Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An In-Depth Look At Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the should-be-space-enough-for-anyone dept.

Data Storage 283

theraindog writes "More than a year and a half after the first terabyte hard drives became widely available, Seagate has reached the next storage capacity milestone. With 1.5 terabytes, the latest Barracuda 7200.11 serves up 50% more capacity than its peers, and at a surprisingly affordable $0.12 per gigabyte. But Seagate's decision to drop new platters into an old Barracuda shell may not have been a wise one. The Tech Report's in-depth review of the world's first 1.5TB hard drive shows that while the latest 'cuda is screaming fast in synthetic throughput drag races, poor real world write speeds ultimately tarnish its appeal."

cancel ×

283 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp? (0, Redundant)

byteframe (924916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457175)

hitachi! ibm!

Re:fp? (5, Funny)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457491)

I swear, if you were any more dense, you'd fall within your own Schwarzschild radius, become a black hole, and we wouldn't have to deal with you anymore.

Hey, everybody's thinking it, I'm just saying it. ;)

Write speed (5, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457241)

How important is throughput? I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of these drives are going in external enclosures. For the time being, 1.5tb is much larger than you'd need to be running any applications off of and I'd guess the majority of these drives are going to be storing movies, mp3s and photos, where the speed hardly matters at all.

Re:Write speed (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457293)

How important is throughput?

Ask your swapfile or swap partition (as the case may be).

Re:Write speed (4, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457501)

My point was I want to know how often the hard drive is going to be the bottleneck instead rather than USB or firewire, where all of them would perform (even more so than they already do) virtually identically.

That aside, this drive actually performed near the top in most of the tests and middle of the pack in most of the others, so the author talking bad about its performance was pretty unfounded. And I didn't see anything in any of the tests that would make me choose from the drives tested on anything other than cost and capacity. The truth is, in the "real world" everyone is clammering to compare the drives in, you'd never have a clue which drive was in your computer unless you opened up the case and looked.

Re:Write speed (3, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457633)

Because obviously any disk not used for your operating system or applications would be connected using USB or Firewire, couldn't be that some people actually connect their SATA drives directly to the SATA bus in their computers, right?

/Mikael

Re:Write speed (-1, Flamebait)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458091)

I'd like to thank whoever modded my post "troll" because clearly I'm trolling by pointing out that the parent poster completely omitted the possibility of connecting hard drives using SATA.

/Mikael

Re:Write speed (2, Insightful)

fifedrum (611338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457673)

speed always matters, just not as much as $/GB most times, at least where these drives are destined it doesn't matter as much as speed

Re:Write speed (2, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457929)

If you need a 1.5 TB swapfile, I suggest you start clicking some of those X's on your windows.

Re:Write speed (2, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458111)

Swap performance is going to suck no matter where you put it, except maybe solid state. If you're hitting swap so hard that the performance of said swap is a real issue of concern for you, you really ought to consider buying more RAM.

Re:Write speed (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458217)

True. But my point is this: think about image or audio processing. Or video processing. How many temporary files are written during common processing operations? And it doesn't matter how much memory you have, they all do it.

swapfiles have the same consideration.

Re:Write speed (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458359)

Even 2xSCSI on Raid? If anyone have numbers, please post.

Re:Write speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25457319)

It matter on workstations where these drives are probably most likely to the used. Think software development, artists (3D, animation, video, sound, etc), VMware machines, etc... Plenty of people need more space.

It's weird, I just just thinking about how my 7200.11 500 GB drive seems rather slow compared to the pair of 7200.7 200 GB drives I was using in my last workstation. The throughput is similar in synthetic benchmarks but the old pair of 7200.7's was much faster when I was using VMware and such. This new 7200.11 drive stalls all the time while writing.

Re:Write speed (1)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457749)

But do you really need 1.5 TB of space for software development?

Even 3D animation and video editing aren't going to eat up 1.5 TB until you hit the professional level, at which point you can probably afford a RAID solution.

Having said that, this tech will improve over time, and I would just like to point out that we now have more storage space available on a single hard drive than in any one human brain (well, probably. Unless there's some sort of "intron/alternate splicing" analogue going on in the brain).

Re:Write speed (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457997)

I would argue that you need a RAID solution regardless. Assuming you use the bulk of that drive, backing up ~1TB of data in event of drive failure can be a pain. With those sized drives, I'd only go with RAID 1/5/6/combo anyway.

Re:Write speed (1)

neumayr (819083) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458295)

Most artsy things that take up a lot of space don't need much disk speed, as it's all so computationally expensive the disk usually doesn't have any trouble keeping up with the speed at which the cpu crunches through that data.

Re:Write speed (1)

BorgAssimilator (1167391) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457419)

Well, I wouldn't count out speed completely. I'd agree that it's not as important for storing media files than like playing games, but the last thing you want is to have a movie that randomly skips every so often because of a hard drive. That being said, it looks like the drive is pretty good when you're reading stuff from it, so that shouldn't be a problem.

But you're right; I'd be more interested in seeing stress tests about how much usage these things can take before they give out.

Re:Write speed (1, Interesting)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457575)

Speed can matter for video, particularly on higher quality settings. For example, using Windows Media Center with "Best" quality, according to MS's website, 60 GB will hold about 22 hours of video, which equates to about ~0.8 MB/s. If you are recording two shows with a dual tuner and watching a third that you already recorded, you're up to ~2.4 MB/s total throughput. If you aren't swimming in RAM for the disk cache, the HD head is going to be losing a lot to seek and rotational latency.

Since a lot of home users only have one HD, the OS is going to be chewing throughput, as will the page file, and both will increase latency further. It all adds up. Not everyone installs 6 HDs with specialized purposes the way a geek (such as myself) does.

Re:Write speed (5, Informative)

zsouthboy (1136757) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457969)

A whopping 2.4 MB/s (+ overhead, as you say)?

You realize that most modern drives are able to handle 60 MB/s with ease, even the low end ones, right?

You don't need 6 hard drives RAIDed to *watch* video...

Re:Write speed (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458285)

Mod parent up.

Ask any MythTV user about how they can record a pair of HD streams while watching a third with no skips. That's about 7MB/second, and drives don't break a sweat on that.

Re:Write speed (2, Informative)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457585)

I'm inclined to agree with you. Also worthy of note is that most of the other drives in the test are actually more expensive, despite having less space. And guess what, most of the ones on the test that come in at a lower price are also ones that are outperformed by the new drive on virtually every test. So yes please, I'll take 50% more space for better read speeds and less money, not to mention a 5-year warranty. I've purchased Seagate drives exclusively for about 4 years now, and have yet to have one fail on me. Also worked at a computer service/build for a year recently where we used Seagate drives exclusively, and saw maybe as high as a 1% failure rate on new drives.

Re:Write speed (4, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457609)

How important is throughput?

For what I'll use them for? Not very. Looks like they've got great stats for bulk storage, and any more demanding segments I can stripe and/or cache anyway (with memory prices where they are, it's not like you hit swap anymore).

Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience. Lack of capacity, not quite so easily. So several of these are definitely on the shopping list. (Mmm, mythtv storage...)

Re:Write speed (4, Funny)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458083)

Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience.

That is just true. So from now on, it should be written...

Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience.

--Znork

Re:Write speed (0)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457731)

There are databases that could use these. Three in a RAID 5 would give you 3TB of storage. Or you could do four in RAID 1+0 for 2TB of storage.
Also people doing video editing can use the space. For those users the speed is an issue. I guess they will just have to stick with tiny 1 TB drives for now.
Actually for really high performance databases and video editing systems they will use RAIDs of really fast drives like the Western Digital VelociRaptor or if money is no issue at all 15k RPM SAS drives.

Re:Write speed (2, Interesting)

Bandman (86149) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457831)

I came into this thread to post the same message for the most part. Though as size increases, so does risk of failure [blogspot.com] , as I'm finding out.

Re:Write speed (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458085)

A raid doesn't replace backups. It is an aid in maintaining up time and increase speed.
The problem is that backup media is now really lagging storage. I use external drives as back ups but they are not my first choice. Right now they are my only one for some data sets.
Another back up I have become really fond of are flash drives. I keep one attached to my PC all the time as an extra backup. Just copy the source directory to it as well as the server.

Re:Write speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25458107)

nyarhg... must... correct... DB Newb...

No competent DB admin would use RAID-5 for a database unless it was read-only, the write performance of RAID-5 is known to be pretty bad. As well 'really high performance' databases would skip right past WD Velociraptors and go straight to SCSI or SAS (Where 10/15k RPM has been standard for decades), the WD Raptors are marketed towards gaming enthusiasts and power users, not high end servers.

