Seagate 8tb Archive drive

R

Rikki

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2000
Messages
2,302
Just wondering if anyone has any experience of these new drives?

I was thinking of using one for storage of old projects that I like to have online access to but never really update (old video archives, events, weddings etc).

Thanks
 
These are new tech items and there is no reliability experience for them, using slower RPM drives and higher density platters and using new recording technologies that are still being worked on. At least wait until a standard comes out for them. Jumping onto cutting edge tech like this which have not been debugged, especially adding more platters to an already small case and the density all makes them fragile. Might be worth it for data storage arrays as cost now is more important than lasting longivity. Since space and electrical usage is a premium, they will use it but for home users its a big risk. They have not been able to make them reliable enough in lower capacity points to make itworth it, let alone at the bleeding edge capacity points. I saw they had 10TB units in testing now. And 12TB units with user defined track densities where you can control it from the computer side instead of the drive itself. Toshiba seems to be having trouble passing 6TB drives, so at least someone thinks the stuff is not reliable enough for them to use. We saw this with maxtor where they kept coming out with ever faster and more capacity drives, they were cutting edge and great.. Did not last long but we did not care as we were not using them for long term backup or storage... HUGE difference in the 2 process.. I think Seagate used the word archive for a specific purpose and use.. So keep liabilities down.. They dont think the drive can last in a regular environment and need special care.. I would go for it as a secondary backup only..
 
i have one of these drives in my media PC.

nice and fast, price is great (relatively), why not.

p.s. i have two seagate 1tb 7200.10 drives are still running fine today.
i also had an 40GB IBM deathstar that lasted nearly seven years before succumbing to old age.

all this fuss about relaibility really only matters to people running massive raid arrays, where they have enough drives running in parallel to actually notice an averaged difference in relaibility.
 
R3MF said:
all this fuss about relaibility really only matters to people running massive raid arrays, where they have enough drives running in parallel to actually notice an averaged difference in relaibility.
Click to expand...

I say luck plays a big part when you have such a small sample size.
 
I have 4 of those in my server.. works fine no probs :) Using those with virtual pooling :) and i am gonna order more when i get enough money to buy more than just one more
 
The 8tb smr drives are pretty nice, and not to shabby at all for the 250$ price tag they come in at from time to time. Just be sure you understand what they are for, mainly massive storage and quick retrieval. I would not try to run one of these as an os drive, but have 3 spread across 3 different servers and all are working great.
 
Nasgul said:
I would rather have ZIP 100MB and 800 diskettes than buy or use any HDD from Seagate.

Seagate is the IBM Desktar. Except, with IBM I got a check for $100 for their horrible mistakes, with Seagates I'm just getting paperweight that I had to throw in the trash.

And that's what I feel about Seagate (in general) and yes I did remember when they came out with new tech for their HDD back in the mid 2000s, now in the mid 2010s? No Thank you.
Click to expand...

I hear you!

I never buy WD for this reason but just as you point out the Deathstar IBM drives, IBM then Hitachi brought out some of the most reliable drives moving forward so maybe Seagate have upped their game with these being Archive devices ?

In recent times Ive used Intel SSDs, Samsung 1 and 2tb drives plus Hitachi 4tb drives
 
I have one, had it for a few months since it came out, it works very good for sequential writing and reading ie (Movies). It has a large fast buffer cache(ssd I think) that stores the data to be written as a shingle therefore when you copy to it it is very fast. I get about 150MB/s to it when transferring large files in windows, even after transferring 1+TB of data the cache doesn't fill and it doesn't slow down. Reading is seamless as well.

I imagine trying to use it as a regular drive where data is changed throughout the drive would slow it down considerably, but as a large storage drive that is just for sequential it is excellent and as fast as can be.
 
staticlag said:
I get about 150MB/s to it when transferring large files in windows, even after transferring 1+TB of data the cache doesn't fill and it doesn't slow down. Reading is seamless as well.
Click to expand...

yes, i get about 150MB/s (read) for the six hours (approx) it takes to move a 5TB truecrypt file across from a toshiba 5TB USB 3.0 drive.
 
I'm not so satisfied with this drive. Reading is fast about 100-150MB/s, but when I try to copy from one drive to another I get slowdowns. The transfer rate will dip to 20-30MB/s for extended periods, and the 150MB/s is only sustained for a few minutes occasionally. With a mixed load of files ranging from 5MB to 1GB.
 
I bought one from Newegg last week and they shipped it loose in a small box with one air pillow for protection. The air pillow unsurprisingly was popped and the drive DOA. What a waste.

That really soured me on Newegg so I won't be renewing premier.
 
Romir said:
I bought one from Newegg last week and they shipped it loose in a small box with one air pillow for protection. The air pillow unsurprisingly was popped and the drive DOA. What a waste.

That really soured me on Newegg so I won't be renewing premier.
Click to expand...

Call them and tell them that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top