StorageTux

New Seagate 1TB-platter drives.

Recommended Posts

There are new Seagate drives utilizing 1TB platters on the web and also in this Seagate document.

ST3000DM001 3.0TB 7200 3.5" Barracuda Internal Drive

ST2000DM001 2.0TB 7200 3.5" Barracuda Internal Drive

ST1000DM003 1.0TB 7200 3.5" Barracuda Internal Drive

More detailed spec are here:

tmbook.th.png

source

Does anybody know the release date of these drives? Some shops on the web have already added them into the price lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I emailed Seagate last week asking when we'd see the 3TB 3 platter Barracuda. No release date yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egad! I'm so glad I've stumbled on this post!

I just purchased a Seagate ST2000VX002 which on first comparison has identical specifications to the ST2000DM001 2.0TB - save for the rotational speed (5900 vs 7200) and intended use (standard vs video/surveillance).

My use is video storage in a HTPC only.

Looks like I may need to re-evaluate my decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe...this post it a little old, they have since announced the death of green drives and the 1TB platters are shipping in the Barracuda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ST2000VX002 (Seagate SV35) are not the same platters-- per the spec sheet at least, the areal density is very different.

422 Gbit/in^2 for the SV35 listed here, vs. 625 Gbit/in^2 for the new Barracudas with 1TB platters.

Aside from the spindle speed differences and whatnot, the lower areal density will likely result in lower performance (even if everything else was equal-- obviously one key factor not in these spec sheet races is head performance).

http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=st2000VX002-sv35-sata-2tb-hd&vgnextoid=eb19466ef0e9c210VgnVCM1000001a48090aRCRD#tTabContentSpecifications

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/desktops/barracuda_hard_drives/?intcmp=bac-en-us-home-hero1-barracuda-the-power-of-one#tTabContentSpecifications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused about the 2TB drive. In this table from Anandtech:

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5042/Screen%20Shot%202011-11-01%20at%201.20.26%20AM.png

it says that the 2TB version has 3 platters, so it's not likely using 1TB platters. Then in the table from StorageTux, the table says 2 platters for the 2TB disk, but its weight is the same as the 3TB one, which uses 3 platters. According to that table, all the disks which are using 1 platter weigh the same.

Is the 2TB disk using actually 3 platters, or is there a mistake with the weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Seagate spec says the 2TB disk uses 3 platters, so it's probably using slightly lower-density platters. Mickey/doraemon or someone here (or on Ars Technica) explains it better.

As far as drive weight, manufacturers often generalize a bit on weights so it's harder to say what that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As continuum said, it's likely that the 2TB that uses 3-disks is employing lower-density platters. It's not that different from what chip makers do, where they bin chips for speed/performance. Heads are treated the same way. Once built into drives, the manufacturer may discover that while the drive cannot reliably meet the highest target (e.g. 3TB), it may do just fine as a 2TB drive.

Of course, it may also be that whoever publishes the specs was lazy and just used the same value for all drives in the same "family." :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE DAY HAS COME... IT'S ON NEWEGG AS OF TODAY.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148840

Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM003 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

AVAILABLE TODAY on newegg. Searched this weekend and it wasn't there. Must have just arrived today :)

It's listed in the Newegg overview as "the Industries first 1TB-per-disk(aka platter)hard drive technology" drive so this is probably the one you've been waiting for. Rephrased, total size of Drive is 1TB with a single 1TB platter.

Buy it and let me know if it sucks or not before I buy it lolz ;)

Edited by DaGuru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE DAY HAS COME... IT'S ON NEWEGG AS OF TODAY.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148840

Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM003 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

AVAILABLE TODAY on newegg. Searched this weekend and it wasn't there. Must have just arrived today :)

It's been there at least since November 11th because that's the day I posted about the apparent discrepancy in the specifications for other drives in the Barracuda family, and the day I was researching components on NewEgg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Mickey that composing lower sized drives is somewhat similar to chip binning when it comes down to company's commercialism. But these are widely separated sectors when it comes down to technology, and firms deviously hide their viperous legs when discussing that. Personal my best guess would be that megacorps like Seagate like to have some back door to get rid of their lower density drives from previous generations (ST2000DL003) which are still in production/storage just like Samsung did with their F1 series where 750GB/500GB drives didnt use 166GBpps (per platter side) platters but older 125GBpps ones just 1TB/640GB/320GB drives used fastest platters. After all tech briefings in pdfs are of no merit when it comes down to devious megacorp economics.

OTOH, some companies like hgst (RiP) used to produce affordable drives in special market segments with reduced capacity and cache (maybe just for OEM) which were au pair or even better than their bigger brothers just by short stroking platters for whatever reason. Probably to have specific more price competitive product against some older WD/Seagate products of same capacity, while latter still had plenty of old stock HDDs that need to get rid off and newer product line followed only in next 6-9 month.

I somehow doubt that Seagate short stroked their platters in those Baraccuda.14 2GB HDDs case but more likely they rather build their drives from platters which have some of their sides unreliable to be used in 3GB drives to reduce product returns, while 1TB ones sanely need to have only one platter, and in that case only product to get rid off such platters then would be OEMs 500GB drives which today are not very lucrative even on third world markets. And obviously they have pretty large pile of not fully qualifying 500GBpps platters.

After all who would buy three-four year obsolete 160GB/250GB/320GB HDDs nowadays if there was no flood saviour in October that hep them get rid off old stock of obsolete HDDs at manageable in-sane prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would probably be Newegg's craptastic packaging and internal handling procedures. (not that any other retailer is better... although at least OWC apologized when they destroyed a drive...)

We've got a ton of them here and we haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary, but these drives are so new in the market that no one exactly has a long history of failures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would probably be Newegg's craptastic packaging and internal handling procedures. (not that any other retailer is better... although at least OWC apologized when they destroyed a drive...)

