30tb hdd for consumers this year

Yea, just wait until you see the first prices for dual actuator, 30TB drives out of the gate :(
 
That make your NAS or other storage solution extremely simple.

2 simple smallest possible 2 bay NAS and you can have 60 TB of storage with a backup in a different location, which could be big enough for many small enterprises.

Single USB/ethernet drive for a lot personnal use would do.
 
IIRC my first desktop had a 40GB drive... crazy how far we've come!
 
Sumanji said:
IIRC my first desktop had a 40GB drive... crazy how far we've come!
Click to expand...
In one way it is quite extraordinary after that you see a 256 GB laptop in the costco isle and not that much at the same time.
 
mwroobel said:
You must have been rich. lol. My first hard drive (god I am dating myself here) was a Seagate ST-506 5MB MFM drive!
Click to expand...
1706066977424.png
 
longblock454 said:
Mine was 40Meg!
Click to expand...
Very long story short. Back when I worked for a disk drive company, someone gave me a "customer sample" 10 MB drive. 8" full high floppy disk form factor. Needed AC power. Installed it into my CP/M system and was thrilled. But CP/M was never really designed for HDDs. When I got a PC AT, I put in a 30 MB drive, and was thrilled again. MS DOS 2.1 had directories I backed up onto 1.2 MB 5 1/4" floppies.

I guess I'm dating myself also. :ROFLMAO:
 
applegrcoug said:
Mine was 20megs.

Now I have a bunch of 18tbs in a nas. Crazy how far we've come.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure mine was 20 megs too. By the end of its life, it had so many bad sectors, we had about 20 megs of storage using doublespace.
 
FROM THE ARTICLE: Assuming a cost of $15 per Terabyte, a 30TB drive would cost about $450 which is a steal...

Except you need 4+ redundant drives (@ $450 each x 4 = &1,800) to feel secure that you MIGHT be able to recover your core 30TB data & then replicate that to 4 more drives @ another $1,800.

Yeah, that might be cheap for a small biz, but it's very risky because of Seagate's crappy quality (the only brand I've ever had fail & I've had a LOT of drives).

Color me pessimistic.
 
usa all day said:
FROM THE ARTICLE: Assuming a cost of $15 per Terabyte, a 30TB drive would cost about $450 which is a steal...

Except you need 4+ redundant drives (@ $450 each x 4 = &1,800) to feel secure that you MIGHT be able to recover your core 30TB data & then replicate that to 4 more drives @ another $1,800.

Yeah, that might be cheap for a small biz, but it's very risky because of Seagate's crappy quality (the only brand I've ever had fail & I've had a LOT of drives).

Color me pessimistic.
Click to expand...
All drives fail at some point, so having multiple drives is an absolute necessity for backing up data.
 
Not sure about the 4 HDD for each data disk for backup being a necessity, but how would it not be more expensive if you need that 30TB

If you would do it with 2 15TB, now you would need 8+ redundant drive and the board-cable-casing got just more complicated than the less drive but large option no ?

And obviously if you just need 14 TB of data space you do not go for the 30TB drives option.
 
Shoganai said:
All drives fail at some point, so having multiple drives is an absolute necessity for backing up data.
Click to expand...
Seagate = the only HD's I've ever had fail & they failed in multiples (personal / not biz).

Yes, I learned my lesson & use duplicated WD blacks & reds now.
 
LukeTbk said:
Not sure about the 4 HDD for each data disk for backup being a necessity
Click to expand...
Like I said: Seagate's crappy quality (the only brand I've ever had fail & I've had a LOT of drives).

^ That lack of quality would drive me to want 4 duped drives as a "cheap" option.

However, I would rather trust 2 WD's with the same amount of data as 4 Seagates.

Like I said - color me pessimistic.
 
usa all day said:
Seagate's crappy quality (the only brand I've ever had fail & I've had a LOT of drives).
Click to expand...
Where they large modern one ?

When we go (at least stat wise) in the 14-16TB territory more serious sku of those brands, they tend to be all quite good if I am not mistaken:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-2022/

Seagate will be the worst but usually still quite good.

