Seagate adds 8TB drive to NAS storage lineup

Seagate has updated its lineup of NAS-oriented hard drives. The NAS family now welcomes its newest and biggest member, a drive with an impressive data capacity of 8TB.

The company calls the new drive the "largest NAS-optimized drive on the market," and says it's suitable for use in up to 8-bay enclosures. The company says the drive's firmware is optimized with "extended error recovery controls," which should help protect RAID built with these drives from unnecessary rebuilds.

The drives also come with dual-plane balanced motors, purportedly offering better tolerance to vibration. Seagate puts the drives' WRL (Workload Rate Limit) at 180TB per year, a figure the firm says is the largest in the SOHO NAS drive category. The drive's expected MTBF is 1 million hours, too, and the company offers a 3-year warranty coverage.

Seagate is currently shipping these drives to "select customers," and says they'll be available to everyone by the end of Q1 2016.

Comments closed
    • TruthSerum
    • 4 years ago

    Alright, just where in the hell do they expect to get this Helium anyway?

    Kids are going to be awfully disappointed on their birthdays you big terabyte bullies!

    • ronch
    • 4 years ago

    A bit off topic, but just curious: we all know how Seagate had a bad reputation but it’s been a while since we had those 500GB drives that automatically bricked themselves (like, that was 2008 or so). How has Seagate’s reputation been these past few years?

      • Walkintarget
      • 4 years ago

      Recently, Seagates 1.5TB and to a lesser extent their 3TB drives have gotten bad press. Not just from the Backblaze report, but from anyone who offered their anecdotal ‘evidence’ to support that claim as well. I’m running 5 Seagates 24/7 in my WHS (two 3TB, one 5TB and two 4TB NAS) and had no issues with any of them.
      I >DID< have issues with a pair of 1.5s, which were running fine in a PC with active cooling on both, but when I moved them to an external eSATA enclosure hooked up to my WHS, they got too hot and died prematurely. I should have known better than to sandwich them into that tiny enclosure ….

      Also, keep in mind that the Backblaze study pointed a finger at the Seagate 1.5TB [b<]GREEN[/b<] drives, and not the 7,200rpm drives that we usually recommend here. I have a HUGE stack of WD Scorpio Blue 2.5" drives at home that caused me to never ever buy 'Green' drives again. Its gotten a lot harder to recommend a reliable brand, as every manufacturer has releases a lemon from time to time., and so many have either left the market or been bought up. The list goes on and on ... Conner, Quantum, Micropolis, IBM, Samsung, etc. WD currently has a lot of reported issues with their 'Red' 3TB drives, so thre just isn't any safe bets anymore. If you are in the market for a drive, buy according to your needs. Looking for a 24/7 drive ? Buy a NAS rated drive instead of its cheaper 7,200 OEM alternative that costs a lot less. [url<]http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089464/three-year-27-000-drive-study-reveals-the-most-reliable-hard-drive-makers.html[/url<]

        • ronch
        • 4 years ago

        I’m particularly happy with my Hitachi 7K1000.C 1TB drive. Got it way back in May 2011. Still going strong. I’m starting to consider buying a bigger drive because I don’t expect it to last forever but I have my doubts with Seagate and WD. WD doesn’t even offer a ‘normal’ drive beyond 1TB (their Blue models max out at 1TB) which means you’ll need to shell out more for their Black drives compared to Seagate’s competing 7,200rpm drives. Are the Blacks worthy of the higher price tags compared to same capacity Seagates? I don’t really find them compelling so I might go Seagate. I’d go with Hitachi again if i could find a 2TB or bigger model.

          • Walkintarget
          • 4 years ago

          I was running two 1TB Blacks in a RAID.0 on a Z68 board that used iRST to cache the drives with an onboard mSATA Intel 20GB SLC SSD, and let me tell ya, that setup was fast !! Unfortunately, after 5 years one of the two WDs developed some bad sectors and down went my precious RAID array. The second WD Black is still going strong, 7 years later, as the boot drive in my WHS.

          To me, the WD Blacks are worth their extra coin. Those Hitachi 1TB were also known to run well and run forever, and I can also give a thumbs up to the Samsung F3 1TBs. Anything 2TB and over seems to have more reliability issues, and you’d be hard pressed to find one so universally adored as the three I listed above.

            • ronch
            • 4 years ago

            I guess those platters with higher densities simply have smaller margins for error. Kinda like comparing SLC, MLC and TLC SSDs.

    • Blytz
    • 4 years ago

    Ok, higher bitrate error correction, slightly faster transfer rates. Any other reason why I’d get one over the cold storage SMR 8tb drives that are significantly cheaper for a NAS doing only media storage work (IE, raid and basic file serviing)

    • TwoEars
    • 4 years ago

    A 8TB non-enterprise nas drive? Yeah… good luck with that. I’ll pass. Thank you very much.

    • Walkintarget
    • 4 years ago

    My HTPC is anxiously awaiting arrival of an 8TB Seagate drive. You can never have enough space with an HTPC.

      • Deanjo
      • 4 years ago

      That’s a whole lot of media to trust on a seagate.

        • Waco
        • 4 years ago

        Seagate failure rates are on par with other manufacturers.

        Signed, someone with thousands of them.

        • Thrashdog
        • 4 years ago

        Seagate had a very bad run that reached its nadir with their 3GB drives, but if BackBlaze’s statistics are anything to go by they’ve done a lot to get their house back in order since then. Their current offerings are in the same ballpark as WD or Toshiba. HGST drives continue to be the most reliable, but all are “good enough.”

        Still won’t put any of the ST3000DM001’s that I’ve got into a system, though.

