Seagate Displays 60 TB SSD At Flash Memory Summit

[Guest]

Seagate is kicking density up a notch with the demonstration of a prototype 60 TB SSD at the Flash Memory Summit.

Seagate Displays 60 TB SSD At Flash Memory Summit : Read more

 

[littleleo]

I think you have a misprint:

"Early enterprise SSDs came in the 2.5" form factor but eventually transitioned to 2.5" as flash continued to shrink"

I think you mean "came in 3.5" form factor".

 

[thundervore]

The misprint is there to distract us from seeing that this is made by Seagate.

 

[hst101rox]

No pics of the drive? I want to see the heatsink since power consumption is 15 watts max

 

[drtweak]

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

 

[zodiacfml]

Brute forcing density. WD can beat team in this regard.
There is a very small niche for this type of storage density but they will surely get buyers willing to pay for this. I wonder if Samsung will compete or block Seagate to get this very small niche.

 

[jimmysmitty]

The misprint is there to distract us from seeing that this is made by Seagate.

And that means what? It is using Microns 3D NAND and Micron/Intel has some of the best NAND in the market. Seagate is just putting it together.

Either way I don't see that it is a bad thing as the more SSD players in the market the better and cheaper it will get for us.

Brute forcing density. WD can beat team in this regard.
There is a very small niche for this type of storage density but they will surely get buyers willing to pay for this. I wonder if Samsung will compete or block Seagate to get this very small niche.

This is not brute forcing density this is a logical progression. 3.5" is a viable market and has much more room to put NAND chips than 2.5". It is the same as to why we can get a 10TB desktop drive but 4TB is the maximum in the laptop space and that is with a over sized 15mm drive while most laptops only suppot 9mm drives or 7mm drives.

And how is storage density a niche market? A single good sized company has multiple backups spanning 7 or more years and can easily use TBs worth of storage space. Hell I think we use probably 100TB or so with all the servers and backups of emails and user data/archives.

 

[3ogdy]

The misprint is there to distract us from seeing that this is made by Seagate.

*Instantly throws up*
Can...barely...speak...through...vomit. Yuck!

 

[problematiq]

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

When dealing with most small servers you are using 3.5" drives. most of your mid/high end servers and mid/high end sans use 2.5" due to the slight decrease in size of drives it opens up new configurations. eg. A 2U server with 3.5" bays could hold 8 3.5" drives with a max of 4TB per drive (We are talking SAS) so a max of 32TB of space. in the same 2U you can get 24 2.5" drives with a capacity of 1.8TB per drive (Again SAS because in a server environment that's not just hosting a domain actually doing work requires throughput) giving you 43.2TB of data. may not seem like much but when you are dealing with a corporate environment or a data center that's a HUGE difference.

 

[drtweak]

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

When dealing with most small servers you are using 3.5" drives. most of your mid/high end servers and mid/high end sans use 2.5" due to the slight decrease in size of drives it opens up new configurations. eg. A 2U server with 3.5" bays could hold 8 3.5" drives with a max of 4TB per drive (We are talking SAS) so a max of 32TB of space. in the same 2U you can get 24 2.5" drives with a capacity of 1.8TB per drive (Again SAS because in a server environment that's not just hosting a domain actually doing work requires throughput) giving you 43.2TB of data. may not seem like much but when you are dealing with a corporate environment or a data center that's a HUGE difference.

You do have a point but for people who get new servers sure. But those who have existing 3.5 inch bays? Most of our severs are told to a client who does Security. So they will buy a high end Power Edge R730 which can do 8 3.5 or 16 2.5 (Not sure where you got 24 from. Maybe if they had nothing in the front of the server period) but the thing is SAS drives are up to 8TB today so it is more like 64 vs 43 TB. My client buy a R730 usually with 8 8TB and then sometimes gets a Dell Power vault to more than double that.

Now the thing is depending on which brand you go with, the 8TB can cost only twice as much as a 1.8 2.5. If a 8TB cost more than 4 times the 2.5 then yes i could then understand going with 2.5. Also having more drives could mean better through put on some things depending on what kind of RAID you do.

It just THERE is room for a 3.5 inch SSD, and I think if someone just did was seagate just did then it might catch on. I mean to have 240TB of raw space in a 8 bay servers? Comon. Standard 2.5 7-9mm can't even come close.

But that is just my 2 cents

 

[jimmysmitty]

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

When dealing with most small servers you are using 3.5" drives. most of your mid/high end servers and mid/high end sans use 2.5" due to the slight decrease in size of drives it opens up new configurations. eg. A 2U server with 3.5" bays could hold 8 3.5" drives with a max of 4TB per drive (We are talking SAS) so a max of 32TB of space. in the same 2U you can get 24 2.5" drives with a capacity of 1.8TB per drive (Again SAS because in a server environment that's not just hosting a domain actually doing work requires throughput) giving you 43.2TB of data. may not seem like much but when you are dealing with a corporate environment or a data center that's a HUGE difference.

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

When dealing with most small servers you are using 3.5" drives. most of your mid/high end servers and mid/high end sans use 2.5" due to the slight decrease in size of drives it opens up new configurations. eg. A 2U server with 3.5" bays could hold 8 3.5" drives with a max of 4TB per drive (We are talking SAS) so a max of 32TB of space. in the same 2U you can get 24 2.5" drives with a capacity of 1.8TB per drive (Again SAS because in a server environment that's not just hosting a domain actually doing work requires throughput) giving you 43.2TB of data. may not seem like much but when you are dealing with a corporate environment or a data center that's a HUGE difference.

You do have a point but for people who get new servers sure. But those who have existing 3.5 inch bays? Most of our severs are told to a client who does Security. So they will buy a high end Power Edge R730 which can do 8 3.5 or 16 2.5 (Not sure where you got 24 from. Maybe if they had nothing in the front of the server period) but the thing is SAS drives are up to 8TB today so it is more like 64 vs 43 TB. My client buy a R730 usually with 8 8TB and then sometimes gets a Dell Power vault to more than double that.

Now the thing is depending on which brand you go with, the 8TB can cost only twice as much as a 1.8 2.5. If a 8TB cost more than 4 times the 2.5 then yes i could then understand going with 2.5. Also having more drives could mean better through put on some things depending on what kind of RAID you do.

It just THERE is room for a 3.5 inch SSD, and I think if someone just did was seagate just did then it might catch on. I mean to have 240TB of raw space in a 8 bay servers? Comon. Standard 2.5 7-9mm can't even come close.

But that is just my 2 cents

http://www.serversupply.com/products/part_search/pid_lookup.asp?pid=149283&gclid=CJbkv96itc4CFY-AaQoduBULWA

I think he was talking about a SAN more than a server. We have a SAN that is 3U with 16 3.5" bays in it.

I agree that 2.5" cannot come close to this. A 16 bay SAN with 60TBs each is INSANE. 960TBs in a single SAN. I think our SAN isn't even close to that. Even with the 10TB HDDs that are available that would be only 160TB.

 

[problematiq]

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

When dealing with most small servers you are using 3.5" drives. most of your mid/high end servers and mid/high end sans use 2.5" due to the slight decrease in size of drives it opens up new configurations. eg. A 2U server with 3.5" bays could hold 8 3.5" drives with a max of 4TB per drive (We are talking SAS) so a max of 32TB of space. in the same 2U you can get 24 2.5" drives with a capacity of 1.8TB per drive (Again SAS because in a server environment that's not just hosting a domain actually doing work requires throughput) giving you 43.2TB of data. may not seem like much but when you are dealing with a corporate environment or a data center that's a HUGE difference.

You do have a point but for people who get new servers sure. But those who have existing 3.5 inch bays? Most of our severs are told to a client who does Security. So they will buy a high end Power Edge R730 which can do 8 3.5 or 16 2.5 (Not sure where you got 24 from. Maybe if they had nothing in the front of the server period) but the thing is SAS drives are up to 8TB today so it is more like 64 vs 43 TB. My client buy a R730 usually with 8 8TB and then sometimes gets a Dell Power vault to more than double that.

Now the thing is depending on which brand you go with, the 8TB can cost only twice as much as a 1.8 2.5. If a 8TB cost more than 4 times the 2.5 then yes i could then understand going with 2.5. Also having more drives could mean better through put on some things depending on what kind of RAID you do.

It just THERE is room for a 3.5 inch SSD, and I think if someone just did was seagate just did then it might catch on. I mean to have 240TB of raw space in a 8 bay servers? Comon. Standard 2.5 7-9mm can't even come close.

