Slashdot Mirror
Seagate To Stop Making 7200rpm Laptop HDDs
jones_supa writes "'We are going stop building our notebook 7200rpm hard disk drives at the end of 2013,' said David Burks, director of marketing and product management at Seagate Technology, during a conversation with X-bit labs. The mainstream market demand is expected shift to different products, such as hybrid drives. Users who need maximum performance and care about battery life have been choosing notebooks with SSDs for years now, whereas those who required capacity and moderate price do not really care about actual performance. With the introduction of third-generation solid-state hybrid drives later this year, Seagate will position them for performance- and capacity-demanding end-users. The company will also continue to offer 5400rpm HDDs for value notebooks."
They're not just for notebooks. Quiet and small form factor conventional drives have a place in things like Tivos and personal recording devices for TV, etc. If all the manufacturers bail out, we'll have to build larger devices like this to fill that niche. Unless, of course, SSDs suddenly drop in price... which they should have done by now, but hey... p-p-profit!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Unless you buy a small one. The 750GB 7200 RPM hard drive in my laptop cost a little over $100, while an SSD of only 512GB is around $350. Close to $1000 for higher capacities.
When shopping for a hard drive I've found that you really have to look closely at the specs. If you can find them. Even for desktop hard drives, there are still a lot of 5400 and 5900 rpm drives out there.
And a swindle. Catastrophic failure lurks around the corner for all SSD users. Serious compotore users do not sore mission critical datas on SSDs. Period. Take the kazoo out of your mouth, Slashdort!
You misspelled Commodore.
I predict there's going to be a few pissed manufacturers of 2.5-inch RAID enclosures.
"We can't gouge the customer enough if we give them 3 options.
At the moment, there is cheap and low performance, not cheap and good performance and finally hugely overpriced and theoretically even better performance with an added cool factor.
Yes, SSDs are faster but there are other bottlenecks in the system so the difference is not always apparent to users.
The theory is that if they take away the middle option, people will choose the option with higher margins. Hopefully, the practice will be that they get their 7200 drives from a different manufacturer.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
so are 7200 RPM drives. i remember when they came out in the 1990's and all the benchmarks said they weren't much faster than 5400 in real speed
NCQ made the biggest difference. along with where the data was stored on the platter.
if you ever had an under 3.5lbs laptop with a 72K rpm hd you know what I'm talking about. And if you ever called up the laptop company and complained about it, then you really know what I'm talking about, especially after paying a kideny to have a "performance" hd, and an ultra-light laptop. The other kidney would have been for a 32g ssd.
I use laptop SATA 7200RPM drives in my home servers all the time. They're small, efficient, cheap and fast.
I'd use SAS if I could easily add SAS to a home server for less than THOUSANDS of dollars.
If Seagate won't make the product, WD will. They'll get my business. I vote with my dollars.
I'm glad I sold my STX stock. This is a bad business decision.
To all the whiny complainers above: they're free to decide what they want to sell or not. As a customer, you can always choose to buy somewhere else if unhappy.
5200rpm laptop hard drives are dog slow. SSD drives may be fast but are unreliable if you give them load. 7200rpm drives are the sane choice for a heavily used laptop.
SSD's are definitely the way to go for 99% of laptop users (unless you need more than say half a terabyte of space), SSD == lower power, no vibration/shock issues, and waaaay lower latency. I've been replacing all the drives in my laptops with SSDs for a few years now, I can't imagine going back to spinning rust. As for large file storage in laptops I bet a lot of users can get away with USB sticks now rather than HDs anyways. About the only place for spinning rust now is as a tape like storage medium where latency isn't an issue.
However, 7200 rpm is just not much faster than 5400 rpm. It can be slower in practice when the lower rpm allows higher data-densities and seek is not dominant. Also, 7200 rpm consumes more power.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
they weren't much faster than 5400 in real speed
I think that was more to do with the I/O card and threading than the actual drive. (Look to the right in the gray/brown box - Google books won't let me cut and paste)
And a swindle. Catastrophic failure lurks around the corner for all SSD users. Serious compotore users do not sore mission critical datas on SSDs. Period. Take the kazoo out of your mouth, Slashdort!
I agree! And the same is true for computers in general. I mean, even the Mars rover had a computer failure. And HDDs can also fail catastrophically. Who would ever use such an unreliable technologies for anything? Paper is the way to go!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
IBM no longer makes hard-drives.
Maxtor no longer makes hard-drives.
Hitachi no longer makes hard-drives.
Samsung no longer makes hard-drives.
Quantum no longer makes hard-drives.
etc. no longer makes hard-drives.
Seagate and Western-Digital are your only choices, and collusion would be the correct term to use.
This is true of any storage medium. Also what happens if you laptop gets lost or stolen? Catastrophic loss of data is always just around the corner, as such you need to be making backups, ideally off site in case your home/office/data center/whatever burns down/gets flooded/clobbered by a tornado/hurricane/whatever. Bad things happen to good data, so make copies!
