Slashdot Mirror


Seagate Releases 3TB External Drive for $250

A few anonymous readers noted that Seagate has released a 3TB external drive. This makes it the largest 3.5-inch in its class, and it is available with USB 2, 3, or FireWire. That's more capacity than my entire four-drive RAID for just $250.

47 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Ugh. Seriously? by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it external? Does anyone know if this thing uses a standard 3.5" hard drive (i.e. is it just an enclosure stuffed with a 3.5" drive), or is it a "proprietary" external?

  2. One drive are two? by Snowhare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    External RAID arrays have been around for a while. Is this just a conventional RAID0 or really a 3 TB single drive?

    1. Re:One drive are two? by sarkeizen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh someone at engadget said so...well that can't be in error... Anyway unless they opened it up or Seagate states somewhere on their web page that it is a single drive. It seems reasonable to remain skeptical. It seems weird that Seagate would release an external drive without trying to capitalize on the drive inside...I would figure the market for internal 3TB drives is bigger than external ones.

    2. Re:One drive are two? by ruiner13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If only there were something linked to this slashvertisement that could provide your answer....

      Hmmm.... or even the summary, which implies it is a single drive.

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    3. Re:One drive are two? by sarkeizen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll comment on my own comment...one thing that is interesting is the physical dimensions of the box:

      6 x 5 x 2

      considering that seagates 3.5" drives are approximately:

      1 x 4 x 6

      Which seems to eliminate the possibility that this is two 3.5 drives. It could still be multiple 2.5" drives but without looking at pricing I'm not sure how feasible that is (and I don't think Seagate is shipping 1TB 2.5's yet)

    4. Re:One drive are two? by Dancindan84 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The picture is a Seagate Goflex (and Seagate's website is now listing 3GB desktop GoFlex drives), which as far as I can find are just standard SATA drives in an enclosure that use Seagate's GoFlex interface for their connection. Relevant Link

      So if people are just interested in the drive they can crack the case and get it. Also, according to the above link the GoFlex connection thingy will work for any SATA drive, so you can use it like a HDD hot swap docking station of sorts.

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:One drive are two? by Snowhare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dammit. I had a nicely linked response all written. And then I clicked on one of my own links in the preview. Sigh.

      Ok. I actually did read TFA before I posted (having long since learned not to trust Slashdot headlines ;) ).

      I have now visited Seagate's own tech pageon the drives. They do not clearly state anywhere that it is a single drive inside the case. But you can infer that from the external case dimensions of 6.22 in x 4.88 in x 1.73 in that there isn't enough room for two 3.5" drives.

      Having been in this business for a long time I have learned that if you don't ask the right questions computer manufacturers will happily sell you a 'pig in a poke'.

    6. Re:One drive are two? by Snowhare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Someone else suggested that they may be using the lower expectations of the external USB hard drive market (slower drives) to launch a drive that isn't 'up to snuff' performance wise for traditional internal drive use. Nowhere on their web pages for the drive do they give any performance numbers.

      That may be the 'pig in a poke' aspect here. It may be a really big, but really slow drive.

    7. Re:One drive are two? by sarkeizen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps so but the dichotomy of fast/slow drives has existed on the bare drive market for a while. I'm not discounting it being a 3TB drive and as seagate said in the other article they are planning on shipping the 3TB drives this year.

      One thing it could be doing isn't utilizing "lower expectation" but rather "lower demand". If the USB market is, as I suspect significantly smaller than the bare drive market then it might be a good place to start shipping in order to ramp up production or even work out some bugs. To avoid the problems they had with their other groundbreaking drive the 1.5TB!

    8. Re:One drive are two? by Dancindan84 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry, I was daydreaming about 1996... >.>

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
  3. That's a Whole lot by Theoboley · · Score: 2, Funny

    a whole lot of Pr0n

    --
    Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    1. Re:That's a Whole lot by Theoboley · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'd need a Beowulf cluster of these to contain it all.

