Reddit reviews Seagate Archive HDD 8TB SATA 6GBps 128MB Cache SATA Hard Drive (ST8000AS0002)
We found 24 Reddit comments about Seagate Archive HDD 8TB SATA 6GBps 128MB Cache SATA Hard Drive (ST8000AS0002). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
For Archive use onlyReliable, low-power data retrieval based on SMR technologyEnjoy peace of mind with a drive engineered for 24x7 workloads of 180TB/yearKeep your costs down with up to 1.33TB-per-disk hard drive technologyStore your data faster with SATA 6Gb/s interface that optimizes burst performanceHave confidence with a drive that provides reliable, low-power data retrieval based on Shingled Magnetic Recording (SMR) technology
Seagate's archive drives would be good for this - very big storage density and reasonable prices too, but there's a reason. They use SMR (shingled magnetic recording) which means as it's writing data to the disk it actually partially overlaps the data currently on the track's concentric circles. This means write speeds are rather slow but read speeds are essentially no different. But for archival these are perfect as you're not going to be constantly accessing them!
The thing about bit-rot or the magnetism used to store the data wearing away is true and you can read more about that here. But often this is for when the data is not accessed for a really long time. We're talking years though. 3 or 4 years would be fine, the data would unlikely rot away during that time - but past 5 years without being powered on or rewritten it's likely to start degrading.
The solution to this is to power them up every now and again and refresh the data by formatting and rewriting it. It sounds like this is what you intend to do anyway where you said you'd update them every few months. In that case, the only thing you'd realistically have to worry about it the drive not being able to spin up after being left for, again, a really long time. But again, a few months or ever a few years is not going to affect it - especially if you power them up and refresh them every now and again.
If you didn't want to go with hard drives, you could always go with magnetic tape but of course then you would have to have the equipment to be able to read and write from them which is an additional cost, although the tapes themselves are much cheaper than hard drives and have much larger capacities for the price too. However, they're agonisingly slow.
So, here's some drives which I recommend for long-term archival storage:
And if you'd like to read more about the troubles with data rot on hard drives:
Hope this helped!
Good $/TB price for a 8 TB drive. These are shuckable, and seem to contain either Seagate Archive Drives (128 MB cache, 5900 RPM) or the 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda.
Source: https://lime-technology.com/forums/topic/58783-8tb-seagate-expansion-hard-drives-steb8000100/
Looks like these contain the 8tb archive drives that have an all-time low of $215 on PCPP. They're not exactly fast, but they should work great if you need a lot of media storage. Bought a pair myself for a plex server.
A lot of people here are buying external drives in bulk and shucking them since it's substantially cheaper than buying plain drives. This is a really weird dynamic. Why on earth is it cheaper to buy a drive with additional hardware and packaging around it than to just buy the drive itself?
e.g. this external drive is $180, but a bare archive drive is $228. WTF? It is almost $50 more expensive to buy just the drive without the enclosure around it. (And that's assuming the 8TB external is an SMR archive drive inside, rather than a regular PMR drive -- which is even more expensive!) You might say "oh, it's on sale!" -- yeah, they're always on sale at those kinds of prices from one brand or another.
With WD products instead of Seagate, this has gotten absolutely ridiculous. BestBuy is regularly advertised on here offering external drives containing shuckable 8TB WD Reds in the price range of $150~$200 while the drive by itself often goes for nearly $300! It's twice as expensive to buy the plain drive?! WHY?!
inside is one of these 5900 rpm drives. This is the cheapest this drive has ever been, so seems like a good deal.
Good old, nothing special Seagate [ST8000AS0002] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00XS423SC/). I've only had the pool online for a couple months at this point, so I can't comment on reliability... but so far I'm happy.
As long as you know what you're getting into with SMR disks, I think you can live w/ them fairly well. I am glad I have a normal pool too though. All my stuff lands there first and then moves to the SMR pool.
Some things worth mentioning... the disks are 5900 rpm, so they're not going to be great at random io. They do have ~25G of PMR area on each disk, so if your work load isn't entirely ideal for SMR disks... it can still work. A copy on write filesystem seems particularly well paired with SMR disks since they don't need to re-shingle to modify a file. They do streaming, linear writes very well to the SMR portion of the disk, I think.
I wouldn't want them to be my only disks in my NAS, but they make a good write once, read many pool.
SMR drives sound perfect for this workload. As /u/evemanufacturetool pointed out, the Seagate archive 8 TB drives win many $/GB contests, though at $229 they're somewhat outside your budget. The external version was $179 a week or two ago. These drives have 3 and 2 year warranties, respectively – and of course the external has no warranty if you pry it open and extract the drive.
If you're okay having mystery meat and you trust your backups (you have backups, right?), you might consider one of these $149 6TB drives. It's almost certainly a Western Digital drive, but that's about all anyone can say for sure. The pricing reflects the unanswered questions, but if spending less on a drive lets you spend more on backups, this still might be a win.
Many of us here use WD Red drives in our NAS setups, using multiple drives to serve always-on workloads. Those would work fine for you. Then again, you're a single user that won't be using the drive that much, so WD Green might also be a reasonable pick. Both of these have 4 TB models in or near your price range.
The USB enclosure ones are cheaper $180 than the raw drives $210 which are no longer made but they're archive drives. Sometimes I get normal write speeds but sometimes I get 1 fucking megabyte per second. I'm currently transferring 8TB at 1 Mbps. Not worth it.
