Seagate May Be Dishing Out 3 TB HDD This Year
The bigger thay are, the more fun we can store.
The Register has learned that Seagate will introduce a 3TB HDD sometime within the year. Based on information provided by unnamed sources "familiar with the company's plans," The Register claims that the upcoming storage beast will be part of Seagate's Constellation ES enterprise-class line, and will feature a 6Gbit/s SAS interface.
According to Seagate, the Constellation ES line serves as a replacement for the Barracuda ES series. The largest Constellation ES drive to date is the 3.5-inch 2TB model spinning (round like a record baby) at 7,200rpm.
On the 2.5-inch front, the Constellation ES line maxes out at 500 GB capacity. However Seagate will supposedly release a 1 TB 2.5-inch model in June or sometime thereafter, making it the world's highest-capacity 2.5-inch drive until Toshiba, WD or another manufacturer comes along and takes the crown.
On a related note, The Register also learned that a new Savvio 2.5-inch drive is on the way, building upon the current 10K.4, 10,000rpm drive capacity limit of 600GB. This new HDD may offer a storage capacity of 750GB, however the exact amount is currently unknown.
- Seagate,
- Storage,
- HDD ,
- Constellation-ES ,
- Savvio
- Ellen DeGeneres Made Apple Angry With Fake Ad
- VIDEO: Flash Running on Tegra 2 Android Tablet
- HP Envy 14 and 17 Official, Starting at $999
- Nvidia: Moore's Law is Dead, Multi-core Not Future
- Intel Launches Moorestown, Supports Android
- Medal of Honor Reboot Info, New Screenshots
- Deals for May 5: HP dv8t, Free .com, AC PSP-3000
- Seagate Launches ''Universal'' External HDD Line
- Internet Explorer Market Share at 10-Yr Low Point
- Intel Shows Light Peak Laptop Pushing 2 HD Videos
- A Dating Site Made Just for Apple Fans (iDate?)
- Deals for May 6: HP DV7 and FREE Business Cards
- Blizzard Integrating Battle.net with Facebook
- Nvidia Support of AGEIA PhysX Processors is Dead
- Google Gives Search a Fresh Coat of New Paint
- Speedy Chrome 5 Tested Against Potato Cannon
- Guy Wins $1000000 for Perfect Game in MLB 2K10
- Adobe Promises Best Tools in the World for HTML5
By fun you mean porn
i thought that WD already had a 1TB 2.5"...
By fun you mean porn
and "backed up" (ie stolen) movies :-)
I bet the SATA cable will cost 70 bucks.
All I ever read is that the long term reliability of these bigs drives is not so good. In fact, wasn't there an article on here (or linked from Tom's) that stated that the number of sectors on the disk, and the MTBF (calculated in accesses or something like that) means you can't read the entire disk without encountering an unrecoverable error? I.e. if the drive may encounter one failure every 1 Trillion accesses, well guess what, that drive has 1 trillion bytes on it, so how quickly will it take to reach that failure count?
I'd like to see a reliability article done by Tom's. Put some of these 1TB and 2TB drives into various 24/7 scenarios and see how long they last without failures. These drives are getting bigger, but are they getting more reliable? 3TB is an awful lot of data to lose if you encounter a file system error and have to reformat.
A legend told by their own IT tech says that an average of 1/3 of all the corporate laptops in one famous mobile phone company in Europe stores p0rn. Makes one wonder what those guys are doing during their work hours.
Maybe instead saving it all on your own laptop they need a torrent server with couple of these new Seagates
by fun you mean back up images of your comp save you the headache of losing data
All I ever read is that the long term reliability of these bigs drives is not so good.
Not to mention that they are Seagates. You would get better data security scribbling your 0s and 1s in the sand at the beach than you would putting them on a Seagate drive.
@figgus give it a break, they had issues with the .11 series, the .12 are fine. Not to mention this is the enterprise drive so expect better quality from it
Only problem with these drives is that you won't be able to use them as boot drives thanks to the BIOS 2-terabyte limitation. Some motherboards will work (such as Intel's) thanks to it's limited use of EFI, but most won't.
