Seagate Preparing Its First High-Capacity HAMR Hard Drive

[Nomad76]

Seagate is getting ready to release its biggest hard drive, featuring a 32 TB capacity through new Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording (HAMR) technology; this milestone comes after nearly a decade and a half of anticipation. Seagate first tested HAMR technology in 2007. The company has repeatedly promised that HAMR-based drives would be available within a few years; however, those predictions have been repeatedly postponed until now.

New Exos drives based on the Mozaic 3+ platform have been available in limited quantities for select customers. Now that they are in mass production, Seagate has quietly revealed the product page for its Exos M HDDs. The lineup includes a 32 TB model that uses Shingled Magnetic Recording (SMR) technology and a 30 TB model that uses Conventional Magnetic Recording (CMR). Seagate says its Exos M hard drive has a 3 TB per platter density.



One important advancement is the compatibility of Exos M drives with existing systems. This is critical for widespread adoption. Previous iterations of the Mozaic 3+ HDDs would require new hardware, which would be a major obstacle to upgrading. Details on how the Exos M differs from the original Mozaic 3+ drives remain somewhat vague, as limited technical information is provided on the product page.

This launch marks a significant moment for Seagate, finally bringing to market technology they have been developing for years. In October, rival Western Digital launched a 32 TB hard drive using energy-assisted perpendicular magnetic recording (ePMR), while Toshiba demonstrated high-capacity hard drives with HAMR and microwave-assisted magnetic recording (MAMR) technology.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[bonehead123]

Welcome to the world of "new but old but new" & "same but different but same" concepts, hahahahaha

Must be some AI bot thingy making up those marketing names....can you find any more ways to insult our intelligence ????

 

[Daven]

I wonder if the storage density has reached the point where the sustained transfer speeds can saturate the SATAIII bus.

 

[_roman_]

I was not aware of that "HIGH capacity" equals to 32TB with base 10. My data are stored in base 2. (Western Digital HDD 26TB are currently for sale for the end consumer)

My current definition of High capacity are 1 Petabyte or higher.

edit: My expectation was much higher capacity as I'm aware of. factor 30 seems reasonable for the "high" label.
@tommorow thanks for the clarification that this drive does not even hit 30Tib (file system storage, partition table, base 2)

 

[windwhirl]

32TB with base 10

All HDDs are sold with their capacities using base 10 nomenclature. So 32 TB being 32.000.000.000.000 bytes is what's expected at this point.

I wonder if the storage density has reached the point where the sustained transfer speeds can saturate the SATAIII bus.

Come back in 2026, Seagate said they'd be pushing out 50 TB drives by then.

Seagate: 20 TB HAMR Drives Arrive in December, 50 TB Capacities in 2026

In its latest earnings call, Seagate, a manufacturer of high-capacity drives, has revealed several interesting points about its upcoming releases of next-generation hard drives. More specifically, the company has disclosed a shift to a new generation of HDDs based on so-called heat-assisted...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[nageme]

I wonder if the storage density has reached the point where the sustained transfer speeds can saturate the SATAIII bus.

No.

The new drives are actually specced slower than older models:
Exos X24 series (12-24TB) - 285MB/sec (same as IronWolf Pro and others)
Exos Xz series (30-32TB) - 270MB/sec

Something similar with WD:
HC580 24TB: 298MB/sec
HC690 32TB: 269MB/sec

 

[duckface]

eu use hdd with 6tb or 8tb for my games but steam update all day broken my hdd lol

 

[Wirko]

I was not aware of that "HIGH capacity" equals to 32TB with base 10. My data are stored in base 2. (Western Digital HDD 26TB are currently for sale for the end consumer)

My current definition of High capacity are 1 Petabyte or higher.

I understand your definition isn't constant but rather something like 30x the largest HDD in existence (or 8x the largest SSD in existence).

 

[Chaitanya]

No.

The new drives are actually specced slower than older models:
Exos X24 series (12-24TB) - 285MB/sec (same as IronWolf Pro and others)
Exos Xz series (30-32TB) - 270MB/sec

Something similar with WD:
HC580 24TB: 298MB/sec
HC690 32TB: 269MB/sec

If I remember correctly Exos 2x18 drives are dual actuator drives and those are supposedly fastest among its class of drives with it capable of saturating Sata3 bus.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

No.

The new drives are actually specced slower than older models:
Exos X24 series (12-24TB) - 285MB/sec (same as IronWolf Pro and others)
Exos Xz series (30-32TB) - 270MB/sec

Something similar with WD:
HC580 24TB: 298MB/sec
HC690 32TB: 269MB/sec

With those speeds, who would want to be dealing with data amounts in the 10+ terabytes range? If I needed to use that much space, I think I would prefer to have multiple smaller SSD drives rather than one HUGE mechanical drive. Makes for a reliable back-up since it is mechanical, but 10 terabytes at those speeds is going to take about 10 hrs., no?

 

[Tomorrow]

Ahh, Seagate. The constant over-promiser and under-deliverer.

In 2018 they promised 100TB in 2025. They have not reached even 1/3rd of this capacity yet. Another lie.
In 2019 they "downgraded" their promise to 50TB in 2026. They have not reached even 32TB by 2025. Another lie.
Last year they promised we would have 40TB+ this year. Well the year is ending and they're only now "prepping" 32TB. Another lie.
On Jan 17th of 2024 (this year) they promised that their 30TB drives are ramping and shipped to hyperscalers in Q1 2024.
It's the end of Q4 2024 and the average person still cant buy this mythical 30TB model that supposedly is produced in mass. Another lie.

So forgive me if it dont give a rats a** about their supposed 32TB models being "prepared" (whatever that means).

All HDDs are sold with their capacities using base 10 nomenclature. So 32 TB being 32.000.000.000.000 bytes is what's expected at this point.

Yes but formatted capacity, meaning actual usable space is lower. 10 nomenclature is meaningless number if the user is not able to fully utilize said capacity.

Spoiler

256GB = 238GiB
512GB = 476GiB
1TB = 909GiB
2TB = 1,8TiB
3TB = 2,7TiB
4TB = 3,6TiB
6TB = 5,4TiB
8TB = 7,2TiB
10TB = 9,09TiB
12TB = 10,9TiB
14TB = 12,7TiB
16TB = 14,5TiB
18TB = 16,3TiB
20TB = 18,1TiB
22TB = 20TiB
24TB = 21,8TiB
26TB = 23,6TiB
28TB = 25,4TiB
30TB = 27,2TiB
32TB = 29,1TiB
34TB = 30,9TiB
36TB = 32,7TiB
38TB = 34,5TiB
40TB = 36,3TiB

Come back in 2026, Seagate said they'd be pushing out 50 TB drives by then.

Like i said above. All lies.

If I remember correctly Exos 2x18 drives are dual actuator drives and those are supposedly fastest among its class of drives with it capable of saturating Sata3 bus.

Listed since 2023 but with almost zero availability and absurd prices for 18TB drives.

 

[R-T-B]

Must be some AI bot thingy making up those marketing names....can you find any more ways to insult our intelligence ????

HAMR isn't just a buzzword. It's an actual real and pretty cool tech innovation.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I wonder if the storage density has reached the point where the sustained transfer speeds can saturate the SATAIII bus.

Pretty much anything that isn't spinning rust saturates the SATA 3 bus to the point it just looks pitiful and sad. Even modern Ethernet ports have more bandwidth. Data density's a bit irrelevant here at this point; HDDs are clearly completely stagnated in the performance front and no major improvements in this area are to be expected any time soon, they're busy enough just trying to get data densities up, and alongside density, the cost has been going up too, sometimes dramatically for that last mile, which means they're really pushing the technology to the very limit.

It only sucks that HDD companies pretty much have a majority stake on, or are SSD companies themselves. The SSD market's stagnation and almost complete absence of drives exceeding 8 TB, which are kept expensive, is entirely artificial and if this much effort was put into the solid-state industry, we'd have affordable ~100 TB consumer-grade SSDs by the end of the decade.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

HAMR isn't just a buzzword. It's an actual real and pretty cool tech innovation.

Thats a ... Heated discussion.

 

[stahlhart]

eu use hdd with 6tb or 8tb for my games but steam update all day broken my hdd lol

I have two 6Tb WD Blacks on this build I'm on now, and I constantly live in fear of the next update to either Euro Truck Simulator, Kovaak's or DCS World. 15 minutes of nonstop thrashing. They will be getting replaced with 4Tb m.2s in the next couple of months, and I'm not going back, ever.

I've had defrags on these take longer than a day to complete.

 

[nageme]

If I remember correctly Exos 2x18 drives are dual actuator drives and those are supposedly fastest among its class of drives with it capable of saturating Sata3 bus.

Though AFAIK they appear as two volumes, so not exactly the same.

With those speeds, who would want to reliable back-up since it is mechanical, but 10 terabytes at those speeds is going to take about 10 hrs., no?

More than 10 hours. The specs are the max speed, at the outer tracks. The average is about 75%.
But that's not news anymore, it's just the nature of HDDs, which are more "archival" nowadays.
SSDs for long-term storage sounds to me like a risk, even ignoring the price.

Yes but formatted capacity, meaning actual usable space is lower. 10 nomenclature is meaningless number if the user is not able to fully utilize said capacity.

I never got the bickering around ^2 vs ^10 sizes.
HDDs (like networking) have always been base-10. I prefer that, and it makes sense, since humans find it easier to count and calculate in base-10.

The formatted capacity is not lower. There are filesystem structures that take up space. How much space varies based on your filesystem of choice, and your specific collection of files.
Unless you mean that some OSes choose to show sizes as base-2. That's a puzzling choice, and I don't understand why they don't let you at least configure the display to your preference.

 

[bonehead123]

HAMR isn't just a buzzword. It's an actual real and pretty cool tech innovation.

Trudat, however, that doesn't change the fact that a HDD is STILL just a HDD is STILL just a HDD, and regardless of the trendy-sounding names they assign to the method(s) used to put the data on them, spinning rust has always been, and will forever be, just spinning rust.... no if's, and's or butts

#nVmE4Me4Eva"

or at least until something better comes along anyways....

 

[Mindweaver]

It's pretty funny.. I've been using HAMMER on Seagate drives for years/Decades.

 

[bonehead123]

It's pretty funny.. I've been using HAMMER on Seagate drives for years/Decades.

Yep me too, in fact, I have a small, 10Lb sledgehammer whose soul purpose is to destroy dead HDD's...

However, I have also found that a few well-placed shots from my .44 Magnum is pretty effective as well, hahaha

 

[Wirko]

I never got the bickering around ^2 vs ^10 sizes.
HDDs (like networking) have always been base-10. I prefer that, and it makes sense, since humans find it easier to count and calculate in base-10.

Whenever HDD capacity grows by a factor of 1000, and the price remains roughly the same (that's about once every 20 years), some people feel robbed by an additional 2.4%!

Unless you mean that some OSes choose to show sizes as base-2. That's a puzzling choice, and I don't understand why they don't let you at least configure the display to your preference.

Oh, if anyone comes across an OS that does that... just avoid it.

 

[nageme]

Oh, if anyone comes across an OS that does that... just avoid it.

I still prefer Windows. Though one doesn't have to stick to Explorer.