4 ms·

I've gone all-in on HGST for personal use because I've seen their results from Backblaze and also have good luck with them so far. I have 14 of their 4TB NAS a

I've gone all-in on HGST for personal use because I've seen their results from Backblaze and also have good luck with them so far. I have 14 of their 4TB NAS and 22 of the 6TB NAS.

Symbiote 10y ago
I'm amazed that personal use requires 188TB of storage. That's more than my employer's Hadoop cluster...
- overcast 10y ago
  Small hadron collider?
  - userbinator 10y ago
    Perhaps a small hardon collider. (Context: http://archive.fortune.com/2006/11/30/magazines/fortune/obrienseagate.fortune/index.htm http://archive.fortune.com/2006/11/30/magazines/fortune/obri... )
    - nerdponx 10y ago
      I was debating whether I should "favorite" this thread. You made my decision for me, thank you.
- avn2109 10y ago
  Maybe he does his own offsite backups with "personal use" HD's in several physical locations, each in a highly-redundant raid configuration? Even so it seems like a lot.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    Someone's gotta back up that climate data...
    - handruin 10y ago
      Actually...I am doing some of that also.
- handruin 10y ago
  I never said I required this much for personal use...I just have it. :) I started with 12 x 4TB in one NAS and I filled it in a little over 2 years. I just recently built a second NAS with 20 x 6TB to last me hopefully for the next several years. The other remaining drives unaccounted for are in two workstations for local storage.
- itchyouch 10y ago
  I could see that getting filled up easily with a vast 1080p TV/Movie collection. Movies coming in at 1080p eats up disk really quickly. Uncompressed 4k @ 24fps, at 10bit color comes in at 324MB/s, so just being a wedding videographer could be 1.1T per hour of video. Any given small project could eat up 15-20T per project.
Sohcahtoa82 10y ago
> 188 TB of storage > personal use Who needs that much storage for personal use?
- juliendorra 10y ago
  Someone shooting a lot of 4K or even HD video, for example.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    From a little googling, 4k video appears to take about 22GB an hour[1], so 188TB would beover 8,500 hours of 4k video[2]. That's almost an entire year of constant 4k video. That's a lot of storage for personal use. 1: Not sure what encodig 2: Napkin calculation, corrections welcome
    - dagw 10y ago
      22 GB for an hour of 4k video is fairly compressed. Raw 4k footage runs closer to 300 GB hour.
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      Not just encoding, but it also depends on a number of things like color depth, chroma subsampling (4:2:2), and so on. It's not uncommon for a single film to approach half a petabyte of raw in a digital world with a "typical" setup (4:2:2, ProRes maybe, 10-bit, etc). To use an example, I think I read somewhere that Gone Girl shot a few hundred TB for a technically straightforward film. Some cameras, particularly when you start getting to digital cinema (which is > "4K"), can shoot as much as a terabyte and a half per hour. There are 8K sensors in common availability now; RED has one that can shoot 75fps 8K at 2.4:1, which I don't even want to calculate, but that I know for a fact it can't write to its own storage at native bitrate. Productions eat storage these days and moving that data around is a challenge. Hint, hint, to clever founders: hard drives in Hollywood.
    - cm2187 10y ago
      I would haircut the number for RAID then probably half it if he uses a backup.
icedchai 10y ago
I've done the same, in smaller quantity (12x 2TB drives.) I wouldn't buy any other brand, after having been burned by Seagate and WD too many times. These all run 24x7 on my home network.
sliken 10y ago
Be warned, I got an HGST drive for personal use, happy to pay the premium. It was quite loud, my wife commented from across the room "What is that?". A periodic loud "tick". Turns out it does some kind of calibration and you can't turn it off. Many reviews mentioned it, didn't even look. I returned it.
- userbinator 10y ago
  WD blacks do that too, although it's more of a grunty, almost snort-like oink.

I've gone all-in on HGST for personal use because I've seen their results from Backblaze and also have good luck with them so far. I have 14 of their 4TB NAS and 22 of the 6TB NAS.

Symbiote 10y ago

I'm amazed that personal use requires 188TB of storage. That's more than my employer's Hadoop cluster...

overcast 10y ago
Small hadron collider?
- userbinator 10y ago
  Perhaps a small hardon collider. (Context: http://archive.fortune.com/2006/11/30/magazines/fortune/obrienseagate.fortune/index.htm http://archive.fortune.com/2006/11/30/magazines/fortune/obri... )
  - nerdponx 10y ago
    I was debating whether I should "favorite" this thread. You made my decision for me, thank you.
avn2109 10y ago
Maybe he does his own offsite backups with "personal use" HD's in several physical locations, each in a highly-redundant raid configuration? Even so it seems like a lot.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  Someone's gotta back up that climate data...
  - handruin 10y ago
    Actually...I am doing some of that also.
handruin 10y ago
I never said I required this much for personal use...I just have it. :) I started with 12 x 4TB in one NAS and I filled it in a little over 2 years. I just recently built a second NAS with 20 x 6TB to last me hopefully for the next several years. The other remaining drives unaccounted for are in two workstations for local storage.
itchyouch 10y ago
I could see that getting filled up easily with a vast 1080p TV/Movie collection. Movies coming in at 1080p eats up disk really quickly. Uncompressed 4k @ 24fps, at 10bit color comes in at 324MB/s, so just being a wedding videographer could be 1.1T per hour of video. Any given small project could eat up 15-20T per project.

Sohcahtoa82 10y ago

> 188 TB of storage > personal use Who needs that much storage for personal use?

juliendorra 10y ago
Someone shooting a lot of 4K or even HD video, for example.
- kbenson 10y ago
  From a little googling, 4k video appears to take about 22GB an hour[1], so 188TB would beover 8,500 hours of 4k video[2]. That's almost an entire year of constant 4k video. That's a lot of storage for personal use. 1: Not sure what encodig 2: Napkin calculation, corrections welcome
  - dagw 10y ago
    22 GB for an hour of 4k video is fairly compressed. Raw 4k footage runs closer to 300 GB hour.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    Not just encoding, but it also depends on a number of things like color depth, chroma subsampling (4:2:2), and so on. It's not uncommon for a single film to approach half a petabyte of raw in a digital world with a "typical" setup (4:2:2, ProRes maybe, 10-bit, etc). To use an example, I think I read somewhere that Gone Girl shot a few hundred TB for a technically straightforward film. Some cameras, particularly when you start getting to digital cinema (which is > "4K"), can shoot as much as a terabyte and a half per hour. There are 8K sensors in common availability now; RED has one that can shoot 75fps 8K at 2.4:1, which I don't even want to calculate, but that I know for a fact it can't write to its own storage at native bitrate. Productions eat storage these days and moving that data around is a challenge. Hint, hint, to clever founders: hard drives in Hollywood.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    I would haircut the number for RAID then probably half it if he uses a backup.

icedchai 10y ago

I've done the same, in smaller quantity (12x 2TB drives.) I wouldn't buy any other brand, after having been burned by Seagate and WD too many times. These all run 24x7 on my home network.

sliken 10y ago

Be warned, I got an HGST drive for personal use, happy to pay the premium. It was quite loud, my wife commented from across the room "What is that?". A periodic loud "tick". Turns out it does some kind of calibration and you can't turn it off. Many reviews mentioned it, didn't even look. I returned it.

userbinator 10y ago
WD blacks do that too, although it's more of a grunty, almost snort-like oink.