We all love talking about what we'll see in the Nikon D5 or what Phase One's next big announcement will be. But for the most part, as important as it is, there's not much fun in "real" tech. Networking, cloud storage, hard drives...that's all kind of boring? Definitely not first date material (not second, or third, or fourth either). But when something as monumental as this comes, it's important to consider. Bigger, cheaper hard drives mean more storage in less space, with less complications, and all while slimming your wallet (what else can do that outside of the digital world!?). Meet the Seagate 8TB Archive hard drive, announced back in August, but finally shipping to consumers next month.
Just a year ago, fitting six terabytes into a hard drive was considered a decent feat. It may not sound like it, but we really are beginning to approach very real and physical limits on what we can fit into a given space - even in the nanometer world on which bits of data live. The static and fairly high priced six-terabyte hard drives that were released within the last year are a testament to this.
Seagate's new Shingled Magnetic Recording technology is what lets it cram 33% more data in the same physical space by overlapping the bits on the new Archive-series drive, but it also slows down read and write speeds. Still, with such high platter density (that's the most "techy" this will get, don't worry), performance is impressive at 150MB/s. That's faster than your fastest USB 3.0 portable hard drives, and in a two-drive or four-drive RAID system as many working creatives have for editing and backup, it'll be plenty fast enough for Photoshop, Lightroom, and even some 4K video work.
It's also one of Seagate's most reliable consumer hard drives, rated for 24/7 operation with 800,000 MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) hours and 180TB of data transfer per year. That's a ton of data (500GB every single day); and if you calculate the mean time before failure, that's a solid 91 years of supposed operability. Something will probably happen before that, honestly, but you don't have to worry about this drive's reliability. These drives run cooler, with less power, and more securely than anything in their class. Each capacity option even has a model with built-in encryption for increased security (likely at the small cost of some speed) and features just about all of Seagates most advanced technologies.
For those planning a new backup system (or for those woken up by their new D810's massive storage needs), the Seagate 8TB Archive is a no-brainer. Don't need quite so much storage? Seagate will offer likely-competitively-priced 6TB and 5TB versions. The 8TB, however, will start at $260 when it ships this January (current pre-orders on Amazon through a third party reseller promise January 9th stock and indicate prices ranging from $228 to $266 for the 5TB and 8TB versions respectively, which would make the 8TB hard drive a no-brainer; but expect those and other street prices to shift one way or another closer to the new year. The good news is that hard drive space is now down from just around 3.75¢ per GB to just 3¢ per GB).
If you're about to order your new backup NAS or RAID editing system, wait just a little longer. If you can afford to, hold off for what will soon be even more affordable.
I would never get Seagate's they are not reliable for real life NAS backup systems. WD Reds are number one NAS backup drives on the market. They are used in real production networking in the industry and for my home backups.
Plus there is a 3 year warranty on these drives if anything were to happen. Raid 1 your network drives for all images and video. Just my recommendation.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236737&cm_re=wd...
I have to say, many users have various experiences. My first hard drive ever was a portable 100GB by Seagate (back when you needed 2 USB plugs, one for power, and one for data in case your computer didn't have powered USB ports), and even today, 10+ years later, it still works. And I just had an HGST drive fail on me. Still, I wouldn't say HGST is bad or Seagate is good. I think people have various experiences with certain brands and just come to those conclusions. Some of us get lucky and some don't.
Also, the Seagate Archive drives have a 3-year warranty, too. So it seems pretty much on par to me...
Also had bad expriences with WD, HGST and Seagate, but worst was Seagate.
Backblaze had a nice bit of stats on drive failure, considering they are talking hundreds of drives, it is a pretty fair comparison:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/blog-fail-driv...
It says nothing about the new drives, but it tells me a lot about their track record, all my current 4K drives are HGST, so far so good, the backup drives are WD and Seagate though hah, yeah mix it up :)
My first HDD was 0.8GB and never failed... But I didn't use it for too long ;)
Thank you for this video presentation, I like the graphic part of it.
BUT since I had two Seagate drives failed on me, its 8TB drive is just not going to be part of my toolkit. In the foreseeable future I am gonna stuck with WD or my Samsung SSDs.
Maybe it is just luck, and 2 failure occurred throughout a 10yr period, but it just very worrisome for me.
