Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage

Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive 316

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the goes-to-11 dept.
MojoKid (1002251) writes Seagate announced today that it has begun shipping the world's first 8 Terabyte hard drive. The 8TB hard drive comes only five months after Western Digital released the first ever 6TB HDD. Up until then, Seagate's high capacity HDDs had been shipping only to select enterprise clients. The 8TB HDD comes in the 3.5-inch form factor and, according to the manufacturer, features a SATA 6Gbps interface and multi-drive RV tolerance which makes it suitable for data centers. It's unclear what technology the drive is based on, or if PMR (Perpendicular Magnetic Recording) or low-resistance helium technology was employed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

Comments Filter:
  • Porn (Score:5, Funny)

    by darkain (749283) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:08PM (#47762049) Homepage

    That sure is a lot of porn...

  • by tchuladdiass (174342) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:10PM (#47762069) Homepage

    I remember when tape drives stored a few times more data than hard drives, and were priced about the same. I know I can back up to external USB drives (which I do using Snebu [snebu.com], but I which tape drives were more affordable.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      No. At least not one that makes sense for storing one or two copies of a consumer hard drive. And you're stuck with a huge investment in one generation of tapes, unlike HDDs where you can gradually buy bigger and better drives. I'd rather see hard drives get cheaper and tape not than nothing getting cheaper at all. What's the real practical downsides to HDDs for the average person anyway? They're standard and can be hooked up to any computer (real fun if your tape drive dies on you or is lost/stolen). They'

      • I agree that most of what people have can be re-downloaded. However, separating that out is a chore, and what if you miss something? Might as well back up the entire drive just to make sure. But that would be a great product -- a search engine service that you can upload a list of file hashes and have it return a url for each file that is available online.

    • For smaller offices, I prefer rdiff-backup over rsnapshot (but both work well) combined with USB drives instead of tape drives.

      Clients backup to a central server, each client has its own mount point and own file system (limits the possible damage if a backup client goes crazy since this is a push system). Inside that mount point, they create as many rdiff-backup directories as they need to.

      Once per day the server checks the file system for a particular backup client (iterates through them in a random o
      • I haven't used rdiff-backup, but I used to use rsnapshot (actually a homebrew equivalent to it) -- was backing up several hosts to a central one. But I really missed having all the backup metadata in a database, where I could do simple SQL queries to find out file patterns were taking up the most space (this helps you tune your include/exclude list). Also, trying to replicate a rsnapshot volume that had a bunch of hard links (each day's backup's common files were hard linked to the previous days' files)

      • by mlts (1038732)

        My concern about always-on storage is that if someone gets root, they can zero out the backup storage, purge all snapshots, then rsync the zeroed out changes.

        I sometimes wonder about using hard disks instead of tapes in a silo. Perhaps something like iMation's RDX, except with modern, high capacity drives, or maybe even a robotic mechanism that can handle bare bones disks, moving them from a storage part to a reader [1], and so on.

        Hard disks are not as reliable as tapes, but if done right, could be used as

  • Progress (Score:5, Funny)

    by lucm (889690) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:19PM (#47762107)

    Just like before I can lose entire tv series when the disk fails. But now it's the HD version of the series I will lose. That's called progress.

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      if you're trusting a drive, "you're not doing it right(tm)"

    • I archive all my stuff directly at Netflix.

      • by lucm (889690)

        The day Netflix offers The Wire and the Star Wars movies I may consider doing the same. Until then they are my $8/month source for bad British or Swedish series, although they are becoming quite a good source for bollywood movies too.

        I'm not kidding. Recently I had the opportunity to watch the puzzling movie Besharam on Netflix. The scene with the exploding car at the beginning got me hooked but the highlight of the movie is definitely this dynamic duo of Indian guys dressed in aluminium foil who dance like

    • by evilviper (135110)

      Just like before I can lose entire tv series when the disk fails.

      Buy two.

      If you're worried about the drive failing, a RAID-1 setup will take care of it, while doubling read speeds and halving seek times.

      If you're worried about user error or other accidents, have one offline in an external caddy, and just periodically power it up and rsync all the new data to it.

