Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    25,021
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1,351 times in 512 posts

    Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    Range of "World's Fastest Hard Drives" will not be further developed, as SSDs take over.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    MOMBASA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    10 times in 9 posts

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    I see why its the last generation....315 to 215MB/s

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Sunny Rugeley
    Posts
    1,679
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    40 times in 36 posts

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    That's excellent for a mechanical drive though!
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Kingdom O Fife
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    12 times in 10 posts
    • zaph0d's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage II Extreme
      • CPU:
      • Socket 1366 2.66GHz Xeon 5650 Hex-Core @ 4 GHz - Speedstep Enabled - Custom Liquid Cooled
      • Memory:
      • 48GB - 6x 8GB @ 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • 2x240 GB SSD's inmRaid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • AMD R9 380 2Gb
      • PSU:
      • 1000W Coolermaster
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-343B (Original Model)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Toshiba 49" 4K tv
      • Internet:
      • 76MBit TalkTalk Fibre - Actually get the full 76MBit too :P

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    But for the same price you could get at least half-a-dozen bigger consumer drives and put 'em in raid 0+1, get 15TB worth of raid0 at 500MB/s on the inside track and 750MB/s at the edge.

    This is what I use as a Main storage drive and as long as the game install is under 12GB I'll load it in ramdrive and play it from there with near zero loadtimes, if it's over 12GB I'll copy it to SSD and take the loadtime penalty whenever I want to play. At least until I double my Ram to 48GB that is

  5. #5
    Admin Saracen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    16,718
    Thanks
    722
    Thanked
    2,836 times in 2,002 posts

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    Quote Originally Posted by zaph0d View Post
    But for the same price you could get at least half-a-dozen bigger consumer drives and put 'em in raid 0+1, get 15TB worth of raid0 at 500MB/s on the inside track and 750MB/s at the edge.

    This is what I use as a Main storage drive and as long as the game install is under 12GB I'll load it in ramdrive and play it from there with near zero loadtimes, if it's over 12GB I'll copy it to SSD and take the loadtime penalty whenever I want to play. At least until I double my Ram to 48GB that is
    Yes, but these are "Enterprise" SAS drives and to be fair, that's not exactly a typical SAS-based enterprise use you're putting them to. Price is not necessarily the prime, or even a high, criteria.
    Noli nothis permittere te terere.


  6. #6
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    7,149
    Thanks
    257
    Thanked
    648 times in 565 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • M5A-97 EVO R2.0
      • CPU:
      • FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 16GB ECC 1333
      • Storage:
      • 660GB Linux, 500GB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Nitro R9 380 4GB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 24 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    Quote Originally Posted by zaph0d View Post
    But for the same price you could get at least half-a-dozen bigger consumer drives and put 'em in raid 0+1, get 15TB worth of raid0 at 500MB/s on the inside track and 750MB/s at the edge.
    These drives would usually be deployed by the tray-full, set up as raid 6 stripe sets. If you are reading from 20 drives at once then throughput isn't a problem, but latency still is and with a 15K drive you have half the average wait time for your sector to appear under the heads.

    However, with an SSD there is no rotational latency, which is why I struggle to see why there is still a market for these things.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Kingdom O Fife
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    12 times in 10 posts
    • zaph0d's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage II Extreme
      • CPU:
      • Socket 1366 2.66GHz Xeon 5650 Hex-Core @ 4 GHz - Speedstep Enabled - Custom Liquid Cooled
      • Memory:
      • 48GB - 6x 8GB @ 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • 2x240 GB SSD's inmRaid 0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • AMD R9 380 2Gb
      • PSU:
      • 1000W Coolermaster
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-343B (Original Model)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Toshiba 49" 4K tv
      • Internet:
      • 76MBit TalkTalk Fibre - Actually get the full 76MBit too :P

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    However, with an SSD there is no rotational latency, which is why I struggle to see why there is still a market for these things.
    I think the only reason there's still a market is the fact that a dead SSD is completely dead and data is almost entirely unrecoverable, with mechanical drives the data can be recovered with a lot less difficulty & expence. Though as you say these drives are used in massively redundant arrays so the chance a drive would need to be recovered like that is remote.