Re:Write speed (4, Insightful)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457899)

I have 7 of the WD 5400-7200RPM "GreenPower" 1TB HDs in a raid5 array that I access only through FTP and SMB.

I suppose 5400RPM is slow in terms of transfer and seek time, and being a software RAID5 set managed in software via mdadm likely also reduces the speed of the array. However none of that speed decrease is readily apparent due to the relative bottleneck of the 1GBPS ethernet connection.
I assume that drives of this size primarily would see similar use as the drives I use. Given the experience I've had, I agree that the speed of the drive probably doesn't matter so much. I doubt many people would use a 1.5TB drive for their OS or swap space, especially if speed mattered.
The speed people probably would be using some ultra wide scsi drives or some other speed oriented drive, perhaps the raptor line.

Re:Write speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25457951)

I actually just picked one of these up from newegg, I've had absolutely no problems with speed, it replaced two 250 gig drives that used to be in my system, it streams HD video just fine. Heck, even the article shows this, with large single files it beat every drive in read speed.

Re:Write speed (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458271)

I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of these drives are going in external enclosures. ... I'd guess the majority of these drives are going to be storing movies, mp3s and photos, where the speed hardly matters at all.

I will not consider another purchase until USB 3 or Firewire3200 is available.

When will hardware manufacturers get a clue? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457259)

We know most benchmarks are useless and a lie. What matters is not how well your product performs on a benchmark, but how well it performs for real-word usage. If you're selling a desktop hard drive, well, damnit, benchmark it for typical usage scenarios and then look at your results. If you they suck, your product sucks. Go back to the drawing board. Pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with synthetic benchmarks tailor-made to make your product look good is just downright dishonest. And I hate doing business with dishonest people more than most things.

Re:When will hardware manufacturers get a clue? (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457635)

Why would they ever go back to the drawing board with this drive?

This is a Consumer-level SATA drive. IF someone even gets by the size of the drive the next thing they'll see is the price. At ~180 bucks it's honestly a steal!

Even the most hardcore of gamers / power users would see that price point and say RAID Array, here I come!

Re:When will hardware manufacturers get a clue? (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457721)

Even the most hardcore of gamers / power users would see that price point and say RAID Array, here I come!

Not me. I hate RAID even more than morgan hates dishonest people.

An In-Depth Look At Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: (5, Funny)

Warll (1211492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457295)

I didn't RTFA but I can guess it:

0|1|1|1|0|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|1|0|0|1|0|1|1|0|1|1|1|0|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|0

Re:An In-Depth Look At Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: (0)

speroni (1258316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457799)

I don't get it, and it wasn't conducive to just go google it...?

Re:An In-Depth Look At Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: (1)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457885)

I'm guessing it's a reference to "an in-depth look". That's supposed to be the binary stored on the platters.

Re:An In-Depth Look At Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: (1)

Warll (1211492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457909)

The joke is that "an In-Depth Look At Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda" would really jsut be some really tiny bits, the binary example I used was just "Tiny eh" in ASCII binary. So I take it the jokes no longer funny since I had to explain it?

Re:An In-Depth Look At Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: (1)

speroni (1258316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458229)

Ahhh....

I was hoping it was a futurama reference.

Re:An In-Depth Look At Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25457801)

Who you calling tiny?

Re:An In-Depth Look At Seagate's 1.5TB Barracuda: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25458323)

It only matters when that's what s/he said!

Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457299)

How reliable is the thing? I never had very good luck with Seagate.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (2, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457357)

How reliable is the thing?

Buy me one and I can promise status updates.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (5, Informative)

Firemouth (1360899) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457377)

I've always had good luck with these drives. It's the only brand I'll buy and recommend to another person. The fact they will warranty their drives for 5 years where most others will only do 1 - 3 years says something about them. If they're betting their drives will last 5 years, who am i to argue?

