Jump to content


Photo

Seagate Desktop SSHD Review Discussion

HDD Seagate Hybrid

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 03:01 PM

Review of Seagate's 2TB desktop hybrid hard drive.  Seagate Desktop SSHD Review

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#2 fallbreak

fallbreak

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:14 PM

Does this generation finally have write caching enabled or it still does only read caching?

#3 ChrisMcPole

ChrisMcPole

    Member

  • Member
  • 128 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:04 AM

In other words - a bit faster than the regular 7200 with huge potential of failure just because the samsung chip can go any time and without replacing the board you're screwed. Regardless of how I like Seagate, this is a flop.


Edited by ChrisMcPole, 17 October 2013 - 01:04 AM.

#4 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 08:05 AM

If you look at the 4k and 8k workloads you can clearly see both read and write caching at play, so yes. When you get to 128 though the cache loses effectiveness. Also worth remembering that our cache test shows best possible performance. In most cases you're more likely to just get the performance we chart of the drive in whole.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#5 fallbreak

fallbreak

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:28 AM

In other words - a bit faster than the regular 7200 with huge potential of failure just because the samsung chip can go any time and without replacing the board you're screwed. Regardless of how I like Seagate, this is a flop.

You mean the Toshiba NAND chip? The Samsung chip is the standard DRAM which is found on pretty much all other non-hybrids as well.

 

Agree this is more or less a flop. Based on the marketing hype Seagate puts out there for hybrids, they should deliver much more.


#6 FastMHz

FastMHz

    Member

  • Member
  • 400 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 10:19 AM

I don't really see the point of this product.  I use such large HDDs for huge, mostly cold storage of media.  Wouldn't most other people combine an actual SSD with large drives such as this anyway?  I only see usefulness for SSHD in 2.5" laptop drives, where space is a premium.


Production: Vishera 8350/32gb RAM/Dual SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7750
Gaming: Phenom II 955/16gb RAM/SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7950
Retro: K6-2 550/256mb RAM/160gb HDD/CompactFlash/3DFX/ATI AIW Pro/SB16/DB50XG
http://www.fastmhz.com

#7 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:20 AM

Even in notebooks though you're probably better off buying the SSD and give up some storage...supplement with a cloud service if needed. The benefits, especially in mobile, of SSDs are much more than the single drive hybrid solution. 


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#8 FastMHz

FastMHz

    Member

  • Member
  • 400 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:58 AM

Agreed.  I had an SSD + HDD in my laptop, and just retired the HDD for a second SSD.  I put the HDD in an external enclosure so I can plug it in if I need it.  The battery lasts much longer this way.  I trust the cloud as much as I trust a politician, local storage is best.


Production: Vishera 8350/32gb RAM/Dual SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7750
Gaming: Phenom II 955/16gb RAM/SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7950
Retro: K6-2 550/256mb RAM/160gb HDD/CompactFlash/3DFX/ATI AIW Pro/SB16/DB50XG
http://www.fastmhz.com

#9 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:15 PM

Well, there's always the personal/private cloud via NAS. 


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#10 FastMHz

FastMHz

    Member

  • Member
  • 400 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 01:48 PM

I'm down with the home NAS/personal cloud...just not the corporate controlled ones.


Production: Vishera 8350/32gb RAM/Dual SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7750
Gaming: Phenom II 955/16gb RAM/SSD/VelociRaptor/Radeon 7950
Retro: K6-2 550/256mb RAM/160gb HDD/CompactFlash/3DFX/ATI AIW Pro/SB16/DB50XG
http://www.fastmhz.com

#11 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 04:08 PM

I hear you...The Man and all ;)


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#12 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 724 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:11 PM

In Germany a 4 TB model appears in the price lists, although it'S not available yet. Apparently it doesn't change anything (still only 8 GB cache), but keeps the rather small price premium over regular models. I wonder if it may finally be the first 4 TB drive with 1 TB platters at 7.2k rpm.

 

BTW: Brian, did you ever get any statement about what happens to these drives once the MLC write cycles are used up? I know that's not an issue for regular SSDs.. but a cache recieves more writes, which is especially true for such a small one. And it can't easily be replaced.. so I wonder: what happens? Will I be able to continue using the drive like a regular one (fine) or could I throw it away?

 

MrS


#13 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:27 PM

I'd guess as the NAND fails it just goes away...so eventually the cache would stop working and just go to the HDD. As to the 4TB...you may have to keep dreaming.


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#14 jtsn

jtsn

    Member

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 09:05 AM

The reason why there is only 8 GB of flash is, because it's just enough to fake out benchmarks, so the drive looks better against SSDs. Otherwise it's just a regular 7200 rpm hard drive with a 40 % price premium and less reliability (due to the iSSD).

 

My main question is: Why should I buy a 3.5 inch drive even for desktop use? 2.5 inch HDDs are way more robust and produce less heat, noise and vibration. Where performance counts, they already got replaced by SSDs, so that's not an issue anymore.


#15 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 09:25 AM

Capacity primarily...one 3.5" 4TB drive makes more sense than several smaller drives. 


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#16 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 724 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:05 PM

I'd guess as the NAND fails it just goes away...so eventually the cache would stop working and just go to the HDD. As to the 4TB...you may have to keep dreaming.

 

If the NAND just goes away if it's worn out that would be the ideal solution (apart from making it replacable with a small socket or slot), but I'd like to have an official statement regarding this issue. If I were you I'd ask the manufacturers that question over and over again for every new hybrid model, until I'd hopefully get an answer. You could also point it out in your reviews.. although this would make it less likely you'd get new hardware in the future :/

 

Regarding the 4 TB.. well, the number of shops listing it increased from 4 to 9 in the few days since my last post, so a launch may be imminent. But the dreaming part was probably referred to it using 1 TB platters instead of 800 GB, didn't it?