Just don't use Evernote to do your backups
5400s are 90s technology. Sad that better than a dozen years later they are going to be the only option other than SSDs. Some benchmarks haven't been increasing that much since the late 90s.
Ubuntu 12.10 still does not support intel smart response technolgy. Added to that UEFI still has a few issues with Linux unless you are comfort with figuring it out yourself and don't even get me started about nvidia optimus. Google bumblebee. I want to keep around 7200rpm drives just for their simplicity.
Implying spinning rust platters are reliable
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
And a swindle. Catastrophic failure lurks around the corner for all SSD users. Serious compotore users do not sore mission critical datas on SSDs. Period. Take the kazoo out of your mouth, Slashdort!
A global user base and a few million MTBF hours makes you wrong.
The fact that you think only SSDs suffer from critical failures makes you an idiot.
Any knowledgeable computer user doesn't store "mission critical" data on a single drive, or even in a single location. Idiots do. Running a different type of hard drive isn't going to change that. Murphy will still win.
Of the many laptop hard disks I have personally owned (Western Digital, Seagate, Hitachi and Toshiba) have all failed/are showing pre-fail signs over SMART apart from two. Those two are a 7200rpm 500GB WD Black which is a 2nd disk in my main laptop, and an ancient Hitachi IDE drive in a old laptop I no longer use. I have disassembled a dozen laptop disk drives of mine over the years to destroy the platters. I have 3 sat next to me in an anti-static bubblebag with a few bad sectors each for scratch/temporary use.
Of the SSDs I have personally owned (Kingston, Corsair, Intel, Samsung and OCZ), not one has failed or is showing problems over SMART. The only issue I have ever had was a compatibility issue between an Intel SSD 330 and the Intel SATA AHCI controller on my main laptop, where the drive would stop responding to the computer (it didn't do it on other SATA controllers).
True, it is just anecdotal evidence, but I have yet see to see a failed SSD in person.
and didn't need a "director of marketing and product management" tool to justify their decisions. 15 years ago I had a bunch of seagates installed on my servers running 24x7 that lasted at least 10-12 years. In the last 5 years I had 3 seagates on a desktop bite the dust.
But paper is highly flammable and prone to decomposition. Baked clay (or stone, if you can afford it) tablets are the way to go!
Clay? Stone? Epic fail! It breaks if you drop it! Just like a HDD! We have to carve everything into silicone foam-rubber!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
PS: I am also a total moron
So much for "innovation", right? And in the 90's (and I'm gonna borrow about 2 years from the next decade) we saw the ferocious increase in computer technology ranging from Mac OS System 7 and the invention of Linux and then Windows 3.11 at the beginning, to the first iteration of Mac OS X, solid contributions to Linux, and Win XP. Hardware went from a midline 40mhz with the 486 chip just getting going, to say 3.5 ghz near the end of the Pentium 4 run. Similar increases in hard drives and graphics/sound and other things. I among others was eagerly awaiting each new improvement.
Now it's 2013, "after even the Mayan apocalypse so to speak, ", and all I got is this "we're going back to 5400 drives" tshirt from Seagate. This is Moore's Law creaking at the seams because the next killer jump in tech to be "disruptive" as the biz types like to call it, is risky as get-out, and no one's taking the chance on it yet.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
1 TB Flash drives for storage?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57562725-93/kingston-behold-the-1-terabyte-flash-drive/#!
I've been predicting the 2.5" form factor being a dead end for a couple years now.
The reasons are simple. The places where a 2.5" form factor excel are the markets that the SSDs are going to take over. For laptops, the power, physical size and physical ruggedness constraints are strongly in SSD's favor. Especially given the capacity constraints already in place for 2.5" hard drives.
For enterprise use, the need for IOPS was the driving factor in packing more hard drives into smaller packages. Enterprise users were often strongly in favor of loosing capacity and paying significantly more for small increase in IOP performance. In comes SSD's which are stunning IOP devices. I've seen cases where a single desktop SSD can outrun a hundred thousand dollars of enterprise disk. At those kinds of performance deltas enterprise SSD's are dirt cheap.
In the end, its simple, you need price sensitive capacity you pick 3.5" hard drives, otherwise you pick SSDs. The additional price/GB increase for 2.5" storage puts it to close to ignore the advantages of SSD. Frankly, just for windows desktop usage replacing a harddrive with an SSD is such a huge advantage its amazing anyone sells laptops with hard drives anymore.
Seagate's QC has gone down the toilet in recent years anyways. Even worse, it is following their customer support down the drain. They should stop making the 7200rpm drives, then the 5400s, then the SSDs, then everything else and just go away.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
My laptop hard drives average 1.5 years between failure. If an SSD drive dies in 5, that's a huge improvement.
The ______ Agenda
7200rpm nearline-SAS drives are not going anywhere, and they are exactly these SATA devices, but with a SAS PHY and firmware, and better sourcing for the electronics (so, less crappy capacitors, and the controller board is not missing half the for-redundancy components that stabilize the circuit over its lifetime and during thermal stress).
