backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by Crassus.. on Jun 6 at 2:29 PM

Seagate says it will target enterprise customers with its first SSD

Seagate doesn’t currently have any drives in the SSD market. Seagate currently is one of the largest makers of traditional hard drives and while it foresees a time when the solid state drive (SSD) is a better value than traditional HDDs; that time is not now.

Seagate announced that next year it will double its highest capacity traditional HDD to 2TB and will introduce its first SSD. CEO Bill Watkins says Seagate will first target enterprise customers with its SSDs where the benefits of lower power consumption and faster data access will be most welcome. The enterprise environment will also be willing to pay the premium SSDs will still demand whereas the majority of the consumer market is not willing to pay the premium at this time says Seagate.

PC World quotes Watkins saying, “SSDs are not price-competitive yet.” The cost per gigabyte for SSDs isn’t expected to come down for several years. Watkins believes that SSDs will become a focus for Seagate when the cost per gigabyte of SSD storage is around $0.10.

Currently, the cost per gigabyte for the average SSD is about $3.58 per gigabyte according to Krishna Chander, an analyst at iSuppli. There are problems with SSDs to be tackled over the next few years other than price. The typical SSD still has a storage capacity too low for most users and the SSD lifespan is short compared to a traditional HDD.

The answer to the problem of durability may lie in using the SSD for data reading and fast access to commonly used files and having less frequently used stuff moved off to a HDD for more permanent storage according to some. Despite the fact that Seagate doesn’t currently sell SSDs, it does own several patents that cover technology currently used in many SSDs on the market.

In April 2008 Seagate announced it was going to begin filing patent infringement suits against SSD makers who were using its patented technology in their products with the first suit filed against STEC.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Who cares
By phatboye on 5/30/2008 3:15:18 PM , Rating: -1
I have 4 HDs ranging from 40GB-300GB none of which are more than 1/4th full. This drive of the industry toward super high capacity drives is useless as majority of home and even business users won't need more than 100GB for some time. I'd rather these HD companies start focusing on engineering HD that have better/faster read/write/seek times. We have been using 7200RPM drives for years it's time to start seeing consumer level 10,000RPM and 15,000RPM SATA drives hit the market.

SSD are nice but they cost way to much ATM. I think it would be better to see some lower priced, higher spin HDs. That would make for some nice intermediate drives until SSDs can be made cheaply enough to replace traditional HDs. Until the day come that I see faster HDs hit the consumer market I won't be in a hurry to buy any new HD's to replace my older HDs.




RE: Who cares
By Crusty on 5/30/2008 3:24:55 PM , Rating: 5
Tell that to anyone that use Windows Media Center. A typical Vista install is almost 20GB. On top of that, any new DX10 games will be taking up a LOT of space. A new install of Age of Conan sits around the 24GB mark. My steam folder is almost 60GB and I have < 10 games installed there. I'm not doing anything different then a good chunk of the regular population and I could never fit my stuff in a 100GB hard drive.


RE: Who cares
By PAPutzback on 5/30/2008 4:18:49 PM , Rating: 3
I have close to 2TB of space used now by DVDs and BD rips, not to mention about 100 gig of lossless ripped music.

I could fill a 2tb drive about every 2-3 months if I upped my BD collection seeing as each movie is 15 to 45 gig. And I don't even record HD TV yet. I used the cable box for that. But someday I will once I can get a media center that will have a standard that will last more than 2 years. I might record OTA ATSC though. But I am low on space.


RE: Who cares
By FaceMaster on 5/30/2008 5:13:56 PM , Rating: 5
lol somebody loves piratebay


RE: Who cares
By CloudFire on 5/31/2008 2:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
don't we all love piratebay? :)


RE: Who cares
By FaceMaster on 6/1/2008 5:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
'They' are hunting you down right now.


RE: Who cares
By phatboye on 5/30/2008 7:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
to all those who replied to my post and even rated my post down to -1 should re-read what I wrote.

quote:
as majority of home and even business users won't need more than 100GB for some time.


I hardly think that anyone who posts om dailytech about having over 1TB of data on their HD is representative of a typical (see majority) computer users. Of course there will be people like yourselves here on dailytech who need to store large amounts of data but as you can see my post wasn't directed toward you. Honestly what percentage of users have 6 or 7 OSes installed or who have hundreds of backed-up movies installed on their computer taking up +1TB of data? Sure their are a lot of these people floating around dailytech but if you put that in perspective and compare that number to the general population you will see that percentage wise people who need +1TB of data ATM are few and far between.


RE: Who cares
By kyleb2112 on 5/31/2008 12:22:12 AM , Rating: 3
Well the title of your post is "Who cares", and you got your answer. The fact that you or the Average Joe don't need the capacity doesn't mean there's no need for it.


RE: Who cares
By phatboye on 5/31/2008 1:22:58 PM , Rating: 1
OK "Who cares" is a bad title I will admit that, I should have made a better title.

Also again I never said their is no need for super high capacity hard drives. What I said was there is a greater need for faster hard drives then super high capacity hard drives. Hard drives are the greatest bottleneck on many modern day computers and we have been stuck using 7200RPM drives for a long time now. It's time for these hard drives manufactures to start focusing in consumer level higher speed (ie 10k/15k RPM) SATA hard drives.


RE: Who cares
By phatboye on 5/31/2008 1:25:25 PM , Rating: 1
..and yes I do know that as data density is increased HD read/write speed is increased.


RE: Who cares
By Nik00117 on 6/1/2008 3:52:09 PM , Rating: 1
If you add up all the space that I use it currently is around 842 GIGs, i'm not typical of the average user.

None of my friends have as many movies as I do (all my movies are 700 to 1.3 gig packages) I have a huge ammount of docus, and TV shows along with music, now what kills me is the way games are sizing up. 6-8 gigs for a game is typical. I mean the avg size of a game for me nowadays are 8 gigs, in fact if I installed off my video games I could easily have 150-200 gigs of legal games, esp if i'd install guild wars (which I believe sucks BTW) and age of conan I heard was hugee.

I honsetly believe the days of 120 gig, and 250 gigs are out the door to be honset. Even a moddest gamer with some itunes and vista can easily fill up 250 gigs.

O BTW I just recently cleaned up a huge ammount of RAW AVI files which are fucking huge from a 1 1/2 hour movie project I did, the file itself was like 18 gigs, now imagine all of the little clips and your easily talking 36 gigs, on top of this I had a lot of minor mistakes and fixed so you can go ahead and add another 30 gigs, if you include pictures, audio, and other sources of videos which I used. Boom one video project 66 gigs, and i'm not even strecthing the limits.


RE: Who cares
By Silver2k7 on 6/2/2008 6:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
nah GW was really cool for a while, havn't tried the expansions thought.


RE: Who cares
By larson0699 on 6/3/2008 2:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
60 gigs in Steam. Nuff said.

(happy with 120 gigs)


RE: Who cares
By elpresidente2075 on 5/30/2008 3:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have 4 HDs ranging from 40GB-300GB none of which are more than 1/4th full


And I have 2 320's and a 250 that are all 75-90% full, plus an 80 that's nearly 50% (between 3 computers), and a project that I'm working on will fill that last bit of space in mere moments.

The raw performance of these drives is less important than their sheer capaciousness, as one is a media center and another is my main desktop, both of which would suffer severly from an EXTREMELY loud 10k-15k drive. Besides, many of the new 300-500 GB drives with 16-32MB of cache are just as fast or faster than the Raptors (not VelociRaptor - that's a whole other story) without all the noise and much better power/heat characteristics plus much better longevity than any consumer-level 15k drive would be able to achieve.

Personally, I'd like to see an SSD for my laptop for every reason ever mentioned to buy an SSD. But, like every other normal person, they're WAY too expensive to even be considered. The most I'll pay/GB on an SSD will be $1, as that'll make a 60GB $60, and be a direct replacement for my current setup within a decent price envelope. Unfortunately that probably won't be until '10 or '11, so I'll have a whole new lappy by then, and my GB req's will be much higher by that time.


RE: Who cares
By AndreasM on 5/30/2008 3:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
Bigger hard disks = higher data density = faster hard disks

10k and 15k RPM drives sounds like a recipe for much lower MTBF


RE: Who cares
By Locutus465 on 5/30/2008 4:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have a "bad" habbit of holding on to old files and such, and now with zune video content... Well I've got ~700GB total storage and I'm thinking switching out one of my drives with a 1TB drive might be in order soon enough.


RE: Who cares
By Doormat on 5/30/2008 4:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
I want to rip all my DVDs to a hard drive so I can play them back on my 360 (and hopefully soon, TiVo HD) without having to get up and rummage through my collection. So a 2TB is a very welcome option, even if they are priced high initially ($325).

At 2GB per movie in H.264, a 2TB HDD would store about 900 movies (after that whole 1000/1024 conversion).


RE: Who cares
By Locutus465 on 5/30/2008 5:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
Does the series III allow streaming? I'd love to switch over to that if it wasn't for the expense.


RE: Who cares
By Doormat on 5/30/2008 11:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
Streaming to what?

I can put the TiVo software on my PC, pull over the shows (or do this automatically with TiVo.NET software I think) and then stream them back to the TiVo to watch.