Edit: I bought 10 raw drives and 6 usb enclosure drives so it wasn't just a one time occurrence.
raw drive: https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-6GBps-128MB-ST8000AS0002/dp/B00XS423SC
I bought this version of the USB one: https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-External-Desktop-Storage-STEL8000100/dp/B01HD6ZLQ6
uhh just by an 8TB drive without the encloure lol http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC
Never.
We've managed to get individual transistors to switch at 1THz, but when you put any amount of distance between two transistors, their switching performance is limited entirely by the maximum speed of electrons. Even at the speed of light, that would limit the maximum possible size of a 1THz device at less than half a millimeter across.
Now, if you want a typical Intel-compatible CPU to run at that frequency, that means you have to squeeze well over 2 billion transistors in a space no bigger than the tip of a fine-tip mechanical pencil.
Intel has been having problems with their 14nm process, and the 10nm step is pushing the physical limits of silicon transistors. Each core in a Skylake CPU is around 12mm^(2), about 2.5mm across and 5mm long. That means the absolute maximum clock speed that design could possibly achieve is (1 / (1ps (5/0.3))) = 60GHz.
And that doesn't account for the heat dissipation for transistors that small - the vast majority of the energy that goes into a CPU is lost as heat because transistors can't block current perfectly at those scales. That further limits the speed, because faster switching causes more loss.
So, 750GHz is physically impossible. 10GHz is the most you could realistically ever hope for, barring enormous advancements in transistor process technology.
But 256GB? That's easy. I have 32GB in my desktop right now, and i've seen small servers with more than 4 times that.
20TB hard drive? A little harder, but, as the CEO of Seagate once said, they're "in the business of storing peoples' porn collections," so I'm sure they'll manage it. They've got 8TB drives already.
I don't think it's that impossible, since there's already an ~8TB drive for just over $220.
If you were using Google's 1 gigabit-per-second download speeds then it'd take about 35.5 hours. Also, you can buy 8TB HDDs for actually surprisingly cheap. If you had both of those things, you could entirely realistically download the entire steam catalog onto only 2 hard-drives (costing less than $460), and in under 2 days (using google fiber). That's entirely do-able. The only really expensive part would be, well, buying every game.
Way off on your numbers for storage. If they were using an enterprise storage array, you can use 10 TB Seagate enterprise grade drives for about $400 ea and a couple decent enclosures for under $7k ea. Even with upgrades and other tweaks, you're only in $60-70k for about a petabyte of storage. You can slash that price even more (about $10k) if you use 8 TB archive quality drives like these from Seagate.
It's still not pocket change, but it's less than some people pay for a mass produced sports car. Give it another year, and you can probably knock ANOTHER $10k off that.
This thread shows that it has a Seagate Archive line.
Oh I gotcha. You think I should just move to Stablebit DrivePool? What do you think about the Seagate Archive HDD 8TB SATA 6GBps 128MB Cache SATA Hard Drive (ST8000AS0002) for just storing blu-ray's and tv shows?
I'm just looking for a low cost, stable solution, with plenty of space for growth.
I just bought a Seagate 8TB archive drive, because it's the same price as a WD 6TB Red.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00XS423SC/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Interested to see how it compares with the Red I have in the NAS already.
Where do you see that?
8 TB Easy Store $199.00
8 Tb WD Red (which is in the easy store) $288.00
Also, the Seagate 8TB externals (which generally carry the Archive drives) are the same way. Over $200 for the bare drive and $170 External.
Shucked one a few months back, has worked fantastically. Although I've likely not used it in a way that I would see slow downs. https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-6GBps-128MB-ST8000AS0002/dp/B00XS423SC
Complete task on SSD -> move to Drive.
Bout two-fiddy
http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-6GBps-Internal-ST8000AS0002/dp/B00XS423SC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1463375577&sr=8-2&keywords=seagate+8tb
The drive in those are these https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-6GBps-128MB-ST8000AS0002/dp/B00XS423SC
>Seagate Archive HDD 8TB SATA 6GBps 128MB Cache SATA Hard Drive (ST8000AS0002)
That is the drive which is inside the chassis, I shucked one a couple of years back and actually bought one from Costco on Tuesday with that deal so I could load it up with some data for a client and just ship it to them without them blinking at the line item.
As a random aside, look at this list of greedy mofos trying to sell the shucked drives for ridiculous prices on Amazon (I particularly like the meatbag trying to sell one for $1225 because in that case, you'll pay about the same in sales tax as the purchase price at Costco)
It is painfully slow, it is going to take me about 18-24 hours to fill it but it is what it is.
For my own use, I have always bought enterprise class Seagate drives and they've been rock solid for me. I've heard plenty of shit about the lower end ones but I don't have any experience with them first hand - save the odd exception to the rule use case like the above.
Hell, I've got four 1.5tb 7200s that I bought in 2008 and stuck into a ReadyNas NV+ (that I use for cold-line storage these days) that are still humming along 11 years later.
Generally speaking I paid a bit more but got better/faster/more solid drives with longer warranties...
I mean right now, this 8tb Barracuda drive is $149 on Amazon. Whereas I just bought 4x 8tb Exos (btw the title is wrong, they have 256mb cache, not 128mb) for $212 - Paying $62 more got me additional years of warranty, and a 7200 spindle instead of a 5400 - and somewhere around 5x the annual writes... Seems foolhardy not to spend the extra 30%.
>Largest consumer hard drive 4TBs
Yes, you could.
Seagates 8TB equivalent for $218