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
  4. A lot of eggs in one basket... by Andrewkov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's more capacity than my entire four-drive RAID for just $250.

    Yeah, but which would you trust more with your data.

    1. Re:A lot of eggs in one basket... by hibiki_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      RAID is not a very good failover system. It never was, and it never will. Disks on raid often have extremely similar use patterns, leading to very similar drive life. When one drive in a RAID dies, it's not uncommon to see one or two more die at nearly the same time.

      Real failover comes from offline backups. RAID wins at providing improved IO with little setup cost: You'll be hard pressed to find a modern DB server under a significant read and write load that isn't using RAID 10 either directly or on a SAN to improve its IO throughput.

    2. Re:A lot of eggs in one basket... by sunspot42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you're going to do it, at least go software RAID so that you don't have to worry about having a back up controller and worrying if that works.

      Uh, bad idea. If your array is corrupted and you can't boot into the OS, your software RAID array could become totally inaccessible. I had this happen on an XP box with one of Intel's crappy hardware/software RAID arrays. Box couldn't boot, array was corrupted, and my slipstreamed XP disc didn't have the drivers required to run on my SATA DVD drive. Whoops!

      Instead of buying an EIDE DVD drive, which would have worked with my XP disc, I ended up just upgrading to Win 7, which did work with the SATA DVD drive and which recognized and rebuilt the array. Still, it was a huge hassle and about a $100 expense.

      Never again. If I ever bother with RAID in the future, it'll be with a (popular) hardware RAID controller. No more Winmodem-esque RAID solutions for me, thank you. But I honestly think RAID is a waste of time for home machines. You'd be better off spending that money on offsite backup solutions like CrashPlan.

    3. Re:A lot of eggs in one basket... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      RAID is not a very good failover system. It never was, and it never will. Disks on raid often have extremely similar use patterns, leading to very similar drive life. When one drive in a RAID dies, it's not uncommon to see one or two more die at nearly the same time.

      Real failover comes from offline backups.

      While true, you have to look at it from a practical standpoint. I admin several database servers at work, and they get full offline (and off-site) backups of their data via LTO3 tapes. At home though, the investment in tape drives and and media is simply cost prohibitive. A decent RAID5 array using FreeNAS (or even one of the ready-built D-Link NAS units, which I have owned as well) is relatively inexpensive overall.

      With a decent RAID array I can have several terabytes of storage (my current largest array in a RAID5 config allows me nearly 3TB). Now, since tape drives are out, the only sane offline backup option I have is DVD's. Dual layer discs are simply too expensive to use (and I've not had great luck with their reliability), so I'm limited to backing up my data 4.7GB at a time. To backup that entire array ONCE, assuming never changing data, is going to take ~600 DVD's. If you assume 5 minutes spent per disc burning them then we're talking 50 straight hours of disc burning to get a full backup, and THEN having to keep on doing this as data changes.

      For a home user with a lot of data, this just isn't feasible. Instead, I have to prioritize my data. EVERYTHING I want to keep, but realistically I don't NEED to keep it all. So, I have 1 or 2 directories that I keep important stuff in. Tax returns, pictures of family that are irreplaceable, invoices/receipts from big purchases, etc. Those do get backed up to DVD every now and then. They also more importantly get synced to my Dropbox account so that I have them off-site.

      For the vast majority of it though, it's simply to big to make regular offline backups. For that, a RAID array is most certainly better than keeping it all on single drives with NO failover whatsoever. I can live with the possibility that I MIGHT lose that data, but the risks are still greatly reduced.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:A lot of eggs in one basket... by XanC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was exactly his point. Your RAID required a particular piece of hardware. He suggested software RAID. Yours was some kind of awful hybrid. If you'd been using a real OS and real software RAID, you'd have had no problem.

    5. Re:A lot of eggs in one basket... by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Informative

      RAID is not a very good failover system. It never was, and it never will. Disks on raid often have extremely similar use patterns, leading to very similar drive life. When one drive in a RAID dies, it's not uncommon to see one or two more die at nearly the same time.