  8. #8
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    7,149
    Thanks
    257
    Thanked
    648 times in 565 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • M5A-97 EVO R2.0
      • CPU:
      • FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 16GB ECC 1333
      • Storage:
      • 660GB Linux, 500GB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Nitro R9 380 4GB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 24 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    Quote Originally Posted by zaph0d View Post
    I think the only reason there's still a market is the fact that a dead SSD is completely dead and data is almost entirely unrecoverable, with mechanical drives the data can be recovered with a lot less difficulty & expence. Though as you say these drives are used in massively redundant arrays so the chance a drive would need to be recovered like that is remote.
    If the data matters, it will be not only on backup but on remote disaster recovery server automatically duplicated from the main server. Given these are on near line storage, there might be a copy on slower bulk storage in a slower tier. If someone is dropping a million or so on their storage (the traditional users of these drives) then they don't muck about.

  9. #9
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    Quote Originally Posted by zaph0d View Post
    But for the same price you could get at least half-a-dozen bigger consumer drives and put 'em in raid 0+1, get 15TB worth of raid0 at 500MB/s on the inside track and 750MB/s at the edge.

    This is what I use as a Main storage drive and as long as the game install is under 12GB I'll load it in ramdrive and play it from there with near zero loadtimes, if it's over 12GB I'll copy it to SSD and take the loadtime penalty whenever I want to play. At least until I double my Ram to 48GB that is
    Rack space and power consumption for that many drives in a data centre will kill you in an enterprise TCO analysis. Gaming comparison?! Really?

  10. #10
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    Google's white paper suggests that redundant arrays, RAID, RAID rebuilding etc. etc. are all hog wash.

    Just use JBOD arrays and dumb drives (mechanical or SSD) then duplicate, triplicate etc. the data. Using slower tiers or near-line storage even. Way cleaner management, faster performance, better data security and lower cost.

    That's why I dun use any RAID devices either.

  11. #11
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    Quote Originally Posted by zaph0d View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    However, with an SSD there is no rotational latency, which is why I struggle to see why there is still a market for these things.
    I think the only reason there's still a market is the fact that a dead SSD is completely dead and data is almost entirely unrecoverable, with mechanical drives the data can be recovered with a lot less difficulty & expence. Though as you say these drives are used in massively redundant arrays so the chance a drive would need to be recovered like that is remote.
    Google's white paper suggests that redundant arrays, RAID, RAID rebuilding etc. etc. are all hog wash.

    Just use JBOD arrays and dumb drives (mechanical or SSD) then duplicate, triplicate etc. the data. Using slower tiers or near-line storage even. Way cleaner management, faster performance, better data security and lower cost.

    That's why I dun bother with any RAID devices either.

  12. #12
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    7,149
    Thanks
    257
    Thanked
    648 times in 565 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • M5A-97 EVO R2.0
      • CPU:
      • FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 16GB ECC 1333
      • Storage:
      • 660GB Linux, 500GB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Nitro R9 380 4GB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 24 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Seagate launches sixth and last generation of 15K HDDs

    Quote Originally Posted by preter_s View Post
    Google's white paper suggests that redundant arrays, RAID, RAID rebuilding etc. etc. are all hog wash.

    Just use JBOD arrays and dumb drives (mechanical or SSD) then duplicate, triplicate etc. the data. Using slower tiers or near-line storage even. Way cleaner management, faster performance, better data security and lower cost.

    That's why I dun bother with any RAID devices either.


    Lower cost?

    Say you store on raid 6, and you have a 6 data + 2 parity stripe setup. So to store your 6 disks worth of data, you have to buy another 2 disks.
    Now you switch to cloud storage. To get the same redundancy level as raid 6 (data in 3 places) now your 6 disks worth of data need to be stored on 18 disks.

    Now big companies don't have one raid stripe, they buy by the rack full and spend millions. So a more reasonable scenario would be that instead of spending £800K on disks, you need £1.8M worth of drives. That is for the same redundancy level, so saying "just buy consumer drives" works equally well in both setups.

    Then there is the performance. In the cloud system, you find the nearest server and read the data from its disk. If the cloud is in one room and you have the latest protocols, you might read from three servers at once tripling your throughput. In the raid array, you read from all 6 drives in the stripe at the same time.

    Google are different. They want their data in at least three countries, individual task throughput isn't that important. But most companies aren't Google.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •