This new 40TB hard drive from Seagate is just the beginning—50TB is coming fast!
This new 40TB hard drive from Seagate is just the beginning—50TB is coming fast!
That's pretty impressive a couple of those and you could probably download the next Call Of Duty.
Incoming 1Tb videogames. Compression? Who the fuck needs compression.
Black ops 6 just demanded another 45 GB for an update on my PS5, when the game is already 200 GB. AAA devs are making me look more into small indie games that don’t eat the whole hard drive to spend my money on, great job folks.
E) meant to say instead of buying a bigger hard drive I’ll support a small dev instead.
That is absolutely egregious. 200GB game with a 45GB update? You'd be lucky to see me installing a game that's around 20-30GB max anymore because I consider that to be the most acceptable amount of bloat for a game anymore.
I arrived at that point a few years ago. You're in for a world of discovery. As an fps fan myself I highly recommend Ultrakill. There's a demo so you don't have to commit.
Do you have time to talk about our Lord and Savior FACTORIO? Here; just have a quick taste.
Ok, I’m sorry, but… HOW???? How is it possibly two hundred fucking gigabytes?!?!? What the fuck is taking up so much space???
Clean up assets, are you kidding? Gamers have enough disk and time is money! /s
Oh, they'll do compression alright, they'll ship every asset in a dozen resolutions with different lossy compression algos so they don't need to spend dev time actually handling model and texture downscaling properly. And games will still run like crap because reasons.
Games can't really compress their assets much.
Stuff like textures generally use a lossless bitmap format. The compression artefacts you get with lossy formats, while unnoticable to the human eye, can cause much more visible rendering artefacts once the game engine goes to calculate how light should interact with the material.
That's not to say devs couldn't be more efficient, but it does explain why games don't really compress that well.
Optimizations are relics of the past!
I don't know about that. These are spinning disks so they aren't exactly going to be fast when compared to solid state drives. Then again, I wouldn't exactly put it past some of the AAA game devs out there.
Why in the world does this seem to use an inaccurate depiction of the Xbox Series X expansion card for its thumbnail?
This picture: brought to you by some bullshit AI
CAN WE PLEASE JUST GET 3.5" SSDS. PLEASE
Aren't a lot of the 2.5" ones already empty space?
How big, and how expensive, would a 3.5" SSD be, if it actually filled enough of the space with NAND chips for the form factor to be warranted?
I know right. Why is this not a thing already? I mean I understand the various U.2, U.3, and EDSFF are great for high density data center installs. We have a 1U box in production that could be as high as 1 PB given current densities with E1.L drives but that’s enterprise level stuff. I just want a huge 3.5 SSD I could put in these pro-consumer level NAS boxes or maybe even one I could build myself for my home lab.
Yeah, why aren't there any?
There are: https://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive/specifications/
They are just not listed in shops for poor people. (joking)
I just addressed that in a post above yours.
https://lemmy.world/comment/17434700
Basically, smaller form factors are probably just better in this case. 3.5" drive bays were designed with more complicated mechanical drives in mind, and given how nand flash memory works, they don't make as much sense for SSDs.
Well, 3.5" SSDs are certainly possible, but 2.5" (or in fact m.2) might just be a better form factor for SSDs. The thing is, an SSD is just a bunch of chips on a PCB, so they really don't need the extra height afforded to them by a 3.5" bay.
You could probably fit 2 pcbs one on top of the other within a 3.5" drive, but that would probably need a third PCB to connect the two which would be more complicated to manufacture and be worse for cooling than using two individual 3.5" or m.2 cards.
Also, for a bunch of reasons smaller is usually better. Generally, it tends to be cheaper to use a few large capacity chips on a small board than it is to use a lot of lower capacity chips on a larger board. Of course fewer parts also means fewer potential points of failure, so better for quality control. And again, smaller cards are better for case airflow and cooling.
And they’d only be like $5k each. HDD prices have gone ridiculous. I’d just like 20TB drives to be reasonably priced. 10TB drives are twice the price they were 5 years ago.
If you aren't running a home server with tons of storage, this product is not for you. If the price is right, 40TB to 50TB is a great upgrade path for massive storage capacity without having to either buy a whole new backplane to support more drives or build an entirely new server. I see a lot of comments comparing 4TB SSDS to 40TB HDD's so had to chime in. Yes, they make massive SSD storage arrays too, but a lot of us don't have those really deep pockets.
Thank you! I lol'd at the guy with one in his main PC lol. Like why?
I'm still waiting for prices to fall below 10 € per TB. Lost a 4 TB drive prematurely in the 2010s. I thought I could just wait a bit until 8 TB drives cost the same. You know, the same kind of price drops HDDs have always had about every 2 years or so. Then a flood or an earthquake or both happened and destroyed some factories and prices shot up and never recovered.