But that is just my 2 cents

The R730xd has 24 slots, the R730 and below with 2.5 capabilities have a max of 16. there are 8 TB helium drives but they would not be covered under warranty due to Dell not selling 8TB drives. 60TB sounds great but price per GB will most-likely be tremendously higher than other alternatives. Also a lot of reasons they don't cram a lot of NAND into a 3.5" case is because it barely fills the 2.5" as is. also the more you cram in, the slower it goes. Might be worth wile to see if we can find data sheets to show the market share of 2.5 vrs 3.5 in the enterprise sectors. I know every company I go to do security work for use 2.5's though.

 

[problematiq]

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

When dealing with most small servers you are using 3.5" drives. most of your mid/high end servers and mid/high end sans use 2.5" due to the slight decrease in size of drives it opens up new configurations. eg. A 2U server with 3.5" bays could hold 8 3.5" drives with a max of 4TB per drive (We are talking SAS) so a max of 32TB of space. in the same 2U you can get 24 2.5" drives with a capacity of 1.8TB per drive (Again SAS because in a server environment that's not just hosting a domain actually doing work requires throughput) giving you 43.2TB of data. may not seem like much but when you are dealing with a corporate environment or a data center that's a HUGE difference.

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

When dealing with most small servers you are using 3.5" drives. most of your mid/high end servers and mid/high end sans use 2.5" due to the slight decrease in size of drives it opens up new configurations. eg. A 2U server with 3.5" bays could hold 8 3.5" drives with a max of 4TB per drive (We are talking SAS) so a max of 32TB of space. in the same 2U you can get 24 2.5" drives with a capacity of 1.8TB per drive (Again SAS because in a server environment that's not just hosting a domain actually doing work requires throughput) giving you 43.2TB of data. may not seem like much but when you are dealing with a corporate environment or a data center that's a HUGE difference.

You do have a point but for people who get new servers sure. But those who have existing 3.5 inch bays? Most of our severs are told to a client who does Security. So they will buy a high end Power Edge R730 which can do 8 3.5 or 16 2.5 (Not sure where you got 24 from. Maybe if they had nothing in the front of the server period) but the thing is SAS drives are up to 8TB today so it is more like 64 vs 43 TB. My client buy a R730 usually with 8 8TB and then sometimes gets a Dell Power vault to more than double that.

Now the thing is depending on which brand you go with, the 8TB can cost only twice as much as a 1.8 2.5. If a 8TB cost more than 4 times the 2.5 then yes i could then understand going with 2.5. Also having more drives could mean better through put on some things depending on what kind of RAID you do.

It just THERE is room for a 3.5 inch SSD, and I think if someone just did was seagate just did then it might catch on. I mean to have 240TB of raw space in a 8 bay servers? Comon. Standard 2.5 7-9mm can't even come close.

But that is just my 2 cents

http://www.serversupply.com/products/part_search/pid_lookup.asp?pid=149283&gclid=CJbkv96itc4CFY-AaQoduBULWA

I think he was talking about a SAN more than a server. We have a SAN that is 3U with 16 3.5" bays in it.

I agree that 2.5" cannot come close to this. A 16 bay SAN with 60TBs each is INSANE. 960TBs in a single SAN. I think our SAN isn't even close to that. Even with the 10TB HDDs that are available that would be only 160TB.

It's kinda hard to translate that to 2.5 since the 2.5" sans come in 2U flavors and 3.5" come in 3U. The density is great yeah, but the price may not make it worth it and in the end it's all about what make sense for businesses.

 

[Nergo Pthycc]

Seagate will certainly enjoy the pile of money they'll get from data recovery service!

 

[jimmysmitty]

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

When dealing with most small servers you are using 3.5" drives. most of your mid/high end servers and mid/high end sans use 2.5" due to the slight decrease in size of drives it opens up new configurations. eg. A 2U server with 3.5" bays could hold 8 3.5" drives with a max of 4TB per drive (We are talking SAS) so a max of 32TB of space. in the same 2U you can get 24 2.5" drives with a capacity of 1.8TB per drive (Again SAS because in a server environment that's not just hosting a domain actually doing work requires throughput) giving you 43.2TB of data. may not seem like much but when you are dealing with a corporate environment or a data center that's a HUGE difference.

