theregister.co.uk/2018/11/02/seagate_hamr_roadmap/ >Seagate has set a course to deliver a 48TB disk drive in 2023 using its HAMR (heat-assisted magnetic recording) technology, doubling areal density every 30 months, meaning 100TB could be possible by 2025/26. HAMR overcomes the tendency of smaller magnetised areas in current PMR (perpendicular magnetic recording) technology to flip their magnetic polarity, and hence their binary bit value, through temperature changes and interference from neighbouring bits.
>A different and more stable recording medium is used, which needs heating before bit values can be written, meaning the read-write head requires a laser-heating element. HAMR bits can be made smaller than PMR bits, so a disk drive platter's areal density increases and drive capacity rises beyond the 16TB limit or so of 3.5-inch format disk drives. Western Digital is developing alternative microwave-assisted magnetic recording technology (MAMR) to overcome the PMR issue.
>The last PMR drive appears in 2019/20 with 16TB capacity. Seagate's current highest-capacity drive is a 14TB Exos 3.5-inch product. There is a forecast of areal density doubling every 2.5 years, and Seagate shows two other HAMR drive capacity points: 36TB in 2021/22 and 48TB in 2023/24.
>Hard drives with frickin' lasers on their heads. I never knew I wanted this.
Matthew Carter
>tapefags btfo Pretty much in both performance and TCO for enterprise and archive applications (since the tape drive makers refuse to bring their readers' cost below that of a used Kia Rio). These next-generation spinning disk drives using HAMR & MAMR should allow breakthrough capacities increases and won't suffer with non-sequential access like current high-capacity shingled magnetic recording (SMR) disks and Tape media does.
>Seagate will actually develop performance-optimised HAMR drives with MACH.2 multi-actuator technology – two read/write heads per platter – and capacity-optimised drives with shingled magnetic recording (SMR).
>SMR drives have blocks of partially overlapping write tracks exposing narrower read tracks, making read speed faster than re-write speed as the overlapping track block has to be rewritten in its entirety rather than, as at present, just the affected bytes in a write track. So they'll be doubling the actuator reads per platter track. Now in theory SSDs should stomp these drives in capacity, performance, and cost based on their Bill of Materials & Simpler Assembly, but thanks to the smartphone market NAND flash production will be in a global short for a long time before meeting the $/GB necessary to make sense at these capacities for widespread adoption.
Bigger hard drives are not going to replace SSDs, moron. You still need SSDs for high performance tasks. HDD are only for storage.
Tyler Ramirez
>400000000000000000 TB drive >still 20ms access time kek
David Wood
Even now you'd have to store hundreds of TB for tapes to work out cheaper, plus they have a tonne of downsides. However, tapes will always last longer than disks. I wouldn't store offline data on a disk in a vault that isn't tested for years on end.
i'm not opposed to 100gb drives, just Seagate making them kek
Kayden Bennett
Ideally this tech will allow something like a 8-12TB single-platter/write head based drive by 2025 which should increase both sequential and mechanical reliability.
Anthony Myers
seagate should first implement hard drives which doesn't kill itself with bad sectors after using it for few months
Seriously, How much of that data are old windows installs? and whats all the other useless data?
Sebastian Brown
Seagate has better reliability at the moment according to Backblaze. You know, the site that everyone uses to point out Seagate had a terrible 3TB desktop drive years ago. Even their desktop drives are beating out WDs NAS drives. This is very normal for the industry. HGST is the king right now but people like you are too young to remember Deathstars
Brody Smith
what about speeds? heating up sectors before messing with them sounds slow as shit
Bentley Campbell
Deathstars are easy to forget since they were only around for a very short time, and took the evidence of their own existence with them.
Cameron Gray
>30TB+ SSDs on the enterprise market for over a year >spinning rust company of low reliability says they're totally going to hit 100TB in 6~ years
I'll never care about a single thing Seagate does. I'd by a cheap Crucial or Patriot SSD before I bought an HDD ever again. I already have some network storage. My work Toughbook has a Patriot SSD in it and its held up fine. if I really wanted to spend the cash I'd pay for a Pro line Samsung SSD. Maybe if Western Digital had a compelling enough offering I'd consider them.
As far as I'm concerned Seagate doesn't exist. I will never willingly give them money ever again.
Christopher Reed
it's a russian roulette if you rely raid and backups on seagate hdd's. but if someone wants to live on the edge, who am i to judge.
Hudson Taylor
I mean, RAID 6 should be enough?
Jacob Stewart
The entire point of RAID is that it can handle drive failures.
Colton Phillips
constant leader in HDD technology and far better than WD has ever been yea what about them?
Cooper Martinez
seagate is responsible for nearly all drive innovations for the past 30 years.
Camden Powell
Bullshit you can never have enough porn, ever.
Andrew Anderson
Doubt.png
Aiden Fisher
>being this retarded
Juan Gutierrez
Seagate has been a laughably poor competitor to WD since like 1997, pal.
Nolan Richardson
cool, WD hasn't innovated anything at all. Useless company
Eli Brown
The backblaze reliability reports disagree entirely. Your data is fairly safe on any mainstream drive on average. Doing RAID and backups is if you by chance get a lemon. Drive failure rates have been going down for years across all big manufacturers.