 

BTW: the prive premium on these seems to be quite reasonable, about 30€ independent of capacity. This would make the 4 TB model far superior to e.g. the WD Black, which costs ~40€ more than the 4 TB Hybrid Seagate in that price comparison.

 

MrS


#17 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:44 PM

You can guess at my somewhat obscure answers for obvious reasons, lol. 


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#18 jtsn

jtsn

    Member

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 10:56 AM

 

If the NAND just goes away if it's worn out that would be the ideal solution (apart from making it replacable with a small socket or slot), but I'd like to have an official statement regarding this issue. If I were you I'd ask the manufacturers that question over and over again for every new hybrid model, until I'd hopefully get an answer.

 

You can ask questions or you can remove the iSSD chip and report the expectable results.


#19 redhotiron2004

redhotiron2004

    Member

  • Member
  • 8 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:03 PM

I stopped buying seagate when my 1st external drive failed within a week.
Then I read more about hardisks and realized that it's more or less the same situation with every brand.
I again wanted to give it a try but soon changed my mind after reading the fishy things that this contact company is involved in.

Things like:
1. Changing the number of platters in the same drive with the same model number.

2.Reducing or not honoring warranty. Actually, there is not a consumer grade drive that have more than 2yrs warranty now. They themselves are not confident about there drives and just want to sell products at premium without having good hardware.

3. They don't even mention any warranty details on there site as well. You would need to enter serial number in other to get that info.

These things are Alarming and shows what a crappy company this is. Atleast with WD you get to chose what you want and there warranty goes upto 5yrs for WD black. Which atleast give me the peace of mind that in case something would to wrong then they would atleast replace my investment. Even if data can't be recovered.

It's high time that people should stop using seagate hardisks. They need to be more open towards there customers and should not indulge in these kind of petty activities.



Sent from my MK16i


#20 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 724 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 05:22 AM

Ha, the specs of the 4 TB model are already listed on their homepage. It says 4 platters, yet maximum STR is down from 210 MB/s to 180 MB/s, which means it's actually 5 x 800 GB.

 

Side note: look at the access times.

1 TB 8.5 ms

2 TB 9.5 ms

4 TB 12 ms

 

Seems to support my suspicion that the additional vibration from more platters at higher rpm is what keeps them from releasing 4 platter 1 TB drives. And not even WDs Black with dual stage actuators can get around this.. it's first gen access time at 5 x 800 GB is significantly worse than previous models.

 

MrS


#21 jtsn

jtsn

    Member

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 26 October 2013 - 03:15 PM

Seems to support my suspicion that the additional vibration from more platters at higher rpm is what keeps them from releasing 4 platter 1 TB drives. And not even WDs Black with dual stage actuators can get around this.. it's first gen access time at 5 x 800 GB is significantly worse than previous models.

 

My WD10EALS from 2010 with its 320 GB platters is still my fastest 7200 rpm drive, when it comes to pure 4K random access. Hitachi 7K2000 with 5x 400 GB gives similar results. HGST 7K1000.C and Samsung HD103SJ with 2x 500 GB perform less good, but still seem to be a good compromise between access speed and data density.

 

Anything above that suffers heavily, especially at random writes. Seems that at 1 TB/platter is the limit of mechanical hard drive technology using voice-coil actuators. Access times are even worse on 5400 rpm "green" drives despite early models like WD7500AACS (with 200 GB platters) were quite fast

 

 

It's high time that people should stop using seagate hardisks.

 

Since the hard drive crisis, I bought HDDs only from HGST and Toshiba. Despite being part of WD now HGST still has the non-nonsense approach with complete datasheets and product manuals available, so I know exactly what I get. And there can't anything wrong with supporting the smallest contender in the HDD market, which currently is Toshiba.


#22 kocoman

kocoman

    Member

  • Member
  • 14 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 07:09 PM

When will the 4TB be released?

 

http://www.canadacom...&item_id=064981

 

 


#23 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 07:43 PM

It's not formally released yet, so I don't know exactly. It's not getting more cache though and has a slower spindle so I can't see how it gets any better than the 2TB.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#24 malleus_male

malleus_male

    Member

  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 10:08 AM

I love how people that don't actually own the thing they call a flop post here. I own this drive and I can tell you this drive is a fantastic solution for anyone that can not afford a large SSD but still want a much faster HD. Who can actually complain about 3 x performance increase? I would like to see any one of you guys explain to your wife's why you just spent $600+ on a 1TB SSD when you could have went out and spent $100 on an SSHD and called it a day! LOL

 

Math is math and you can not argue the savings. Playing BF4 I no longer have to wait to start in the map. I load-in just as fast as everyone else that are using a full blown SSD. And that is fact! Now while you guys with your 128GB SSD are always deleting files to make room for new files, I am laughing high with a full TB to work with! Kudos to Seagate for giving us a good option for SSHD!


Edited by malleus_male, 06 December 2013 - 10:12 AM.

#25 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 10:19 AM

I completely agree with your post, you are the perfect demographic for this drive. You wanted the capacity and an increase in performance over a typical 1TB HDD. The point I made prior and others have as well, is that in terms of pure performance, if you can live with less capacity, the hybrid is not going to work and long term probably doesn't exist as a technology...or on the other hand, exists as the replacement for standard non-hybrid HDDs. You wanted capacity and didn't require SSD speeds, so it's a good solution for you.


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users