I really wish we had SAS ports instead of SATA in the notebooks. You could still use SATA devices, or you could use properly built spinning rust that work for 3+ years.
Besides, SAS drives are usually 10k or 15k RPM, and you get nearline if you need 7k2 (higher density, very good electronics, a bit slower)...
The word SSD and reliable don't seem to mix in the real world. This may be due largely to the super capacitor issue and companies cutting corners (not using them)... but... it would seem to me there should still be a demand for traditional 7200 RPM 2.5” hard drives.
My laptop hard drives average 1.5 years between failure. If an SSD drive dies in 5, that's a huge improvement.
And if you stop buying Seagate drives you'll see an even bigger improvement. I buy from the other large HD manufacturer and I average at least 3-4 years on my laptop drives with my laptops running on average at least 12-16 hours per day, year round. Generally I end up replacing them due to need for more storage space before I replace them due to failure; I still have a 30gb laptop PATA drive that works fine from 2004.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I stopped buying from WD because:
1. Advanced format -- who wants to deal with a drive that lies about its layout?
2. I bought a 1TB drive that the S.M.A.R.T. data shows is perfect, yet would always give I/O errors after I had written 900GB of data (and no, it wasn't my misunderstanding of disk space measurements).
I was having good luck with Samsung and HGST, but now we really only have 2 manufacturers, who are (I believe) intent on gouging their customers after the tsunami and until they go out of business because SSDs have made them obsolete.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Well, 72000 rpms is blindingly fast and you have to expect vibrations with that kind of speed, not to mention the heat.
Not really. We saw Pentiums hit 3.8Ghz, then Intel went a different direction with the Core and Core2 lineup. We saw that it was possible to get more performance with less power using multiple cores, different execution strategies, larger cache, etc.
Platter density has done a lot to bring 5400RPM drives to yesterday's 7200RPM performance levels. Add in extra cache, NCQ, etc. and we have the Pentium/Core thing all over again.
That is, unless you think that platter rotational speed should have just continued increasing the way processor speed did between 1995 and 2005. I'm not sure how useful a laptop would be with 10 or 15K RPM drives, nor do I want to deal with a SAN or Server that has 60K-80K RPM drives in it.
Having gone from a 7200 rpm drive to a hybrid, the difference is night and day. Yes SSD is faster (i have one in another machine but the difference between plain 7200 and 5400 is nothing like the jump to hybrid. Hybrid is not much more than a regular drive.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
if SSDs were made up of several smaller swappable/replaceable SSD chunks in a Raid 5 or 6 setup then that would basically put a stop to unreliable SSDs by giving a recoverable failure mode. It might also make it more practical to use denser and cheaper but shorter life flash memory in the SSDs.
Nope that stuff decays too.
Make everything from diamond.
Recent linux kernels support cache devices. Cache can be a compressed ram device (UPS or a bit of crazy required), or a faster drive like an SSD. It is a generic solution, and works for most filesystems supported by Linux. If you have an SSD and a spinning disk, you can cache that spinning disk (by default, the cache is optimized for reads since lots of writes to an ssd will kill it).
ZFS does one better, and separates out the read and write caches, so read can go on MLC and write can go to SLC. ZFS is more stable on Linux that BTRFS now, but you will need to run OOT patches. Might be better off running Debian kfreebsd, or just moving to real Freebsd, if you want to go the ZFS route, though.
don't pick on him just because you can't spell commodore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trementina_Base
You're all wrong,There is is only one way to preserve his word from destruction by psychiatrists or evil Xenu.
According to the CST, an entity formed to manage the Church of Scientology's copyright affairs, the purpose of the base is to provide storage space for an archiving project to preserve Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's writings, films and recordings for future generations. Hubbard's texts have been engraved on stainless steel tablets and encased in titanium capsules underground. The project began in the late 1980s.
Any rich computer user doesn't store "mission critical" data on a single drive, or even in a single location. Poor people do.
FTFY
Why not? Distributed backups are the future!
Fuck, can we get a "-1, instructs reader to Google something" mod?
Dropping hard drives? COOL! That meenz they'll finally be comin' out with a 4T SSD! I can't wait! And they'll prolly be really cheep! Like maybe only $35,000 or so! YAY!
Somebody shoot me.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Is Seagate doesn't offer any consumer SSDs. Go to your favourite retailer and look for SSDs. You'll see Intel, Samsung, Crucial, OCZ, Corsair, and so on including a bunch of brands you've probably never heard of. What you won't see is Seagate. They do make SSDs, but only enterprise level drives, the kind of stuff that someone like Dell buys and rebrands to sell to you for servers.
So what the fuck do they think they are going to do here? If they keep on the current track, they are in for a major shrink in business. There is a growing market for SSDs in the consumer arena, but they are not going to buy high priced SAS SSDs designed for heavy write loads.
It really surprised me how completely HDD manufacturers seem to have missed the boat on SSDs. They'd be natural companies for people to buy from, already known names in storage, but they've been really pokey. Seagate only does enterprise stuff, WD tried a consumer drive for a bit but it was over priced and underperforming and they've cut it.
They have a limited time to sort this shit out and get a good lineup of consumer and enterprise SSDs, or they'll find themselves being squeezed out of the market by all the new players.
I'll bet you think saying "spinning rust" makes you ever so bleeding edge and hip, but really it makes you sound like a douche bag.
I stopped buying from WD because: 1. Advanced format -- who wants to deal with a drive that lies about its layout?
So you're not a fan of LBA then?
c++;
Nope that stuff decays too.
Make everything from diamond.
Diamonds burn. Longevity wise, Iron is your best choice, everything will quantum tunnel to iron eventually. Keeping the lighter elements from rusting it before then will be the biggest issue.
I had a client hit his notebook while running. The ceramic platters in the HDD shattered. The Intel and Samsung SSDs I've used so far are all working (knock on wood). I've seen a few OCZs of other peoples die rather randomly though.
All things die. Professionals backup.
Yeah, I often wish for a "-1, Factually incorrect" or something.
c++;
I stopped buying from WD because: .
1. Advanced format -- who wants to deal with a drive that lies about its layout?
That is quite funny, as Advanced format allows for the better use of ECC, which reduces errors and faults in a drive.
And it only takes a tiny amount of effort to make sure you set it up right at the beginning to make sure you never have problems.
Yea, I was shocked when the drive casing exploded and the platter cut my leg off and embedded itself in an I beam.
Maybe he can't keep up with the Commodore. :)
Let's see how long it takes you guys to get that jingle out of your heads
Poor people don't have any computer. Most people don't have much "data", so a $5 to $20 USB drive can hold everything they need to store. Poor people don't store mission critical data on a single drive, they store it in the cloud from the free computers they use at the library, if they get a chance to between their three minimum wage jobs.
"Poor people don't drive a Ferrari, they drive a Ford" ignores the fact that many people are too poor to own anything. But I do keep multiple copies of my mission critical data on media less than 1% of the cost of the computer (usually free USB drives gifted from vendors and such).
Learn to love Alaska
There are varying levels of "poor" and "rich".
Having backups of the most critical data is smart and probably not expensive (though for some their photo/home video collection is also most critical and that could take a lot of space), but disregarding the reliability of storage medium is stupid.
At the very least, then the device fails, I'll have to buy a new one (as HDDs and SSDs are not really repairable) and have the inconvenience of downtime and restoring from backups. Also, I may have the data that, while not critical, is still useful to me and I do not want to lose it (otherwise I would have deleted it already). That means that while I cannot afford RAID1*, I will buy the more expensive enterprise-grade drives hoping that they will last longer than the cheap ones.
* The way my system is currently set up (multiple hard drives with varying capacities and interfaces), it would be quite expensive to reconfigure it for RAID just for the data I have now, not to mention about adding capacity. I will use RAID (probably 5 or 6) when I save enough money to buy a new server.
What would be the most reliable way of storing 2TB of data for less than $300 (assuming I have more than one PC, but all with full hard drives)?
SSDs last longer than spinning discs. And, when they fail, they fail operationally - writes fail, but your data is accessible. Spinning discs generally fail non-operational. You can't get anything off them without great expense and specialized labs.
Learn to love Alaska
Erm with external harddisks well into the sub $100 area, not to mention the availability of various free online storage places, the poor people really have no excuse.
There are currently more manufacturers of 3.5" Floppy drives, than of Harddisks. There's 3 left. Count them WD, Seagate, and Toshiba.
Just when ARE we allowed to whine and complain? When there's none left? As customers our options of voting with our dollars are getting very restricted indeed.
I don't remember that last time I bought a hard drive and looked at the RPM rating on it. SSDs have been around long enough that it's now a question of whether you want to spend the extra money on an SSD for better performance. And with my home server, all I care about is cheap for the drives I know are going to fail and put an end of life sticker on them 1 to 2 years out to start a rotation so I replace them before they fail. And for drives that just need to store a large amount of rarely accessed data, I just care about capacity. I don't need 1/3rd more RPMs to run a robocopy. It's not a race to back up the drives. It just needs to happen.
High performance standard hard drives are like mid grade fuel. I don't know who buys that stuff.
Work Safe Porn
and when apple stops making professional desktop units, a lot of people are stuck using their overpriced laptops because our body of work is from OSX and logic. with tons of data (samples, sounds, 12 dual sided DVD installs, etc) one can't just expect an SSD to fit everyone's needs, especially if they're liable to break. that's why i want 7200rpm mechanical drives. oh well.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
And, when they fail, they fail operationally - writes fail, but your data is accessible.
