anandtech.com
>The HGST Ultrastar DC HC620 hard drives are based on Western Digital’s fourth-generation HelioSeal helium-filled enterprise platform that packs eight platters and employing multiple enhancements of internal components specially designed to improve reliability and durability of HDDs working in vibrating multi-drive environments. The DC HC620 HDDs use eight SMR platters with a 1.75 TB and a 1.875 TB capacity featuring a 1034 and a 1108 Gbit areal density per square inch respectively. Because of a very high areal density, the 14 TB version of the drive offers up to 233 MB/s sequential read/write speed, whereas the 15 TB variant can hit 255 MB/s sequential read/write speed, which is the world record for any SMR HDD.
WD Releases 15TB HDD
price?
four of this in RS1619xs+ in raid5
that will be great for my anime collection
>price?
Irrelevant unless you know how to deal with SMR.
How will SSDs ever recover?
They have their purposes as WORM drives. Basically a bit faster and much cheaper net than tape storage. Will HAMR drives be the same way?
blog.seagate.com
>We’re now announcing that, in fact, Seagate is already shipping HAMR units for customer integration tests — and the results are as we expected. The HAMR drives are as simple to integrate and operate similarly to any traditional drive. They’ve passed qualification tests with the predictability we’ve engineered into the drives.
>Our successful HAMR tests confirm our products are plug-and-play, reliable, and ready to ship in pilot volume next year:
>Manufacturability: Built over 40,000 HAMR drives; pilot volume in 2018, volume shipments of 20TB+ drives in 2019; drives are built on the same automated assembly line as current products
>Capacity: Achieved 2 Tbpsi areal density; 30% annual density growth on HAMR over past nine years
>Reliability: Tests proved single-head data transfers of over 2PB, exceeds real-world specifications
>Simplicity: HAMR is transparent to host; passed customer testing using standard code
> The HDDs use shingled magnetic recording (SMR) technology and are aimed at applications that need a lot of storage space, but are mainly read-focused operations. The manufacturer will only sell these products to customers with software that can manage SMR hard drives, primarily to those who already run 10 TB or 12 TB SMR HDDs.
>shingled magnetic recording
INTO THE TRASH IT GOES
Seagate sells 14TB Helium drives without the need for SMR or Host-Managed support
When will I have my 16TB 3.5" SSDs?
I'd pay $2000 for one right now dammit.
Next year I guess if conventional magnetic recording can hit 16TB capacity
14TB was just reached this year
I always thought it was strange how 3.5" form factor SSDs in typical HDD-class capacities never took off in the consumer market even with a premium price. Instead they started at 2.5" SATA and then just got smaller as PCIe cards and then NVMe sticks.
>Seagate
no
I can understand the drive (pardon the pun) to go smaller, as the SFF market has really taken off. I just don't understand why they don't fill up a 3.5" form factor with SSD chips.
Samsung has 16TB 2.5 form factor SSD right now ,available for Enterprise but they want $16k for one......
Is the BOM for SSDs REALLY higher than HDDs?
Sure for SSDs you have to pay for NAND, PCB logic, and the controller but HDDs have to pay for all of that (minus the NAND) plus driver motors, actuator arms, and platters. Plus they require more advanced assembly in clean rooms with gases to seal in the drives. Then you figure in that they are more susceptible to transportation damage and higher shipping costs and I can't see why SSDs aren't already cheaper than HDDs for equivalent capacities.
I don't get it either. 3.5" drive is over 4x more volume than a 2.5" drive. Samsung has 4TB 2.5" drives. Absolutely no reason they can't make a 16TB drive in 3.5" form factor for 4x the price.
Binning comes to mind. Imagine flawed 4TB 3,5 drive that you've managed to salvage. I don't think anyone would buy 512 3,5 ssd. But that's just my dumb theory.
>SMR
nope
there's no reason for a 3.5" factor with ssds. The actual chips are small, you could fit 32TB in 2.5" with current tech
That's why they add extra chips to SSDs. Most of them have 10-20% more capacity than advertised.
Nimbus created 100TB in 3.5" ff
Not that user and pardon my ignorance on the subject but could heat density be an issue with such a large drive under heavy operation?
>there's no reason for a 3.5" factor with ssds
Sure there is. I want 4x the capacity.
>you could fit 32TB in 2.5" with current tech
Sure goy, buy my $50,000 SSD.
Just stick a blue LED fan on it.
That'll keep it cool.
So they finally killed the Hitachi brand off... Isn’t it a violation of the anti-trust measures from back when they first acquired them?
>Sure goy, buy my $50,000 SSD.
That's a hyperbole, but the price is due to cost of nand flash. It seems you are under the mistaken idea that nand flash is more expensive because of a 2.5" form factor.
Who cares Mr internet policeman
You can even buy 50TB 3.5'' SAS SSDs since like last year - of course, those are for data centers and the like and may well cost as much as a new car.
Yeah, I realize this. I want Samsung to stack 4 of their 4TB SSDs into a 3.5" chassis. What's so difficult to understand?
>*Crackle*
>*fails*
Heh, nothing perssonel
>shingled
bleaugh
You should sell your soul for this.
Any of y'all familiar with these enterprise 1u ssd units Intel and Samsung were working on? Any advancements or cool tech, or just another meme? They're called "rulers" and seem to be a fuck ton of hot swap nvme w/ pcie 8x connects.
won't see 100TB 2.5 inch SSD under $100 for a very long time
I WANT TO USE IT IN MY PC AT HOME TO REPLACE MY NAS YOU AUTISTIC FAGGOTS
seagate is unironically good with their helium drives. i'm running a few 10tb exos drives and this line will stay my go-to.
Have fun with a raid rebuild. Hope you have good backups. If you have a drive die, no way the rebuild happens in time before a bit failure.
>muh transfer speed
still shitty access time in the order of milliseconds