@figgus give it a break, they had issues with the .11 series, the .12 are fine. Not to mention this is the enterprise drive so expect better quality from it
Yeah, we use the enterprise Seagates at work. We (thankfully) are moving away from them now, because they are junk compared to their competitors. Their .11 series of desktop drives were indeed junk, and I expect BETTER (not worse) from their "enterprise" grade kit.
MR_TUEL: Yea I've been carrying around a 2.5" 1TB for many months. Any geek who claims know about storage should be aware of these drives, they're made by WD. At least should any geek writing an article on the subject. Shame.
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Pro [...] riveID=722
ps. agree with previous poster, seagate is junk. i wouldnt dare reccomend them for enterprise ANYTHING.
"dishing out"
Oh, I get it, because they made better platters!
I purchased a 2.5 inch 1TB USB 2.0 Western Digital hard drive fro 139.99 at Fry's Electronics.. Sku: 6206810 I took it out of the enclose.. It was a standard 2.5inch sata hard drive.. It worked great for a 2.5 inch drive.
"dishing out"Oh, I get it, because they made better platters!
+1 *groan*
All I ever read is that the long term reliability of these bigs drives is not so good. In fact, wasn't there an article on here (or linked from Tom's) that stated that the number of sectors on the disk, and the MTBF (calculated in accesses or something like that) means you can't read the entire disk without encountering an unrecoverable error? I.e. if the drive may encounter one failure every 1 Trillion accesses, well guess what, that drive has 1 trillion bytes on it, so how quickly will it take to reach that failure count?
I'd like to see a reliability article done by Tom's. Put some of these 1TB and 2TB drives into various 24/7 scenarios and see how long they last without failures. These drives are getting bigger, but are they getting more reliable? 3TB is an awful lot of data to lose if you encounter a file system error and have to reformat.
Well i can contribute a small amount of information to your query.
I have 16 Seagate 1Tb Barracudas [ST31000340AS] running firmware SD1A (SD15 factory Oo). I unfortunatly bought these drives in the middle of 2008, before i hard heard of the firmware/bricking debacle and how far seagate's reputation was about to slip. But that is nether here nor there.
I have these drives running on two 3ware 9650SE-8lPML raid caids, each array of 8 drives is in raid 6, and the two arrays are mirrored together. Creating a total of 5.5 Binary TB with triple redundancy. So far after about two years only one drive has show signs of data degredation. It has a single non-recoverable error every 3-4 months, causing the raid-6 partition to become semi-degraded and force a rebuild.
This computer has a 99% uptime also. It is on 24/7, and has about 200GB or better transfers in a day. It gets powered off for 30 minutes once a month.
Although anecdotally i have a cousin who had three of the exact same drives go a few months back. So who really knows?
I have my fingers crossed that these drives hold up until WD can crank out some 3TB. Then im going to dump all the seagates and change over.
At my business we use a mix of Seagate, Western Digital and Hitachi drives mostly. I have seen the rare Samsung but we don't get those in new anymore. Out of our current records that I can vouch for, the last 4 1/2 yrs, we have had less Seagate failures than any other drive. Now if you work in IT professionally you know already that the most common point of failure by a long shot is the HDD. Out of over 18,000 user's we support (in the continental U.S. alone since we're global) over the last 4 1/2 yrs I've personally been at this specific company that amounts to an awful huge amount of statistical data compiled on failures. So I feel confident in saying, whether it's luck of the draw or quality I've see more reliability overall out of them.
yes I purposely didn't pick a favorite in my conclusion to avoid conflict but I would go with the stats gathered on that 18k devices replaced every 3 yrs and failures randomly within those 3 yrs as my guide of buying ! To each their own, sorry so long 
At home I used to use WD exclusively. Now I have machines with Samsung, seagate and WD drives currently and I do have to say the only one to fail in the last 2 yrs of my personal collection of PCs is one Seagate drive. If I go back further I could state roughly equal number of WD to seagate failures in my personal PCs.
