backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by AkaiRo.. on Nov 30 at 11:15 AM


Seagate's Savvio 10K.2 hard drive
Seagate goes green with low power consumption 10,000RPM SAS drives

Seagate Technology today announced its Savvio 2.5-inch 10,000RPM enterprise hard drives.  The company announced its first 2.5" enterprise drives late last year with the Savvio 10K.1 series, which were also some of the first drives on the market with perpendicular recording capabilities. 

 

Savvio drives consume less power than equivalent 3.5-inch drives -- 5.7W for 143GB, 5.4 for 73GB at idle -- thus reducing system temperatures while the smaller size enables more airflow to cool processors. Seagate boasts its “greenness” in the enterprise by working to address power and cooling challenges that data centers encounter.

 

Smaller platters ensure faster seek times (3.8/4.4ms), while the compact chassis enables more drives per system to maximize IOPS/U performance. Savvio drives also make room for additional memory modules and processors.   The new drives are available with SAS, SCSI and fiber channel interfaces.

 

Seagate claims that its Savvio 10K.2 drives have an average failure rate of only 0.55%, even when running 24/7, making it the most reliable disk drive in Seagate’s roster. In addition, non-recoverable error per bits read rate has been improved to one sector per 10^16.

 

Seagate is quick to point out that its Savvio drives differ greatly from other 2.5-inch notebook drives. The Savvio line was designed from the ground up as an enterprise class drive, sharing more in common with the Cheetah than the Momentus.

 

Enterprise storage customers are juggling demands for space and power in addition to improved performance and cooling efficiencies in data centers,” according to John Rydning, IDC’s research manager for hard disk drives. “A growing number of customers are beginning to realize the benefits of a smaller 2.5-inch form factor enterprise hard disc drive as a solution to these datacenter challenges.”



Comments     Threshold


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

When, what capacity - what about NOW?
By boe on 11/29/2006 10:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
Many of my clients are waiting for me to give them the signal to buy new servers. The issue is physical space in relation to storage capacity. They want to buy new servers but can't allocate more physical space. Many need significantly more storage space.

If Seagate were to release 500+GB 3.5" SAS drives today, I could use existing server designs. Going to 2.5" drives might potentially mean faster systems but the server companies will have to design chasis that maximize space for these new drives. Then the question becomes what capacity for these new units. Typically Seagate takes the weenie way out and releases 70-80 GB initially, 140-160 and then 300-320. The question then becomes is it another YEAR before Dell or HP comes out with a 2.5" drive chasis with 20 bays to hold enough 300GB drives to handle the needs of larger companies or companies with heavy media content?

I doubt Dell or HP is about to rush out and design a new chasis if Seagate only release large capacity 2.5" SAS drives a year from now.

We've had SAS for a while now - how bout releasing it in a capacity that comes a tad closer to the 1 TB SATA drives?




RE: When, what capacity - what about NOW?
By AkaiRo on 11/29/2006 12:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
20+ drive bay chassis units have been in development by the big manufacturers for several years now. HP have released the first of several new SAS/SATA cabinets (the MSA60) planned for sale in CY2007. One unit that was demo'd almost 3 years ago had 25 drive bays.

One thing that is probably going to (slightly) delay a steady release of new storage enclosures from the big boys is the push for dual ported SAS drives and storage enclosures.

As for capacities, 2.5" drives will be 1 - 2 years behind the 3.5" drives in terms of capacity bumps.

For what you are talking about (high capacity SAS type drives), you need to look at things like multiple HP MSA60 enclosures (3.5" low profile SAS HDDs) and the SA-P600 and SA-P800 controllers.


RE: When, what capacity - what about NOW?
By boe on 11/29/2006 2:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to ask for clarification
"One thing that is probably going to (slightly) delay a steady release of new storage enclosures from the big boys is the push for dual ported SAS drives and storage enclosures. "

I'm not sure what you mean to say but I think it'd be worthwhile for me to be clear.