      We have enough disks to lose one or two a month in our systems, and I'd have to say that a dual-disk failure in the same system is pretty uncommon.

      Real failover comes from offline backups.

      That's called disaster recovery, not "failover".

      RAID is a reliability solution first, performance solution second (albeit a close second). It does an excellent job at that, unless you Do It Wrong (RAID5s with double-digit spindle counts and/or no hotspares, using RAID 0+1 instead of 1+0, running for extended periods of time with a degraded array, etc).

    6. Re:A lot of eggs in one basket... by spire3661 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RAID is not peace of mind. Regular scheduled backups, with offsite storage, and tested recovery procedures is peace of mind. Its not considered backed up until your data been successfully restored from a backup.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:A lot of eggs in one basket... by dch24 · · Score: 2

      Pulling the disk

      Uh, let me just say that one more time... pulling the disk

      Ok? It's not that he decided in a fit of insanity to yank out his existing machine, but move all the drives to a new controller. Yeah, the GGGP talked about replacing the controller.

      But the GP was saying: if you haven't labelled the disk, you'll pull the wrong one while trying to hunt down the failed one.

      At which point all kinds of bad happen.

  5. Re:Ugh. Seriously? by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Same thing I immediately thought. 3GB by itself is simply not interesting. What I'd be much MORE interested in is taking 4 of these things and putting them into my FreeNAS RAID setup (which is currently running 1GB drives).

    I've had too many drive failures over the years to trust anything too valuable to a single drive.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  6. Meh by jridley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Call me when price is comparable per GB to 1.5T drives. They're about $90, so when the 3T is $180, it starts to become interesting. I'd have to go to RAID 6 to fold 3Ts into my array of 1.5Ts though.

    1. Re:Meh by dch24 · · Score: 2

      Extra bonus points for linking through the Coral CDN (nyud.net). +1

  7. Buy two by Nichotin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I figured with these huge capacity drives, is that it takes so long to fill them that if they crash, it is a real nuisance almost no matter what is on them. Let's say you fill them with movies you downloaded from bittorrent. If you don't have a decent connection it can take months to download the same movies. And even if you can do a steady 5MB/s, you still have to account for all the time it takes to find back whatever you had previously from public or private trackers.

    All I am saying, is that because of these huge capacity drives, I tend to go for at least raid 1. The time spent working to earn enough to purchase an extra drive (or two+ for raid 5), pretty much makes up for the time to acquire the same material if I only had one drive and it failed.

    1. Re:Buy two by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am still working on filling up my 1TB disk. I have a second one, and I rsync the first one to it periodically for the very same reason.

      On the other hand, a 3TB disk would be a nice backup solution for a 4x750GB RAID0. And indeed, my plan for the next time I feel like spending money on my PC is to put a four-disk RAID in it, and to buy an external disk to which it can be backed up. Copy the array, edit the menu.lst, and grub-install, and you've got a bootable backup. Neat and sweet.

      Finally, people doing video editing could definitely use a stripe of these disks as a working volume, using 1394 or USB3. (USB2 has too much processor overhead.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Buy two by 1s44c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, a 3TB disk would be a nice backup solution for a 4x750GB RAID0.

      You are nuts. The unreliability of 750GB drives and the very long backup time would make your setup an exercise in pain.

  8. Re:Ugh. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Same thing I immediately thought. 3GB by itself is simply not interesting. What I'd be much MORE interested in is taking 4 of these things and putting them into my FreeNAS RAID setup (which is currently running 1GB drives).

    I've had too many drive failures over the years to trust anything too valuable to a single drive.

    Time for an upgrade, son. Time for an upgrade.

  9. Re:Ugh. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Seagate already announced their drives would hit some limitations of the LBA standard, so -if I'm correct- their drives would only run on 64-bit windows systems using modified controllers. The enclosure probably avoids these problems.

  10. I think I know why it's external. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because of two reasons:

    1st) It's too damn slow to run an operating system from it, so they force you to use it as a second disk, through a slow interface like USB, so you won't notice.
    2nd) It doesn't work in 99% of all bioses, and it probably requires a special driver to work through USB (at least on winslow systems).