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (3, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457457)

I've had the same experience - Seagate has consistently outlasted every the drive brand I've seen. Based on past experiences, I'd rank them, from least reliable to most, as:

Hitachi
Western Digital
Maxtor
Samsung
Seagate

Drive brands not listed I either have no experience with or not enough to form an opinion.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (2, Interesting)

Cynonamous Anoward (994767) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457589)

Ditto on this...Had really bad experiences with Hitachi and Western Digital. Swore by Maxtor for a while in the early-90's, and then a got several in a row that died within 2 years. Never used a samsung, but I've been sticking with seagate for about 15 years now, and they are incredibly reliable. testament to reliability: with only a little care and maintenance, I have now gone a whopping 12(!!!!) years with out losing a single byte of important data. The only problem for me actually is size...in 12 years without information loss, you really do accumulate a massive amount of data. Even with regularly cleaning out unneeded data and archiving stuff I don't need instant access to, I've managed to fill 2/3rds of my 1TB storage drive already.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25457683)

I've managed to fill 2/3rds of my 1TB storage drive already.

Your wrist must be tired!

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457903)

I've managed to fill 2/3rds of my 1TB storage drive already.

640 GB of porn ought to be enough for anybody!

Seriously, my experience has been remarkably similar to yours, except without the little care and maintenance bit. I once dropped one of these [newegg.com] down the stairs at a LAN party. Worked just fine afterward. I've also had good luck with Maxtor, however one of these died after only 10 years of use (in an incident perhaps relating to a Coke set on it), so I generally buy Seagate.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

Yewbert (708667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458153)

Another pretty-close-to-ditto. I've had Seagates die, WDs die, and I've had (more) Maxtors die, BUT, it's mostly because I mistreat the drives badly, running them bare, sitting upended on my desktop, outside the computer they're connected into, sometimes with and sometimes without additional cooling. They get hot, they get ESD, they get dusty,... and they occasionally die. The big difference (since I have all data backed up on DVD-R anyway) is that the Seagates are still under warranty and I get the hardware replaced for the cost of shipping. The Maxtors are just paperweights.

(At work, I have some responsibility over ~300 workstations, and "dead Maxtor drive" has become a running joke. We can't wait till we've replaced all of them with Seagates or Samsungs.)

Incidentally, having just acquired my first-ever Samsung AND Hitachi drives (other than the original Hitachis in ThinkPad laptops,...), and having just started restoring data from numerous smaller drives that have been sitting offline, powered down, in a cabinet for up to three years or so, I'm finding very weird *read* problems from one particular Maxtor drive, i.e., I copy a bunch of files off it onto the new drive, a Hitachi 1TB, verify the data set, find about 1% corrupt files that don't match their MD5, recopy the same files from the Maxtor again, and *most* of the recopied files are fine. What the hell? File copying from other source drives worked A-100%-OK-spiffy, just that one bad source.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

AllynM (600515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457995)

I'd venture a guess that WD gets a bad rap from a bad start into the 'RPM race'. I built an array when the 400GB drives came out. I had even sprung for the RE2 server class drives. Over the course of 2 years I had to RMA 5 out of 6 of them. The problem was they ran extremely hot even with above average cooling. Their lineup around that period must have been built on a bad thermal design.

I've since switched to the new GP (Green Power) drives and not had a single problem in a full year of use, using 10 of them. They run *significantly* cooler (hottest drive is 100F and that is with weak airflow) and appear to be much more reliable as a result of it.

Also on WD: I've raid-0 striped a pair of nearly every generation of Raptor they made and never had so much as a hiccup.

So yeah, they had a rough spot, but I'd say they would be higher on the list if you go on their current product lines.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

KenjiFinster (839628) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458075)

Try to tell that to anyone with a MacBook. I see at least 5 dead MacBooks with Seagate drives every day at work.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (4, Interesting)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458081)

I have a very old Seagate drive (well, it says Seagate ST41200N on the top, but windows recognizes it as Imprimis 94601-15). It is a 1.2GB (991MB) 5.25" full height drive and it works perfectly. I have another one, a bit younger (ST34520N) ~4GB, it also works very well. All the new ones also work well, so when I buy a hard drive, I buy Seagate.

I wonder why nobody is making 5.25" hard drives anymore... With current technology they could have at least 10TB capacity...

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

noc007 (633443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458159)

This is roughly my experience as well. The Hitachi (formerly branded as IBM) DeskStars we've called DeathStars for quite some time for good reason. Each and every Western Digital HDD that I've had under my roof has died on me within a year or two. Quantum was the worst on my list and I was quite concerned about Maxtor drives when they bought out Quantum. So far my first/current Maxtor drives are still running after a year.