      I've been doing the later religiously for the past 10 years, upgrading my external drive every time I upgrade my internal drives. In all that time,

      • by lucm (889690)

        Five years ago I would have agreed with you. But all my machines nowadays are laptops with SSD, and the internal disks are 128 or 256GB. What really matters is in the cloud, and for what is less important I am not about to start doodling around with pairs of external drives.

        Maybe I should get a device like a Drobo. Or go nuts and get myself a nice SAN. I saw a Dell PS400E on eBay for $5,0000. 42TB of highly-redundant, high-performance storage... Now THAT would be awesome. Except the the noise and power bill

  • Why hasn't the price of data centers come way down with new storage technology? For example, why not keep a few terabytes of offline storage in your desk drawer instead of paying $$$ for tapes? If tapes are more reliable then what level of duplication is needed for disks to be as reliable? This combined with the multiplier effects of no_AC_necessary solid-state ... why not big data center in small closet? If the data center is inefficient, why is it still around? Latin me that, my trinity scholard.
  • I just had my third 1tarabyte+ hard drive fail tonight. I remember when hard drives DIDNT fail. It wasn't even a think I thought could happen. It's nice they can get them so large now, but I don't want that much in one place. I'd rather have several smaller drivers raided waiting for the inevitable.

    • by MightyYar (622222)

      When did hard drives not fail? I've had failures since the early 90s, when they were in the 200 MB range.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        When did hard drives not fail? I've had failures since the early 90s, when they were in the 200 MB range.

        Well, I'm sure someone will speak up about some tales of DASDs of yore still older than what I've had, but I still remember when Seagate was called "Seizegate" because of the frequency of occasion when one needed to dismount the drive, place it upon a soft surface, and give it a good rap on one corner (perpendicular to the axis of rotation) in order to permit it to spin up. 21MB of ST-225, baby.

    • You can still raid several larger drives. The advantage: you can have full mirroring, and large storage space. I welcome the technological advancement, but still I've only occupied 50% of my 1.5 TB HDD, and I must note that I've copies of the kernel source, and mozilla-central.

    • I remember when hard drives DIDNT fail.

      No you don't. HDDs have failed as long as HDDs have existed, and the failure rate has declined over the years. Today's HDDs are more reliable than ever before.

  • Seagate failures (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DigiShaman (671371) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:55PM (#47762263) Homepage

    So I have multiple servers in different locations all using 3TB external USB3 Seagate drives (powered by AC adapter). At least 12 in total, one for each server used for BMR backups. In less than a year, ALL DRIVES FAILED!!! Either they started out with bad blocks and progressively got worse, or just died.

    Seagate, never again! The article below doesn't show just how bad Seagate drives are when used every day.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article... [pcworld.com]

    • I've had bad luck with using USB drives for backup in general. Two seagates and two Toshiba drives died before I got a synology unit. It's been rock solid so far.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Ive heard the same thing about WD drives...so NEVER AGAIN for WD drives, and NEVER AGAIN for Seagate drives, so now ill only buy......oh shit.

    • Re:Seagate failures (Score:4, Informative)

      by WuphonsReach (684551) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @11:46PM (#47762529)
      External 3.5" drives are generally put in junky enclosures with no cooling and iffy controller chips and 1-year warranties. Since 3.5" hard drives are much more sensitive to heat issues then their 2.5" laptop drive cousins, you need active cooling (at least a minimal amount of airflow 24x7 over the drive).

      One external drive enclosure that I've been happy with is a Mediasonic HF2-SU3S2. This is a USB 3.0 unit which can hold up to (4) 3.5" drives in a few different configurations (I use JBOD). Not that expensive, has a fan, and has good performance.

      Stick some moderate quality 3.5 drives in it (WD Red, Seagate Enterprise Capacity drives, Hitachi Ultrastars) and it should run fine for a few years. Most of those drives have 3 or 5 year warranties.

      (For the 4-drive unit, we write to a different drive each day. And our backups are based on rdiff-backups, so each backup set has the full 53 weeks of change history for the source data.)
      • Re:Seagate failures (Score:5, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@@@world3...net> on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @07:30AM (#47763743) Homepage

        The drives used in external enclosures are sub-standard. Since the whole package only comes with a minimal one or two year warranty and they can easily point to any slight mark on the case as signs of abuse they put the weakest, borderline drives in them.