Unless the controller dies. That is a possible failure mode of a spinning disk too, although there seem to be some SSDs that skimp on controllers, and have particularly bad records of dying without possible recovery. Additionally, reading some kinds of flash memory, including kinds used in SSDs, can slowly corrupt the memory if you don't have ability to rewrite it every so often. Although it would take some bad luck or unusual access patterns to have that come up at the same time as running out of writable blocks.
>And, when they fail, they fail operationally - writes fail, but your data is accessible.
That is one of the modes.
The other mode is that they completely give up and no longer appear at all, as has happened with my OCZ SSD.
I prefer HDDs, they tend to make sound and have poor performance as a good warning they're going bad. SSDs just give up and then you're done.
What would be the most reliable way of storing 2TB of data for less than $300 (assuming I have more than one PC, but all with full hard drives)?
2TB drives are less than $100 now. Make three copies on different branded drives (or at least different batches) and store in different locations. Check every 6 months and replace any drive that is dodgy.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
An addendum to my list of SSD manufacturers in the prior post - I purposefully do not buy drives based on SandForce controllers due to known reliability problems (a possibility for the random OCZ deaths maybe, almost all of their older drives were SandForce based). The only drive I have bought that was SandForce based was the Intel SSD 330, and that was the only problematic drive, although as said - it still works.
Possibly the most surprisingly reliable/resilient drives I have are three 64GB Kingston V100's. All three drives have been through hell and back: WinXP installs/reinstalls with pagefiles, multiple VirtualBox VMs (also with pagefiles), a VMware ESXi install + VMs, one was bought used from a friend who had defragged the thing repeatedly and finally one drive survived a computer that met 240VAC due to an eBay special charger. All still work, and are living happy lives with modern OSes installed.
Of course you have to back your stuff up; even more so when you know how these things work, and you realise that your photos/sourcecode/etc are being stored as electrons tunneled into a (slowly being damaged over tens of thousands of writes) silicon floating gate or as a series of weak and tiny magnetic fields on a thin layer of metal oxide, which itself is sputtered onto a brittle platter.
> The fact that you think only SSDs suffer from critical failures makes you an idiot.
SSDs might not the only devices to suffer from critical failures, but they're pretty much the only large-scale storage devices that routinely suffer from critical failures almost at random, with zero advanced warning, and metaphorically go up in smoke & instantly trash gigabytes of data for almost no discernible reason.
So many people have gotten burned by SSDs (especially Sandforce drives), an entire generation of elite users have come to regard SSDs as the equivalent of automatic data-suicide, barely safe enough to even use as a write-through cache. If you gave me a 512-gig sandforce drive for free tomorrow, the box would probably still be sitting unopened on my desk 6 months later, because I'm so loath to taint my computer with them anymore. SSDs, especially Sandforce-based drives, are the most toxic computer hardware in history. Few things have caused more concentrated misery to so many users within so little time.
True story: my local CompUSA had a BIN full of (comparatively) cheap 256-gig OCZ SSDs on Black Friday. People saw the price, pounced on a drive or ten, pulled out their phones, did some quick research, and threw the drives BACK into the bin in disgust 10-90 minutes later as if they were radioactive trash. The only sale items in the entire store that got less love than the Sandforce drives were the $39 copies of Windows 8.
SMART is almost useless for predicting failure with SSDs, because SSD failures fall into two categories:
* Long-term degradation due to limited write life... maybe 1% of SSD failures. This is the failure mode everyone THINKS is important, but it actually causes almost ZERO real-world failures.
* Spontaneous, often idiopathic, controller failures that instantly render the entire drive inaccessible. Roughly 99% of Sandforce SSD failures fall into this category. Sometimes, it happens because the drive lost power at precisely the worst possible moment. Often, it happens for no obvious reason in particular besides "Sandforce drives suck donkey shit, and commit data-suicide if you so much as have an impure thought or near occasion of computer sin.
They didn't say they drop the 10k drives, too. Or did they?
> writes fail, but your data is accessible
Bullshit. Just TRY recovering data from an OCZ Vertex or Agility 2 drive that decided to spontaneously bork itself. If you're LUCKY, the drive won't interpret dd_rescue as a hack attack, and brick itself into "Panic Mode" as a countermeasure, and "all" you'll have to do to "fix" the drive is run "secure format" to wipe the drive clean and start over again.
> Platter density has done a lot to bring 5400RPM drives to yesterday's 7200RPM performance levels.
And the same platter density has done a lot to bring 7200RPM to yesterday's 10kRPM performance levels, and 10kRPM drives to yesterday's 15kRPM performance levels.
SSD is vastly more relaible than spinning discs., so "poor" people would likely stick to USB sticks (which I've seen make it through a clothes washer and come out working on the other end). Ever hear of a spinning disc surviving that? They are simple and easy, ubiquitous, and will likely be supported for 20+ years (with plenty of warning when end of life is coming). Why would anyone consider anything else?
"Poor" here apparently means "wants more than he can afford".