In the 14TB+ category annual failure rate under cloud storage type usage

Seagate: 0.0177
Toshiba: 0.01694
HGST...: 0.013 (*12 TB models)
WDC....: 0.002829 (wow)

Those would be really solid numbers for 2-4-6TB class type of drives under that kind of load, if things did not change recently
 
Given there are 60TB+ SSDs available today I wish the consumer market could get a taste. Having faster backup speeds than HDD would be a boon the more there is to regularly backup and scrub. Plus less heat and no noise.
 
My first hard drive was 100MB in my Amiga 3000 I bought in 1992. The following year I bought a Video Toaster 4000 card and had to upgrade my storage so I bought a 345MB Maxtor SCSI drive for $345.
I currently have 134TB in my Plex Server.
 
toast0 said:
Pretty sure mine was 20 megs too. By the end of its life, it had so many bad sectors, we had about 20 megs of storage using doublespace.
Click to expand...
LOL I remember that (and stacker!)...
Anyone use Spinrite on those old mfm/rll drives? I remember it running for days on a 30MB Seagate and I was actually able to recover files. That was a weird drive, sounded like a kitten was in the box playing with a slinky!
 
LukeTbk said:
That make your NAS or other storage solution extremely simple.

2 simple smallest possible 2 bay NAS and you can have 60 TB of storage with a backup in a different location, which could be big enough for many small enterprises.

Single USB/ethernet drive for a lot personnal use would do.
Click to expand...
A backup NAS would not be using raid 0 for 60TB of storage...you would do it raid1 for 30TB...
 
Okatis said:
Given there are 60TB+ SSDs available today I wish the consumer market could get a taste. Having faster backup speeds than HDD would be a boon the more there is to regularly backup and scrub. Plus less heat and no noise.
Click to expand...
And how much are those 60TB SSD's?

You want more speed, you add more drives. Most backups for consumers are limited by network speeds (1G for most, with some on 2.5) Enterprises and small business are also usually only doing 1G LAN's and mostly wireless even for end user devices. Then issue is often more so the many small files being backed up causing poor random performance, whether SSD or HDs. If you have 10Gb lan, you likely have a better backup / storage solution anyways that has multiple drives and even read or write cache in front of the spinning rust.
 
MrGuvernment said:
And how much are those 60TB SSD's?
Click to expand...
Obviously they're expensive currently but so were SSDs generally for the longest time. HDDs at such high capacities have already had to use helium just to maintain speeds and reduce heat and I'm honestly curious whether it's still the R&D/tooling costs that are preventing price-per-TB parity with SSDs or if, somehow, the materials are actually just that much cheaper for HDDs than SSDs.

It doesn't require a NAS to use such capacities either, re bandwidth speeds, as most consumers don't even have a NAS so would be utilizing the max throughput supported by either SATA/NVMe or either over USB. Yes there are workarounds for random read/write speeds if using a NAS like caching with the proper RAID setup and obviously it wouldn't be feasible if there's a separate bottleneck of network speed.

Certainly having that kind of high capacity in single drives is attractive since it allows for things like singular backup drives of entire, high capacity systems without the bottleneck of HDD speeds, otherwise one is having to rely on particular multi-drive NAS striping configs just to get reasonable speeds (the max I've observed for my NAS-grade drives, singularly, is around 230MBps, sequential for large system image files).
 
It'd be nice to upgrade at last. I've been waiting years to move past 18TB drives as I need my cold storage solution to have 25+TB drives to handle a main array made of larger than 18TB drives.
 
Baenwort said:
It'd be nice to upgrade at last. I've been waiting years to move past 18TB drives as I need my cold storage solution to have 25+TB drives to handle a main array made of larger than 18TB drives.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see a flow chart of your current storage... or a list... ;)
 
Much as I'd love to have 30 TB in a single drive, that will likely be wallet-demolishingly expensive from a $/TB standpoint. Gotta milk all those datacenters that are limited in drive bay quantity for all their worth, right?

Also, just think about the rebuild/resilver times on arrays composed of drives that big while the HDDs themselves are still barely any faster than they were in the SATA days, barring the self-RAID 0-ing potential of the MACH.2 dual-actuator drives.
 
Imagining a high density storage device with these... in RAID 6.

"System: Building (estimated time to complete: 99999 (overflow) ERR!9 #*$aki@ Successful"
 
I assume that these are not currently available for purchase though, correct? I can't find them when searching
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top