I remember commenting on the 16TB SSD on facebook and why they don't just go to 3.5 to give them much more space to fill. Some people told me that is like going backwards. The thing is a LOT of servers out there are designed for 3.5 and not 2.5 and usually to switch requires a whole new chassis or even a whole new server ( I know I sell Dell workstations and servers as part of my IT job) and having a 3.5 SSD would give higher yield and be more compatible with current servers out there. Yes it is Seagate and not samsung but still the fact that they made a 60TB SSD in a 3.5 form factor could be a game change for the mass storage area. Yea pretty sure it will have like a 50K Price tag on it though lol

When dealing with most small servers you are using 3.5" drives. most of your mid/high end servers and mid/high end sans use 2.5" due to the slight decrease in size of drives it opens up new configurations. eg. A 2U server with 3.5" bays could hold 8 3.5" drives with a max of 4TB per drive (We are talking SAS) so a max of 32TB of space. in the same 2U you can get 24 2.5" drives with a capacity of 1.8TB per drive (Again SAS because in a server environment that's not just hosting a domain actually doing work requires throughput) giving you 43.2TB of data. may not seem like much but when you are dealing with a corporate environment or a data center that's a HUGE difference.

You do have a point but for people who get new servers sure. But those who have existing 3.5 inch bays? Most of our severs are told to a client who does Security. So they will buy a high end Power Edge R730 which can do 8 3.5 or 16 2.5 (Not sure where you got 24 from. Maybe if they had nothing in the front of the server period) but the thing is SAS drives are up to 8TB today so it is more like 64 vs 43 TB. My client buy a R730 usually with 8 8TB and then sometimes gets a Dell Power vault to more than double that.

Now the thing is depending on which brand you go with, the 8TB can cost only twice as much as a 1.8 2.5. If a 8TB cost more than 4 times the 2.5 then yes i could then understand going with 2.5. Also having more drives could mean better through put on some things depending on what kind of RAID you do.

It just THERE is room for a 3.5 inch SSD, and I think if someone just did was seagate just did then it might catch on. I mean to have 240TB of raw space in a 8 bay servers? Comon. Standard 2.5 7-9mm can't even come close.

But that is just my 2 cents

http://www.serversupply.com/products/part_search/pid_lookup.asp?pid=149283&gclid=CJbkv96itc4CFY-AaQoduBULWA

I think he was talking about a SAN more than a server. We have a SAN that is 3U with 16 3.5" bays in it.

I agree that 2.5" cannot come close to this. A 16 bay SAN with 60TBs each is INSANE. 960TBs in a single SAN. I think our SAN isn't even close to that. Even with the 10TB HDDs that are available that would be only 160TB.

It's kinda hard to translate that to 2.5 since the 2.5" sans come in 2U flavors and 3.5" come in 3U. The density is great yeah, but the price may not make it worth it and in the end it's all about what make sense for businesses.

Oh I agree. What I see this doing though is just like the larger consumer drives and pushing the $/GB down more. That is what we need.

Plus making larger SSDs will be easier than HDDs as platter density is already at limits and now needs Helium to get further.

Seagate will certainly enjoy the pile of money they'll get from data recovery service!

So then you are pretty much saying that both Crucial and Intel SSDs would also fail and require data recovery? Because again, this uses Micron NAND which is what Intel and Crucial (and other) SSDs use and Intel has some of the best SSDs on the market.

 

[vern72]

Call me when in comes in a M.2 form factor. ;-)

 

[drtweak]

Call me when in comes in a M.2 form factor. ;-)

Going to be waiting a loooooooooooooooooooong time for that call XD

 

[xyriin]

And that means what? It is using Microns 3D NAND and Micron/Intel has some of the best NAND in the market. Seagate is just putting it together.

Either way I don't see that it is a bad thing as the more SSD players in the market the better and cheaper it will get for us.

Actually, it means a lot. NAND is NAND for the most part and the architecture is the only real difference other than yield quality which should be tested before the NAND ships in a final product. Firmware is HUGE in NAND products and really the only thing that makes a substantial difference in OEMs other than the label. Poor execution in assembly and/or firmware leads to fiascos like the early OCZ SSDs or poor performance compared to other OEMs offering identical NAND products. After all, there are literally only a small handful of NAND manufacturers yet dozens of OEMs using identical NAND still have products that perform differently and have varying failure rates.

