HDD Industry Tops 1ZB Shipped Annually with Toshiba Leading Average Capacity Growth

[btarunr]

Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (TAEC) today announces that Toshiba, a committed technology leader, led all HDD companies in year-on-year Nearline HDD average capacity growth in 2020. Toshiba followed up an astounding 55% year-on-year growth in 2019 with an impressive 35% year-on-year growth in 2020 to lead the industry for a second consecutive year, according to TRENDFOCUS, Inc.'s data.

"Toshiba has done an admirable job of leveraging its industry-first 9-disk helium design to introduce competitive Nearline HDD products in a timely fashion. This has been the cornerstone in the company's ability to launch higher capacity Nearline HDD programs," stated John Chen, Vice President at TRENDFOCUS, Inc. "Toshiba's 9-disk helium-sealed HDD platform has enabled the company to achieve the highest five-year Compound Annual Growth Rates for Nearline HDD Units, Exabytes, and Average Capacity shipped through 2020."

Proliferation of digital content being created and replicated has led to an explosive growth of data centers around the world. Demand for storage has fueled HDD Exabyte growth, and for the first time in 2020, HDD Exabyte shipments topped 1ZB¹ across all storage applications, from edge to core. The meteoric climb in capacity shipped is a testament to the HDD industry's ability to deliver the most cost-effective and performance delivering storage medium in the market.

"Our rapid increase in capacity shipped per unit, as well as increasing total Exabyte shipments almost ninefold in just five years¹, is a testament to the hard work and effort by our HDD team here and abroad to grow our Cloud Datacenter scale while continuing to broaden in the Enterprise, and is a reflection of our key customer partners' trust in our products and support," said Kyle Yamamoto, Vice President, HDD Marketing and Business Operations at TAEC. "I am excited about our future, as we are still in the early stages of growth in the Nearline market, and continue to innovate high capacity HDD products designed to meet and enable the rapid storage growth in Cloud Datacenter and Enterprise applications."

As a global technology company that has been innovating in storage for years, Toshiba offers a comprehensive portfolio of HDD products that address the storage needs of enterprise, datacenter, surveillance, and client markets. Toshiba solves customer challenges with innovative HDD models focusing on four primary market segments. The AL Series focuses on the Enterprise Performance segment; the MG Series is aimed at Enterprise Capacity and Data Center needs; the MQ Series covers the broad spectrum of use cases that require Mobile Client HDDs; and the DT Series addresses the surveillance and traditional Desktop Client use cases.

For more information on Toshiba's line of storage products, please visit this page.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[lexluthermiester]

Translation 1ZB = 1 Zettabyte, which is the same as 1 SxB = 1 Sextabyte.

Some sectors are refusing to accept the rather bizarre prefix naming scheme selected by industry pundits.

A proper naming scheme follows known and widely accepted conventions. Example;

MegaByte
GigaByte
TeraByte
QuadraByte
CentaByte
SextaByte
SeptaBtye
OctaByte
NintaByte
DecaByte

Of course, that's just one school of thought..

 

[Frick]

Translation 1ZB = 1 Zettabyte, which is the same as 1 SxB = 1 Sextabyte.

Some sectors are refusing to accept the rather bizarre prefix naming scheme selected by industry pundits.

A proper naming scheme follows known and widely accepted conventions. Example;

MegaByte
GigaByte
TeraByte
QuadraByte
CentaByte
SextaByte
SeptaBtye
OctaByte
NintaByte
DecaByte

Of course, that's just one school of thought..

I have never heard of this, and honestly it's weird. First Mega, Giga and Tera and then latin.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I have never heard of this, and honestly it's weird. First Mega, Giga and Tera and then latin.

As opposed to the bizarre weirdness they've come up with? I prefer something easy to remember.

 

[kayjay010101]

As opposed to the bizarre weirdness they've come up with? I prefer something easy to remember.

It's standard metric binary prefixes... They're standardized as part of the International System of Units, along with every other metric unit. They are easy to remember, moreso then your system which doesn't exist.

I've never heard of whatever it is you're using... In fact, not once does any of the ones you've mentioned appear on the wikipedia page for Binary Prefixes. Googling those also comes up with nonsense results.
What I presume you've done is confused numeral prefixes (used in linguistics, not in computer science) with binary prefixes. But then it's not even correct (it mixes Latin and Greek at various points, and some are just not even a thing, like "Ninta". WTF is that?) If they followed the right (numeral) prefixes they would be as follows (Latin first, Greek in paranthesis):

Quadru/Quadribyte (Tetrabyte)
Quinquebyte (Pentabyte)
Sexabyte (Hexabyte)
Septibyte (Heptabyte)
Octobyte (Same in Greek)
Novembyte (Enneabyte)
Decembyte (Decabyte)

But the fact of the matter is when using bytes/bits as the unit, numeral prefixes aren't used. We use the standard prefixes as outlined in IEC, SI or JEDEC; which are:
SI:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1000
M	Mega	1000^2
G	Giga	1000^3
T	Tera	1000^4
P	Peta	1000^5
E	Exa	1000^6
Z	Zetta	1000^7
Y	Yotta	1000^8

IEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
Ki	Kibi	1024
Mi	Mebi	1024^2
Gi	Gibi	1024^3
Ti	Tibi	1024^4
Pi	Pebi	1024^5
Ei	Exbi	1024^6
Zi	Zebi	1024^7
Yi	Yobi	1024^8

JEDEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1024
M	Mega	1024^2
G	Giga	1024^3

Now as for the debate between whether 1000 bytes for Kilo or 1024 for Kilo should be used, that's another topic entirely. Personally I think 1000 should be using SI notation (Giga, Tera, Peta, etc.) and 1024 should use IEC (Gibi, Tebi, Pebi, etc), with prefixes accordingly. So 1024 bytes would be a kibibyte: KiB. 1000 bytes would be a kilobyte: KB. Unfortunately most systems don't use this format: RAM for example might be listed as 4GB = 4 Gigabytes = 4 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes, but in reality it's 4 GiB = 4 Gibibytes = 4 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024. Drive capacity is strangely enough the main exception to the rule and (IMO) uses the correct format: when they write GB, it means Gigabyte, which is 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes. The JEDEC standard... throws this out the window and uses IEC units (1024) with SI prefixes (K/Kilo).

This is the reason why your 1TB drive only shows up as ~0.909 TB in Windows. Windows uses 1024 instead of 1000, which wouldn't be a problem if Windows used the IEC prefixes. But Windows does not respect IEC prefixes: it uses TB to mean Tibibyte; when Tibibyte should be TiB. In fact, most software does not respect the IEC convention. Windows follows the JEDEC standard (KB = 1024, MB = 1024 x 1024, GB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024), which directly contradicts SI.

 

[Wirko]

Stop with all this science, already! How many times thinner than a human hair is that ZB?

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

1 Zathura Bite, uhh, 1 Zappa Byte, umm, help I cant stop...

 

[lexluthermiester]

It's standard metric binary prefixes... They're standardized as part of the International System of Units, along with every other metric unit. They are easy to remember, moreso then your system which doesn't exist.

I've never heard of whatever it is you're using... In fact, not once does any of the ones you've mentioned appear on the wikipedia page for Binary Prefixes. Googling those also comes up with nonsense results.
What I presume you've done is confused numeral prefixes (used in linguistics, not in computer science) with binary prefixes. But then it's not even correct (it mixes Latin and Greek at various points, and some are just not even a thing, like "Ninta". WTF is that?) If they followed the right (numeral) prefixes they would be as follows (Latin first, Greek in paranthesis):

Quadru/Quadribyte (Tetrabyte)
Quinquebyte (Pentabyte)
Sexabyte (Hexabyte)
Septibyte (Heptabyte)
Octobyte (Same in Greek)
Novembyte (Enneabyte)
Decembyte (Decabyte)

But the fact of the matter is when using bytes/bits as the unit, numeral prefixes aren't used. We use the standard prefixes as outlined in IEC, SI or JEDEC; which are:
SI:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1000
M	Mega	1000^2
G	Giga	1000^3
T	Tera	1000^4
P	Peta	1000^5
E	Exa	1000^6
Z	Zetta	1000^7
Y	Yotta	1000^8

IEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
Ki	Kibi	1024
Mi	Mebi	1024^2
Gi	Gibi	1024^3
Ti	Tibi	1024^4
Pi	Pebi	1024^5
Ei	Exbi	1024^6
Zi	Zebi	1024^7
Yi	Yobi	1024^8

JEDEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1024
M	Mega	1024^2
G	Giga	1024^3

Now as for the debate between whether 1000 bytes for Kilo or 1024 for Kilo should be used, that's another topic entirely. Personally I think 1000 should be using SI notation (Giga, Tera, Peta, etc.) and 1024 should use IEC (Gibi, Tebi, Pebi, etc), with prefixes accordingly. So 1024 bytes would be a kibibyte: KiB. 1000 bytes would be a kilobyte: KB. Unfortunately most systems don't use this format: RAM for example might be listed as 4GB = 4 Gigabytes = 4 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes, but in reality it's 4 GiB = 4 Gibibytes = 4 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024. Drive capacity is strangely enough the main exception to the rule and (IMO) uses the correct format: when they write GB, it means Gigabyte, which is 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes. The JEDEC standard... throws this out the window and uses IEC units (1024) with SI prefixes (K/Kilo).

This is the reason why your 1TB drive only shows up as ~0.909 TB in Windows. Windows uses 1024 instead of 1000, which wouldn't be a problem if Windows used the IEC prefixes. But Windows does not respect IEC prefixes: it uses TB to mean Tibibyte; when Tibibyte should be TiB. In fact, most software does not respect the IEC convention. Windows follows the JEDEC standard (KB = 1024, MB = 1024 x 1024, GB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024), which directly contradicts SI.

Wow was that in depth. I didn't actually mean to start a debate on naming schemes. Was just commenting on the bizarre nature of the current one.

 

[kayjay010101]

Wow was that in depth. I didn't actually mean to start a debate on naming schemes. Was just commenting on the bizarre nature of the current one.