Thanks


By AkaiRo on 11/30/2006 11:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
Single ported SAS is the current standard, but it is really meant as a waypoint rather than the destination, at least for enterprise class implementations. The eventual goal is to have dual-ported SAS for mainstream enterprise level consumption and use because it allows for the design of products that provide maximum capacity, minimum footprint, and high availability (duplexed controllers - no OS software mirroring).

If I want to build an HP server that has, say 1.3TB of storage and the server must have redundancy / fault tolerance in the storage subsystem, then I can buy the MSA30 Dual Bus cabinet and fill it with 300GB drives. But in order for me to do this using the MSA50 (SAS Small Form Factor) or the MSA60 (3.5" SAS low profile), I'd have to buy two storage cabinets. The cost for this solution increases the overall server price by about $2,000 and my company gets significant discounts from HP because we buy thousands of servers a year. So for companies like us, it is important that HP's future releases (the MSAx0 and the SAS SFF version of the MSA500) are dual ported.


RE: When, what capacity - what about NOW?
By mbarry1961 on 11/29/2006 12:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
SUN has been delivering 2.5" x64 form factor servers for well over a year and they outperform HP and DELL systems by a wide margin.


By AkaiRo on 11/29/2006 10:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
What Kool-Aid is Sun giving away now? The Sun reps that come around my shop are dumping loads in their pants these days because we can buy Xeon 5100 series servers from HP that give better bang for the buck and are much better designed for a wide variety of configurations than the stuff Sun sells.

Oh, and we're one of Sun's largest clients, or should I say were as one of our divisions (the one with the data centers that are the size of 50-story office building laid on their side) and they switched away from Sun despite having Coolthreads and Athlon-based servers from Sun well before they were released to the public.


RE: When, what capacity - what about NOW?
By kleinwl on 11/29/2006 1:11:08 PM , Rating: 1
How can you not suggest purchasing new servers? The improvements in CPU thermal envelope alone could justify the replacement. And why not suggest 500GB SATA drives. They are fine for archiving... the only times that you need/want the SAS drives is when you are frequently reading/writing the information and the speed matters. This only seems to be a small percentage of the overall usage.... so why not slap a few high speed SAS drives along side the larger, slower SATA drives for archiving.


By boe on 11/29/2006 1:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
I can justify it by not having my clients pay me a big wad of cash for every upgrade available. I want to maximize their bang for the buck. When they have not choice but to upgrade, I will play whatever hand is available. Right now they have a little space left, I'm offloading non critical files to a NAS device - not an ideal solution but better than paying $15,000 for a server with insufficient disk space only to have them pay me again in 6 months when better technology is available. They are already on Windows 2003 latest SP and patches, AD and complimentary Exchange 2k3 servers.

Justification becomes obvious when they can at least double their current storage capacity as demand is increasing at more than double per year. This is the nature of most businesses - IT departments are despised enough due to expenses, limiting their storage capacity without justification is a mine field. I assist in removing and archiving dead files - restrictions can kill a career.

In the past, SCSI drives have increased from 1 GB, 2GB, 9GB, 18GB etc - to the current 300+GB. They are currently stalled along with SAS drives. SATA drives are currently in the 1TB range. I have no doubt SAS drives must grow to at least 500GB soon to meet the demands of MANY clients. I work with many consultants and clients in the field so I know the demands I present are in no way unique. Not all clients require it but I think a signficant portion is represented and as multimedia grows, so will the demand.

BTW, if you know anyone working with the major SAS drive manufacturers, you know the large drives are ready for deployment although the speed is not ideal, it still beats SCSI in a comparable raid configuration. The delay we face is unnecessary in my opinion. I realize they can improve the performance of the large capacity SAS drives, but the demand exists NOW.

Seagate will probably not release 500+GB 2.5" drives for two years; waiting for that would be far less than ideal for my clients.


All well and good, but
By DigitalFreak on 11/29/2006 8:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
where are the 15k 2.5" SAS drives?




RE: All well and good, but
By AkaiRo on 11/29/2006 12:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
2.5" SAS drives use the same platter size as 15K rpm 3.5" drives. Spinning the platters in the 2.5" form factor at 15K rpm causes mechanical difficulties that manufacturers are working on right now. But it's not that big of a deal as the I/Os per second of these new drives is 2 - 3 times greater than their 3.5" counterparts (50,000 - 70,000 as opposed to 20,000).


