Does anyone actually own a seagate 6TB STBD6000100?

boed

Senior member
Nov 19, 2009
539
13
81
Hello,

Does anyone own this exact model - similar model numbers won't help so if you actually own the STBD6000100 it would be helpful to get this information. I'm trying to find the exact RPM speed. I've seen it listed between Amazon, newegg and others from 5400 RPM, 5900 RPM and 7200RPM. I tried to contact Seagate on their facebook page and their contact website and strangely Seagate doesn't seem to know and neither does Newegg.
 
Last edited:

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
239
106
I don't own it, but I do have info that clarifies the 5900 vs 7200. The "cheap" version touted on Newegg for $299 is a 5900 RPM drive. Seagate also has a 6tb Enterprise version for $539 which runs at 7200 RPM. That should help.
 

zir_blazer

Golden Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,219
511
136
STBD6000100 seems to be the model of the retail kit version, whose box contains the HD, but that is not the model of the HD itself. You could possibily get more info if you manage to get the model of the HD.
I just chatted with the Seagate representative at Newegg and he couldn't tell me what it was, but said that there was just one version. Common sense tells me it should be ST6000DM000, and googling it brings some this but nothing else. And the Specs tab is from a much older generation.
 

boed

Senior member
Nov 19, 2009
539
13
81
Maybe if someone owns one of these drives, they could post their ATTO or CrystalDisk scores?
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
STBD6000100 seems to be the model of the retail kit version, whose box contains the HD, but that is not the model of the HD itself. You could possibily get more info if you manage to get the model of the HD.
I just chatted with the Seagate representative at Newegg and he couldn't tell me what it was, but said that there was just one version. Common sense tells me it should be ST6000DM000, and googling it brings some this but nothing else. And the Specs tab is from a much older generation.

I'm pretty sure you are correct. I'm certain that the STBD4000400 is the retail kit of the ST4000DM000 (I researched that one into oblivion). Based on that logic similar naming conventions should apply to the 6TB.

To the OP, they are definitely not 7200 drives. Based on my experience they are likely 5400. I read an article a while back that said Seagate stopped posting the speeds because it had negative marketing connotations. These are consumer level mass storage drives and are more than fast enough for that job. I have two of the 4TB versions and they work great in my server.
 

boed

Senior member
Nov 19, 2009
539
13
81
If anyone has any new info on this due to your recent acquisition of one of these drives, I'm keen to hear more.
 

boed

Senior member
Nov 19, 2009
539
13
81
I ended up getting the ST6000NM0024 for $430 each - they are the enterprise edition. They are fast - they run hotter than my old 3TB 7200RPM seagates but they are a little faster - about 190x190 read and write. They are as quiet as the 3TB drives.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,127
1,741
126
I ended up getting the ST6000NM0024 for $430 each - they are the enterprise edition. They are fast - they run hotter than my old 3TB 7200RPM seagates but they are a little faster - about 190x190 read and write. They are as quiet as the 3TB drives.

As I recollect, my 3-year-old VelociRaptor which went south two weeks ago was only capable of no more than 140 MB/s in the sequential tests. So your report of ~190/190 means an actual improvement in HDD technology over recent years (other than the capacity factor).

If the price on the 6TB drives is coming down, I suppose a person would still balance their capacity needs and growth projections with speed and price. My server has 8TB and I'm using less than 2.3 TB of server storage with 500GB of duplicated files (1TB of effective usage.) I'm storing more unduplicated HD video captures and DVD-quality SD files -- probably a lot more of the former.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,983
1,616
126
As I recollect, my 3-year-old VelociRaptor which went south two weeks ago was only capable of no more than 140 MB/s in the sequential tests. So your report of ~190/190 means an actual improvement in HDD technology over recent years (other than the capacity factor).

Maximum sequential r/w speed scales closely with platter density. (More data in the same space means more data passes under the r/w head in the same amount of time and/or the same number of rotations.) Therefore, higher capacity at the same RPM means faster sequential access.

RPM does have an effect on seek time and max IOPS though, mostly independent from density and sequential maximum speed.
 

