Whoa!!  They have a 6TB drive now??  Not sure if this is a good price..  But it's the first I"ve seen a 6TB advertised!

 

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

 

Promo code EMCPDPE29

6 platter design with 1tb platters. Note the reviews bemoaning the missing middle screw holes for mounting.

I'm sure you can just drill the missing hole in the drive and tap it! 

 

Wish I had the dough to try the drive in my setup..  Not sure if my case needs the middle one or not!

But I just pulled the trigger on a 4TB drive that will be my new parity..  Maybe next year!

The reason the middle screws are missing is because with 6 platters there wasn't room for them. You would be drilling into the platters.

 

(No guarantee how that would turn out.)

 

The reason the middle screws are missing is because with 6 platters there wasn't room for them. You would be drilling into the platters.

 

(No guarantee how that would turn out.)

I know.  I was joking!

I'm still waiting on a review of one of these drives. It would be nice to know about noise, temperatures and performance.

"Double your capacity and drive down costs with up to 1TB-per-disk hard drive technology"

 

GREAT advertising, at least it worked for me.  I -never- bothered to think about this... less drives, means less electric.  $48.33 per TB for these drives, so roughly $10~13 more per TB than a 4TB, not sure when this difference would be made up with lower electric bills.

 

I'll have to work some numbers.  But, I may just have to snag one of these up.  I don't imagine if a controller supports greater than 2.2 TB it would have a problem with 6TB?  Or is there a line drawn at a certain size?  I admit, I haven't been following much on HD's since GPT.

 

I don't imagine if a controller supports greater than 2.2 TB it would have a problem with 6TB?  Or is there a line drawn at a certain size?  I admit, I haven't been following much on HD's since GPT.

 

If your system supports drives > 2TB then it will support this with no problem.  Once you cross that threshold, the next limit is far above anything you'll see in the next decade.  [There are some OS restrictions that will come into play before controller issues -- with Windows it's at 128TB;  I don't know what the Linux limits are]

 

I don't imagine if a controller supports greater than 2.2 TB it would have a problem with 6TB?  Or is there a line drawn at a certain size?  I admit, I haven't been following much on HD's since GPT.

 

If your system supports drives > 2TB then it will support this with no problem.  Once you cross that threshold, the next limit is far above anything you'll see in the next decade.  [There are some OS restrictions that will come into play before controller issues -- with Windows it's at 128TB;  I don't know what the Linux limits are]

 

Currently, it might be the 16TB limit of the ReiserFS being used. Which is far from the OS limits.

"Double your capacity and drive down costs with up to 1TB-per-disk hard drive technology"

 

GREAT advertising, at least it worked for me.  I -never- bothered to think about this... less drives, means less electric.  $48.33 per TB for these drives, so roughly $10~13 more per TB than a 4TB, not sure when this difference would be made up with lower electric bills.

 

I'll have to work some numbers.  But, I may just have to snag one of these up.  I don't imagine if a controller supports greater than 2.2 TB it would have a problem with 6TB?  Or is there a line drawn at a certain size?  I admit, I haven't been following much on HD's since GPT.

 

Another thing to think about is price per drive slot in your server, I think. I can't figure out how to calculate it all out, though. 150/4 = 37.5 per TB while 290/6 = 48.3 per TB. Factor in electricity, how many slots are in your server, and who knows what else.

 

I do know that I'm done buying 4TB drives though. Once a higher capacity drive comes out, I always opt for it. Higher density means lower heat, noise and hastle for me. I'm willing to pay a small price premium for that. That being said, this drive is too untested at the moment..

 

The small /TB price premium not only results in fewer drives (thus less heat), but also reduces the number of SATA ports needed for a specified capacity.  If you factor in the cost/SATA port the price differential is reduced a good bit.    I think it's always a good idea to use the highest capacity drives you can -- although I agree with Jomp that this is a bit new for my taste ... I'll at least wait until it's been out a few months and see what the feedback looks like before jumping on it.    But if I NEEDED additional storage right now, I'd buy one anyway.

 

I do know that I'm done buying 4TB drives though. Once a higher capacity drive comes out, I always opt for it. Higher density means lower heat, noise and hastle for me. I'm willing to pay a small price premium for that. That being said, this drive is too untested at the moment..

 

Normally that's true, but in the case of 5TB and 6TB drives there is no higher density nor lower heat per drive. Instead of using 4 1TB platters, these drives are using 5 or 6 1TB platters.

I do know that I'm done buying 4TB drives though. Once a higher capacity drive comes out, I always opt for it. Higher density means lower heat, noise and hastle for me. I'm willing to pay a small price premium for that. That being said, this drive is too untested at the moment..

 

Normally that's true, but in the case of 5TB and 6TB drives there is no higher density nor lower heat per drive. Instead of using 4 1TB platters, these drives are using 5 or 6 1TB platters.

 

It's still true that there's less heat/TB of space generated.  Adding a couple of platters doesn't appreciably change the heat signature of a drive (the motor is likely the same) -- and the PCB generates effectively a fixed amount of heat regardless of the capacity.    So, for example, 12TB using 2 6TB drives will only generate 2/3rds of the heat of the same 12TB using 3 4TB drives.