RE: All well and good, but
By Hare on 11/29/2006 12:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
I/O operations are just one benchmark. Latency is another indicator of performance and you can't really get better latency without raising rotational speeds.

Btw. Thanks for the info. I didn't know they used 2.5" platters in 15 000rpm drives. Now I know.


hmm
By One43637 on 11/29/2006 2:37:40 PM , Rating: 1
hmm, i wonder if this will find a home in someone's PS3.




RE: hmm
By DigitalFreak on 11/29/2006 4:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, as soon as you can figure out how to attach a SAS controller to the PS3 system bus...


Low consumption
By greylica on 11/29/2006 1:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
I love to hear it, I can imagine at least 4 X 173GB with 20W... Raid 5. My computer running 24X7 finnaly ...




And here I was
By xphile on 11/29/2006 5:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
thinking for the last 35 plus years that an "Enterprise class drive" would be called a "Warp Drive" when in fact it turns out to be a "Savvio Drive" from the Seagate Federation. Next they will be telling me there really is no such language as Klingon after all.




Power usage
By electriple9 on 11/29/2006 5:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
Whats the average power usage for a ide drive.
Thanks




What drives you?
By Sivar on 11/29/2006 5:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
greylica, One43637:
The desktop performance of Seagate enterprise drives tends to be terrible. They are optimized for lots of random IOs, a pattern which desktop systems do not replicate (multitasking or not). greylica: RAID5 performance tends to be pretty poor as well (with any drive), though three of these in RAID 5 would indeed be a reliable, low-power (though high-cost) 24x7 setup, though you'd get better performance for less money from a pair of Raptors in RAID1.
Storagereview has a good review of the current Savvio here:
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200411/20041...

electriple9:
Desktop drives use around 10-15W, depending on whether they are seeking. Samsungs tend to use less, Hitachi's often use the most.




Just speculating but...
By Mudvillager on 11/30/2006 6:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully Samsung will release a NAND SSD with SATA III-interface (Coming in 2007 right?) and OneNAND RAIDed in pairs of 8 or more. That should give it a practical Read Speed of close to 600MB/s (108*8 = more than 600MB/s which is SATA III's maximum transfer rate) and a write speed of 74.4MB/s (9.3*8=74.4). If it would come in sizes of 16GB and cost less than $999 I'd buy it without hesitation. It would render drives like this Seagate useless.




sata
By 8steve8 on 11/29/06, Rating: -1
RE: sata
By cozappz on 11/29/2006 3:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
well, SerialAttachedSCSI is a protocol which include SATA. I mean _any_ SATA drive can be attached to _any_ SAS controller. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Attached_SCSI


RE: sata
By ninjit on 11/29/2006 3:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
What should be SATA?

SAS stands for Serial Attached SCSI, which is basicaly what SATA is to ATA. I think they both even use the same physical ports and electrical signalling, it's the command structure that differs.

There are already some controllers available that can handle SAS, SATA, or a heterogenous mix of both.


RE: sata
By GaryJohnson on 11/29/2006 6:03:04 AM , Rating: 3
Truthfully, anyone who finds value in these drives (@~$690) can also afford a SAS controller card (@~$250).

Sources:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...


RE: sata
By Lonearchon on 11/29/2006 8:18:51 AM , Rating: 2
This is aim at the business sector where they will pay more for faster speed and reliability. Those prices are compatible to SCSI controller prices. I Currently use a 4 disk SAS array at work for video recording. The array is very fast transfer rate of around 230mbs compared to the system at around 40mbs which is a single sata drive


RE: sata
By GaryJohnson on 11/29/2006 4:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
Currently the cheapest 15k RPM SAS drive availbe + the cheapest SAS controller card availble can be had for ~$100 less than the price of a single 8800GTX card.

Despite the intended market, I would not be suprised to see a few SAS drives at LAN and Gaming events over the next year.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Related Articles













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