4 ms·

For archival spinning rust is still massively more cost effective than SSDs while offering better performance than tape, especially for random access. I'm sure

by simias 8y ago

For 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 ago
Is 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 ago
  You might well be right, I haven't bought tape in a long time.
- jankeymeulen 8y ago
  You 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    That'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.
    - gamegoblin 8y ago
      You're right. Though, that's still 2x cheaper in terms of $/GB.
  - klodolph 8y ago
    You've got the wrong info, LTO-7 is 6TB and $67: https://www.amazon.com/Fuji-Ultrium-7-Data-Cartridge-16456574/dp/B019DGCRAW https://www.amazon.com/Fuji-Ultrium-7-Data-Cartridge-1645657... LTO-6 (what you linked) is not 6.25TB, it’s 2.5TB, despite what Amazon says. Then add the operational costs, which is the hard part, because the operational costs for a tape are very different from the operational costs for a hard disk.
- teraflop 8y ago
  Depends on your volume. I don't know how much IT departments typically pay, but on Amazon, hard drives start at about $20-25/TB, whereas LTO-7 tapes are about $10-12/TB. That's a significant savings, but you need to be storing at least a few hundred TB before you recoup the cost of the tape drive.
paavoova 8y ago
You can't use flash storage for reliable unpowered archival. It degrades (gates leak electrons) over time, unlike magnetic storage. This is also unpredictable, as reliability depends on both operating and power-off temperatures, as well as existing wear. See: https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data-retention https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data...

by simias 8y ago

aidenn0 8y ago

Is 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 ago
You might well be right, I haven't bought tape in a long time.
jankeymeulen 8y ago
You 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 ago
I 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 ago
  That'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.
  - gamegoblin 8y ago
    You're right. Though, that's still 2x cheaper in terms of $/GB.
- klodolph 8y ago
  You've got the wrong info, LTO-7 is 6TB and $67: https://www.amazon.com/Fuji-Ultrium-7-Data-Cartridge-16456574/dp/B019DGCRAW https://www.amazon.com/Fuji-Ultrium-7-Data-Cartridge-1645657... LTO-6 (what you linked) is not 6.25TB, it’s 2.5TB, despite what Amazon says. Then add the operational costs, which is the hard part, because the operational costs for a tape are very different from the operational costs for a hard disk.
teraflop 8y ago
Depends on your volume. I don't know how much IT departments typically pay, but on Amazon, hard drives start at about $20-25/TB, whereas LTO-7 tapes are about $10-12/TB. That's a significant savings, but you need to be storing at least a few hundred TB before you recoup the cost of the tape drive.

paavoova 8y ago

You can't use flash storage for reliable unpowered archival. It degrades (gates leak electrons) over time, unlike magnetic storage. This is also unpredictable, as reliability depends on both operating and power-off temperatures, as well as existing wear. See: https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data-retention https://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data...