 

 

Yes, the heat/TB is less, which is why I was keen to use to heat/drive. 

Currently, it might be the 16TB limit of the ReiserFS being used. Which is far from the OS limits.

 

Yes, in the UnRAID case that's correct.  Reiser has a limit of 16TB that will limit the individual disk size to 16TB [This does not impact the total size of a user share].    So the maximum size drive you can use in an UnRAID array is 16TB      So you can't have more than 368TB in a single UnRAID server !!  (23 16TB data drives)

 

I suspect it will be a while before that's a problem 

 

 

I do know that I'm done buying 4TB drives though. Once a higher capacity drive comes out, I always opt for it. Higher density means lower heat, noise and hastle for me. I'm willing to pay a small price premium for that. That being said, this drive is too untested at the moment..

 

Normally that's true, but in the case of 5TB and 6TB drives there is no higher density nor lower heat per drive. Instead of using 4 1TB platters, these drives are using 5 or 6 1TB platters.

 

It's still true that there's less heat/TB of space generated.  Adding a couple of platters doesn't appreciably change the heat signature of a drive (the motor is likely the same) -- and the PCB generates effectively a fixed amount of heat regardless of the capacity.    So, for example, 12TB using 2 6TB drives will only generate 2/3rds of the heat of the same 12TB using 3 4TB drives.

 

In this case, we're talking the Seagate STBD6000100 6TB, not the same motor as the 4TB DM or DX. This drive is very different, there are concerns about airflow even around the PCB as it has reduced airflow across the component side. It's like a solid block without the typical indentations/grooves/valleys of a disk drive.

 

The HGST He6 is both lower power and cooler running (and more money).

Note this is the STBD6000100 which is a 5900 RPM drive (despite what some sellers claim) w/ 2 year warranty... not the 7200 RPM drive with 5 year warranty (i.e. the ST6000NM0024) which has significantly better performance.

 

http://www.amazon.com/SEAGATE-Enterprise-Capacity-Cache-Internal-ST6000NM0024/dp/B00JJIE8E8/ref=sr_1_4

 

Currently, it might be the 16TB limit of the ReiserFS being used. Which is far from the OS limits.

 

Yes, in the UnRAID case that's correct.  Reiser has a limit of 16TB that will limit the individual disk size to 16TB [This does not impact the total size of a user share].    So the maximum size drive you can use in an UnRAID array is 16TB      So you can't have more than 368TB in a single UnRAID server !!  (23 16TB data drives)

 

I suspect it will be a while before that's a problem 

 

Does this count as an explicit statement that UnRAID *can currently support* >8TB single-drive?

Yes ... the issue is whether or not a system supports drives > 2TB.    Once that threshold is passed, the next limit is in Petabytes ... although UnRAID is limited to 16TB/drive because of the limitations of the Reiser file system.

 

... not a near-term problem, however 

Yes ... the issue is whether or not a system supports drives > 2TB.    Once that threshold is passed, the next limit is in Petabytes ... although UnRAID is limited to 16TB/drive because of the limitations of the Reiser file system.

 

... not a near-term problem, however 

I would disagree, any commercial organisations using ReiserFS will already be migrating away or have their plans in place.  It's right around the corner, possibly as soon as 2 years.

 

Those of us who remember Y2K were already in full swing 2 years before.

 

A commercial release by a supplier needs to be available 12-18 months before a deadline, that makes it this year guys.

Yes ... the issue is whether or not a system supports drives > 2TB.    Once that threshold is passed, the next limit is in Petabytes ... although UnRAID is limited to 16TB/drive because of the limitations of the Reiser file system.

 

... not a near-term problem, however 

I would disagree, any commercial organisations using ReiserFS will already be migrating away or have their plans in place.  It's right around the corner, possibly as soon as 2 years.

 

Those of us who remember Y2K were already in full swing 2 years before.

 

A commercial release by a supplier needs to be available 12-18 months before a deadline, that makes it this year guys.

 

Yes, I remember Y2K very well.  But the move to drives > 16TB is a completely different thing.

 

First, although clearly the capacities will continue to increase, and will undoubtedly get to that level, it's not likely to happen this year ... I'd think that range is more like 3-5 years out, and maybe ever further.    Certainly NOT within "12 -18 months"

 

Second -- and most significant -- Y2K happened.  There was nothing you could do about the onward march of time to simply avoid the issue.    If drive capacities go beyond 16TB, that doesn't present ANY problem for an UnRAID user ... all that's required to avoid any problem is to simply not buy a drive larger than 16TB.      True, that limits the size of the server to 368TB (using all 16TB drives) -- but I suspect that's not an issue for very many folks 

 

Well I did say 16TB disks "possibly as soon as 2 years", granted that's the lower end of my prediction.

 

I bought my first unRAID system with 20 of 3TB disks and that was before v5 was released stable.  I am already filling up a new tower with 6TB WD Reds, I will be wanting those 16+ TB disks as soon as they are available, I would buy them today if I could.