http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/07/seagates_six_bytes_of_terror/

 

Note the indication of 1.25TB platters and 7200 rpm

Exciting. This means that the 4tb will fall even further in price.

So now a nice little PC-Q25B "Plus" system can have 30TB of protected storage 

 

... at, I suspect, a moderately high cost  8)

haha yeah ya think ... especially as this first batch are being marketed as enterprise drives suitable for 24/7 operation.  But it is progress.  I'll personally just make my next purchase as a 4TB for parity, move my 2TB into the array, and .... wait a long time before I ever need to buy another 4TB to put into the array   I'm not a content horder so when I'm done with stuff I tend to delete it.

Enterprise..  $$$

Not enterprise or as expensive as I anticipated at $299.99..

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178520

Not enterprise or as expensive as I anticipated at $299.99..

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178520

 

1 year warranty.  What a joke.

i have all 2 TB WD drives in my array.  if anyone moves up to 5 or 6 TB drives and has 3 or 4TB drives to sell, let me know.  Thanks.

Not enterprise or as expensive as I anticipated at $299.99..

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178520

 

1 year warranty.  What a joke.

 

The newegg page is currently showing 2 year warranty, but there is no matching page from Seagate.com. I would expect the Seagate page to list warranty in power on hours. I also expect this to be a 10^14 drive.

 

The original linked article contains a link to the Seagate datasheet for a different drive with a 5 year enterprise warranty, and that is a 10^15 drive.

 

 

Drive warranty periods have been shrinking for a number of years now. Seagate has been a leader in the movement. For true consumer grade usage, at home usage, 2 to 4 hours per day, these drives are rated 2400 power-on hours or ~600 days. Even at 24 hour days, the drive is meant to last beyond a 90 day window to cover assemble defects. This is a realistic balancing position between building a working product and extending warranty by financial means. Drives are going to fail. There is plenty of data to help forecast the range of expected usable life. Pushing the warranty to longer periods raises the price for the whole population, but does not build a better product.

 

The 10^15 drive is great. I have not seen the 10^14 drive.

 

[1] 10^14 and 10^15 refer to the number of bits per URE (unrecoverable read error), bigger is better.

10E14 and 10E15 refer to the number of bits per URE (unrecoverable read error), bigger is better.

 

Note that unrecoverable bit error rates are typically specified as 1 x 10^14 (for desktop class units) and 1 x 10^15 for enterprise drives.    i.e. 1E14 or 1E15 ... not 10.    A marketing ploy some makers have recently adopted is to claim 10E15 performance for drives -- note that 10E15 is identical to 1E14 

 

Note that unrecoverable bit error rates are typically specified as 1 x 10^14 (for desktop class units) and 1 x 10^15 for enterprise drives.    i.e. 1E14 or 1E15 ... not 10.    A marketing ploy some makers have recently adopted is to claim 10E15 performance for drives -- note that 10E15 is identical to 1E14 

 

None of my education ever covered such numerology. I do not use such notations. And can not support such a claim that 1 x 10^14 can be written 1E14.

 

The notation is 10E14, where 10 is the multiplier and 14 is the exponent. 2E3 is 2 times 2 time 2 = 8. now, 10E2 is 10 times 10 or 100.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/errorman/exponent.htm

 

So, what is 1E14?

 

1 times 1 times 1 times 1 times 1 = 1 no matter how many times you do it. 1E14 = 1E15 = 1E1 = 1!

http://www.multiplication.com/learn/multiply/1/x/1

 

Similarly, 1 x 10E14 is 10E14, since 1 time X is X. 1 times X is always X. 1 times X is never x/10.

 

 

 

Note that unrecoverable bit error rates are typically specified as 1 x 10^14 (for desktop class units) and 1 x 10^15 for enterprise drives.    i.e. 1E14 or 1E15 ... not 10.    A marketing ploy some makers have recently adopted is to claim 10E15 performance for drives -- note that 10E15 is identical to 1E14 

 

None of my education ever covered such numerology. I do not use such notations. And can not support such a claim that 1 x 10^14 can be written 1E14.

 

The notation is 10E14, where 10 is the multiplier and 14 is the exponent. 2E3 is 2 times 2 time 2 = 8. now, 10E2 is 10 times 10 or 100.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/errorman/exponent.htm

 

So, what is 1E14?

 

1 times 1 times 1 times 1 times 1 = 1 no matter how many times you do it. 1E14 = 1E15 = 1E1 = 1!

http://www.multiplication.com/learn/multiply/1/x/1

 

Similarly, 1 x 10E14 is 10E14, since 1 time X is X. 1 times X is always X. 1 times X is never x/10.

Unless I'm reading this site wrong http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/scinot.html he is correct. 1E14 would more properly be noted 1.0E+14.

Warranty says 2 years, not 1.

 

But I can't find that part number (STBD6000100) in the Seagate inventory.

Unless I'm reading this site wrong http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/scinot.html he is correct. 1E14 would more properly be noted 1.0E+14.

 

He is right. I should be using 10^14, not 10E14. Confused myself.

 

 

Unless I'm reading this site wrong http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/scinot.html he is correct. 1E14 would more properly be noted 1.0E+14.

 

He is right. I should be using 10^14, not 10E14. Confused myself.

 

No reason to be confused.  Just remember that Exx means 10^xx

 

So 1.0E14 or 1E14 means 1 x 10^14, etc.

It's not really "more proper" to use the decimals -- 1E14 is exactly the same as 1.0E14.  But if you're asked to express the accuracy to a specified number of decimals, then you should indeed do so.  In which case 1.0E14, or even 1.000E14 may be preferable.

 

And I think you now understand it, but just to be sure, r.e. your comment "... I should be using 10^14, not 10E14" ==> You DO understand those are NOT the same numbers, right?  [10^14 is just as you said;  10E14 is 10 x (10^14) = 10^15]

 

 

Uh, there appears to be a lot of going back and forth on proper scientific notational methods, but let's get back to the meat of the OP:

 

I am surprised and excited that such relatively low cost 6TB drives are available NOW with Newegg listing them at $299, free shipping, and in stock!

 

My previous experiences with Seagates have been horrible as I've experienced close to 100% failure rates during the time I was a heavy user of them back in the PATA days.  But at $299 for 6TB, I'm sorely tempted to jump on one since the Hitachi 6TBs at $695 shipped from Memory Express are more than double the price.

 

Can anyone provide their current experiences with Seagate SATA drives in general, good or bad?

 

I have been a dedicated WD SATA user after my Seagate and Hitachi PATA experiences, especially because the WD Greens ran much cooler, quieter, and lower power consumption, but ever since WD bought Hitachi, they've been seriously late to the table with new offerings, and I'm still waiting for their 5TB drives to hit the market.  In addition, even though I've never received a WD DOA, I'm now experiencing close to 50% failure rates (mostly rising bad block reallocation, but a few I/O errors) on 20 of my 2TB drives as they reach their end-of-warranty periods and beyond, and two of my newer WD 3TB drives, so even though I have been able to get most of them replaced under warranty, I'm no longer confident on the long-term reliability on my existing crop of WD 3TB and handful of WD 4TB drives.

 

Most of my 4TB drives are Hitachi, with my very first one DOA and another one showed signs of pending failure several months later and were replaced under warranty.

 

So given my current experiences with WD and Hitachi SATA drives, I'm willing to give Seagate another chance...

I'm kind of waffling right now.  Out of ~20 Seagate 3TB drives I had 5 go bad on me - from no longer recognized by computer to relocated sectors - rather high failure rate.  However most of those 20 drives have not been used in unRAID until recently.  They were in several JBOD drive setups and always spinning 24x7 for recording drives for SageTV.  I've moved them to an unRAID server now.  So far I've only had two more of the moved drives fail (relocated sectors).  So I think they work better when they spend most of their time sleeping rather than spinning 24x7.  I use 3TB WD Reds as recording drives on SageTV now.

There are at least three announced 6TB drives. The WD/Hitachi helium, the Seagate ES, and the Newegg Seagate.

 

The WD announcement was first http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170213-wd-releases-6tb-ultrastar-he6-the-worlds-first-helium-filled-hard-drive

 

Then Seagate announced the ES.4 (as the OP started this thread) http://www.seagate.com/about/newsroom/press-releases/Seagate-ships-worlds-fastest-6TB-drive-enterprise-capacity-pr-master/

 

And finally Newegg listed a 6TB, which was not yet on Seagate's website http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178520 Seagate has not published the datasheet for the $299 drive, but it is now listed as back order on the Seagate site. Currently the link is showing the .14 spec with no 6TB capacity.

 

Sorry for the thread twist, it was my mistake. But the point remains that the OP is about an enterprise drive (comparable to the WD), but Newegg is listing a different drive (one the differences being all those funny numbers).

 

 

For my media server, the "desktop" class is suitable for me.  Though I would prefer a WD Red 6TB over the Seagate Desktop-class 6TB, I just don't see WD (the "brand") releasing anything close to a 6TB this year since they can't even get a 5TB out the door yet and I'm ready to buy now at the $300 price point for entry into the 6TB world since my server currently has 15 4TBs and 9 3TBs with data not yet on server stored across 4 2TBs due to lack of free space.  Of course, I would need to buy at least two 6TBs to initially realize the tremendous capacity of 6TB data drives...