Learn to love Alaska
is to give customers (especially OEMs) no choice but to go Hybrid. I was told Hybrid drive cost about U$10 more to make, that is huge if you buy drives by millions. For budget laptops, why bother to go Hybrid? With 128GB SSD becomes affordable and more and more contents are online, how many people out there needs 300GB or more in their laptops? People who use computers just casually (for entertainment) are switching to tablets, and they only have 64GB max (128GB is coming), a lot of them with 16 and 32GB. I just don't see why Hybrid? My prediction is that most mobile devices will eventually 90% SSD (unless newer OS'es would require like 80GB to install). Desktops and Mainframes will switch to 2.5" form factor for power reasons (I saw an article either by Tom's or Anand that shows 2.5" drives give better performance per watts). Mainframes of course will implement some kind of Non-Volatile caching using Solid State. 3.5" drives probably for media junkies and gamers.
Iron rusts fairly readily.
Im not sure if youre aware of just how much faster a current top-end chip is compared to even 2004's P4. A modern i7 ranges from "several times" faster-- per core-- than a P4 to "tens or hundreds of times" on certain tasks (encoding, encryption, graphics). That ignores how much less electricity it uses, and how many additional cores it has.
This is Moore's Law creaking at the seams because the next killer jump in tech to be "disruptive" as the biz types like to call it, is risky as get-out,
Or, you know, because some things cant scale indefinitely. You dont think AMD would dump out a 6GHz chip that was super fast if it was feasible?
Whether it is write limits, disk fragmentation, or controllers going berserk, mechanicals still have flash(SSD's) beat on functionality.
Sounds like they want an excuse since they dont provide any actual evidence to back it up(read: is their 99% just a terminating cliche just to shut people up?). The Thai floods just wont cut it, and I doubt that the existing drives are that unreliable.
That said, I have one of their 7200 RPM models(ST9750420AS) in a W520 and would gladly replace it with another SSD-free drive. It beats all the other "alternatives" such as USB drives and if I need extra battery life, I can always slap on a slice battery. That and if its horribly fragmented, I dont have the overhead associated with SSD's.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Not only do you show the textbook example of why independent contract labor has too many things wrong with it, you also show that such arrangements favor corner-cutting that gets too close to do the job right.
Get a decent job that will stand by its equipment, buy as high as you can go, and make it last for a long time. Not only will you not have to follow trends as much, the hardware will last, the hardware will be protected, and that your job will be more stable than Fukushima after the tsunami.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk#t=1m0s
Clicked sloppy and modded something wrong, way wrong, have to post to undo it. Sorry that /. chose a new, treach method to replace what used to work so well. Sorry /. chose to disable the no karma posting option.
move along
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
You didn't see the previous posts on here about Evernote's username/password/email address getting hacked then.
I was poking fun at Evernote rather then distributed backups.
On a more serious note, what do people think of Symform?
What really surprises me is how HDD manufacturers have largely ignored SSDs. There are a few hybrid drives but you don't see Hitachi, Seagate or Western Digital SSDs in modern laptops. Currently only mid to high end models have SSDs, but in a few years it seems likely that Samsung and people like Hynix will be the biggest suppliers of laptop storage. A few years after that desktops will go the same way, and Seagate will become the next Kodak.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Amusingly enough, my Commodore does store its data on an SSD.
Well, sort of. It's Flash, at least. My Commodore 128D has a two gig SD card that it sees as a hard drive.
Partly because getting that set up was cheaper than buying a bunch of blank 5 1/4" diskettes these days.
Duh.
Nah seriously, 640k...
But paper is highly flammable and prone to decomposition.
Not on Mars, there's no oxygen and no bacteria. Perfect match for the Curiosity rover, but noooo, they *had* to use flash memory and now their toy is broken. Don't make me say "I told you so".
Ezekiel 23:20
Diamonds burn. Longevity wise, Iron is your best choice, everything will quantum tunnel to iron eventually.
Actually, I believe that on geological time scale, zircon is your best option.
Ezekiel 23:20
But paper is highly flammable and prone to decomposition.
Not on Mars, there's no oxygen and no bacteria. Perfect match for the Curiosity rover, but noooo, they *had* to use flash memory and now their toy is broken. Don't make me say "I told you so".
I am just imagining how different the mars rover would be using punch cards as storage. Maybe that's getting too weird.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Most SSDs that aren't the most expensive ones suffer from mind boggling firmware failures and glitches which brick them or just random corruption rendering them unbootable from a simple abrupt power failure.
Compatibility is still a huge issue with a large number of laptops, and advertised speeds are nowhere near where they actually perform. More often than not, one is forced to use much slower SSA interfaces than the drives are supposed to use so in the end, in practice, these SSDs are not much faster than 7200rpm spindles. The price performance isn't there and unless you're buying top of the line name brands, reliability is for shit.
Oh please. What kind of messy cobbled together 'engineered' solution is that? What next? Numeric coprocessors on a separate chip? What is this? 1989?