        Many people don't realized that drives are binned that way at the factory. All drives have a certain number of bad blocks from new. Those that have very few become server grade drives, the majority become standard internal consumer drives and those with very many surface errors get turned into external drives. The number of errors the drive starts out with affects the number of available spare blocks and the time before it develops further errors.

    • Re:Seagate failures (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anubis IV (1279820) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @12:02AM (#47762595)

      If you bought all of the drives at the same time and they all failed in such a short span, the likely cause is a bad batch, rather than some extraordinarily poor designs on the part of the manufacturer. And while a bad batch does reflect poorly on the manufacturer, the fact is, all of the manufacturers have bad batches from time to time.

    • They used to be so good, but (wouldn't you know) it was when I bought a set of 24 of them (staggered lots) for a big ZFS NAS was the time their quality took a dive. Every drive failed within three years - yeah, there was a warranty but I'd trade not dealing with that on 24 drives, one at a time (failed about every 2 weeks)! And this was in an always-on well-cooled data center with clean power.

      I switched over to Hitachi and have been much happier with the reliability. I'm hoping that the WD acquisition do

    • by thegarbz (1787294) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @05:00AM (#47763385)

      Honestly if this were a WD article someone would come up with the same anecdote and a different brand. Every manufacturer has had bad batches. I too have had a Seagate fail. I also had a WD fail. Like 4 IBM drives fail, a Quantum drive fail.

  • It would take me 20 months to fill that up.

  • Considering how awful QC and MTBF have been with Seagate in the past 10 years or so, I really can't think of a good reason to buy this drive.
  • anyone remember when (Score:5, Interesting)

    by confused one (671304) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @11:58PM (#47762579)
    Anyone else remember when 10MB was a decent size disk and 30MB was huge? Man I'm getting old...
    • My Altair 8800 running CP/M had a washing machine size hard driver. Air compressor,
      big power draw, etc. Had a 5 MB fixed platter, and a 5MB removable platter. I think
      was made by Shugart. Interface was parallel port (not printer port, but similar).

      In its day, it was the cat's meow.

      I still have that Altair, but not the drive. I replaced with a 5MB drive to a parallel port,
      8" then 5". I also experimented with IDE interface and a 3.5" drive, but I do not
      remember the capacity. Then the Altair got stored

    • I remember how excited I was to buy a Vulcan 100MB internal hard drive/power supply for my Apple IIgs computer. You had to replace the power supply with the Vulcan because the Apple IIgs was not designed for internal components the size of shoe.

      It only set me back about $600 at the time.
  • by TheDarkener (198348) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @12:14AM (#47762643)

    I see in this drives future, let me see my crystal ball.....2 years from this day. Yes....

    The drive shall fail.

    Your mystical fortune says...let me see...

    Use backups.

    That'll be $75.

    No, you can't see my third nipple.

  • Which Filesystem? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    A bit off topic, but what would be the recommended file system to use on a drive like this when you're using it for backups? Something with built-in file checksums or is using ext2/3/4 and writing a script to generate and validate CRC files better?

    I bought a 4TB WD My Book yesterday and am slightly concerned about the high failure rates for the 3TB version of the drive. Something about bad controllers...

    • by Dagger2 (1177377)

      ZFS. It's by far and away the best choice for data storage like this. Even if you ignore its technical features (lz4 and gzip compression, checksumming (including of metadata, which you won't manage with a script), redundant metadata so you don't lose entire directories to a single badly-placed bad block, snapshots and the ability to incrementally send snapshots over a pipe to another pool, native block devices, ...), it's just way nicer to administrate than btrfs, which is the only possible contender.

      Just

    • by sshir (623215)
      I would recommend explicit checksumming in data backup scenario. Main advantage is that this way your data is "multi-modal" (in shipping industry lingo). I.e. you can move your data between different computers, different filesystems and all the checksums move along. So when it's time to move your data to a newer disk you just copy it and you're not tied up with the choice of file system you made before. Scrubbing is easy too.

      Plus you will not lose any files without noticing the fact - even when file is

  • by fellip_nectar (777092) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @03:14AM (#47763157)
    We'll just put your data onto your new Seagate drive... aaaand it's gone!
  • by Dan Askme (2895283) on Wednesday August 27, 2014 @06:42AM (#47763607)

    I'd guess 2TB, before it fails.

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

Working...