    They are masquerading the issues behind USB.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:I think I know why it's external. by evilviper · · Score: 2, Informative

      My understanding is that no backwards compatible BIOS design would recognize disks above 2 TB in size. If you don't use the MBR disk format, you can exceed 2 TB, but MBR is the only format a BIOS can recognize and work with.

      The BIOS doesn't need to "work with" a hard drive, unless you're running a legacy OS (DOS, Windows 95, etc) on it. Any GPT-enabled version of GRUB / LILO / etc. will allow a BIOS-based system to boot-up a Linux (or FreeBSD, or ...) kernel on drives of any size. The BIOS only needs to recognize the first few sectors, so it can read the instructions on the header of the disk.

      Windows, OTOH, will not work, as Microsoft refuses to handle the boot-strapping process without firmware support, and so demands the use EFI for GPT partitions.

      It won't work as a boot disk with *any* BIOS.

      This is just pedantry. It's perfectly understandable people will call EFI their "BIOS", even though it is technically a different type of firmware.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  11. Bigger isn't better. by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At this point we need faster more secure storage, not bigger. A solid state drive with optional encryption would be far more impressive than a 3 TB drive. What are we supposed to use a 3TB drive for? The internet isn't fast enough for most of us to fill it up. When we all have FIOS it might be a different story. And even then it will be too slow.

    1. Re:Bigger isn't better. by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I think we need *both* bigger AND faster, more secure storage. This only addresses one of the issues, mind you - but it has some definite uses.

      Off-hand, I wouldn't mind owning one of these as a "Time Machine" backup drive for my Mac Pro tower, for example. When I start working with video editing and try to keep around a library of clips I might want to re-use, plus having my entire iTunes music library and photo collection stored on it, I reach a point where a 3TB external backup drive would be nice. Not saying I'd have 3TB of data to back up ... but it allows keeping enough changed data over time so you can go back further in the past to retrieve older (now deleted) files you realize you want back.

    2. Re:Bigger isn't better. by Maltheus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For you maybe. For me, disk space is and has always been the one thing that can't keep up. I don't ever need to max my ram, cpu, or gpu. But until they make a quantum leap in disk capacity (like 100 TB), I'll always been on the verge of being overwhelmed by data accumulation (mostly video).

    3. Re:Bigger isn't better. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DVCPRO HD is 40 to 100Mbit/s.

      A 2 hour movie would be up to ~90GB. Say you shoot video for a living, you could easily take 10 hours of video a week.

      So you're up to ~1TB for a week of video. Plus scratch disk, plus some extra clips. 3TB starts to get filled very quickly.

  12. NTFS? by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Each drive includes an NTFS driver for Mac.

    We use HFS Plus, you insensitive clods!

  13. Re:Still not very useful. by vegiVamp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except for, you know, raw capacity. Oh, and price.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  14. Re:Ugh. Seriously? by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't get it. Why are the standards for hard drives always way too late to appear? I can't count the number of times over the years when new hard drives would come out and even relatively new machines needed hacks to work with the full capacity. It seems like every time they extend a standard they only plan a few years out and we've got to go through this process over and over again.

  15. Look at the price. by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://www.everythingusb.com/seagate-freeagent-xtreme-1.5tb-external-hard-drive-15790.html

    This product seems to be "better" but it's also over $500. Thats certainly out of my price range and probably out of the price range for the majority. On the other hand it supports 128bit AES encryption. It supports HARDWARE encryption and you don't have to write down any passwords. I'd say it's a great external drive but once again $500+ for a 1.5TB drive?

    Bigger drives have their purposes but overtime the bigger the drive the harder it is to organize all the data. If you know how to use regular expressions and desktop search you can solve the organization problem but then you end up with the problem of how to secure the data. You can encrypt the data with a password but to be secure it probably has to be written down which defeats the purpose. And none of these drives seem to be solid state drives. This means backing up files is usually slow as hell.

