Microsoft has adopted Seagate's dual-actuator HDD technology.
Seagate's Mach.2 Technology Doubles HDD Performance, Microsoft Jumps Aboard : Read more
Seagate's Mach.2 Technology Doubles HDD Performance, Microsoft Jumps Aboard : Read more
Not quite. They rotate on the same spindle. And they obviously share a controller and interface. It really is only the actuator arms that are independent.Sooo really what they are doing is putting two smaller hard drives in one enclosure. That is all. They should of just said that.
This probably won't see a regular consumer model. Cost is too high. Most consumer applications either don't need a ton of IOPs (mass storage on a secondary large HDD), or benefit from LOTS of IOPS but don't generally need as much capacity (OS + applications, which is better served by an SSD).Would be nice if there is a RAID controller built into the drive when/if this goes to consumers. But maybe one step at a time. Still much cheaper than two 8TB $1500 SSDs vs tiered SSD and HDD if you don't need the SSD performance that much. Double the HDD performance per rack is much more than it's not lol.
Performance is rather similar to two 7200 RPM enterprise HDDs, but occupies the physical space of one. That should give you a pretty good idea, since that is already a known quantity (as in, awful).I clicked, hoping to see performance figures; should’ve known better.
For future reference: news articles cover announcements, whereas reviews or previews are the types of pieces that would have hands-on performance data.I clicked, hoping to see performance figures; should’ve known better.
Yeah, especially for a small or medium-sized office. Also for database servers and other scenarios where IOPS matter and you wouldn't necessarily just use SSDs.The only prosumer application that might make sense is a NAS/media server situation, if your NAS is flexible enough (since you're effectively doubling the number of HDDs).
I think it's more like they cut the stack of platters in half and put different actuators on each. So, the best-case scenario is that you might get twice the random IOPS out of it, but I'd expect the sequential transfer rate to be as bad as half of the equivalent conventional drive.Performance is rather similar to two 7200 RPM enterprise HDDs, but occupies the physical space of one.
“Based upon that analysis, we’ve found we are getting close to twice the throughput and IOPS, which are the improvements we expected to achieve with the MACH.2 technology,” says Ogus.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/seagate-hdd-harddrive,8279.html
I was just speaking to a friend about how hard drive articles from a decade ago sound the same as the ones coming out now. Funny thing that we're now seeing this article. The link above is from a Tom's article over 10 years ago, speaking on the same topic, vendor and technologies.
Except it's really not the same.https://www.tomshardware.com/news/seagate-hdd-harddrive,8279.html
I was just speaking to a friend about how hard drive articles from a decade ago sound the same as the ones coming out now. Funny thing that we're now seeing this article. The link above is from a Tom's article over 10 years ago, speaking on the same topic, vendor and technologies.
Oh man, I miss the days when reporters would bother to visit the forums and actually talk to companies and try to get answers - not just parrot the latest press releases. Well, at least @PaulAlcorn still does, on occasion.one commenter proposed a question: why don't hard drive manufacturers do something like add a second set of read/write heads to increase performance rather than turning up the spindle rate to dangerously high levels?
Good question! We went directly to Seagate for the answers.
It doesn't double all of the moving parts - just the actuators. So, it's a good point that the failure rate should increase, but that's what RAID is for (and they said it's intended for datacenter environments, where they use RAID and/or other redundancy strategies).So it's just twice the chance to get a dead HDD... Noice..
Except I think this technique was technically feasible, but just didn't have such a strong value proposition as it does in the days of 10+ TB drives.for various reasons it didn't prove feasible at the time.
Please explain how this would work.Would be nice if there is a RAID controller built into the drive when/if this goes to consumers. But maybe one step at a time.
Just ask! Feel free to reach out whenever. I'll be sure to get you the right answers to anything you need storage.Except it's really not the same.
I alluded to this, above. In the article you cited, every hard disk sector is reachable by 2 heads. In this case, each sector is only reachable by a single head. That article does a pretty good job of explaining why the old approach could not be carried forward. I think the main issue is that mutually calibrating multiple heads per platter being just to difficult and fragile.
There is one notable thing about that article:
Oh man, I miss the days when reporters would bother to visit the forums and actually talk to companies and try to get answers - not just parrot the latest press releases. Well, at least @PaulAlcorn still does, on occasion.
Based on what I assume has happened to the site's readership numbers + the burying of the forum posts on the article pages, it's not exactly surprising that we get no love (or much in the way of journalistic heroics).
Thanks for the offer. It's one of those cases where I'm quite happy to be proven wrong.Just ask! Feel free to reach out whenever. I'll be sure to get you the right answers to anything you need storage.
Cute, but dude... it's just a name.The whole mach.2 naming implies that the existing technology is mach 1, which implies faster than sound... Clearly something is wrong with this naming. I hope never to own another HD again.
BINGO, I have never had good luck with Seagate HDs, always have found WD much more reliable and longer lasting in my experience.So it's just twice the chance to get a dead HDD... Noice..
That's been my experience with their consumer drives. I'd be willing to bet their server drives are an order of magnitude better. Then again, I've had issues with some WD models too here and there - especially first-gen Raptors. Great, now you've got me rambling. Might as well finish: IBM was pretty solid except for a particular series of Deskstar (nicknamed "Deathstar" IIRC). The Hitachi drives that came after were great too, and my Samsung drives were bulletproof. Maxtor consumer drives were the ones I had the WORST luck with on average. Even worse than Seagate, if you can believe it.BINGO, I have never had good luck with Seagate HDs, always have found WD much more reliable and longer lasting in my experience.
Indeed. That's why I specified prosumer (and the OP was talking about potential consumer drives). There's quite a few server applications, naturally.Also for database servers and other scenarios where IOPS matter and you wouldn't necessarily just use SSDs.
I believe this is how most if not all current HDDs work, yeah. It's why performance doesn't scale with platters (drives like this Mach 2 or perhaps other rare examples aside). Probably nearly impossible for them to perfectly align data from platter to platter and/or ditto for the heads, and keep it all in alignment. Or something of that nature. Even if all that worked perfectly, the performance would be more susceptible to degradation due to fragmentation, even compared to a conventional spinner.Either that, or conventional hard drives don't use more than one head at a time, which I doubt.
BTW, hi!
This is a good point. I had previously wondered why performance didn't seem to scale with platter count, but you're probably right about too much difficulty keeping all the heads aligned. The arm could warp too much, over the operating temperature range - it's probably something like that.I believe this is how most if not all current HDDs work, yeah. It's why performance doesn't scale with platters (drives like this Mach 2 or perhaps other rare examples aside). Probably nearly impossible for them to perfectly align data from platter to platter and/or ditto for the heads, and keep it all in alignment. Or something of that nature.
Hope you're doing well, Bit.