Western Digital Plays with Seagate's HAMR Technology, Start Thinking 60TB Hard Drives



+ Add a Comment


You know, I have ONE, SIMPLE request. And that is to have hard drives with FRICKIN' laser beams attached to their FRICKIN' heads!!!



Does anybody other than cloud storage providers really care about HDD capacity anymore? I think most client-side storage has jumped onto SSDs, since HDDs were the number one performance bottleneck in most cases.



Cloud providers are likely to care about HDD's for a long time because while they may be considered a bottleneck compared to SSD's they don't have the read/write life limitations that HDD's do.
HDD's will for a while remain a good choice for mass storage while SSD's are more ideal for the OS drive.


Leo Scott

The NSA. More days of email and phone conversation content storage.



"Does anybody other than cloud storage providers really care about HDD capacity anymore?"




I know I'm the exception to the rule, but I run my own servers at home for my various projects, including home media storage and such. While SSDs are nice, I can't buy 3TB SSDs at a price point that I can afford right now for the implementation into my servers that I want to accomplish. Not to mention that due to the nature of some of the things I do on my servers (virtualization, side projects, etc) an SSD's "write penalty" over standard hard drives becomes a big factor.

So yes, I think hard drives with large capacities are still relevant. :)

Plus with the knowledge that most RAID technologies are going by the wayside due to technology (increases in size make it increasingly difficult to have fast rebuilds on large arrays) with things like RAID 10 which is more reliable than RAID 5, and will someday reduce RAID 6 to the same fate, large capacities in hard drives will be helpful due to the RAID 10 size penalty (half the storage is taken up by the mirroring aspect of RAID 10)



Note that RAID 6 is likely more reliable than RAID 10 since it can survive *any* two drive failures: RAID 10 has to be lucky and not lose directly mirrored drives. This assumes that two simultaneous (or at least faster than rebuild times) drive losses are less common than three (although if you are losing drives that fast, time to find out if your off-site backups really work).



The biggest issue i think will be power consumption. Powering a laser that is powerful enough to actually *heat* up a surface will raise the drive's wattage requirements quite a bit.



Heat has been the long time bane of computers forever and now it's somehow going to be good? Might increase reliability? I don't know, sounds like it could open a whole new can of worms putting lasers in HDDs and all.



Maybe there will be an increase in reliability as well.