    It's very useful to have 3TB backup. I'd say any serious user would need something like this, but it's better to go with speed and security for the price if you have to make a choice.

    1. Re:Look at the price. by Wovel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As the person you responded to already mentioned, it would be good for time machine backups. With time machine backups:

      1. Organization is not an issue
      2. Speed is a very, very, very negligible issue
      3. Any data needing encryption should be encrypted at the source, again not an issue
      4. Larger capacity means increased granularity and the ability to backup more machines
      5. Why would I spend twice as much money for half the capacity and encryption I don't need?

      The same could be said for any windows (or any other) backup solution. There are countless situations where speed and security are less important than Raw capacity. I have more than 2 terabytes of movies, tv shows and music on disk. (4x1 TB Raid 5). I would certainly consider 3TB drives (if they actually exist) in the future long before SSD, or a smaller, more expensive drive with encryption..

  16. Bigger Drives by helix2301 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is really cool. This will be great for backup solutions. Since this is USB 2.0/3 this will be really fast. I can't wait to test one of these out.

  17. Re:Too noisy and too much heat waste by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unless they are SATA drives. Only the ATA drives worked that way. The 2.5 inch SATA drives still require the power connection to function. Since all of these newer drives are SATA (II or III) you will still need the power connection. I have tried and the 2.5 inch drives did not spin up until I plugged in the power connection. The data connection on a SATA drive does not give power.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:Seagate ? No, Thanks ! by Maltheus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, I had some Seagate drives with a firmware problem and they wouldn't make the patched firmware available to the general public. You had to request it. Well I requested it and they never even responded. I used to be a Seagate-only kind of guy, but that debacle turned me away from the company forever and I buy at least 4-6 high capacity drives a year. I'll wait for one of the other companies to put these out.

  20. Quick chat with Seagate Tech Support: by DWMorse · · Score: 4, Informative

    I chatted with Bryan W. with Seagate Support this morning.

    My first thought was, hmm, did they do this sly and slip two 1.5TB drives in as raid 0? But, no, they didn't. It IS actually just one 3.5" 3TB SATA drive.

    The distributed technical support documentation didn't have the cache or RPM, but the representative was leaning towards the RPM being 7200.

    I even went so far as to ask about it working if removed from the enclosure. Since it meets SATA standards, he believed it would work without hindrance. The wording was "it's an internal drive in an enclosure."

    So, very hopeful. My guess is we're seeing the External solution released first, and in the next coming weeks we'll see the internal version with more specs up here soon.

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
  21. Re:Ugh. Seriously? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had a dual P3, which was not too expensive. Before that, I turned down a dual 200MHz PPro for free. The BP6 (which took two Celerons) made dual-CPU cheap, although it was still quite cool.

    Hard drives have been 'multicore' for a while now. A typical drive incorporates multiple platters. The problem is that a failure in one typically results in all of them dying. There are roughly three things that can go wrong with a drive:

    • The controller dies (affects everything it is controlling).
    • The drive motor dies (prevents the heads moving)
    • Some grit gets under the head and damages the platter (as the grit moves around, can damage all platters).

    It might be interesting if they could build thinner drives, where you had only a single platter but everything else (controller, motors, and so on) replicated so that you could have RAID 1 / 5 / Z in a smaller physical form factor.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  22. Re:Seagate ? No, Thanks ! by FromageTheDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Same here. Two of the 7200.11 drives (with updated firmware) died on me in the last year, and one of the RMA replacements also died soon after deployment (I know, I know, never use refurbs in a NAS; I learnt my lesson the hard way). So that's three for me too. I'd love to say "screw Seagate! Never again!" except that I'm hard pressed to find any manufacturer with a known "good" model -- they all seem to have issues. Don't even get me started on WDC. Seagate was the one go-to brand, and at this point I really don't trust them anymore. I guess it's time to stop cheaping out and getting enterprise class drives for NAS use...

  23. His signature by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 3, Funny

    So you fixed that for him!

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu