SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Seagate has launched an 8TB disk drive for surveillance use, enabling up to 6PB of CCTV data in a rack.
This is a 3.5-inch form-factor drive and joins the existing set of 8TB Archive, Enterprise Capacity, Enterprise NAS and Kinetic disk drives. It follows on from the 6TB model announced in September last year. That had 6 platters and a 642Gbit/in2 areal density.
Seagate says the 8TB disk has 1.33TB/platter, which we calculate to mean about 854Gbit/in2 IT comes in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8TB capacity points, and features;
- 7,200rpm spin speed
- 6Gbit/s SATA interface and up to 256MB cache
- Up to 230MB/sec sustained transfer speed for 8TB capacity; 180MB/sec at lower capacities
- 64 cameras supported
- Rotational vibration sensors enabling it to work reliably in 8-bay and larger enclosures
- Designed for 24 x 7 operation and up to 180TB/year workload, the same as the shingled 8TB Archive drive which spins at 5,900rpm
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Seagate Unveils Enlarged Spy Drive With Support for 64 Spycams
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 28 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There's no such thing as an original sin.
-- Elvis Costello
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @05:31PM
I know this is common sense and maybe these surveillance systems already do this but is the most recent data stored on two hard drives for redundancy? One drive can be designed only to store 8TB of the most recent data and to write over the oldest data that's on it as new data comes in. That same data can also be written onto the stack of 10 or whatever hard drives from one hard drive to the next. The most recent data is usually the most relevant so why shouldn't it be duplicated in case of failure of the other drive being written to?
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Sunday November 01 2015, @06:57PM
Most systems I have come into contact with only have failures noted when someone goes to look at something; drives have been dead for a while and IT people did not notice because they dont want to be accused to creepy etc. And its on an isolated network with no monitoring or firewalled off incorrectly, etc
The bigger the drive capacity just means more data to lose, I think, but it'll sell to all of those people that don't provide enough money to set them up right.
Even places I have been where there is a concerted effort to retain data will only hold it for so long. If anything, this will enable a higher quality recording before it's erased to make room for newer recordings. No one wants to be the one to sift through it when the call comes to find someone or something. So, everyone with career aspirations that are involved with the support of things like this, they often avoid these like the plague.
(Small business owners that want to be a boss more than run a business, however, will demand ipad access and watch everyone randomly at any time and then complain they are not working hard enough despite the boss not doing anything either--no camera pointing at him, though.)
In any event, these drives look nice but the redundancy problems are just as much of a problem as any other data storage. It's a lot of data to lose, and its a lot more trouble to get into when its gone and you're responsible for it. It is best to do the bare minimum in those cases, unless you are given the support and resources necessary to make it redundant as you have suggested.