Seagate IronWolf Pro 30TB HDD Review: Seagate Drops the HAMR with the Biggest NAS Drive on the Market

For the true data hoarders

Seagate IronWolf Pro 30TB HDD
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Comparison Products

Aside from the Seagate Exos M, which is the only other drive we’ve tested at 30TB to date, we have a good sampling across the range of high-capacity drives from the previous generation. These include the 22TB WD Gold, the 20TB WD Red Pro, the 20TB Toshiba X300 Pro, the 20TB Seagate SkyHawk AI, as well as the 20TB Seagate Exos X20 and IronWolf Pro. Some of these can go up to 24GB or 26GB, but the general performance range is the same. These drives often use the same hardware within the same brand, but with different optimizations or warranties. The closest comparison, in this case, should be made to the WD Red Pro, as it – like the IronWolf Pro – is made for the NAS segment.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Shane Downing
Contributing Writer

Shane Downing is a Contributing Writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering consumer storage, PC hardware, and AI.

  • Darryl_Fallon_222
    All this is of little use until they make some radical changes:
    all heads read/write simultaneous access. They don't need to be mechanically fully independent, just able to R/W at the same time. On drives with 10 platters/20heads, this would mean peak transfer speeds would skyrocket from 200ish MB/s to 4GB/s peak. Even random access time and IOPs would improve tremendously.
    two heads per surface for redundancy and performance
    improved repairability - ability to swap PCBs if needed etc, ability to read and save internal data in EEPROMs and surfaces that would be crucial for recovery, opensourcing the tools and docs, needed for recovery
    mandating data integrity extensions T-10 (SAS) and T-13(SATA) and using them by default. by HBA and RAID controllers. Having a hash bytes along each sector and system setting/checking them at each transfer would fix a lot of things
    ability for a drive to work as RAID itself, including RAID-5/6 internally
    PCIe or (next-gen?) SAS instead SATA
    Without this, use of such drives will be ever more constrained, limited.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    I'm planning to drag my feet on HAMR drives at home, at least until they undergo a couple more generations of refinement.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Darryl_Fallon_222 said:
    all heads read/write simultaneous access. They don't need to be mechanically fully independent, just able to R/W at the same time.
    They can't. The alignment of tracks on different platters drifts too much. I was pretty shocked, the first time I learned about that, but if it were a solvable problem the HDD industry would've solved it. Increasing densities have made it much worse. It's well outside the realm of feasibility.

    The only thing even close to this are dual-actuator drives, which double peak throughput by letting you simultaneously access platters in each half of the drive at the same time. Obviously doesn't help for accessing more than one platter in the same half of the drive.

    Darryl_Fallon_222 said:
    two heads per surface for redundancy and performance
    It's cheaper to do redundancy by other means (i.e. RAID). I assume if it were even feasible to put two heads on the same platter, the dual-actuator drive would work this way.

    Darryl_Fallon_222 said:
    improved repairability - ability to swap PCBs if needed etc, ability to read and save internal data in EEPROMs and surfaces that would be crucial for recovery, opensourcing the tools and docs, needed for recovery
    Most of their customers don't need this, since they use RAID and backup strategies, yet adding this flexibility increases costs for everyone. Also, don't data recovery firms routinely transplant chips from one PCB to another?

    Darryl_Fallon_222 said:
    ability for a drive to work as RAID itself, including RAID-5/6 internally
    I don't see the point of this. The drive is still your single point of failure. If you're worried about unreadable blocks and don't want multiple drives, the filesystem layer could always implement a redundancy & error-recovery scheme, but it'd come at the expense of performance (and usable capacity).

    Darryl_Fallon_222 said:
    PCIe or (next-gen?) SAS instead SATA
    It's coming, but the media transfer rates on even the highest-density hard drives are still within SATA 3 data rates. I get that NVMe has other benefits, but I'm not sure if it has much value for NAS users.

    Darryl_Fallon_222 said:
    Without this, use of such drives will be ever more constrained, limited.
    Totally agree. Check & rebuild times are among the reasons I'm still using 8 TB drives.
    Reply
  • SomeoneElse23
    "data hoarders" isn't a nice statement.

    Some people like storing their stuff in the cloud ... until the cloud lets them down.

    The rest trust their data to their own reliable storage.

    Be nice TH.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    SomeoneElse23 said:
    "data hoarders" isn't a nice statement.

    Be nice TH.
    I agree. I think the author is trying to be cute, but it does come off as potentially offensive to readers not familiar with the phrase.

    @Paul Alcorn
    Reply
  • vanadiel007
    In my opinion, a con for these drives should be the size.
    It's great to have 30 TB of storage, but there will be many who will loose everything they stored on it once the drive dies because most do not use any backup or redundancy methods.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    vanadiel007 said:
    In my opinion, a con for these drives should be the size.
    It's great to have 30 TB of storage, but there will be many who will loose everything they stored on it once the drive dies because most do not use any backup or redundancy methods.
    That happens today, with drives of 1TB.

    ex: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/i-cant-lose-this-external-ssd.3885654/
    Reply
  • SomeoneElse23
    vanadiel007 said:
    In my opinion, a con for these drives should be the size.
    It's great to have 30 TB of storage, but there will be many who will loose everything they stored on it once the drive dies because most do not use any backup or redundancy methods.
    This, I think, is why Seagate advertises their data recovery services as well.

    All my family members seem to have no idea their data is sitting in one location and when, not if, that location fails, it's all gone.

    That said, I don't think the average user will be buying this. In fact, I don't know why any "average user" would buy a hard drive anymore.
    Reply
  • Li Ken-un
    Darryl_Fallon_222 said:
    mandating data integrity extensions T-10 (SAS) and T-13(SATA) and using them by default. by HBA and RAID controllers. Having a hash bytes along each sector and system setting/checking them at each transfer would fix a lot of things
    As much as I would like stuff like T-10, formatting the disk drive with it enabled by default would make these unusable on a Windows machine out of the box. As far as I know, only Linux will read and write to devices which expose sector metadata.

    It’s catches a lot of noobs off guard who buy used enterprise HDDs and SSDs off eBay and don’t know how to reformat the drive to make it the normal 512-byte or 4096-byte sectors that Windows recognizes.

    Having T-10 off by default would avoid creating such a situation. Users who need it could turn it on or Seagate could introduce a SKU variant which has it on out of the box. HDD and SSD manufacturers need to advertise the feature better though. I look for drives with this feature and sometimes it’s disguised as “end-to-end protection” with “end” being undefined. Often, they do not even mention it in the datasheets.
    Reply
  • lmcnabney
    Okay price? 2 cents per GB? Spinning rust went below that before COVID. Does the two remaining companies producing mass storage think that they sell GPUs?
    Reply