"some things cant scale indefinitely"
That's exactly the direction I was aiming at. Except they do *eventually* scale, just that we've hit a slowdown in precisely what scales and how. It's fair that I might be wrong in how each core performed per old P4, though simple proliferation of cores bothers me as a concept that feels like it will have scale problems as well, possibly soon when we begin debating 8-core vs 12-core machines etc. Eventually the OS has to become really good at allocating all those cores cleanly and I don't know if we're there yet.
What I'm thinking is that we're due for the Big-P from the Biz School land - Paradigm Shift etc. Some kind of advance that just smashes our current abilities to bits. But ... there is probably a big chunk of hard R&D involved to do that before it shows up as "second generation" (aka usable) in UserLand.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
And a swindle. Catastrophic failure lurks around the corner for all SSD users. Serious compotore users do not sore mission critical datas on SSDs. Period. Take the kazoo out of your mouth, Slashdort!
A global user base and a few million MTBF hours makes you wrong.
The fact that you think only SSDs suffer from critical failures makes you an idiot.
Any knowledgeable computer user doesn't store "mission critical" data on a single drive, or even in a single location. Idiots do. Running a different type of hard drive isn't going to change that. Murphy will still win.
Being responsible for many terabytes of corporate data, I can tell you that SSDs have a much higher failure rate for us than does magnetic media. The tradeoff for that, however, is much lower power consumption and higher throughput. However, hybrid devices seem to couple the worst of both devices instead of the best. It would seem that increasing the on board cache to an un-godly amount would be just as effective and adding a battery or cap to ensure writes were performed if power goes out would minimze the risk from SSD failures.
Our backup regime with SSDs is much more rigid than with old fashioned dasd. And, that includes not storing misison critical data on single drives or in single locations. Murphy will always win, but with SSDs, the MTBF is more in his favor than magnetic storage, at least in our companies experience.
Whether it is head crashes, spindle motor failures, or controllers going berserk, flash still have mechanicals(HDD's) beat on functionality.
Install root partition on the SSD. Install swap and home partitions on the HDD. Providing you have at least 8 GB of RAM, put /tmp on RAM disk. No need for "Intel Smart Response".
True story: my local CompUSA had a BIN full of (comparatively) cheap 256-gig OCZ SSDs on Black Friday. People saw the price, pounced on a drive or ten, pulled out their phones, did some quick research, and threw the drives BACK into the bin in disgust 10-90 minutes later as if they were radioactive trash. The only sale items in the entire store that got less love than the Sandforce drives were the $39 copies of Windows 8.
My boss bought a load of OCZ 128GB petrol drives (for retail sale) due to their incredibly low cost price. Of course, I was already aware of OCZ's reputation- wouldn't touch them with a bargepole- and pretty sceptical about why these ones were so ludicrously cheap. After a quick lookup, yes, those ones also had problems listed all over various forums. Could this explain why they were so cheap? *cough*
:-/
Anyway, to cut a long story short, my boss expected to have some returned by customers, but he didn't expect to get *quite* so many back *quite* so soon. He doesn't sell them any more
I prefer chipping mission critical ones and zeros in marble blocks. The problem is the storage density is pretty poor and erasing is very very slow, requiring a drill hammer.
You mean like this 3TB Seagate drive I have next to me? It's got 4K sectors, with "fake" 512B ones exposed to the OS -- and that was inside a 3TB external drive that reports 4K sectors to the OS!
So, it's not just WD drives doing the lying.
While Linux doesn't support SRT, there is no software support required for Seagate's hybrid drives. All of the caching is handled by the drive firmware. It appears as a normal disk to the operating system. It works great with Linux-- I have two in different machines.
I've noticed a trend in all the 7200 RPM drives I've seen. A lot don't get a WEI rating of 5.9. A lot fail. A lot get way too hot. A lot have good seek times but terrible sequential throughput. So they needed to go regardless.
SSDs are more durable, not reliable. While a SSD can survive being dropped from a greater height than a HDD, it can wear out quickly and can fail completely in case of PSU failure (while the spinning disk would only need a new controller board, or maybe just repairs on the old controller board).
Also, leave a modern MLC SSD unplugged for a couple of years and it will lose data, while a HDD can keep its data for decades.
Put one 70 dollar ssd fry's electronics, put your OS on it, put your cache on it. Your data on the old one. You do not need a big ssd. Watch your system fly.
Also, leave a modern MLC SSD unplugged for a couple of years and it will lose data, while a HDD can keep its data for decades.
Ah yes, proof you are wrong. When someone must select edge cases of "my best against your worst" to pretend equality, you know they know, deep down, that they are wrong.
Learn to love Alaska
SSDs are still more expensive per gigabyte. I doubt that even Google uses SSDs for all the data storage. Using SSDs for system drives, in some laptops or for virtualization (where SSD really outperforms HDD), sure, but not for a 20TB data storage, not even for a 5TB data storage. Or 2TB data storage.
Also, for the price of a single SSD, you can buy multiple hard drives and have offsite backups.