You can also pull the videos off, take out the commercials, encode it to H.264 and watch it on a 360, PS3, and even back to the TiVo itself after they ship their H.264 upgrade later this year.


RE: Who cares
By Screwballl on 5/30/2008 4:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm I have a 500GB backup SATA drive that is around 75% full.
I have a 320GB SATA drive in my main system that is around 50% (was more until I got the backup drive). Also have a 120GB SATA drive that is used for my OS installs and software testing, so usually 30GB for the OS stuff and the rest of the 90GB is almost full as well. Then another 160GB PATA drive in my older system that has stayed around 60-70% full for the past 5 years.
Then the home servers (yes multiple home type servers for different purposes) each with 80GB drives (1x SATA, several others with PATA) and they tend to stay around 50-60% full.
Oh and then my older laptop (Celeron M, 2.4GHz) with its new 60GB ATA hard drive is already 40% full with normal OS stuff and security programs and such (of course it is dual boot with Ubuntu 8.04 and XP Home)...

Thats around 1.5TB of space with around 1TB of OS and "stuff".

One key thing that sets me apart is that there is ZERO porn on anything here.


RE: Who cares
By cubby1223 on 5/31/2008 12:22:30 AM , Rating: 3
When you look at the numbers you give, minus the backup, you're still sitting at an average of less than 100gb per computer. That would actually be in support of the original comment...


RE: Who cares
By Screwballl on 5/31/2008 11:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
but how would I be able to maintain the 400+GB worth of data if all I had were 100GB drives? Would be a nightmare trying to find specific files needed or backup a single computer...
Take out the server setups and the laptop, and it is closer to 200GB per.

Now if you want, add in the HTPC (build in progress) that has 2x 1TB hard drives and see his post go to crap.

My post was merely stating that sure, some computers can get by with 100GB or less but for the rest of us gamers and HTPCs and file backups is looking at minimum 500GB nowadays.


RE: Who cares
By mindless1 on 6/2/2008 4:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
The natural evolution of our storage tends towards having a large central store and clients with only what they need for performance reasons. Thus there is a need for the fewest, largest drives possible with one exception that some want a bit of RAID redundancy.


RE: Who cares
By Staples on 5/30/2008 5:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
I am glad that I am not the only one who does not care. My biggest drive is 250GB. Drives these big are impossible to back up so I like smaller drives for the simple fact that they I don't need a ton of DVDs to back up their contents.

But the guy on the bottom bringing up Media Center has a point. My TIVO broke a year ago and I use Media Center as my DVR. HD broadcast can take up 12GB an hour so if you record a lot, your space will be eaten up very fast. Luckily, I just record things, watch them once and then erase them. I do not archeive things or keep them sitting months before I watch them so I get by just fine with what I have.


RE: Who cares
By bigboxes on 5/30/2008 6:32:08 PM , Rating: 3
You back up one drive with an identical sized drive. If one drive starts to faulter you stop using your drives and purchase another one and then back up the healthy drive.


RE: Who cares
By phil126 on 5/31/2008 10:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly I am even more anal than that. I have two drives mirrored and then a larger drive that I store a ghost image of the drive on. And before anyone wonders why I do not just do a RAID5... I need to keep incremental back ups not just the mirror of what is currently running. Once I got into video editting (kids) I can never seem to have enough space. It is easy to eat through a TB with out even doing that much.


RE: Who cares
By mindless1 on 6/2/2008 4:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
There's nothing anal about that, it's the beginning of a sane strategy that combines both constant uptime of a RAID redundant set along with the security of an offline backup copy. That's assuming you unplug that larger drive so it's not subject to corruption, malware, or power surges.

Anal might be someone who takes that larger drive and puts it in a safe deposit box somewhere if it doesn't have thousands of dollars worth of data on it, and yet anyone who has a few hundred hours worth of work (or data that would take as long to reproduce for whatever reason) does have a few thousand dollars worth of data.


RE: Who cares
By larson0699 on 6/3/2008 2:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
Big-ass Lian Li case, 12 1TB drives, and a RAID 60.

Four stripes (one on each RAID 6, which in itself is double parity, giving you 33% storage efficiency, but for the anal...) under one big stripe.

Solved.

So worried about losing something.. build a network.


RE: Who cares
By jeromekwok on 6/1/2008 4:36:34 AM , Rating: 1
I have four hard drives 2TB in total 90% full. It is really nice to have 2TB in one drive.

I have some recorded TV shows, video podcasts and also data backups.

If bigger drives are available I might record TV shows in Hidef. I will also get a 10MPixel camera to fill up with pictures and videos.

I would like to see consumer 10krpm drives. But it does not make sense to have a 300GB 10k drive for 2TB 7.2k of money for most people.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki