pgcon2015, what happened to SMR disk technolgy ?
Friendly greetings !
i remember an interesting talk from seagate at pgcon2015 about SMR disk
technology, and i use them for archive & backup (personal usage).
However, the highest capacity on the seagate archive product line (the one
using SMR) is 8TB.
Seagate have a 8TB ironwolf product at roughly the same price.
And a 12TB ironwolf, much more expensive since it's new, but 12TB
nonetheless.
But their SMR disk are still maxed at 8TB.
What's the point of the seagate archive now ?
Ironwolf, for the same public price, have better performance (obviously)
and, more surprising, a better MTBF.
I'm confused ...
Thank you :)
--
Laurent "ker2x" Laborde
On 17 October 2017 at 11:59, Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the point of the seagate archive now ?
Ironwolf, for the same public price, have better performance (obviously)
and, more surprising, a better MTBF.
I have no real insight into whether Seagate are still pursuing the product
design, but I'm not really surprised that the MTBF is worse: if the
shingled disk must write some tracks twice for each individual track write,
it seems logical that there will be more write stress and therefore
shortened lifespan, no?
Geoff
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:
On 17 October 2017 at 11:59, Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the point of the seagate archive now ?
Ironwolf, for the same public price, have better performance (obviously)
and, more surprising, a better MTBF.I have no real insight into whether Seagate are still pursuing the
product design, but I'm not really surprised that the MTBF is worse: if the
shingled disk must write some tracks twice for each individual track write,
it seems logical that there will be more write stress and therefore
shortened lifespan, no?
I contacted seagate and just got a reply : they don't have strategic
information to share about SMR technology at the moment.
I guess i saw it coming ^^
--
Laurent "ker2x" Laborde
On 2017-10-18 06:50:19 +0200, Laurent Laborde wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:
On 17 October 2017 at 11:59, Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> wrote:
What's the point of the seagate archive now ?
Ironwolf, for the same public price, have better performance (obviously)
and, more surprising, a better MTBF.I have no real insight into whether Seagate are still pursuing the
product design, but I'm not really surprised that the MTBF is worse: if the
shingled disk must write some tracks twice for each individual track write,
it seems logical that there will be more write stress and therefore
shortened lifespan, no?I contacted seagate and just got a reply : they don't have strategic
information to share about SMR technology at the moment.
I guess i saw it coming ^^
What I heard as rumours, not super trustworthy ones but not entirely
uninformed, is that SMR drives are currently pretty much entirely sold
to companies doing online data storage and such.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general