It would seem that increasing the on board cache to an un-godly amount would be just as effective and adding a battery or cap to ensure writes were performed if power goes out would minimze the risk from SSD failures.
We actually ran those back in the day. 1GB SCSI disks with 1GB memory on top of them. Expensive as fuck, but boy would they scream.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
I'd bet their using it as Cache, as it's still much cheaper than RAM (1-2 dollars vs 10-20 dollars per GB) and is much better at random access than spinning disks.
It would seem that increasing the on board cache to an un-godly amount would be just as effective and adding a battery or cap to ensure writes were performed if power goes out would minimze the risk from SSD failures.
We actually ran those back in the day. 1GB SCSI disks with 1GB memory on top of them. Expensive as fuck, but boy would they scream.
Back in the day they were expensive, but today, they aren't or wouldn't be and they would probably still outperform SSDs which are slower on writes than volatile memory. That said, SSDs would do much better on power consumption, although, with a big enough cache, you could actually spin down your drives and only occasionally bring them up for writes, or run them at a lower speed than even 5400rpm.
SSDs have their place, but I'm not sure high volume, high availability storage that is constantly updating is the place for them. Wear leveling has improved tremendously, but it still only postpones the inevitable.
And a swindle. Catastrophic failure lurks around the corner for all SSD users. Serious compotore users do not sore mission critical datas on SSDs. Period. Take the kazoo out of your mouth, Slashdort!
A global user base and a few million MTBF hours makes you wrong.
The fact that you think only SSDs suffer from critical failures makes you an idiot.
Any knowledgeable computer user doesn't store "mission critical" data on a single drive, or even in a single location. Idiots do. Running a different type of hard drive isn't going to change that. Murphy will still win.
The fact that "any knowledgeable computer user doesn't store mission critical data on SSDs kind of proves his point in that they are not as reliable as magnetic media. They are definitely faster, definitely lower power, but definitely a shorter MTBF.
Not sure why you were modded down for a troll. All one has to do is look at the MTBF for SSDs versus magnetic media to see that SSDs are less reliable. That is probably why, SSDs are mainly used where speed or low power are the driving factors and not long term reliability.
Magnetic media can compete with SSDs if you have a large enough cache. However, power consumption for magnetic media will always be worse than an SSD.
Again, not sure why you were modded down, because technically, you are correct in what you say, even if not politically so.
Not to mention the extremely limited number of erase cycles, though this can be improved by exchanging erase cycles for data retention time and/or storage density. At least you get per-symbol erase granularity though!
Enterprise doesn't normally use 7200rpm
Fucking know-nothing ar-tards, the only material to use for geologic time scales is unobtanium. Carve your data in unobtanium and it will still be perfectly intact five billion years after the universe implodes.
In mind, & was touted to be "fragmentation resistant" also (& vs. FAT16/FAT32, it is far more resistant) designed in extents/bands of files -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defragmentation (patterned off of IBM's OS/2 HPFS filesystem - NTFS adds journalling for 1 thing, which HPFS lacked).
---
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"file systems such as NTFS are designed to decrease the likelihood of fragmentation"
---
* :)
APK
P.S.=>
"Of course, as soon as any hard disk reaches capacity, it becomes fragmented no matter what." -
OR, when a file is so large it 'overflows' the sector/cluster size used in formatting - which is WHY choosing that wisely based on the sizes of data you're going to be storing has to match best, to avoid fragmentation which of course, creates more head movement on mechanical disks & thus, slowing up (or when the situation you describe occurs & the logical filesystem has to find space)...
... apk
Fucking know-nothing ar-tards, the only material to use for geologic time scales is unobtanium.
Bah! Clearly wonderflonium would be the better substance for this particular application.
That... or they don't like to burn their brand with drive technology that still has sporadical failures?
Oh, hold on, this is Seagate we're talking about.
Forget I said anything.
If Seagate is going to make these new SSDs attractive, they're going to have to talk to OEMs about their pricing.
I just bought a new HP laptop a couple days ago. The default HD option was a 750 GB 5400 RPM HD.
The upgrade options (relevant to this discussion) were:
1. 750 GB 7200 RPM Hybrid HD (16 GB SSD caching) = +$60
2. 160 GB SSD = +$260
160 GB is a too small for a modern desktop replacement (what I was getting) without an option for a second drive, and that's way overpriced regardless. According to TomsHardware's last value numbers, that should get me at least a 256 GB SSD.
About time you stop making drives. They have a horrible failure rate compared to others.
I stopped buying seagate a long time ago.
Because everyone has a $100 to spend on a hard disk rather than other more important things like food.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Wow your brain really doesn't have capacity to understand more than 10 words at a time does it?
TL;DR: Learn to read dumbass.
Learn to swallow
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Unlike flash, you have to actually try to break the disk before you get those kinds of failures. Flash only requires a steady stream of writes along with deletions in the wrong places. That's the price you pay for a faster disk.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.