I swear by Seagate and love having drives that are warrantied for five years. I've only had one die on me and that was due to over-voltage from the USB external HDD enclosure.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457537)

and Seagates are quieter than almost all others

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458065)

They're certainly quieter than WDs, but nowhere near as quiet as the Samsungs I have.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

MadTinfoilHatter (940931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458121)

Seagates are quieter than almost all others

That may have been true 6-7 years ago, but after the legendary Barracuda IV and (even better - if very short-lived) V-series, Seagate has gone badly downhill when it comes to silence. If you check out www.silentpcreview.com [silentpcreview.com] you'll see that Seagate hasn't been on top for years - Samsung has, and Western Digital has also been a good choice for the last two years, or so. My own experience also supports this assessment.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457671)

Now, is the barracuda line, or there other drives as well?

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457469)

Been a long time since I was in the business as a reseller, but we used to have more WDC failures then Seagate. But we'd get cases of both that had 20-30% of drives that were sealed from the factory, that were either DOA or had cascading bad sectors. But that was back in the days of absolute crap when everyone was in the size race.

Things change in 10 years, I do like the current brand of Samsung drives.

Re:Capacity is hardly news anymore (1)

mc900ftjesus (671151) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457825)

I only use Seagate. The only company offering consumer hard drives with a 5 year warranty.

They put their money where their mouth is, and their RMA process is easy and fast. You'd really be crazy to buy from anyone else unless you replace your drives every year.

Even more impressive... (1, Funny)

ratnerstar (609443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457337)

Did you hear about Seagate's new Sarahcuda drive? Not only does it also have 1.5 terabytes of capacity, but it scrambles your data so as it make it completely incomprehensible. Plus you get a free one if you vote for John McCain

Re:Even more impressive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25457393)

is it loud, obnoxious and inflammatory?

Re:Even more impressive... (1)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457477)

Hey if it's as hot then sign me up!

Re:Even more impressive... (1)

Yewbert (708667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457927)

... I was waiting for that.

I hear, though, that even when it's filled to full 1.5TB capacity, it contains only 250GB of actual information, what with all the repeating itself and random $maverick insertions, you betcha.

Re:Even more impressive... (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458017)

Did you hear about Seagate's new Sarahcuda drive?

If you stand on top of it you can see Russia?

hmm (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457365)

I seem to recall someone saying many times over that this was not the first 1.5TB, but that it's claimed anyway (with more specifics, like "first consumer") etc.

Beyond that, insert 1.5TB ought to be good enough for anyone, and will it blend jokes here.

Don't always need fast write (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25457389)

Slower write speeds are fine for some projects. A 1.5 GB on which to keep all my FLAC files would be nice and slow write wouldn't deter me. I'm more concerned about heat and reliability.

True Terabyte? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25457413)

So this thing will have a true terabyte of 1024+ Gigs?

Re:True Tebibyte? (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457505)

You mean a Tebibyte, or 1024 Gibibytes?

Re:True Tebibyte? (0, Redundant)

Piranhaa (672441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457777)

Please don't say that word. It sounds like something my 3 month old niece says. Rather, call it Decimal/fake terabyte (found on hard drives) or just a (real) 'terabyte'. I think it's pathetic people have come up with some new (baby sounding) word because hard drive manufacturers are too f'ing arrogant to make 'true' sizes. In marketing 1TB/1000GB sounds a little bit better than 931GB..

Re:True Tebibyte? (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457981)

In what other field does "tera" mean anything other than 10^12?

How many Hertz in a Kilohertz as it relates to a computer? 1024? 1000?

Re:True Tebibyte? (2, Interesting)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458155)

And it also looks better to write "200GB" on a LTO-1 tape and then add the fine print on the other side of the box (assuming 2:1 compression).

Can anyone explain to me how this "tradition" (of writing double capacity) came to be?

Re:True Tebibyte? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25457791)

I can't tell, is that ebonics, or do you have a lisp?

Re:True Tebibyte? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25457873)

Why the switching base numbers on the product? 32MB of cache that sounds like it came from base2. Why not use 25MB or 50MB if your counting your total storage in base 10?

Re:True Terabyte? (1)

Warll (1211492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457641)

You mean will the stated 1.5TB magical become 1.5TiB just because that's how Windows calculates capacity?

