Western Digital’s latest Gold hard drive can store 10TB

When we covered Western Digital's introduction of its Gold hard drives for businesses, a couple of gerbils expressed dissatisfaction—facetious or not—that the largest-capacity drive was only 8TB. Well, how about 10TB? WD recently announced that this family of hard drives is getting a new member with an impressive 10TB capacity

WD says the new drive has a revised design over the other Gold drives, and uses 8% less power as a result. The new model also doubles the on-board DRAM cache of its siblings, up to 256MB, and its datasheet rates the drive for sequential read performance of 249MB/s, up from the 8TB drive's 205MB/s. The Gold disks are WD's top-tier SATA hard drives, and are backed by a five-year warranty, as well as exclusive 24×7 phone support. Newegg already has the new 10TB disk listed for $727.

Comments closed
    • shank15217
    • 3 years ago

    Whats the point of a SATA 10TB data center drive? It should be dual ported SAS 12GB or at least SAS 6GB. Single ported SATA drives have no place in a data center.

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      SATA drives can work with SAS controllers (but it forces the assigned port to operate at SATA mode), but I’m not sure why this model was SAS.

    • Krogoth
    • 3 years ago

    10TB for that HD p0rn collection.

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    Recently announced?
    I bought two of these a month ago.

    Oh no, wait – they’re 8TBs and I was looking at the 10TB Ultrastar He as an alternative.
    So I guess these are the Ultrastars with a WD badge on them since WD owns HGST.

    • thesmileman
    • 3 years ago

    “sequential read performance of 249MB/s”

    Sure it does. Sure

      • Waco
      • 3 years ago

      Sure, for the first 25% of the platter. Then it’ll fall off to the mid 100s.

    • GTVic
    • 3 years ago

    10,000,831,348,736 bytes = 9.1 TB formatted

      • albundy
      • 3 years ago

      almost a whole 1TB loss? I would have thought 9.3-9.4TB formatted.

        • Krogoth
        • 3 years ago

        No, it is because of the differences between base-2 and base-10.

        Microsoft has been using the wrong base-10 prefixes for data sizes that are in binary a.k.a base-2.

        MB = 10^6 bytes

        MiB = 2^20 bytes

        GB = 10^9 bytes

        GiB = 2^30 bytes

        TB = 10^12 bytes

        TiB=2^40 bytes

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      >9.1 TiB

      Microsoft still gets the prefixes for data sizes wrong.

        • willmore
        • 3 years ago

        Jinx.

      • willmore
      • 3 years ago

      Did you mean TiB?

    • ch┬Áck
    • 3 years ago

    In my (relatively) short lifetime, I have not even owned 10TB of storage… cumulatively

      • Bomber
      • 3 years ago

      I thought this, then started adding things up the other day. I have a smidge over 10 with my computer and laptop and my wife’s computer and laptop + our network media share. I realized that right after I ordered another 4tb drive for the server. It wasn’t too long ago (yeah I know 20 years) when I told my exwife I didn’t think I’d ever fill a 1.6gb hard drive.

      • just brew it!
      • 3 years ago

      The latest iteration of my home server has 16TB. 26TB if you count raw capacity instead of RAID capacity (it has a mix of RAID-1 and non-RAID volumes in it). This situation has evolved partly out of laziness. I really need to go through the years of crap and delete stuff that is redundant or irrelevant; but it seems like every time I think about doing that, I just go “meh, easier to just add a couple more disks”.

      Current desktop has another 3TB, and my old (soon to be retired) desktop has 2TB. I’d add the 2TB worth of drives from the old desktop to the server if I had any drive bays left in the server… hmm, an external eSATA drive dock with a port multiplier might work for that!

      The fact that I work in the storage industry now (as of about a year ago), and consequently deal with systems having 10s or even 100s of PBs of storage at my day job has probably numbed me to “storage bloat” a bit as well. “What’s another few TB here and there?” LOL.

      • synthtel2
      • 3 years ago

      Jeez, now that I think about it, I haven’t even owned 2TB cumulatively (going back to 2002 or 03). o_O

      That makes this drive look a lot more infinite than it already did (for desktop use, at least).

    • cygnus1
    • 3 years ago

    Wow, 249MB/s sustained reads, they’ve almost saturated SATA2 speeds!!

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Yawn. Seagate’s new 60TB is where it’s at. Go 60TB or go home!

    /cb

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This