We've got a ton of them here and we haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary, but these drives are so new in the market that no one exactly has a long history of failures...

Continuum,

Just wanted to get an update on these drives. I was looking at some of these for my RAID to replace my Caviar Black's. Still good success rates with the ST1000DM003?

Hearing nothing but bad reviews on Amazon and such.

Feel more confident with these in my RAID as at least they say they are RAID combatible. WD says the blacks are not RAID compatible due to some error correction delay. Not sure exactly. Did way too much research into the night and bit fried.

Would you recommend the ST1000DM003 over the blacks? I believe you did recommend these to me in another post but wanted to see if they are still solid performers.

I may move my blacks to my backup RAID.

Thanks,

Toby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our failure rate here is still as expected with them, but I can't say more than that.

And we don't run desktop drives in RAID use here. Some may be okay with it...

Backblaze is one of the only companies willing to talk about using desktop drives in RAID on the record, and they currently prefer Hitachi Deskstars. Take that for what it's worth. (note that at the time they last discussed their hardware, the Seagate 1TB/platter Barracudas were too new for anyone to have significant experience).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha. So you think these new Seagate drives would work okay in my SAS RAID configuration? I'm spooked now with everyone talking about WD Blacks not being RAID compatible and feel I might have more confidence in these drives.

Think I might pick up some for my SAS and USB 3.0 enclosure and see how it goes.

Hope they all work and that all the negative reviews are bogus.

Toby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this time-out issue the following: if a "RAID compatible" drive can't access a file or sector physically (due to whatever reason) it stops trying after 6 s and tells the RAID controller so. An "not RAID compatible" drive will continue for 30 s or so and not react to any queries from the controller for this time. The controller will then think the drive died and drop it out of the RAID.

To me this sounds like "if the controller says drive is bad, move to non-RAID and see". Otherwise.. you need a backup for important data with a RAID or without, so this actually doesn't matter much.

BTW: if your Blacks use 500 GB platters those Seagates will hardly be any faster in real world performance, just massive STR. Compared to 250 GB platter Blacks they might be a worthy upgrade, though.

MrS

Edited by [ETA]MrSpadge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that.

Did you read the rest of my post? ;)

Yes I read the rest of your post. I was asking a question, not making a statement or quoting you.

Sorry to bother you.

Toby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking a question I've already answered to the best of my ability.

In my experience, we don't run desktop drives in RAID. ST1000DM03's and whatnot are desktop drives.

Others might be ok with doing so, as I noted above...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only difference I can find out about the RAID vs non-RAID drive is that the RAID drives have the EEC sector recovery turned off, as that is suppose to be handled via the RAID control, not the drive it self, and you get a 5 year warranty (better validation, unlikely) and its costs 2x as much. This all come from WD drives.

BTW, but I am looking for an answer. I am wondering how long drive manufactures can keep selling RAID editions of drives when truth be told, its less functional (lacking the EEC sector recovery) and costs twice as much. I think WD and Seagate need to start selling drives with different warranty plans, and if people want to use drives that are warrantied for 1yr in RAID so be it, but it should cost the same as a 1yr warrantied drive.

Just My opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are additional firmware changes and often the presence of additional shock/vibration tolerance. How much of this is hardware vs. firmware I cannot say.

Validation processes on the drives at both a hardware design and a firmware level are also much more extensive.

Put them on a multiple-axis vibration table, especially in large systems.......

Sadly manufacturers have gotten relatively scanty about publishing full drive specs to end-users...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe for SCSI & SAS, but my experiences tells me that the is not that much difference between SATA and a Raid Edition SATA, failure rates seems to be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody.

New poster, but old HDD user, with some knowledge.

I just came over from a discussion that we have at Seagates forum trying to figure out if there is a design problem that could potentially lead to malfunction and data loss on Seagate 1TB platter drives.

old thread:

http://forums.seagate.com/t5/Barracuda-XT-Barracuda-Barracuda/3TB-Barracuda-STBD3000100-Making-Weird-quot-chirp-quot-Sound/td-p/156353

new thread:

http://forums.seagate.com/t5/Barracuda-XT-Barracuda-Barracuda/2TB-ST2000DM001-3TB-STBD3000100-Barracudas-Making-Weird-quot/td-p/161356

In few words: a lot of user noticed a strange sound coming randomly out of the drives: a "chirp" noise that would make the LOAD_CYCLE_COUNT SMART attribute rise.

As some found out it's probably the APM fuction of the HDD (as OS independent) that parks the disk heads when no disk activity is requested.

It's a "feature" that is turning out being very annoying and as the LOAD_CYCLE_COUNT is rapidly increasing, the "normal" 200.000 cycles a HDD is designed to resist is rapidly reached.

As we don't know exactly how many drives are affected (a user suggested that ALL drives with advanced power management functions are affected) we are looking for new inputs and experiences.

Seagate is appearently "investigating the case", but no official statement so far.

Feel free to to share your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time ago there's been a problem which I think is similar to this one with WD Green drives. They've been so keep on saving that last µJ of energy that the drives killed themselves quickly. Well, to more precise: the time out for the heads to be parked was set to a few seconds, which let to a huge amount of park/unpark cycles per day for some users (e.g. if some tool was monitoring smart values in intervals a little higher than the time out). Not sure if the current Greens still do this, or if they moved to a smarter adaptive detection sceme along the line "if there were several quick park/unpark cycle in the recent time, be less agressive with parking".

My friend had this problem on his drive.. and so severe that it would even park the heads during a video stream, leading to stutter upon unparking. the only solution was some tool to set the time out to a static 30 s (maximum allowed).

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now