• MangioneDontMiss@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      underrated comment. i’d much rather clone a 16 tb drive than 50 tb one. Also better speeds considering the use of more drives. That said, if I can save on electricity, noise, enclosure space, and very importantly, money, it could be pretty cool. Just need to wait and see how reliable these things are and if they are going to carry a price point that makes them make sense.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I mean personally, for long term data hoarding, I dislike running anything below raidz2, and imo anything less than 5 disks in that setup is just silly and inefficient in terms of cost/benefit. So I currently have 5x16TB in raidz2. The 60% capacity efficiency kinda blows, but also I didn’t want to spend any more on rust than I did at the time, and the array is still working great, so whatever. For me, that was a reasonable balance between power draw, disk count, cost, and capacity.

        • MangioneDontMiss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          honestly though. I kinda dislike that a 40 or 50tb mechanical drive is even a thing. What we really need is larger, more affordable solid state drives. Mechanical drives have had their place, but their limits are fairly clear at this point. And your point about rebuilding an array makes that obvious. They are just too slow. This move by seagate to make ridiculously large mechanical drives, should not be the beginning, as this article suggests. It should really be the end.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            They’re slow, but they’re WAY more robust than most SSDs - and in terms of $/TB, it’s not even close. Especially if you’re comparing to SLC enterprise-grade.

            • MangioneDontMiss@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I’ve definitely seen more hdd failures than ssd failures in my life, that said, enterprise storage is indeed very robust. My WD red pros have all been workhorses. And right now the price per dollar is definitely in favor of HDDs. That really needs to change though. The raw materials alone make HDDs more expensive to produce, the problem is only that there are less manufacturers with the means to actually produce the chips necessary for SSDs because HDDs have been around for a million years. Once that changes, I think HDDs will and should go the way of every obsolete storage medium thats existed prior.