Carson Dyle

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2012
8,173
524
126
Just out of curiosity (somewhat related) ...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know whether it was in this forum or another, but a couple of years ago there was a discussion regarding Seagate and a news story quoting someone at the company saying that Seagate was phasing out 5x00 RPM drives and moving toward producing only 7200 RPM consumer drives. The claim was that any energy savings had from 5900 RPM drives vs 7200 RPM were very small, so there was little reason to produce them.

Anyone know whatever happened to those plans, because they're still churning out 5900 RPM drives?
 
Last edited:

boed

Senior member
Nov 19, 2009
539
13
81
Lot's of people think the consumer class 6TB is only 5900 RPM - but since they don't even have the model on their web page it is hard to say.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,983
1,616
126
Just out of curiosity (somewhat related) ...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know whether it was in this forum or another, but a couple of years ago there was a discussion regarding Seagate and a news story quoting someone at the company saying that Seagate was phasing out 5x00 RPM drives and moving toward producing only 7200 RPM consumer drives. The claim was that any energy savings had from 5900 RPM drives vs 7200 RPM were very small, so there was little reason to produce them.

Anyone know whatever happened to those plans, because they're still churning out 5900 RPM drives?

Hmm... a couple years ago Seagate stopped producing 7200 rpm laptop (2.5") HDDs, because 7200 rpm wasn't faster enough to matter.

If we're talking about 3.5" HDDs, 5900 rpm drives are plenty fast sequentially, quieter, and use about 20% less power. It's also supposedly easier to make a reliable higher-capacity drive if it's spinning a bit slower. (See also: WD Caviar Greens and Reds.)

So I'm not sure why they would even consider doing that.
 

Elixer

Lifer
May 7, 2002
10,371
762
126
Hmm... a couple years ago Seagate stopped producing 7200 rpm laptop (2.5") HDDs, because 7200 rpm wasn't faster enough to matter.
Pretty sure speed has nothing to do with it in laptops. It is all about power usage, and it takes less juice to spin at a lower RPM.

I wouldn't be shocked if the 'consumer' version of the 6TB drive is 5900 RPM, that is the direction Seagate has been heading for a long time.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
Maximum sequential r/w speed scales closely with platter density. (More data in the same space means more data passes under the r/w head in the same amount of time and/or the same number of rotations.) Therefore, higher capacity at the same RPM means faster sequential access.

RPM does have an effect on seek time and max IOPS though, mostly independent from density and sequential maximum speed.
Not completely true my VRaptor nearly 2 years old but of the latest gen is probably at least one platter density behind and it regularly does nearly 250MBs transfers. He might have only gotten it 3 years ago but that seems like a first gen VR if he is only getting 140ish.

Looking at the Anandtech review it says mine should max out a 220MBs, but I know I have seen it sustain at larger than that during most file moves I have done.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,983
1,616
126
Not completely true my VRaptor nearly 2 years old but of the latest gen is probably at least one platter density behind and it regularly does nearly 250MBs transfers. He might have only gotten it 3 years ago but that seems like a first gen VR if he is only getting 140ish.

Looking at the Anandtech review it says mine should max out a 220MBs, but I know I have seen it sustain at larger than that during most file moves I have done.

...yeah, and it can do that despite the density disadvantage because it's spinning twice as fast. (So, again, more data passes under the r/w head in the same amount of time.)

It's high school geometry.

Maybe I should have said, "for drives of a given rpm, sequential speeds scale with platter density... and eventually density trumps rpm if the advantage is big enough" but I thought that was implied.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
...yeah, and it can do that despite the density disadvantage because it's spinning twice as fast. (So, again, more data passes under the r/w head in the same amount of time.)

It's high school geometry.

Maybe I should have said, "for drives of a given rpm, sequential speeds scale with platter density... and eventually density trumps rpm if the advantage is big enough" but I thought that was implied.

Yeah. I was just more adding onto the fact that the drive wasn't faster just because of some recent density increase, but the face that it was an extremely old drive at that point even if the user just purchased it (3 years ago). His drive would have to be several HDD densities behind to lose to a 5900RPM drive.

