Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Seagate May Be Dishing Out 3 TB HDD This Year

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 32 comments

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.

Discuss
Display all 32 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 20 Hide
    jay236 , May 6, 2010 6:10 PM
    By fun you mean porn
  • 16 Hide
    hellwig , May 6, 2010 6:32 PM
    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.
  • 11 Hide
    mr_tuel , May 6, 2010 6:15 PM
    i thought that WD already had a 1TB 2.5"...
Other Comments
  • 20 Hide
    jay236 , May 6, 2010 6:10 PM
    By fun you mean porn
  • 11 Hide
    mr_tuel , May 6, 2010 6:15 PM
    i thought that WD already had a 1TB 2.5"...
  • 1 Hide
    rtfm , May 6, 2010 6:16 PM
    jay236By fun you mean porn


    and "backed up" (ie stolen) movies :-)
  • 3 Hide
    Grims , May 6, 2010 6:20 PM
    I bet the SATA cable will cost 70 bucks.
  • 16 Hide
    hellwig , May 6, 2010 6:32 PM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , May 6, 2010 6:32 PM
    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 ;) 
  • 5 Hide
    kelfen , May 6, 2010 6:33 PM
    by fun you mean back up images of your comp save you the headache of losing data
  • 2 Hide
    figgus , May 6, 2010 6:46 PM
    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.
  • 2 Hide
    mindless728 , May 6, 2010 6:56 PM
    @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
  • 2 Hide
    bdcrlsn , May 6, 2010 7:07 PM
    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.
  • 3 Hide
    figgus , May 6, 2010 7:42 PM
    mindless728@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.
  • 1 Hide
    psdo , May 6, 2010 8:04 PM
    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/Products.asp?DriveID=722

    ps. agree with previous poster, seagate is junk. i wouldnt dare reccomend them for enterprise ANYTHING.
  • 2 Hide
    babybeluga , May 6, 2010 8:18 PM
    "dishing out"

    Oh, I get it, because they made better platters!
  • 1 Hide
    figgus , May 6, 2010 8:20 PM
    babybeluga"dishing out"Oh, I get it, because they made better platters!


    +1 *groan*
  • 0 Hide
    JonCPaul , May 6, 2010 8:21 PM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    ayssius , May 6, 2010 9:04 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 2 Hide
    Talon , May 6, 2010 9:26 PM
    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.

    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.

    :)  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 :) 
  • 1 Hide
    jrharbort , May 6, 2010 11:38 PM
    mr_tueli 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.
  • 0 Hide
    drwho1 , May 6, 2010 11:58 PM
    good news, now just wait for WD to get the TB crown :) 
  • 0 Hide
    nukemaster , May 7, 2010 12:23 AM
    Me needs more space!!!
Display more comments