)
    I hate to say this, but that's horse dung. There are tons of places where SSD flash drives are in fact the norm. It's just that in all of those places things like Watts, BTUs, and Ounces are more important that Gigs. Thing is, the faster networks get, and the easier having a home fileserver becomes, the more that laptops become one of those places. Seagate can prognosticate that far in the future. They just want the changeover to come as slowly as possible, so that they can get every last dollar out of their existing investments in platter-based magnetic storage devices. Are you shocked? I for one, am not shocked.
  • by m.dillon ( 147925 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:47PM (#23605961) Homepage
    For two reasons. First and foremost, low power consumption. Secondly, we have already passed the sweet spot in the storage capacity needed for the applications most people run, particularly on laptops. Add to that the fact that current HD form factors are an extremely good fit for SSD units, and the writing is on the wall.

    So what will happen is pretty obvious. Laptops are going to push SSD storage into the mainstream, giving it the critical mass needed to start the research bandwagon rolling, and 5-10 years after that happens hard drives will become the 'new' tape storage and most production systems will be using SSDs.

    Even more pointedly, with power costs being the premium concern for data centers these days, and the hard drive being the only thing left in the computer that can't be engineered down to near 0 power consumption when idle (short of spinning it down, which has its own problems), my expectation is that large commercial concerns will see a huge cost benefit to using SSD storage despite the higher front-end cost of purchasing it.

    -Matt
  • Re:Me Too! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rrohbeck ( 944847 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @08:02PM (#23606097)

    The SSD from Seagate is a total "Me Too!" product.
    So? They have lots of experience with the interface, firmware, low cost production, the market etc. Replacing rotating platters with Flash is easy.
    I wouldn't be surprised if they'd be shopping for a Flash supplier or at least a cooperation right now.
  • by petermgreen ( 876956 ) <plugwash.p10link@net> on Friday May 30, 2008 @08:05PM (#23606117) Homepage
    maybe it's a regional thing, most people I talk to seem to use the term laptop very generally covering everything from the tiny "subnotebooks" all the way up to the 17 inch "desktop replacement" monsters.

    manufacturers avoid the term laptop nowadays because of the fact that using them on your lap is strongly discouraged due to heat related issues (both the possibility of a hot laptop burning you and the fact that being on a soft uneven surface can interfere with ventilation on some models)

    imo most laptops fit into one of a few categories

    * craptops: built with price and headline specs (cpu mainly) as the main design consideration theese are popular with first time laptop buyers. They come to regret it when they run into the reliability and build quality issues. I don't see theese going solid state any time soon.
    * ordinary decent laptops: (lattitudes, thinkpads macbooks) etc. Theese cost more than the craptops and that money mainly buys you better build quality. I see solid state being a build time option on theese in the near future but I don't see it being the default for cost reasons.
    * desktop replacements, high performance and big screens but heavy and bulky,
    * ultraportables: (smaller vaios, librettos, EEEPCs, OLPCs etc) many of theese are already using solid state drives.
  • ...paying $400+ for a 128gb SSD to replace the standard sata drive in my laptop as long as the performance was truly better and the battery life was that much better.
  • by Generic Guy ( 678542 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @10:25PM (#23606901)

    SSDs don't have latency and no rise/shutdown time for green needs, in fact, they use hardly any power at all

    While it's true, on average, they may use marginally less power, I think you'd be surprised at how much juice these SSDs can use up. Typical hard drives use most of their power spinning up the platter, and then momentum helps keep them going at a lower draw. SSDs also have a tendency to get rather warm, along with the CPU and RAM chips inside the machine. Overall, I still think SSDs are preferable, considering I'm currently filling out an RMA for my second dead HDD in a month.

    Personally, for me I find the biggest selling feature for SSD to be the beautious lack of noise, the lack of seek whine or odd ticking you often get with HDDs. I'd happily pay a bit of premium just because of that! (MMmmmm - a dead silent Home Theater PC or perhaps an incredibly quiet replacement TiVo drive.)

  • by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @10:44PM (#23606983)
    Were it new.... but flash has been around for a while. Write-cycle fatigue is well known, as are the work-arounds. As ROM, it's unmatched. As RAM, it's defeatable, but the defeats are the crux of many patents, and it's a patent war that will ensue, for a while.

  • by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) * on Friday May 30, 2008 @11:19PM (#23607127) Homepage Journal
    You kids and your fancy Winchester drives. Why, in my day, all we had was tape! Giant reel-to-reel drives and huge spools, spinning all day! If someone wanted data, we had to go the cabinet and locate the tape for it. Why, I had to carry those tapes through 6 feet of snow, uphill both ways.

    Now you kids get off of my lawn!
  • Re:Every news source (Score:3, Interesting)

    by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Saturday May 31, 2008 @02:37AM (#23607849) Journal
    NOR flash is blazing fast writes and reasonably fast reads (approx equal in reads to PC100 SDRAM).

    NAND has roughly the same read speeds, but it's write speeds (as a previous poster has also stated) are highly optimized for block writes in a very *very* linear manner. i.e. your digicam will sequentially write files, block by block, and it will write them fast. You will have only partilly filled blocks at the end of a file, but that's ok.

    The moment you want to modify something that's already written things slow down quickly.
    It's a bummer, but that's how it works. Where NAND would shine is a transaction server where it's writing a continuous (and possibly high speed) stream of data, that will be written once, but then read from multiple times, by different clients, with high contention rates.

    -nB
  • Re:Analysts are dumb (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Znork ( 31774 ) on Saturday May 31, 2008 @07:05AM (#23608543)
    I see you're not fighting with the wife and kids over whose material gets to stay on the PVR...
  • Re:SSD Performance (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DDumitru ( 692803 ) <doug@easycoOOO.com minus threevowels> on Saturday May 31, 2008 @03:41PM (#23611841) Homepage
    We are constantly adjusting market positioning. There should be a "laptop" version for single drive usage at around $150 list. Check back with our website in about a week to see new stuff.

    Our pricing goals are to "follow the drives down", so as drives get cheaper we want our layer to follow them.

    And we have talked with Samsung and others (and will continue those conversations). Then again, you know how "really big companies" work.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Working...