I know that rotational speed is a useless number without density information. That doesn't mean that all it takes is a simple density increase to overcome such a rotational speed disparity. Another way to look at it would be that it took nearly 6 years of density increases before a 6TB 5900RPM drive caught up with a 300GB 10k RPM drive.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
Just out of curiosity (somewhat related) ...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know whether it was in this forum or another, but a couple of years ago there was a discussion regarding Seagate and a news story quoting someone at the company saying that Seagate was phasing out 5x00 RPM drives and moving toward producing only 7200 RPM consumer drives. The claim was that any energy savings had from 5900 RPM drives vs 7200 RPM were very small, so there was little reason to produce them.

Anyone know whatever happened to those plans, because they're still churning out 5900 RPM drives?

Since then they have started producing their hybrid SSHD (SSD/HDD) drives which have replaced their conventional 7200 drive line. Their pure HDD models are specifically designed as mass storage, and slower RPMS mean less heat, noise, and vibration. The side affect is that they last longer and use less energy.

I can tell you from experience that for file storage use there is little difference between 5900/7200 drives. They transfer files at the same rate over my network. The SSD is the new 7200 for situations where performance is required. I still use my WD black drives for when I need performance and storage for photo editing only because SSDs still aren't quite large enough for that, but it won't be long before I stop using HDDs completely for everything except mass storage.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,946
1,250
126
Wasn't there some report recently that Seagate drives are a lot less reliable than Western Digital drives? I've been thinking of replacing my 3x1Tb samsung drives which must be 6 years old now
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,983
1,616
126
Wasn't there some report recently that Seagate drives are a lot less reliable than Western Digital drives? I've been thinking of replacing my 3x1Tb samsung drives which must be 6 years old now

Backblaze did a study.

It had some pretty spurious results though.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/17/backblaze_how_not_to_evaluate_disk_reliability/

It was a specific model of Seagate drives they had trouble with, which Seagate also admitted were problematic.

Everything breaks, never at a good time. Buy what's cheapest for the $/TB so you can afford a replacement if you have to, and make sure everything's backed up so it's not the end of the world when the inevitable happens.
 
Last edited:

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
I still prefer WD's but that's just me I guess.

And personal experience in the past, I really have no data to throw out there.
 

boed

Senior member
Nov 19, 2009
539
13
81
Time flies. I replaced my drives with 6TB drives and have 27TB of disk space. Unfortunately I'm down to 4TB free and that will pretty much be gone by the end of the year. I doubt we'll see a LSI 9361-16i 16 port RAID card by then or at this point ever. Chances are I'll go adaptec unless anyone has any strong recommendations about a different card you'd recommend that will be available within the next few months. I'll be putting 12 6TB drives in my next system for about 60TB of useable disk space.
 

AdamK47

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,653
3,518
136
I have the ST6000DX000. It's the desktop variant. 6TB using six 1TB platters spinning at 7200RPM with 128MB of cache. Pretty quick for a spindle drive I suppose. Use it for Acronis backups, game patches/installs, and application installations.
 

admiraljkb

Junior Member
Oct 16, 2011
2
0
0
@boed Have you looked at one of the LSI SAS2 Expanders? There are a few on eBay right now for $150 or less. (the "or less" ones slowboat from China, the $150 comes from Austin, TX)
I bought this LSI expander last month (same listing). I was in the same boat of needing more than 8 drives, and went that route. It works nice so far: http://www.ebay.com/itm/201193534235

Back to topic - I'm looking at these wondering about using them as a cost effective storage storage solution in a new backup/DR server that's needing to mirror my main NAS with 11 2TB RED's. I don't mind going less spindles for a backup server, although getting 1TB/platter 7200rpm drives wouldn't hurt my feelings at all and would make the decision clear between it and 6TB Reds. MicroCenter has them listed as 7200RPM, hmmm...
http://www.microcenter.com/product/...ATA_60Gb-s_35_Internal_Hard_Drive_STBD6000100

Time flies. I replaced my drives with 6TB drives and have 27TB of disk space. Unfortunately I'm down to 4TB free and that will pretty much be gone by the end of the year. I doubt we'll see a LSI 9361-16i 16 port RAID card by then or at this point ever. Chances are I'll go adaptec unless anyone has any strong recommendations about a different card you'd recommend that will be available within the next few months. I'll be putting 12 6TB drives in my next system for about 60TB of useable disk space.
 
Last edited: