Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

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

Last response: in News comments
Share
July 13, 2009 7:39:05 PM

The question is how much?

Also, I guess this sure beats those Velociraptor HDDs I've seen.
Score
15
July 13, 2009 7:40:48 PM

how much?
Score
0
Related resources
July 13, 2009 7:45:09 PM

Try running a hard drive for 1.6 million hours. Just try. It'll be bad in 5 years or so.
Score
22
July 13, 2009 7:47:13 PM

Where, when, and for how much can I pick this up. Ill buy myself a freakin' controller card so i can run this in my gaming rig. Also transfer rates plz.
Score
1
July 13, 2009 7:49:49 PM

Sweeeeeet...

But, how fast will it load Crysis? JK!!!

(I just had to) You know some one else would have asked.
Score
13
July 13, 2009 7:50:08 PM

Cost?

Crysis?

Raid 0+1/5?
Score
-6
Anonymous
July 13, 2009 7:51:46 PM

The question is: Why not a SATA version?
I know it's a stupid question but I would like to see one of these on my home computer one day.... (But for sure I will not spent on a SAS controller...)
Score
13
July 13, 2009 8:03:22 PM

yeah no sata? maybe its to slow for it (3gb cap)
Score
-8
Anonymous
July 13, 2009 8:05:09 PM

how loud?
Score
-2
July 13, 2009 8:13:08 PM

Are you sure the it's not the MTBF that is 1.6million hours?
Score
1
July 13, 2009 8:17:50 PM

Of course these drives are faster than Velociraptors, its a 15K SAS drive compared to a 10K SATA drive.

Plus this drive launch price will most likely be approaching $900 US.

You can still get a current gen raid card to run these drives as no one is going to buy enough of these to top the max throughput of 2100 MB/s for current 3Gb raid cards, for home use.
Score
2
July 13, 2009 8:20:29 PM

the new sata is 6gb though, I don't see why they would not include it as an option...
Score
0
July 13, 2009 8:24:07 PM

"$900?" might as well just buy an SSD for that much.
Score
0
July 13, 2009 8:28:45 PM

How loud are they? Will it go WHIIRRR WHIIRRR WHIIRRR, or must I purchase an SSD?

I understand what this article was trying to do, but let's not paint hard drives in too glorious a light...

and... price? xD.
Score
-2
July 13, 2009 8:32:52 PM

Its called a server hard drive fellas. Your not gonna get a SATA connector.

If Seagate decides that WD is gettin too much love for the V-raptor, they might make a desktop version, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
Score
7
July 13, 2009 8:39:14 PM

SATA III is being released more so because SSD are already approaching SATA II limitations, you can take a Velociraptor and it still wont sustain speeds above SATA I which is ~150 MB/s. But all SAS drives are loud and they run really hot w/o excellent cooling.

Kezix_69 that link you provided is not a 15K.7 Cheetah as they havent even been released yet, thats a NS drive which stands for "Nearline SAS"

The 15K.7 model # is ST3600957SS
Score
2
July 13, 2009 8:43:02 PM

how do you test a batch of drives and get 182.6 years as an average?
Score
5
July 13, 2009 8:51:48 PM

I got excited about it when the big press release was made back in early January. No sign of them until now. I called Seagate about a month ago and was told they'd be out in July. There are two smaller capacity versions as well, according to the January articles.
Score
0
Anonymous
July 13, 2009 8:57:38 PM

"how do you test a batch of drives and get 182.6 years as an average?"

Where we're going, we don't need MTBF tests
Score
1
July 13, 2009 8:58:28 PM

mcnuggetofdeathWhere, when, and for how much can I pick this up. Ill buy myself a freakin' controller card so i can run this in my gaming rig. Also transfer rates plz.

Too loud!
Score
1
July 13, 2009 8:59:41 PM

You will never see SATA on an enterprise HD because the SATA command-set lacks several enterprise data-integrity features. And those features will never be added to SATA in the future because then SATA would essentially become SAS, and if you wanted that then why not just use SAS in the first place?
Score
6
July 13, 2009 9:09:57 PM

Quote:
how loud?

i own a 300 gb, no louder than a 7200

if you buy ~$300 i7 board you get a decent SAS chipset in there

At $700 i would just buy 2 300gb for 600 GB and raid 0. The 15.6 300gb is about $300 if you look around.
Score
0
July 13, 2009 9:30:20 PM

B-UnitIts called a server hard drive fellas. Your not gonna get a SATA connector.If Seagate decides that WD is gettin too much love for the V-raptor, they might make a desktop version, but I wouldn't hold your breath.


No joke, people are asking about the price, how loud, and the really important one...how much heat. I ran 4 15k 18GB drives in a workstation once because I found them and a controller cheap. I was using it as a regular desktop machine, put off way to much heat and noise to be kept in my apt bedroom. That and the red lights on the raid card made sweet night rider scrolling effects on the wall because the case side was off. I thought it was awesome, kept my girlfriend at the time up at night.
Score
0
Anonymous
July 13, 2009 9:30:33 PM

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.
Score
0
July 13, 2009 9:37:28 PM

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.
Score
-3
July 13, 2009 9:48:36 PM

audioeeSweeeeeet...But, how fast will it load Crysis? JK!!! (I just had to) You know some one else would have asked.


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! :) 
Score
2
July 13, 2009 10:13:12 PM

hellscookTry running a hard drive for 1.6 million hours. Just try. It'll be bad in 5 years or so.


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.
Score
0
Anonymous
July 13, 2009 10:27:49 PM

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!
Score
2
July 13, 2009 11:01:26 PM

hellscookTry running a hard drive for 1.6 million hours. Just try. It'll be bad in 5 years or so.


This is for servers and usually come with a 5 year warranty.
Score
0
July 13, 2009 11:19:19 PM

hellscookTry running a hard drive for 1.6 million hours. Just try. It'll be bad in 5 years or so.


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.
Score
0
July 14, 2009 12:15:07 AM

soon as it's taken out the box its outdated XD
Score
-2
July 14, 2009 12:26:07 AM

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?
Score
-1
July 14, 2009 1:20:58 AM

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!
Score
-6
July 14, 2009 2:13:51 AM

*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 :) 
Score
-2
July 14, 2009 6:59:14 AM

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.
Score
1
July 14, 2009 8:23:24 AM

You mean: Seagate Click Click 15K 600Gb, just like the barracuda 7200.11 with post unbricking firmware
Score
-2
July 14, 2009 9:27:03 AM

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=056446f...
Score
2
July 14, 2009 10:22:56 AM

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...
Score
0
July 14, 2009 10:58:41 AM

$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.
Score
1
July 14, 2009 11:14:52 AM

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..
Score
1
July 14, 2009 6:14:59 PM

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!!!"
Score
1
July 14, 2009 6:55:20 PM

D_KuhnI 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.


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
Score
-1
July 14, 2009 7:19:40 PM

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

Score
0
July 15, 2009 5:02:21 AM

didn't Fujitsu and Hitachi have 15,000 hdd's with scsi like years ago?
Score
-1
July 19, 2009 8:11:51 PM

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.
Score
0
!