Seagate's New 15,000 RPM, 600 GB Monster

[Guest]

You will never see a SATA one because it will be around $1000 and still not be as fast as an SSD, therefore it wouldn't have any mass market appeal. Its only for robust business class servers with oodles of money to blow on hardware.

 

[IzzyCraft]

just need cost! Also how loud is it WD fast drive is well mounted is very quiet in fact usually more so then normal drives i hate to actually hear my hdd winding up.

 

[H8ff0000]

[citation][nom]audioee[/nom]Sweeeeeet...But, how fast will it load Crysis? JK!!! (I just had to) You know some one else would have asked.[/citation]

No, you didn't have to. Neither does anyone else. It's old, unoriginal, and forces people who want to participate in intelligent discussion on topics such as this one to sift through the filler. I'm not trying to flame you, only encourage the movement away from the constant Crysis references... awww what the hell... In Soviet Russia, Crysis can't play you!

 

[kamel5547]

[citation][nom]hellscook[/nom]Try running a hard drive for 1.6 million hours. Just try. It'll be bad in 5 years or so.[/citation]

Um... the server drives actually do usually perform as advertised. Actually they usually outlast the useful life of the machine and their capacity. HDD failures are not as bad as it may seem, perhaps a 10% rate on standard drives (per year). In the 5 years I've had the current servers (28 drives), I had one go bad.

 

[Guest]

Instead of making the drive spin faster, why not install a second or third arm? That would make more sense to me, and boost the speed of diskdrives dramatically too!

 

[bk420]

[citation][nom]hellscook[/nom]Try running a hard drive for 1.6 million hours. Just try. It'll be bad in 5 years or so.[/citation]

This is for servers and usually come with a 5 year warranty.

 

[kinggremlin]

[citation][nom]hellscook[/nom]Try running a hard drive for 1.6 million hours. Just try. It'll be bad in 5 years or so.[/citation]

You are correct, because a HD's service life is typically only 5 years, which is the only period of time the MTBF is valid. Whoever posted this article obviously has no idea what they are talking about. Even if you don't understand what MTBF is, you have to be retarded to think it means
Seagate is trying to claim this drive will run for 183 years. MTBF has little to no meaning for any single drive, it is statistically relevant only to large groups of drives. If you had 1.6 million of these drives, you should expect one to fail every hour provided they are all within their rated service life. If you had only one drive operating at a time, you would have to replace the drive with a new one at the end of its service life. Assuming a five year life, over the course of 183 years, you would go through 37 drives and expect one of them to fail.

 

[vabeachboy0]

soon as it's taken out the box its outdated XD

 

[scryer_360]

But will this be faster than an SSD? For the Enterprise market I'm sure that question doesn't matter: they already have their SAS based servers and won't completely redo their facility and take down their entire system, not to mention go through the added cost of getting equal capacity, to get an SSD over 15,000 RPM server platform.

But some of us regular joes are wondering: would this be a more cost effective way to get good performance and high capacity out of our desktops?

 

[bunz_of_steel]

600 GB only?? it suks! yeh aimed at corporations and they will have to pay alot so who carez if it's only 2 meg!

 

[computabug]

*Drools*

Darn it no SATA 6gbs... >< what's so great about scsi, other than it's popular with servers, it's fast, it's durable, it's stable and everything else? Oh, who am I kidding! *cries* why must all of our crappy interfaces sacrifice practicality for 'user friendliness?'

Yea well now they just gotta find a way to make a firmware that tells the drive to make internal stripped RAID 0, that would be a killer! But I don't think it's possible or WD woulda already done it... meh can't hurt to hope

 

[Zoonie]

SCSI, unlike SATA and PATA, may not put extra load on your CPU. Lots of people seem to neglect or forget this feature. The SCSI controller, containing bus-mastering features, has its own processing unit.

A somewhat similar but bad comparison is USB and Firewire.

 

[andy_newton]

You mean: Seagate Click Click 15K 600Gb, just like the barracuda 7200.11 with post unbricking firmware

 

[techcurious]

quote "the previous Cheetah had less than 1/3 of the new drive's capacity."

Maybe I am unable to understand that correctly, but it seems to me that
it is being implied that the previous cheetah had less than 200GB to offer.
I am quite sure it was well over a year ago when I was considering buying
this 450GB Cheetah 15K.6 drive for a client.
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=056446f89a8c8110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD&locale=en-US

 

[ossie]

Poor tuanny boy... marketing droids are getting dumber by the day.
Parroting information from some product flier isn't enough, so he must burp his own interpretation of MTBF, and some faint memories from the 15k4 datasheet - the last one in his remembrance.
BTW, 15k.5 was up to 300GB, and 15k.6 up to 450GB...

 

[spinning rust]

$773.66 US dollars for 600Gb
a good 512Gb SSD is about $1400
still competitive but not for long...

Wake up people, this is an enterprise level drive. An enterprise level SSD cost over 5 figures. The Evil Machine has quoted my work place over $30,000 for a single enterprise SSD for our SAN.

 

[techcurious]

I agree... it's not as bad when someone leaving a comment is posting bad information, but for an author of an article to put up so much misinformation can only damage the reputation of Tom's Hardware. Its utterly disappointing. For a while now I have noticed that these authors don't seem to be bothered to run their articles through simple spell check and grammar check tools. But this is a new low (and I say that knowing that it's actually nothing that new). It's already hard for tech professionals dealing with the average clueless Joe when it comes to technology. It will only get harder when those same clueless people start to feel like they know what they are talking about cause they have read articles such as this one. Pity..

 

[jwl3]

Those reliability numbers need to be revised and clarified. It doesn't mean that YOUR hard drive will run for 186 years. It means that across the thousands manufactured and sold, some will fail within 1 year, but others will never fail.

Let's say they sell 10,000 HD's. Every 6.7 DAYS, one of those 10000 HD's will fail. Doesn't sound too impressive when put like that right? Now chances are that it won't be yours. But for the dude with the failed HD he'll be wondering "but you said that it would last 186 years!!!"

 

[captaincharisma]

[citation][nom]D_Kuhn[/nom]I use Cheetah's on two of my systems (36x5 raid5 and 72x2 raid1)... they're no louder than any other drive (basically not noticeable compared to the system fans). Performance wise they were impossible to beat until SSD's really started flying.[/citation]

yes but are those drives you have all 15,000RPM?

the faster the RPM's the more heat and noise they will produce and since it is a server drive no one will care how loud it is

 

[Hovaucf]

People should stop quoting the "$773.66 US dollars for 600Gb" as I already stated the OP was linking a NS drive not a Cheetah...

Its going to cost ~$900 US for sure especially if they're charging $773 for a NS.2 drive.

"Instead of making the drive spin faster, why not install a second or third arm? That would make more sense to me, and boost the speed of diskdrives dramatically too!"

Where are they going to make room at add more arms? obviously space is vital in enterprise environments and you're talking about a setup that would probably bring back the old 5.25" bricks

 

[fans 6]

didn't Fujitsu and Hitachi have 15,000 hdd's with scsi like years ago?

 

[Jim0615]

The previous Cheetah was available at 450GB not 200GB as the article suggests.

I had one of the original 10K RPM Cheetahs that ran 24/7 for 10 years. And it was the MB which had the integrated SCSI controller that died on me and not the HD.