12 ms·
I am going for the 15tb instead of that 14 so I have extra space for backups. Says no body. We are clearly close to the end of spinning rust, absent some new br
by Latteland 8y ago
I am going for the 15tb instead of that 14 so I have extra space for backups. Says no body. We are clearly close to the end of spinning rust, absent some new breakthrough.
- noselasd 8y agoIf I can choose between stuffing 6x15TB or 6x14TB at comparable cost into my NAS, I'd buy the 6x15TB ones.
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y agoBe aware this is an SMR drive, so your writes are going to be heavily limited.
- blattimwind 8y agoSMR is fine for sequential loads, and anything else is not what these are for.
- gsich 8y ago>We are clearly close to the end of spinning rust In every aspect, except price. Samsung 1 TB SSD for 150€, Seagate 8 TB for 220€.
- cm2187 8y agoAgree. And for a NAS the performance of SSD are unlikely to be required. In fact at one point I made the mistake of enabling SSD caching on a NAS. The SSD became the bottleneck because of the limitation of SATA, ie one SSD on SATA is slower than 8 or 10 HD in RAID5. So unless you really need very high iops, HD are likely to be good enough.
- wtallis 8y agoI'm curious who sold you a NAS with SSD caching that didn't support bypassing the cache for sequential I/O. That's a pretty basic and obvious feature, and it seems like the manufacturer must not have been taking their SSD caching feature seriously if they didn't implement bypassing.
- apiudit 8y ago1tb Samsung 860 Evo is more than 850€ in my country...
- wtallis 8y agoNo, it isn't. That's about 6x the price in the US and at least 5x the price in Australia. No combination of VAT and shipping fees can account for that big of a discrepancy. You're probably just looking at a retailer that has inflated the price while they're out of stock. Try getting a quote from someone who has stock in your country ready to ship.
- apiudit 8y agoYou are right, 906€ for the 4TB, 1TB is 188€ (amazon prime prices)
- tallanvor 8y agoHAMR and then HDMR are expected to allow data densities to increase by 5 to 10 times what is currently achievable. HAMR will probably start showing up in a year or two. Spinning drives are definitely not going away anytime soon unless there is a much more significant drop in the cost of SSDs.
- londons_explore 8y agoInvestment in new spinning drive technologies is going away though. Nobody wants to spend R&D money on coming up with patents and ideas which will be worthless in 5 years when SSD's overtake. Science investment requires a new technology to have a prospect of a return for most of the ~20 year patent lifespan for it to look like a good investment, and spinning bits of metal aren't that right now.
- blihp 8y agoIn the same way that hard drives didn't kill off tape, SSD won't kill off hard drives. The price differential is too great for many applications and they have different operational strengths and weaknesses.
- johngalt 8y agoTapes have a use case that hard drives do not. Tapes are the lowest cost/GB stored and are more shelf stable than hard drives. SSDs are higher performance than HDDs and have none of the packaging constraints. Flash storage is going to be put into everything and the economies of scale look quite good. Storage is scaling but the r/w speeds of hdds aren't keeping up. Following the trend line and we see huge hdds that are functionally useless due to how long it takes to do disk operations. HDDs only exist above tapes because of their performance. And only exist below SSDs due to cost. Tapes are the floor and SSDs are the quickly lowering ceiling. HDDs are likely to be crushed between.
- StillBored 8y agoYou might be right, but keep in mind that flash has been scaling due to the shrinking semiconductor feature sizes (and additional layers/etc). So a large part of flash's core R&D & production costs are being spread over all the logic being produced. That has been hitting a wall, so while the capacity/price curves for flash look nice, they likely won't continue, which leaves open the possibility that if rust actually gets a 4-5x boost in the near future the current market trends will continue. SSDs for perf/power/size and mechanical harddrives for bulk nearline storage, leaving tape where its been for the past 30 years, as an archival technology.
- simias 8y agoFor archival spinning rust is still massively more cost effective than SSDs while offering better performance than tape, especially for random access. I'm sure eventually SSDs will be cheap enough that HDD will go the way of the floppy but we're not there yet.
- aidenn0 8y agoIs tape even cheaper than spinning rust? Last time I priced it, the per-GB costs were similar and the tape drives themselves are quite expensive. Tape is a more reliable backup, since the moving parts are not part of the storage, but it's not a cheaper backup.
- simias 8y agoYou might well be right, I haven't bought tape in a long time.
- jankeymeulen 8y agoYou can have an amount of tapes as large as you wish to a single drive, meaning the cost of the tape drive becomes irrelevant after a certain amount of tapes.
- gamegoblin 8y agoI know Amazon prices aren't exactly perfect for enterprise storage costs, but they imply tape is at least 4x cheaper (assuming you are using enough to amortize the cost of the tape drive): 6.25TB tape is $28 : https://www.amazon.com/HP-HEWC7976A-Ultrium-6-25TB-Cartridge/dp/B00AHQUV3S https://www.amazon.com/HP-HEWC7976A-Ultrium-6-25TB-Cartridge... 6TB HDD is $120 : https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Expansion-Desktop-External-STEB6000403/dp/B07CX8QBG4 https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Expansion-Desktop-External-ST... EDIT: Commenter below points out this 6.25TB tape is actualy 2.5TB physical -- still cheaper, in terms of $/GB, but not the 4x I mention above -- closer to 2x.
- teraflop 8y agoThat's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The "6.25TB" number for LTO tapes is assuming a fairly arbitrary 2.5:1 lossless compression ratio. The actual data capacity of the tape is only 2.5TB.