Seagate lays claim to the world’s largest SSD crown with 60TB drive

For now, regular old spinning rust has a significant cost-per-gigabyte advantage over solid-state storage. Until fairly recently, it had a substantial advantage in density, too. High capacity SSDs like Samsung's PM1633a have gained some ground on magnetic storage, but Seagate's newest business-class SSD might fully cement the obsolescence of traditional hard drives with its 60TB capacity.

When users are introduced to SSDs for the first time, a common question is "why 2.5-inch? Couldn't you fit more memory inside a 3.5-inch enclosure?" As it happens, yes, yes one could. This new drive from Seagate uses the 3.5-inch form factor typical for desktop mechanical hard drives. Seagate says its monster is the largest SSD ever made, and that the new drive has "twice the density" of the aforementioned Samsung beast.

Details are lacking about the new drive—including any sort of performance information—because Seagate's only just now showing it off at the Flash Memory Summit. However, the company says the new drive will be available next year. Seagate also says the new drive will offer "the lowest cost per gigabyte for flash," although this unit is branded as "Enterprise" hardware, so it's really anyone's guess how much it'll cost. Backblaze estimates this drive will ring in around $20,000 a unit.

Comments closed
    • TheMonkeyKing
    • 4 years ago

    Thas a lotto porn. Thas prolly all of the porn. Whoa.

    • ludi
    • 4 years ago

    The Quantum Bigfoot redux.

      • albundy
      • 4 years ago

      gawd i miss the good ol days of these and SCSI HVD and LVD SCA brick size drives. back then, you had to actually have a brain and configure these drives for use as well as the controller.

    • revcrisis
    • 4 years ago

    After losing 3.5 TB of data on my crappy Seagate HDD this week, these large density SSDs cannot come soon enough. I cannot wait until price per GB of a SSD evens out with HDDs. Moving parts and spinning platters are an ancient technology that needs to go. If only 6 TB SSDs were affordable.

      • slowriot
      • 4 years ago

      SSDs fail too. You need a back up solution, not even larger capacities.

        • ronch
        • 4 years ago

        Everyone talks backup, backup, backup. YES, WE KNOW. But the fact is, it seems Seagate makes the least reliable drives. Might be true, might simply be buzz. But there’s data and lots of stories to back it up. So while backing up is good practice, why the hell would you want to risk [u<]having a higher probability to need to use your backup[/u<] with Seagate when, according to data we have from (ahem) Backblaze and stories from users who own other brands, other drives seem to fare better?

          • RAGEPRO
          • 4 years ago

          I’m a big fan of Seagate disks, and you’ll notice that even BackBlaze still uses primarily Seagate disks. Outside of outliers, they don’t have a drastically higher (higher, yes, but not drastically) failure rate than other brands, and the fact that Seagate doesn’t try to gouge me $20 a disk to avoid getting a 5400 RPM drive is a big plus to me.

      • Krogoth
      • 4 years ago

      You realize that soild-state media has its own set of issues and data recovery is practically impossible once the “cells” start to burn-in?

    • Lord.Blue
    • 4 years ago

    So lets see here…60,000 GB, and a $20,000.00 price tag…hmmm…
    So that’s $0.33333333…. per gigabyte…they have to work on that..there are drives out with less than $0.21 per GB. Maybe $10,000? Then they’d be at the lowest price per GB of flash…but since pricing hasn’t been announced, I’m just making things up.

      • JosiahBradley
      • 4 years ago

      What is important here isn’t the price or capacity even. It’s the controller layout that finally allows for more than 4 or 8 dies per device. Now take the cheapest $/GB NAND and attach 32 of them to a controller and viola. This is turn means for the same amount of storage you are potentially saving on all the extra controllers that would have been needed, drive enclosures, interface boards, etc. Meaning the sum cost for a higher capacity drive goes down less than the current drive that holds the $/GB award.

        • Lord.Blue
        • 4 years ago

        Indeed. I hadn’t been considering if a single controller could handle all that. I wonder if they are using SAS or a U.2 connector for the data? If they are using a similar controller to the one that Liqid has been talking about, then this would truly be an impressive beast. Just random thoughts here, as I will not be able to afford this drive any time soon.

          • JosiahBradley
          • 4 years ago

          pcper has info on the connection types (Dual 12G/SAS) and controller layout and performance.

          [url<]http://www.pcper.com/news/Storage/FMS-2016-Seagate-Demos-Facebook-Lightning-60TB-35-SSD[/url<]

      • flip-mode
      • 4 years ago

      $15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 usually does not matter at all to the people who buy this kind of stuff. The pricing of this kind of hardware has nothing to do with seeking the lowest price per GB.

    • Airmantharp
    • 4 years ago

    Those SSDs sure are spinning in their ‘disks’ a lot!

    • JosiahBradley
    • 4 years ago

    I think you guys basically quoted my first TR post on SSDs. 3.5inch FTW.

    Edit: Zak, pcper has the slides for this drive including performance details you could update the article with.

    [url<]http://www.pcper.com/news/Storage/FMS-2016-Seagate-Demos-Facebook-Lightning-60TB-35-SSD[/url<]

      • RAGEPRO
      • 4 years ago

      Thanks for the heads-up.

    • shank15217
    • 4 years ago

    Get ready for a capacity arms race to nowhere coming to a trade show near you.

      • James296
      • 4 years ago

      History repeats itself, maybe?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This