That's about on par with the largest WD Red Pro drives on a $/byte basis. Depending on how close actual tracks MSRP, could even be cheaper.
Though I would honestly argue in favor of a 5400 RPM drive for a NAS, save a little money and power. With an array and mostly large files being accessed over a network, I suspect there isn't a huge difference, though I don't use things like Time Machine.
Probably not. The drives doing >200MB/sec is of minimal value when the network saturates at about half that. (Some small gain might be seen by the cache on the nas being able to use the HDDs transfer speed to keep the network saturated during drive seeks. OTOH unless your data is badly fragmented those should be a rare occurrence.)
Some of us are running 10gbit LANs already. Right now I'm limited by the expander in my JBOD to a miserly 600MiB/s to my array (I should be seeing 1200-1600MiB/s with 8 disks).
Wow that is a lot of new branding in one fell swoop for Seagate. New product lines based on previous products brought into a consistent theme is good to see. It appears the only thing really new in the 10TB capacity. Price really will be most important. I'm working on a NAS upgrade plan currently and going with HGST currently but nice to see a new option here with the IronWolf.
I'd love to be able to shrink my DIY NAS from a pair of stacked shoeboxes to a large hardbacked book; but the 12TB of flash I'd need to replace the pair of HDDs in it would cost several thousand dollars vs the ~$500 I paid at the end of last year.
It would cost me $6000 (real world price) to have had my backup I bought this April be on SSDs.
And that would be TLC SSDs, AND more drives, AND SSDs aren't as reliable for longer term data storage. (And my mechanical drives are already way faster than I need them to be for my backups.)
Yeah, mechanical drives go ages with no problem unpowered. I turned on one from the early 80s not long ago, and it was totally fine! Flash just isn't appropriate for data storage.
We really need something with way more storage space and without the fragility of flash.
The FireCuda might be an interesting capsule review since the green got one. . I'm surprised that so many years after the Momentus XT, more drives don't do that, it really feels substantially different from standard drives.
But for 10TB of crap stored, 8GB cache sounds even smaller than it already was.
Iron and wolf are two separate words, so "IronWolf," even though it is silly, makes a particular kind of sense. Not too much sense mind you. The same goes for "SkyHawk".
Styling Barracuda as "BarraCuda" on the other hand is quite ridiculous, and "FireCuda" is even worse. Ugh.
When I looked at the green colored chart last night, the BarraCuda Pro was rated for only 8x5 usage the same as FireCuda and 180 TB/year the same as IronWolf, not the 24x7 and 300 TB/year shown here. I did see that, but it was not here. Tom's Hardware has the same green colored chart but it says 8x5 and 180 TB/year for BarraCuda Pro. Which one is accurate?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
18 Comments
Back to Article
icrf - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
That's about on par with the largest WD Red Pro drives on a $/byte basis. Depending on how close actual tracks MSRP, could even be cheaper.Though I would honestly argue in favor of a 5400 RPM drive for a NAS, save a little money and power. With an array and mostly large files being accessed over a network, I suspect there isn't a huge difference, though I don't use things like Time Machine.
DanNeely - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Probably not. The drives doing >200MB/sec is of minimal value when the network saturates at about half that. (Some small gain might be seen by the cache on the nas being able to use the HDDs transfer speed to keep the network saturated during drive seeks. OTOH unless your data is badly fragmented those should be a rare occurrence.)ZeDestructor - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Some of us are running 10gbit LANs already. Right now I'm limited by the expander in my JBOD to a miserly 600MiB/s to my array (I should be seeing 1200-1600MiB/s with 8 disks).BinaryTB - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Agreed, give me 5400RPM for a NAS. Would rather have lower heat, noise, and price.creed3020 - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Wow that is a lot of new branding in one fell swoop for Seagate. New product lines based on previous products brought into a consistent theme is good to see. It appears the only thing really new in the 10TB capacity. Price really will be most important. I'm working on a NAS upgrade plan currently and going with HGST currently but nice to see a new option here with the IronWolf.JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
It's ogre! HDD's are dead! SSDs won! Just give up!DanNeely - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Where can I get 10TB SSDs for $500-600?I'd love to be able to shrink my DIY NAS from a pair of stacked shoeboxes to a large hardbacked book; but the 12TB of flash I'd need to replace the pair of HDDs in it would cost several thousand dollars vs the ~$500 I paid at the end of last year.
Communism - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
SSDs are dead, RAM is so cheap now that you would be a fool not to simply run max ram and buy super cheap hard drives.Wolfpup - Thursday, July 28, 2016 - link
It would cost me $6000 (real world price) to have had my backup I bought this April be on SSDs.And that would be TLC SSDs, AND more drives, AND SSDs aren't as reliable for longer term data storage. (And my mechanical drives are already way faster than I need them to be for my backups.)
bigboxes - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
And yet they're haven't.4TB SSD = $1,500
4TB HDD = $150
Not to mention unpowered SSDs are not a good idea for archived storage. Please feel free to inform us how dead HDDs are. LOL
Wolfpup - Thursday, July 28, 2016 - link
Yeah, mechanical drives go ages with no problem unpowered. I turned on one from the early 80s not long ago, and it was totally fine! Flash just isn't appropriate for data storage.We really need something with way more storage space and without the fragility of flash.
boozed - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Ogre?smorebuds - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
It's all ogre man!tipoo - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
The FireCuda might be an interesting capsule review since the green got one. . I'm surprised that so many years after the Momentus XT, more drives don't do that, it really feels substantially different from standard drives.But for 10TB of crap stored, 8GB cache sounds even smaller than it already was.
boozed - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Iron and wolf are two separate words, so "IronWolf," even though it is silly, makes a particular kind of sense. Not too much sense mind you. The same goes for "SkyHawk".Styling Barracuda as "BarraCuda" on the other hand is quite ridiculous, and "FireCuda" is even worse. Ugh.
Michael Bay - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Maybe they meant "Bara". Certainly new marketing direction at the very least!wbwb - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
When I looked at the green colored chart last night, the BarraCuda Pro was rated for only 8x5 usage the same as FireCuda and 180 TB/year the same as IronWolf, not the 24x7 and 300 TB/year shown here. I did see that, but it was not here. Tom's Hardware has the same green colored chart but it says 8x5 and 180 TB/year for BarraCuda Pro. Which one is accurate?ganeshts - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
We are :)That was a last minute change from Seagate with respect to product positioning.