And my point is it isn't bizzare: it's standardized and has been for decades. I might have gone a bit too far in depth, I do agree on that

 

[lexluthermiester]

And my point is it isn't bizzare: it's standardized and has been for decades.

I've always thought it was bizarre. Just a personal opinion. Standardized or not, it's bloody strange.

I might have gone a bit too far in depth, I do agree on that

It's all good. There were a few things there I didn't know, or had forgotten...

 

[Gmr_Chick]

It's standard metric binary prefixes... They're standardized as part of the International System of Units, along with every other metric unit. They are easy to remember, moreso then your system which doesn't exist.

I've never heard of whatever it is you're using... In fact, not once does any of the ones you've mentioned appear on the wikipedia page for Binary Prefixes. Googling those also comes up with nonsense results.
What I presume you've done is confused numeral prefixes (used in linguistics, not in computer science) with binary prefixes. But then it's not even correct (it mixes Latin and Greek at various points, and some are just not even a thing, like "Ninta". WTF is that?) If they followed the right (numeral) prefixes they would be as follows (Latin first, Greek in paranthesis):

Quadru/Quadribyte (Tetrabyte)
Quinquebyte (Pentabyte)
Sexabyte (Hexabyte)
Septibyte (Heptabyte)
Octobyte (Same in Greek)
Novembyte (Enneabyte)
Decembyte (Decabyte)

But the fact of the matter is when using bytes/bits as the unit, numeral prefixes aren't used. We use the standard prefixes as outlined in IEC, SI or JEDEC; which are:
SI:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1000
M	Mega	1000^2
G	Giga	1000^3
T	Tera	1000^4
P	Peta	1000^5
E	Exa	1000^6
Z	Zetta	1000^7
Y	Yotta	1000^8

IEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
Ki	Kibi	1024
Mi	Mebi	1024^2
Gi	Gibi	1024^3
Ti	Tibi	1024^4
Pi	Pebi	1024^5
Ei	Exbi	1024^6
Zi	Zebi	1024^7
Yi	Yobi	1024^8

JEDEC:

Short	Prefix	Bytes
K	Kilo	1024
M	Mega	1024^2
G	Giga	1024^3

Now as for the debate between whether 1000 bytes for Kilo or 1024 for Kilo should be used, that's another topic entirely. Personally I think 1000 should be using SI notation (Giga, Tera, Peta, etc.) and 1024 should use IEC (Gibi, Tebi, Pebi, etc), with prefixes accordingly. So 1024 bytes would be a kibibyte: KiB. 1000 bytes would be a kilobyte: KB. Unfortunately most systems don't use this format: RAM for example might be listed as 4GB = 4 Gigabytes = 4 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes, but in reality it's 4 GiB = 4 Gibibytes = 4 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024. Drive capacity is strangely enough the main exception to the rule and (IMO) uses the correct format: when they write GB, it means Gigabyte, which is 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes. The JEDEC standard... throws this out the window and uses IEC units (1024) with SI prefixes (K/Kilo).

This is the reason why your 1TB drive only shows up as ~0.909 TB in Windows. Windows uses 1024 instead of 1000, which wouldn't be a problem if Windows used the IEC prefixes. But Windows does not respect IEC prefixes: it uses TB to mean Tibibyte; when Tibibyte should be TiB. In fact, most software does not respect the IEC convention. Windows follows the JEDEC standard (KB = 1024, MB = 1024 x 1024, GB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024), which directly contradicts SI.

Kay, I want to thank you for truly teaching me something new today with this post. Even if all the math made my brain hurt, lol. But seriously, thanks for such an informative post -- I had no idea a "yotta" byte even existed!

 

[kayjay010101]

Kay, I want to thank you for truly teaching me something new today with this post. Even if all the math made my brain hurt, lol. But seriously, thanks for such an informative post -- I had no idea a "yotta" byte even existed!

Glad I could be of help! Yottabytes are far out numbers today - but as the internet grows and our data grows with it, we could reach it quite soon. It's projected that by 2025 we'll be sending about 450 Exabytes every single day, which would mean during the year of 2025 we'd send a total of 0.16 yottabytes over the internet. If speeds flatlined we'd reach a yottabyte by late 2031, but seeing as data grows each year, we could expect to reach that amount by 2030. Just 15 years ago zettabytes were unthinkable numbers - by 2025 we'll send a total of one almost every other day. Imagine 15 years from now! That's why it helps to have units all standardized and ready

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I had no idea a "yotta" byte even existed!

yotta believe it does!

 

[micropage7]

Translation 1ZB = 1 Zettabyte, which is the same as 1 SxB = 1 Sextabyte.

Some sectors are refusing to accept the rather bizarre prefix naming scheme selected by industry pundits.

A proper naming scheme follows known and widely accepted conventions. Example;

MegaByte
GigaByte
TeraByte
QuadraByte
CentaByte
SextaByte
SeptaBtye
OctaByte
NintaByte
DecaByte

Of course, that's just one school of thought..

they should start it with A then ended with Z