News Seagate Lists the Mach.2: The World's Fastest HDD

[Admin]

Seagate has finally listed the specifications for the world's fastest HDD, the Mach.2.

Seagate Lists the Mach.2: The World's Fastest HDD : Read more

 

[escksu]

HDDs are here to stay for a long long time. Their capacity, cost per MB cannot be matched by SSD. Its also not affected by repeated writes unlike SSD. Of course they are much slower than SSD. But when capacity matters, the trade-off is reasonable.

 

[sepuko]

The news should read "The fastest Chia miner is now available but not to you and not at any sane prices"

 

[smaddeus]

HDDs are here to stay for a long long time. Their capacity, cost per MB cannot be matched by SSD. Its also not affected by repeated writes unlike SSD. Of course they are much slower than SSD. But when capacity matters, the trade-off is reasonable.

Not only that, but SSD's have a quite significantly lower lifespan than HDD's, because manufacturers keep on increasing bits per cell, and more bits per cell there are, the shorter lifespan there is for it, not sure how it works, but it is a fact that SLC (single-bit cell) is more durable, but more expensive as well. Where your HDD, if not faulty from factory, or is being carried somewhere at some point and shaken around, can last basically for a decade and more. I had a WD Green, of course it had 5400rpm, or I think it had the Inteli, which is a variable, if not mistaken. It lasted easily 8 years before I sold off with my old rig 2 years ago. It probably still lives and can keep on living.

Now I have SG Barracuda, 2x of them, both 2TB's, and it does the job just fine so far. Hopefully it will remain to work fine for a loong time, unless this Mach.2 is available, then I might switch them or get a case with more bracket slots.

 

[USAFRet]

Not only that, but SSD's have a quite significantly lower lifespan than HDD's, because manufacturers keep on increasing bits per cell, and more bits per cell there are, the shorter lifespan there is for it, not sure how it works, but it is a fact that SLC (single-bit cell) is more durable, but more expensive as well. Where your HDD, if not faulty from factory, or is being carried somewhere at some point and shaken around, can last basically for a decade and more. I had a WD Green, of course it had 5400rpm, or I think it had the Inteli, which is a variable, if not mistaken. It lasted easily 8 years before I sold off with my old rig 2 years ago. It probably still lives and can keep on living.

Now I have SG Barracuda, 2x of them, both 2TB's, and it does the job just fine so far. Hopefully it will remain to work fine for a loong time, unless this Mach.2 is available, then I might switch them or get a case with more bracket slots.

And the last WD Green I had died at 5 weeks out of the box.

Lifespan comparisons between HDD and SSD depend a LOT on use case.

I'll certainly never go back to HDD for main use systems.
My NAS, OTOH....65TB won't be replaced by SSD anytime soon.

 

[Co BIY]

Why do the heads move together ? Seems like independent heads would be better ?

Why not multiple heads on a single disk (double heads per platter) ?

Do any HDDs have any warning mechanism to warn of failure before your data is at risk ?

 

[USAFRet]

Do any HDDs have any warning mechanism to warn of failure before your data is at risk ?

That is specifically what SMART is

What is SMART and how to use it to predict HDD or SSD failure | Digital Citizen

What is SMART? What does it do? Which are the most important SMART attributes? How to use SMART to predict HDD or SSD failure?

www.digitalcitizen.life

Why not multiple heads on a single disk (double heads per platter) ?

1. Data density. No matter how many heads there, you can only squeeze so much data into so many square inches.
2. Because it is a spinning platter, things have to 'wait' until the desired data has come around to where the relevant head is.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Not only that, but SSD's have a quite significantly lower lifespan than HDD's, because manufacturers keep on increasing bits per cell, and more bits per cell there are, the shorter lifespan there is for it, not sure how it works, but it is a fact that SLC (single-bit cell) is more durable, but more expensive as well. Where your HDD, if not faulty from factory, or is being carried somewhere at some point and shaken around, can last basically for a decade and more. I had a WD Green, of course it had 5400rpm, or I think it had the Inteli, which is a variable, if not mistaken. It lasted easily 8 years before I sold off with my old rig 2 years ago. It probably still lives and can keep on living.

Now I have SG Barracuda, 2x of them, both 2TB's, and it does the job just fine so far. Hopefully it will remain to work fine for a loong time, unless this Mach.2 is available, then I might switch them or get a case with more bracket slots.

