4 ms·

No really related remarks about this handy study, but anybody else still in real awe about how spoiled we are with regards to the sizes and speeds of HDs nowada

No really related remarks about this handy study, but anybody else still in real awe about how spoiled we are with regards to the sizes and speeds of HDs nowadays? I mean the smallest capacity drive on their chart is 4 Terabytes.

newscracker 7y ago
Since HDDs have, for the most part, been relegated to being external drives on laptops, I'm still looking forward to SSDs becoming way cheaper and reaching current HDD prices per GB. Internal storage on laptops has reduced or stayed the same while our datasets have grown exponentially over the years (with photos and videos). Since SSDs also perform much better when there's always a good amount of free space (for wear leveling and maintenance), it's all the more painful to live with lower capacity SSDs on laptops.
klodolph 7y ago
Sizes, yes, speeds, no. 600 MB/s of data transferred, and only for linear accesses.
zaat 7y ago
Not feeling spoiled at all, not at all. Especially not with 2 to 3 percent of failure rate. The failure rate I experienced in my workstation makes me worry about not having raid 1 or 10. HDs for 9 TB in raid 10 are not that cheap. But the bigger issue is that the warranty terms for HDs nowadays is down to 2 or 3 years, so this investment is short living. It also tell you something about the manufacturers reliability estimation of their products.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Can't say I agree with that sentiment. The fact that I can quite reasonably have a 30TB usable RAID5 NAS array makes me feel pretty spoiled. Then again, I'm old enough that my first HDD was 10MB.
  - chousuke 7y ago
    I'd be wary of making a RAID5 array with drives that big; you could easily lose another drive from the I/O caused by a rebuild; though if you have backups (you should) then it's probably an acceptable risk for non-critical data.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      I'd agree with that. Even 2-disk redundancy these days is a bit dangerous when you're talking about 14TB drives and 100+TB arrays. As is often stated: RAID is not backup.
  - zaat 7y ago
    Mine was 10MB as well, with a dedicated controller. Quantum if I'm not mistaken. And it lasted much much longer than the averages I get from 4TB disks. I believe I managed to take files out of it in 2000, about 13 years after it was installed. Edit: nope, probably was a ST506 or 412.

newscracker 7y ago

Since HDDs have, for the most part, been relegated to being external drives on laptops, I'm still looking forward to SSDs becoming way cheaper and reaching current HDD prices per GB. Internal storage on laptops has reduced or stayed the same while our datasets have grown exponentially over the years (with photos and videos). Since SSDs also perform much better when there's always a good amount of free space (for wear leveling and maintenance), it's all the more painful to live with lower capacity SSDs on laptops.

klodolph 7y ago

Sizes, yes, speeds, no. 600 MB/s of data transferred, and only for linear accesses.

zaat 7y ago

Not feeling spoiled at all, not at all. Especially not with 2 to 3 percent of failure rate. The failure rate I experienced in my workstation makes me worry about not having raid 1 or 10. HDs for 9 TB in raid 10 are not that cheap. But the bigger issue is that the warranty terms for HDs nowadays is down to 2 or 3 years, so this investment is short living. It also tell you something about the manufacturers reliability estimation of their products.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Can't say I agree with that sentiment. The fact that I can quite reasonably have a 30TB usable RAID5 NAS array makes me feel pretty spoiled. Then again, I'm old enough that my first HDD was 10MB.
- chousuke 7y ago
  I'd be wary of making a RAID5 array with drives that big; you could easily lose another drive from the I/O caused by a rebuild; though if you have backups (you should) then it's probably an acceptable risk for non-critical data.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    I'd agree with that. Even 2-disk redundancy these days is a bit dangerous when you're talking about 14TB drives and 100+TB arrays. As is often stated: RAID is not backup.
- zaat 7y ago
  Mine was 10MB as well, with a dedicated controller. Quantum if I'm not mistaken. And it lasted much much longer than the averages I get from 4TB disks. I believe I managed to take files out of it in 2000, about 13 years after it was installed. Edit: nope, probably was a ST506 or 412.