Re:True Terabyte? (1)

hechacker1 (1358761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457821)

it's getting even worse by crossing the 1.0TB barrier. Not only are they using the base10 to 2 conversion to cheat you out of space, but they are advertising this drive as 1.5TB when it's actiually 1500TB. That's 36GB missing. Still though his drive was worth it for it's low GB per dollar ratio.

Re:True Terabyte? (1)

Warll (1211492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457959)

I take it by "1500TB" you mean 1500Tb? is that really what they do? Wouldn't the lose be much greater than 36GB?

Re:True Terabyte? (1)

hechacker1 (1358761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457999)

I meant 1500GB.

Issue a ticket... (0)

Besjon (781468) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457417)

Only 50% in 18mos? They is disrespectin' Moore's authoritay

Re:Issue a ticket... (2, Insightful)

Warll (1211492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457611)

When the first 1TB came out they were priced at around $400 if I remember right. This one is retailing for $200 or so. Thus its almost beating moore's law. Not that moore's law applied to hard-drives anyway.

I wonder . . . (2, Interesting)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457511)

. . . if lack of "real-world throughput" might have to do with other parts of the system which haven't yet caught up or been optimized for these huge new drives. E.g., OS, disk controller, etc. Just my .02.

But they didn't even do 1T right... (5, Interesting)

pseudorand (603231) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457541)

Has anyone else noticed that a large number of the Seagate 1T drives fail on you in 30 days. The same is true for samsung and WD. Even with the Hitachis I get 1/5 failed out of the box. I still buy all Hitachis though, because the ones that do work keep working. Why are we moving to 1.5T when the 1T are too buggy to be useful. (BTW, my epxerience is based on buying 100+ drives).

Re:But they didn't even do 1T right... (1)

iny0urbrain (965352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457685)

I bought 4 1TB Seagate drives within the past month, and one certainly has failed within the first two weeks... I've sent it back for replacement and already got a shipping confirmation. So hey, at least their returns system is running smoothly...

Re:But they didn't even do 1T right... (3, Interesting)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457889)

Check to see if it was from Thailand. Not that I have anything against the country (their food is delicious!) but the manufacturing plant there has been churning out sub-par drives in certain models. Check the newegg reviews on your specific drive.

As far as this drive though, I recently got this exact drive (the 1.5TB). The write and read speeds, though not documented, seem right on par with my other sata drives (one is 300GB Maxtor with 32MB cache, the other is 320GB Seagate with 16MB cache. Both SATA with the limiter jumper removed.) I only use the 1.5TB drive (actual space is about 1.35TB) for media storage, formatted in NTFS but used mainly in Ubuntu 8.04. It, however, was from Thailand so I'm a little worried. I keep all the stuff I've backed up on it on other drives and plan to until a few months have passed the trial. Ran seagate tools and the drive passed all tests.

Screw capacity, I want reliability (1, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457607)

I know I'm not the only person around who feels that Seagate's consumer-level drives have taken a turn for the worse in terms of QC, and their customer service is terrible at best. But it doesn't seem like the other manufacturers are doing a whole lot to try to take over the high-quality consumer-level niche.

Anyone have a recommendation for a drive manufacturer whose quality has improved over the years, and actually makes good consumer drives? I'm so disgusted with Seagate I'm even willing to consider Connor or Maxtor.

Re:Screw capacity, I want reliability (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457755)

I'm so disgusted with Seagate I'm even willing to consider ... Maxtor

No! Don't!

Unless you WANT to hit F4 to finish booting up your computer every time you turn it on.

Re:Screw capacity, I want reliability (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457869)

Unless you WANT to hit F4 to finish booting up your computer every time you turn it on.

Well, that depends. Will my system remain booted afterwards? Because the crappy seagate drive I bought was causing my system to crash when it was otherwise running. If the system is reliable enough to not need to be rebooted, I'll take a minor booting inconvenience for that.

Re:Screw capacity, I want reliability (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457845)

Err... Connor is long gone, dude. Been Seagate since 1996.

Customer Service and Cost (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457847)

When everyone are in a tight race to the bottom (of price bracket) it's hard to have extra money to pay for decent support staff. I've always anticipated that at some point this mad drive to lower cost will have to halt, as surely the cost of material has only been going UP over the years (petro that is the basis of nearly everything hasn't exactly went down over the past eight years despite of its recent (short-term) fall); it's logically absurd to expect price of tech products to continue falling.

Re:Screw capacity, I want reliability (1)

mc900ftjesus (671151) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457877)

Yeah, terrible customer support. I had to fill out this RMA form that took like 5 minutes, then I had to ship the old drive back, THEN I had to wait 1 whole week for a new drive to show up.

Man, that was hard.

Connor has been gone for years and Maxtor is the worst manufacturer of them all, where the hell did you come from?

Re:Screw capacity, I want reliability (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457921)

That's the nature of dirt cheap hardware. It happens in every industry. I remember a rant by the owner of an aftermarket parts store for Subarus where he complained about all of the 17 year old kids running drop ship operations from their parents basements selling $800 exhausts for $5 over cost. They make a marginal amount money, but not enough to continue to do business on, they are soon replaced by another kid, and the established, brick and mortar stores with good service can't compete.

That's also (part of) my theory on gas prices. Remember $1 gas 8 years ago? I said back then that it was getting so cheap that it wasn't going to even be worth selling and would cause a collapse in the economy.

Re:Screw capacity, I want reliability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25458237)

You may want to try getting hard drive cooling bays, current hard drives get very hot while running and your case cooling may not be enough to keep your drives from being damaged.

More like.. (2, Funny)

m651612763 (1390759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457615)

More like a milestone-and-a-half.

wtf? (1, Redundant)

bigdaddyhame (623739) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457625)

LaCie's had 2TB models out for a while now. Why is 1.5TB important? http://www.lacie.com/ca/products/product.htm?pid=11111 [lacie.com]

Re:wtf? (1)

GenP (686381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457715)

I'm pretty sure that just has two 1TB drives striped together rather than one large 2TB drive.

Re:wtf? (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457747)

Um... Because the LaCie model uses two 1TB hard drives to store externally.

The big news is the single-drive capacity reached 1.5TB meaning that external multi-drive enclosure could now reach 3TB.

Re:wtf? (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457765)

LaCie's had 2TB models out for a while now. Why is 1.5TB important?

...because the LaCie is just two 1TB drives in RAID 0?

Re:wtf? (1)

DarthJohn (1160097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457819)

LaCie's had 2TB models out for a while now. Why is 1.5TB important?

http://www.lacie.com/ca/products/product.htm?pid=11111 [lacie.com]

That is not a single 2TB drive. It's two 1TB drives in one enclosure.

With that enclosure, and two of these drives in it, you would have 3TB.

Capacity is everything! (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25457773)

Yowza! Bring it on! That 15-disk array just got much larger. Roughly, at the rate of growth of data at my company, we wouldn't run out of space for nearly 10 years. I think I can handle that.

storage capacity boggles the mind (4, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458069)

Wow. My first hard drive was 20mb. I bought a keychain flash drive the other day with 16gb of storage. I can go on youtube and watch playthrough recordings of games that had me going ZOMGWTF!!! 15 years before that phrase was even coined. I remember being blown away by how incredibly awesome the newer Sierra adventure games were once they supported VGA graphics.

I remember how cool I thought it was when I could dub my dad's old sabbath records off onto a tape and bring my tunes with me on the go. It boggles the mind that I can fit dozens of albums on a single mp3 player. The Internet makes Asimov's concept of the Encyclopedia Galactica appear small and pathetic, we're seeing more and more scifi computer technology made real each and every day. Snow Crash, anyone? With how the economy's tanking, I expect burbclaves are just a few years off.

Makes me wonder what I'll be thinking given another ten years of progress, what will be boggling my mind then?

Who cares about speed? (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458133)

Who cares about speed on a storage device? Show me some reliability data instead. Nobody that I know bases their purchasing decisions on speed. It's always relibability or cost/gigabyte or both.

Linux will freeze with these 1.5TB drives (5, Informative)

tivojafa (564606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25458241)

I have a few of these drives... they are very fast for sequential read (>120MB/s sustained)

However, if write-cache is enabled (default) Linux will freeze intermittently reporting a SATA timeout executing a cache-flush command.
Tested with the 2.6.24 and 2.6.26 kernels. Other people have reported the same problem with the 2.6.27 kernel.
Tested with multiple drives and multiple SATA controllers (different chipsets). No SMART errors logged.

Thread on the Seagate support forum: http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&thread.id=2390 [seagate.com]

The workaround is to disable write-cache on the drive.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>