That isn't true at all for enterprise grade or consumer grade drives. When it comes to 7200RPM enterprise grade drives, those are warrantied to 550TB/year and that is what the actuator is able to handle. Put that over 5 years as is standard and the drive has a 2.75PB write endurance. Lets say that HDD was 15TB so we would need the information from a 15.36TB Enterprise SSD. At this point in time the manufacturers consider 1DWPD to be "read intensive" that 15.36TB SSD has a 28PB write endurance. Even a small 1.92TB SSD has a higher endurance than the HDD. Note those are TLC drives. For consumer drives I have never had an SSD fail. My current desktop has been using the same 240GB SSD for 8 years now and it is no where close to being dead.

 

[USAFRet]

Do any HDDs have any warning mechanism to warn of failure before your data is at risk ?

Also, don't rely on software to warn you of impending doom.
Expect it to happen, and be proactive with your data backups.

 

[Umfriend]

The news should read "The fastest Chia miner is now available but not to you and not at any sane prices"

It would be in line with the accuracy Tom's has had sofar in reporting on Chia. Chia aren't mined, they're farmed.

 

[watzupken]

Not only that, but SSD's have a quite significantly lower lifespan than HDD's, because manufacturers keep on increasing bits per cell, and more bits per cell there are, the shorter lifespan there is for it, not sure how it works, but it is a fact that SLC (single-bit cell) is more durable, but more expensive as well. Where your HDD, if not faulty from factory, or is being carried somewhere at some point and shaken around, can last basically for a decade and more. I had a WD Green, of course it had 5400rpm, or I think it had the Inteli, which is a variable, if not mistaken. It lasted easily 8 years before I sold off with my old rig 2 years ago. It probably still lives and can keep on living.

Now I have SG Barracuda, 2x of them, both 2TB's, and it does the job just fine so far. Hopefully it will remain to work fine for a loong time, unless this Mach.2 is available, then I might switch them or get a case with more bracket slots.

Over the years, prices of SSD have come down quite a fair bit. I recall when I first got the Intel X25 Gen 2, that 160GB is 4 or 5 times more than a hard drive with more storage capacity. Nowadays, you may be able to find good 2TB SATA3 SSDs at 2.5x the price of a good 2TB mechanical drive.

In terms of longevity, if you are just looking at the magnetic platter vs NAND, in theory, the NAND fares a lot worst. But in real life usage, even a good drive have a higher failure rate than a good SSD in my experience. My Intel X25 G2 160GB is still alive and kicking after many years of usage installing OS, apps and games over and over again. The health according to the SMART reading is still 98%, just 2% spent after 10 years. In short, the magnetic platter will survive a lot of writes, but its the other moving parts that will wear out. And also, my WD Green 500GB died after close to a year.

 

[Sam Bi]

Just an FYI, IBM had mutli actuators drives since the 80s. IBM 3380 (2.5 GB) had 4 independent actuators per drive, each accessing separate 600+MB partitions of the drive.

 

[alceryes]

The fact that the host system sees this as two separate drives makes it less attractive to retail consumers.
If instead the drive worked as a 2x 7TB, RAID 0 enclosure, and presented itself as one drive, it would be more of a hit. Although, I always question the MTBF with these kinds of new products.

 

[konigsberg]

Why do the heads move together ? Seems like independent heads would be better ?

A lot of reasons. Independent motors for each head would be too expensive, use too much power, use too much space, and require a lot more cooling. Also there is very sophisticated electronics on the controller board which sends and receives the signal to the active head. If every head could be active, you would have to multiply this electronics on the controller board. Thus even getting just two independent head stacks is a big deal.

 

[rghigliazza]

Hello, i got two of those disks from Ebay.... when testing with a SAS HBA one of those disks works fine, the other one shows 0TB of usability using seatools and there is nothing to do with it. Spoke with "seagate support" and they said the disks are out of warranty because ebay is not an official seller, so they told me to get new disks from Amazon, I did that, and for our surprise the new disk from Amazon shows the same behavior, now when calling to Seagate Support they say Amazon is not an authorized seller, so they are lying saying anything they can, they say they do not have stock form RMA for any kind of disk, I can ship the one bought on Amazon for a refund, I can not do the same with the one I bought on ebay because I delayed more than 30 days to test it.

Looking for answers in the web, i found that something related to Proof of Space mining CHIA token could be related to this issue, 2 of 3 disks from different batches and sellers are weird, any ideas?