Oh wow does it come with glowing green computery looking stuff like in the picture
The image is literally just the proprietary xbox drive plugged into an xbox
I had an Xbox and it didn't do that either!!!
I’ll finally have enough space for my meme screenshots.
Or the 8k photos of vacation dinners.
I know people love to dunk on Seagate drives, but it was really just the one gen that was the cause of that bad rep. Before that the most hated drives were the "deathstars" (Deskstars). I have a 1TB Seagate drive that is 10 years old and still in use daily. Just do some research on which drive to buy, no OEM is sacrosanct. I'd personally wait 6 months to a year before buying one of these drives though, so enough people have time to find out if this generation is trouble or not.
Many people can't accept that one drive model isn't going to kill a company or make everything from them bad.
The exception being the palladium drive. Although its not directly attributed to the fall of JTS, who at the time owned Atari. Its was clear from the frontline techs these things were absolute shit. The irony is that 1 out of say 10,000 was perfect. So much so I still have one of the 1.2 gig's that still spins up and reads and writes fine. Its nearly a unicorn though.
i dunno man, i have about 20 years worth of bad experiences with seagate. none of their drives have ever been reliable for me. WD drives have always been rock solid and overall just better drives in my experience. I have two WD externals sitting on my desk right now that are almost 15 years old. Still going strong.
Seagate have never once secretly changed the underlying disk technology on a NAS grade drive to one utterly unsuited for use in a NAS drive and then sold it as a NAS grade drive at a premium price because it's a NAS grade drive. So there's that.
I have killed every single type of magnetic platter drive from every brand they are all bad
The only drives I have ever had die on me were actually both WD, but it's all anecdotal, and I've had tons of WD drives that were great (my favorites were the raptors and velociratpers). I've owned way too many HDDs over the many years, and I can say that I haven't had issues with any, but again I do my research and only order from what I believe to be good runs of drives. In case you have never done so, take a look at the reports that Backblaze puts out on their drive reliability. I found it pretty eye opening. Before Backblaze start sharing their data, there used to be a site that crowd sourced HDD lifetimes and failure causes that I used to use when buying drives and I always entered my drive data there. I can't recall the name of it now nor do I know if it still exists, but you could definitely spot the "bad" gens on there and WD and Seagate were both pretty even as far as I recall. I remember Hitachi being statistically worse, but it made sense as they bought IBM's derided Deskstar business from them. Ironically, WD ended up buying Hitachi's HDD business years later, but I think it was considered OK by then.
It’s all anecdotal for the most part. I’ve had two DOA WD drives in a row before, but no dead seagates.
As a side note, I hope you have those two WDs backed up, they’re overdue for a death.
There are loads of people who think a company is bad because of one product, one service etc. A friend of mine hates Seagate, but he bought 10 drives of the same model. Pretty sure he even bought some after the first one failed ... or people (like me) put desktop drives in a NAS or service with other drives. While mine are still good I expect them to fail any time since well they are not desinged for the use case I am using them for.
Imagine how long it’ll take to rebuild your raid array after one fails lol
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.
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.
i remember bragging when my computer had 40gb storage
I bought my first HDD second hand. It was advertised as 40MB. But it was 120MB. How happy was young me?
Upgrading from 20MB to 40MB was so fucking boss.
I remember switching away from floppies to a--much faster, enormous---80MB hard drive. Never did come close to filling that thing.
Today, my CPU's cache is larger than that hard drive.
If EA or Ubisoft don't get their shit together this won't be enough.
i can finally seed every spn season
Wow great. From seagate. The company that produces drives with the by far lowest life expectancy compared to the competiton
Is this true? I remember them being very reliable in the past.
I think people say this because there was one specific 6TB model that does really poorly in BackBlaze reports, combined with a generally poor understanding of statistics ("I bought a Seagate and it failed but I've never had a WD fail").
I will also point out that BackBlaze themselves consistently say that Seagate and WD are pretty much the same (apart from the one model), in those exact same reports
If 50TB is coming fast, then so am I
thats a lot of porn high quality videos
Imagine losing a 50tb drive because you choose to use Seagate.
Seagate Exos is usually ok. Their generic stuff, is sometimes crap, but that's true of all manufacturers, really.
That being said, I'd be nervous with a single huge drive, no matter where it's from. And even as part of a redundant structure, the rebuild times would be through the roof.
Hey! You! Get offa the Cloud (and grab yourself one of those drives). You can keep your thoughts to yourself, now you can keep your data to yourself, like in the recent old times.
Best to get at least 2 so you have a backup
Your own lil cloud
No thanks. I'd rather have 4TB SSDs that cost $100. We were getting close to that in 2023, but then the memory manufacturers decided to collude and jacked up prices.
I thought prices seemed to be taking a while come down on 4TB SSDs as I had been looking at them for a while.
Don't really want it enough to spend £200 though. Would be to replace a 1+2TB HDD LVM. Now that I think about it, I have never copied a few TBs of data in one go.
To be fair, I believe the increased pricing then was mostly due to sales, and thus production, tanking post COVID along with the big inflation for a couple of years. There was almost certainly greed from the most prominent memory makers tackedo n though.
Memory manufacturers purposely cut production to help justify cost increases: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/memory-prices-rebound-due-to-reduced-production-increasing-demand
But yeah, they'll also take advantage of demand (real or imaginary) to jack up prices: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/dram/micron-confirms-memory-price-hikes-as-ai-and-data-center-demand-surges
I can't wait to upgrade my NAS to a 200Tb Setup
Great, can't wait for it to be affordable in 2050.
cool 50tb. i can now download more stuff.
I deal with large data chunks and 40TB drives are an interesting idea.... until you consider one failing
raids and arrays for these large data sets still makes more sense then all the eggs in smaller baskets
You'd still put the 40TB drives in a raid? But eventually you'll be limited by the number of bays, so larger size is better.
They're also ignoring how many times this conversation has been had...
We never stopped raid at any other increase in drive density, there's no reason to pick this as the time to stop.
Of course, because you don't want to lose the data if one of the drives dies. And backing up that much data is painful.
depends on a lot of factors. If you only need ~30TB of storage and two spare RAID disks, 3x 40TB disks will be much more costly than 6x 10TB disks, or even 4x 20TB disks.
The main issue I see is that the gulf between capacity and transfer speed is now so vast with mechanical drives that restoring the array after drive failure and replacement is unreasonably long. I feel like you'd need at least two parity drives, not just one, because letting the array be in a degraded state for multiple days while waiting for the data to finish copying back over would be an unacceptable risk.
I upgraded my 7 year old 4tb drives with 14tb drives (both setups raid1). A week later, one of the 14tb drives failed. It was a tense time waiting for a new drive and the 24 hours or so for resilvering. No issues since, but boy was that an experience. I've since added some automated backup processes.
Yes this and also scrubs and smart tests. I have 6 14TB spinning drives and a long smart test takes roughly a week, so running 2 at a time takes close to a month to do all 6 and then it all starts over again, so for half to 75% of the time, 2 of my drives are doing smart tests. Then there's scrubs which I do monthly. I would consider larger drives if it didn't mean that my smart/scrub schedule would take more than a month. Rebuilds aren't too bad, and I have double redundancy for extra peace of mind but I also wouldn't want that taking much longer either
I guess the idea is you'd still do that, but have more data in each array. It does raise the risk of losing a lot of data, but that can be mitigated by sensible RAID design and backups. And then you save power for the same amount of storage.
These are literally only sold by the rack to data centers.
What are you going on about?
You thought 50TB was it? LOL! Hold on to your butts because 53.713TB SSDs are coming! These will cost you all your vital organs at 35years of age. Brains included.
I can't wait to lose even more data when this thing bricks
You do realize that there is probably a fair chunk of people on here who can say that unironically?
I've only got 32tb in the family Raid 5 (actually 24TB since I lose a drive to parity), but my girl really loves her trash TV while she works so we're on like 90% full.
And I'm just a podunk machinist.
cool. now I can lose even more data when it dies.
no thanks...
Hope you have a database for file management at that point.
Ah yes. Seagate. The trash storage device company. If you want to burn your money, just throw it into a fire before buying this e-waste.
Can not recommend.
They're mechanical drives, every mechanical drive company has issues. I have had 4 of the 20tb drives in a truenas setup since last summer with zero issues. Drives in this size should be redundant and under warranty, expect drives to die, they're consumables. Replace, resilver, move on with life.
…And it’s bound to be stupidly expensive.
Wish I could afford 20 of them, but not without winning the Powerball.
Can't wait to see how these 40 TB hard drives, a wonderment of technology, will be used to further shove AI down my throat.
phrasing
I have a 20TB seagate exos drive in my main pc and I hate it. Partly due to my case, but it’s noisy and does an obnoxious head reset (or whatever) every 7 minutes or so. It’s so loud.
These drives aren't for home desktops, they're more for server setups with large datasets and redundancy. Lol why do you need a 20tb drive in your main PC?
I have 4 x 20tb drives in a truenas where I have backups, movies, and music, network accessible for the whole house.
Yeah Exos are enterprise drives, so there's no point in making them quiet like they do with lower speed desktop stuff.
Oh wow. Riveting
So all the other hard drives will be cheaper now, right? Right?
A 2tb SSD can now be bought for 100$ at least.
This is good to know. I might need to upgrade the storage for my Monero node.