News Western Digital Ships 22TB HDDs for Mass Market

Kamen Rider Blade

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2013
1,280
810
20,060
This is why "Multi-Actuator" technology with Internal RAID-0 across the seperate platters needs to become standard to keep up with the R/W speeds to make copying 22 TB reasonable.

Lose 1 platter, but add one more actuator Stack and you could go from 291 MB/s -> 582 MB/s.
9 Platter, 10 Actuator Arms -> 2x Actuator Stacks of 5-Arms a piece.

That comes awfully close to maxing out SATA 3.0 - 600 MB/s bandwidth cap.

Maybe they should give us SATA 4.0 - 1200 MB/s bandwidth cap and let us have more actuators.

Imagine what 3x & 4x stacks of Actuators could do.

That much more R/W throughput.

With a little bit more R&D:

Eventually getting it down to each arm being it's own Stack where every Actuator Arm is fully independent!
Imagine a world where 10 Platters, 11 Actuators, all fully independent & R/W in RAID 0.
11*291 MB/s = 3201 MB/s.
SAS-4 = 2.8125 GB/s, that's not enough.
SAS-5 = 5.625 GB/s, that's enough bandwidth.

The eventual technological road you can go down with using Multi-Actuator technology easily allows you to make R/W of 1 TB reasonable when you can easily pump up R/W speeds into the GB range.
 
Last edited:

BX4096

Reputable
Aug 9, 2020
166
309
4,960
Lose 1 platter, but add one more actuator Stack and you could go from 291 MB/s -> 582 MB/s. ... Imagine a world where 10 Platters, 11 Actuators, all fully independent & R/W in RAID 0...
While it sounds like an awesome no-brainer to a layman, I would assume that there are good reasons (aside from the added cost, of course) why it hasn't been implemented yet. If anyone know what they are, I'd like to hear more about it.

Frankly, I got surprised when I learned of SATA's undignified demise. I still use plenty of high-capacity HDDs on my machines, and I doubt I'll see a reason to abandon them altogether in my lifetime. If they could upgrade this "dying" technology this way, I'd be ecstatic.
 

Geef

Distinguished
The reason: Cost of failure.

Adding an extra actuator stack means that many more pieces that could fail. Adding a single platter instead lowers the number of total pieces and chance of failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grobe
The reason: Cost of failure.

Adding an extra actuator stack means that many more pieces that could fail. Adding a single platter instead lowers the number of total pieces and chance of failure.
I also wonder if failure of one R/W head, then all content of the hdd are lost with that kind of setup.
 
If you can't manage backups, you don't need a 22TB drive.
Of course - cannot be said enough, but another discussion in my view.

I should have put my words different: What I'm curious about is if many platters like this affects the expected lifetime of the product, and if different methods of internal distributing of data on the platters also affect MTBF.
 
Last edited:

spongiemaster

Admirable
Dec 12, 2019
2,273
1,277
7,560
Lose 1 platter, but add one more actuator Stack and you could go from 291 MB/s -> 582 MB/s.
9 Platter, 10 Actuator Arms -> 2x Actuator Stacks of 5-Arms a piece.
Would assume that you would lose a platter for every additional actuator. So in a standard 3.5 HD case, you'd only get 5 platters with their own actuator, losing over half the potential capacity in the process. That would result in an insanely expensive per GB mechanical hard drive not to mention the ridiculous complexity of such a drive and trying to tune the firmware. SSD's would be more cost effective at that point.