Every HDD fails... no exceptions. Use RAID1 and always have additional backup. Or two ;)
RAID5 is more expensive in terms of set up cost, but offers better data security since you're increasing the number of drives in an array that can fail before data loss. No a huge performance hit over RAID1 too.
I had 4 RAId 5 systems die on me with no way to recover unless I send the who set of disks to the manufacture. No more RAID for me, single drives, 4 copies of each one stored in a fireproof safe, one at the client, one in my work computer and .. oh that is 5 copies: 2 backups at home. Data wrangling is such an important waste of time....
If you have RAID5 with 3 drives you can afford to loose only one drive... Choosing one RAID solution over another is little more complex. I like RAID 1+0, however it would be a waist of HDDs if the set would be connected externally to USB3.0
Unless one has USB3.1, Thunderbolt or mounts HDDs internally with capable bus and chipset, RAID1 is optimal solution for external storage.
I am now trying to cloud everything, so far so good.
Two things:
1. As I understand it, MTBF (mean time *between* failures) is not an indication that your individual item is going to last 91 years, but that for a *population* of the items will experience failures averaging that many combined running hours (like 'man-hours' but 'item-hours'). For example, a data center with 5,000 of these drives running 24/7 might expect to replace ~55 per year (5000 drives * 365 days * 24 hours / 800000 MTBF).
2. Everyone seems to have anecdotes about some manufacturer or product line failing more than another, but that's not useful. A few places have compiled actual observed failure rates in large drive populations, and generally they're not dramatically different between manufacturers, from what I recall. [citation needed]
Backblaze did an interesting report on hard drive reliability. The article also links to older test results, and a comparison between enterprise and consumer drives.
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2...
My personal experience, working on a television show transporting over 50 (mostly Hitachi) drives around the world, and years of doing computer and network support with thousands of drives involved: Maxtor hard drives, and Seagate drives produced after they purchased Maxtor, failed with alarming frequency, Western Digital drives didn't fail very often, and the only Hitachi drive that ever failed was likely dropped in transit.
Need 20?
Seagate ST8000AS0002-20PK 20PK 8TB ARCHIVE HDD SATA 5900 RPM 128MB 3.5IN
by Seagate
Be the first to review this item
Price: $5,336.00 + $11.95 shipping
In stock on January 10, 2015.
Just a thought, with the cost of these drives, the management task of maintaining and replacing a failed drive, and the hassle of backing this data up, have a look at the Amazon Storage Prices:
http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/
You could primarily upload to S3 (immediate retrieval, highly redundant storage) and then have it backup to Glacier (for 1 penny per gigabyte/month) and then keep a 500GB to 1TB SSD at home/office for editing.
I must be missing something. Glacier storage is 1 penny per GB per month, but to OWN a hard drive is just 3 cents per GB. So even with 4 copies of all your data, you make up your costs after just a year compared to GLACIER storage, which isn't anything in performance or access compared to having your drive right there. And standard S3 storage is 3 cents per GB. There isn't a single cloud storage option out there that really makes sense to me price-wise unless you REALLY want a single, large worst-case-scenario situation backup offsite, which is fair enough... But aside from that...just buy a bunch of well-priced drives, separate them, and call it a day.
I'm going to accept this as progress and wait for WD to release their version.
The article and comments were a shot from the past for me. Way back when, I remember an article titled something like "Lies, Damn Lies, and MTBF Statistics" as a warning not to take the published stats seriously. That said, my personal track record with Seagate drives has been very bad (to be fair, I was living above 8000' at the time, and disks suffer at high altitude), and after some research I now am sticking to those produced by Western Digital. I still have some Seagates in my RAID box but as they fail (which they do) I am replacing them with hot-spare WD disks.
All the big manufacturers are now producing 8TB disks, as far as I can tell. Me, I'm still sticking with RAID 1, 5, and 10 2TB-disk arrays.
When the competition is about four times the cost, though...it just doesn't make much sense. I suppose we'll have to wait and see how reliable these are...early adopters will obviously be the ones to pay the price if something goes wrong, as they always are.
I really feel like SMR is about cramming more data on the platter so it stores more, not that it is at all safer or will have a longer life. In fact, it might even have a shorter life because it may require more precision to read. It all depends on whether "archive" is used to mean "reliable long-term storage" or just "more storage."
I've had two Seagates go bad on me in one year. While everything I have is backed up, I couldn't even imagine losing 8TB's worth of info from a drive failure and there are plenty of newbies out there who don't back up.