What does this tell me? Well not a hell of a lot LOL, having been a professional IT person for decades now I see highs and lows of failure rates for all companies and they do seem to come in waves so at the end of the day, go with a name brand, good warranty and have a backup plan (data backup that is). Other than that, I'd go with what gives you the capacity and cost you want/need. This is what I've seen at least in a really vast amount of experience on a home user and enterprise level.
i thought that WD already had a 1TB 2.5"...
It's not considered a true "standard" 2.5" drive due to the fact it has a 12.5mm height, and wont fit in most standard laptops. The new drive from seagate is supposed to be 9.5mm I believe.
good news, now just wait for WD to get the TB crown
Me needs more space!!!
hopefully everyone realizes that they cant just put this into their systems due to the limitations of the traditional BIOS which is 2TB. you have to have a mobo that has EFI support to use this drive.
All I ever read is that the long term reliability of these bigs drives is not so good. In fact, wasn't there an article on here (or linked from Tom's) that stated that the number of sectors on the disk, and the MTBF (calculated in accesses or something like that) means you can't read the entire disk without encountering an unrecoverable error? I.e. if the drive may encounter one failure every 1 Trillion accesses, well guess what, that drive has 1 trillion bytes on it, so how quickly will it take to reach that failure count?I'd like to see a reliability article done by Tom's. Put some of these 1TB and 2TB drives into various 24/7 scenarios and see how long they last without failures. These drives are getting bigger, but are they getting more reliable? 3TB is an awful lot of data to lose if you encounter a file system error and have to reformat.
I agree. It is the first thing I thought when I saw the headline. If I were in the HDD industry, I would try to sell RAID0 drives stand alone. So basically, sell two HDDs that fit in a 3.5 bay with a light ( and driver optional) that blicks if one HDD fails, or sell portable HDDs that sandwich dual HDD. If one fails, you replace one of them. Or it can be done like car headlights, if one fails, you know you have to move the data to a new drive. Of course we can get Raid0 with existing tech, but I think make it more user-friendly. everybody stores their family albums and home videos on these drives now and there is not industry-wide option to provide redundancy in a simple package.
I agree. It is the first thing I thought when I saw the headline. If I were in the HDD industry, I would try to sell RAID0 drives stand alone. So basically, sell two HDDs that fit in a 3.5 bay with a light ( and driver optional) that blicks if one HDD fails, or sell portable HDDs that sandwich dual HDD. If one fails, you replace one of them. Or it can be done like car headlights, if one fails, you know you have to move the data to a new drive. Of course we can get Raid0 with existing tech, but I think make it more user-friendly. everybody stores their family albums and home videos on these drives now and there is not industry-wide option to provide redundancy in a simple package.
i think you mean raid-1, in raid-0 if you lose a disk, you lose everything
Thought Seagate got sued.
i thought that WD already had a 1TB 2.5"...
I swore I saw a 2.5in 1TB WD drive on the Egg not so long ago too...
Yay, more movies and porn.
All I ever read is that the long term reliability of these bigs drives is not so good. In fact, wasn't there an article on here (or linked from Tom's) that stated that the number of sectors on the disk, and the MTBF (calculated in accesses or something like that) means you can't read the entire disk without encountering an unrecoverable error? I.e. if the drive may encounter one failure every 1 Trillion accesses, well guess what, that drive has 1 trillion bytes on it, so how quickly will it take to reach that failure count?I'd like to see a reliability article done by Tom's. Put some of these 1TB and 2TB drives into various 24/7 scenarios and see how long they last without failures. These drives are getting bigger, but are they getting more reliable? 3TB is an awful lot of data to lose if you encounter a file system error and have to reformat.
hear hear
Interesting article. I'll have to talk to a couple of IT techs and see what their hard drive experiences has been.
All I ever read is that the long term reliability of these bigs drives is not so good.
Same was true for the first 500GB drives a few years ago and every highest end capacity drive ever on the market. Where I would use this is the price drop it would have on the 2TB drives to replace in my backup server. Redundant storage where data duplication results in less available storage but no worries over losing 1 drive.
As far as I've heard, Seagate's .10s were great, the .11s were shite and we won't know about the 12s for another 6 months or so. That said, given the .11s, if I we in the market, I would pick a WD drive right now.
imagine one of these things dying on you IF you're without any backups! 3TB of data all f**ked up!