That said, SSDs are a different animal than mechanicals and Seagate doesn't have a track record to speak of in the NAND business. No reason they can't make good products. Granted custom firmware like Samsung makes is going to have the highest ceiling for performance but quality 3rd party firmware will get them to 95% of the ceiling.

 

[TheOtherOne]

BRB .... Gonna put my house for sale!

 

[problematiq]

BRB .... Gonna put my house for sale!

What does the factory worker do before shipping out the "Tickle me Elmo"? Gives it two test tickles. Speaking of which, did you know each one is worth 32k?

 

[littleleo]

Call me when in comes in a M.2 form factor. ;-)

Going to be waiting a loooooooooooooooooooong time for that call XD

That call will never come, by the time a 60TB SSD is more common the M.2 format will have gone the way of the Dodo.

 

[littleleo]

So then you are pretty much saying that both Crucial and Intel SSDs would also fail and require data recovery? Because again, this uses Micron NAND which is what Intel and Crucial (and other) SSDs use and Intel has some of the best SSDs on the market.

You do know that Micron's consumer brand is Crucial Technology right. And Micron and Intel together created IM Flash Technologies, which produces NAND flash memory for them. It's not a case of them buying Nand from Micron, Crucial is Micron and Intel is making it's own Nand in a joint venture with Micron.

 

[jimmysmitty]

And that means what? It is using Microns 3D NAND and Micron/Intel has some of the best NAND in the market. Seagate is just putting it together.

Either way I don't see that it is a bad thing as the more SSD players in the market the better and cheaper it will get for us.

Actually, it means a lot. NAND is NAND for the most part and the architecture is the only real difference other than yield quality which should be tested before the NAND ships in a final product. Firmware is HUGE in NAND products and really the only thing that makes a substantial difference in OEMs other than the label. Poor execution in assembly and/or firmware leads to fiascos like the early OCZ SSDs or poor performance compared to other OEMs offering identical NAND products. After all, there are literally only a small handful of NAND manufacturers yet dozens of OEMs using identical NAND still have products that perform differently and have varying failure rates.

That said, SSDs are a different animal than mechanicals and Seagate doesn't have a track record to speak of in the NAND business. No reason they can't make good products. Granted custom firmware like Samsung makes is going to have the highest ceiling for performance but quality 3rd party firmware will get them to 95% of the ceiling.

I understand that and am not arguing that. What is boiling my blood is that people are using the faulty data set to make statements as if it will be a bad produyct just because of something else. Plenty of companies have some products that are meh or OK and other products that are fantastic. The original Corsair CXM PSU was pretty meh yet they still have the best PSU available, the AX1500i.

We really need to see the drive and how it performs before making any judgements. Even using past Backblaze data is flawed since if you look at current data, Seagate is ahead of WD and closer to HGST and the 8TB Seagate HDD is doing better than HGSTs 8TB HDD. That can change but it is still just a data set with a flawed methodology, as has been proven.

So then you are pretty much saying that both Crucial and Intel SSDs would also fail and require data recovery? Because again, this uses Micron NAND which is what Intel and Crucial (and other) SSDs use and Intel has some of the best SSDs on the market.

You do know that Micron's consumer brand is Crucial Technology right. And Micron and Intel together created IM Flash Technologies, which produces NAND flash memory for them. It's not a case of them buying Nand from Micron, Crucial is Micron and Intel is making it's own Nand in a joint venture with Micron.

Nope. I don't know that at all......

Of course I do. That is why I mentioned it. Crucial is Microns brand while Intel and Micron develop new NAND technologies and then Intel uses it to make their own SSDs, some of the best available too.

However people seem to be banging the same drum every time anything with Seagate gets announced or is in a review.

 

[littleleo]

Some people develop strong brand feelings usually based on their personal experiences. As I've said before you come across Seagate haters, WD Haters... I think the only drive I really had a very bad time with was the IBM Deskstar which we all called the Deathstar because of the high failure rate. In my case 100% failure rate. And the last incarnation of the Connor hard drives was very bad too.

 

[anbello262]

This is pure 'reverse' fanboyism. People just like to hate on Seagate without even looking at the real facts.
We are in a knowledge community. Be more reasoning and logical with your opinions, people, please.