Continuing the march of progress in the HDD industry, Seagate has revealed that they have started shipping their 16 TB PMR hard drives. In a quarterly earnings call last week, the company reported that the drives have been shipping since late March, with current shipments coming ahead of high volume production of the drives. Seagate in turn expects to kick off mass production in the second half of 2019, and by Q2 2020 the new 16 TB drives will be its highest revenue SKU. What is particularly noteworthy here, besides the capacity of course, is that these drives do not use next-generation heat assisted magnetic recording (HAMR) technology. Instead, they're based around conventional magentic recoding (which is a new way to call perpendicular magnetic recording, PMR), which is being boosted by two-dimensional magnetic recording (TDMR).

Previously, we had been expecting Seagate's first shipping 16 TB drives to be based on their HAMR technology – select Seagate customers began receiving the company’s HAMR-based Exos X16 drives back in December. However it turns out that Seagate is not going to ramp up those HAMR drives quite yet. Instead, Seagate has taken the somewhat surprising step of building a 16 TB 3.5-inch helium-filled hard drive based around nine PMR+TDMR-based platters.

Seagate is apparently making good progress on developing these new CMR drives, and various cloud datacenters customers have already begun qualification testing for the drives. Here is what Dave Mosley, CEO of Seagate, had to say:

"We are very pleased to announce that we began shipping our 16 TB drives in late March as planned. [...] Qualifications are underway at many major cloud and enterprise customers. We expect to begin ramping to high volume later in calendar 2019 and expect 16 terabyte drives will be our highest revenue SKU by this time next year."

Transitioning from an eight-platter to a nine-platter HDD architecture is no small matter, as it requires a major redesign of internal components as well as incorporating thinner magnetic media and supporting mechanics. The benefit, of course, is a straightforward increase in the amount of available storage capacity, while operators weigh this against total drive costs as well as other consequences such as greater power consumption. Overall the move is surprising for Seagate, but far from unprecedented – Toshiba has used a nine-platter architecture for a while now – so Seagate is has become the second HDD manufacturer to join this club.

In addition to its Exos X16 CMR+TDMR hard drives, Seagate is also prepping host-managed 18 TB SMR (shingled magnetic recording) HDDs, which is powered by the same platform. These drives will be aimed at customers requiring even greater capacity with read-intensive workloads. Interestingly, Dave Mosley says that the platform used for these new HDDs is ready for HAMR heads:

"This particular platform for us will take us 16 TB and 18 TB with SMR and other variants. It will take us beyond 18 TB and probably into the HAMR families as well because HAMR is basically drop into this when we are ready."

For a number of years Seagate has implied that HAMR will be first used for 16 TB drives, so the unexpected shift to CMR + TDMR raises several question about the the state of the market and the technology. Is the delay client-driven, with the company’s clients wanting to stick to proven technologies for another round? Or, since HAMR HDDs use different components (new media, new heads, etc.), do the manufacturing costs of HAMR hard drives present a hurdle to manufacturing and/or client adoption? Or is the change in plans due to something else entirely?

At any rate, while HAMR drives have effectively been pushed back at Seagate, they are still very much on the company's roadmap. Seagate now plans to start mass production of HAMR drives in 2020, with capacities hitting 20 TB or more.

Related Reading:

Source: Seagate

POST A COMMENT

27 Comments

View All Comments

  • BrianDuda - Monday, May 20, 2019 - link

    Sounds like someone is a fan of 1 TB drives. Or maybe you're still buying 500 GB drives?

    It is true that the time it takes to rebuild the data is long and there's some risk if you only have a single mirror of that drive when the failure occurs. But if your data storage is that important for sure you have a secondary site replicating the data anyway so this argument is moot.
    Reply
  • PixyMisa - Monday, May 06, 2019 - link

    That report was saying that rather than 32TB SSDs, they wanted twice the number of 16TB SSDs in a smaller form factor. Reply
  • Skeptical123 - Monday, May 06, 2019 - link

    While I think a 16 TB will scare a lot of companies I'm sure many business will find value in the drives as a legacy friendly upgrade option. After all while there are clear disadvantages like the hours(days?) it takes to replace failed drives it's a lot cheaper to buy bigger drives than new systems when you need more space. Reply
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, May 06, 2019 - link

    I wouldn't mind some 16 TB drives for cold storage and mediaplex use if they are a. Not shingled and b. Cheap enough so I can buy them in pairs for redundancy. Reply
  • Reflex - Monday, May 06, 2019 - link

    SMR is pretty ideal for those scenarios. I use them in my NAS for storage and Plex very effectively. Reply
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, May 06, 2019 - link

    Shingled magnetic recording? Pass! Heat assisted or not, shingled drives invite failure much more so than PMR and other approaches. Now, if anyone here can convince me otherwise with data and good arguments, please do so. Reply
  • phoenix_rizzen - Monday, May 06, 2019 - link

    The 16 TB drives detailed in this article are PMR.

    The 18 TB drives will first be SMR, then later PMR as HAMR/PAMR/MAMR and similar technologies improve.
    Reply
  • Reflex - Monday, May 06, 2019 - link

    Where are you seeing failure data for SMR? Reply
  • piroroadkill - Wednesday, May 08, 2019 - link

    It's literally in the title that this 16TB drive is NOT shingled Reply
  • HardwareDufus - Monday, May 06, 2019 - link

    An 18TB drive failure... that's allot to rebuild in whatever RAID configuration you have.

    I honestly hadn't expected folks to want to go much bigger than 16TB in one drive... just because of the amount of data at risk. But I guess folks have always said that as capacities have increased.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now