          • Deanjo
          • 4 years ago

          The seagate that are still showing good in their stats have not been in service long enough to see where they typically start dying off.

            • Waco
            • 4 years ago

            With the exception of the 7200.11 series, which in particular are you talking about? The 3 TB 7200.14 drives abused by BackBlaze?

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            Backblazes studies also show significantly higher failure rates with their green and Barracuda LP lines. Then there is also the piles of dead seagates of all lines that local mom and pop shops have stopped selling all together because of extremely high failure rates.

            Here is a good graph showing failure rate vs time

            [url<]https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxBp8Vkho2pIejNTM2JWU0hpdEk/view[/url<]

            • Waco
            • 4 years ago

            Looking at those curves, I see the two types of drives I mentioned standing out. The rest seem pretty middle of the field…

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            Better look again, all of the seagate drives are well below the top offerings and dropping fast (as usual).

            • Waco
            • 4 years ago

            We must be looking at different charts. Are you looking at the one you just posted?

      • Walkintarget
      • 4 years ago

      No worries !! I have two 4TB NAS drives in the HTPC now, so what I’ll do is move them to my WHS. That thing would then have 20TB storage to back up the ‘measly’ 8TB HTPC and a few other PCs on my network. I’ve been running the WHS since 2008 and it’s saved my bacon numerous times.

      Note that I’ve been running two of those Seagate 3TB drives in it for well over 2+ years. The only Seagates that I’ve had fail in the past 4 years were two 1.5TB drives, and they only failed due to my shoving them into a tiny dual bay MediaSonic eSATA enclosure that allowed them to overheat.
      I gave one to a friend to use temporarily in a new build he was putting together. He was using a borrowed Intel 120GB SSD and my 1.5 Seagate, and he dumped a LOT of data to that 1.5 and it never missed a beat. That was last month, and he just recently swapped out the Intel for a Samsung 850 EVO and the Seagate 1.5 for a Hitachi 2TB, but I have heard nothing but bad things about the 1.5s and also to a lesser extent the 3TBs.

    • Takeshi7
    • 4 years ago

    Seagate also announced their new 10TB Helium drive today:

    [url<]http://www.seagate.com/about-seagate/news/seagate-unveils-10tb-helium-enterprise-drive-master-pr/[/url<] Disclaimer: I'm a Seagate Employee.

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]Disclaimer: I'm a Seagate Employee.[/quote<] Disclaimer part 2: AND HE'S GOT A SQUEAKY VOICE!

      • Waco
      • 4 years ago

      Any idea when the next round of SMR drives will debut? I’d guess at either ~10 TB non helium or ~12.5 TB helium?

        • Takeshi7
        • 4 years ago

        Unfortunately I’m not allowed to give information on future products. Stay tuned!

          • willmore
          • 4 years ago

          How about getting TR some drives to test? 😉

      • ronch
      • 4 years ago

      Oh good. A Seagate employee!

      Just curious.. What is your opinion on the recent findings by Backblaze that Seagate drives have some of the highest failure rates in the industry? And if their findings are indeed true, what has Seagate done to address it?

        • Waco
        • 4 years ago

        *highest failure rates when abused far beyond specifications for a handful of model lines that don’t represent the entirety of even their consumer drives

          • Thresher
          • 4 years ago

          Seriously. I have had dozens of Seagate drives over the years and only one has failed on me. That one was in a NAS and I was able to slap another in there and restore it.

          Certainly other people have had different experiences with their drives, but mine has been positive.

    • SuperSpy
    • 4 years ago

    Assuming I’m doing my math right, and the “1 in 10e15” error rate is in bits, that means the drive has a 1 in 15.6 (6.4%) chance of failing during a RAID rebuild.

      • Duct Tape Dude
      • 4 years ago

      To be pedantic, a 1:10e15 error rate means a write error not a complete drive failure, but you infer a good point: at these capacities you’re much more likely to see a bit incorrectly written just by making a full drive’s worth of writes. Hopefully your file system is smart enough to correct for these small errors.

        • Topinio
        • 4 years ago

        Really? “Non-recoverable Read Errors per Bits Read, Max”.

          • Duct Tape Dude
          • 4 years ago

          What I mean is the drive could experience one of these and still be considered a working drive (ie: not failing as SuperSpy said). It wouldn’t be a permanent failure like a damaged area of the disk or a SMART error. Data on it might have to be reformatted or rewritten, but it’d otherwise be ok.

          I’ve seen similar behavior every on my drive pool, when a single error was written to a particular drive but after correcting and validating the drive, no further errors occurred for years. No crazy SMART errors like pending sector counts or reallocation events, etc. Just a single write+read error.

        • Waco
        • 4 years ago

        It means any error, read or write. (EDIT: To be clear, a write error will return as a read error the next time around. The error rate encompasses both a failed write manifesting as a failed read as well as an actual failed read)

        Most drives can detect the error and pass it up eventually, and filesystems in general can handle that.

        What they can’t handle well are silently bad blocks. You need something much more modern to handle those types of errors.

          • Duct Tape Dude
          • 4 years ago

          [quote<]What they can't handle well are silently bad blocks. You need something much more modern to handle those types of errors.[/quote<]Yes, that's different, and what file systems like ReFS, Btrfs, and ZFS are designed to combat.

            • Waco
            • 4 years ago

            Exactly. 🙂

    • Thresher
    • 4 years ago

    Just keep bringing them out. My NAS is topped out and I want to get one with all the bells and whistles. It will be nice to go from 3TB drives to 5TB drives for the same money.

      • End User
      • 4 years ago

      I hear you. I in the exact same situation.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This