SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the now-you-CAN-take-it-with-you? dept.
Seagate has launched the world's first 5 TB 2.5" hard disk drives (HDDs). However, they won't fit in most laptops:
The new Seagate BarraCuda 2.5" drives resemble the company's Mobile HDDs introduced earlier this year and use a similar set of technologies: motors with 5400 RPM spindle speed, platters based on [shingled magnetic recording (SMR)] technology with over 1300 Gb/in2 areal density, and multi-tier caching. The 3 TB, 4 TB and 5 TB BarraCuda 2.5" HDDs that come with a 15 mm z-height are designed for external storage solutions because virtually no laptop can accommodate drives of that thickness. Meanwhile, the 7 mm z-height drives (500 GB, 1 TB and 2 TB) are aimed at mainstream laptops and SFF desktops that need a lot of storage space.
Seagate has also launched a 2 TB shingled solid-state hybrid drive (SSHD) with 8 GB of NAND cache and a 128 MB DRAM cache buffer. The 1 TB and 500 GB versions also have 8 GB of NAND and 128 MB of DRAM. These are the first hybrid drives to use shingled magnetic recording.
Seagate press release (for "mobile warriors" only).
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:19PM
I think 10TB is too much storage for one disk. Simply reading all of it (e.g., for backup) is going to take days, and guarantee read errors due to the sheer size. Much better to stick with smaller disks and RAID 0 them. Of course, SSDs have the potential to go bigger.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:52PM
I think 10TB is too much storage for one disk. Simply reading all of it (e.g., for backup) is going to take days,
As long as it takes about the same time as a tape drive, people will be ok with it. In these situations streaming read performance is all that matters, and I don't see why that would be much longer than with a smaller size drive. As per the article, writes are slow, but reads are as fast as any other disk.
"and guarantee read errors due to the sheer size."
Possibly, which is what I alluded to in another reply. However my data will be refreshed every month, and I am sure the drive will be able to store data for a month at least. We have yet to see how it will perform in an archival situation.
" Much better to stick with smaller disks and RAID 0 them. Of course, SSDs have the potential to go bigger."
RAID0 seriously? So if we have 2 disks we halve the MTBF (i.e. double the risk of failure) while leaving your data completely unprotected? Sounds like a crazy idea, that gets worse as you add more disks to the raid0 array. Safer with one big disk quite frankly.
And we will see with SSDs, they are already hitting limits in the MLC technology, with bits packed so close together they cannot be sure writes will not affect nearby bits, or issues with stray electrons flipping bits. Not to mention that for the moment, SSDs cannot compete on a cost per GB with disks. We shall see what the future holds for both technologies though.