2 ms·
So this sort of works if you use those numbers, but for the more hoardy sort of us, we're using completely different scales and prices, especially since the rel
by esyir 6y ago
So this sort of works if you use those numbers, but for the more hoardy sort of us, we're using completely different scales and prices, especially since the relationship between HDD price and size is distinctly sub-linear as compared to the super-linear SSD price scaling.
Let's bump this up a notch. WD RED 8 TB drives are 213 now on newegg (base price). Two of those quadruple the SSD storage for the same price. You're now reaching 4x prices. If you go the data hoarder approach and shuck 8TB drives, that drops it to 290 for to 8 TB drives, putting you at 60% of the cost for 4 times the storage.
- yellowapple 6y ago4× prices is still well within the same order of magnitude. I'd say that's reasonable, especially since you get better performance and reliability out of the deal. And that does require 3.5" drives (once you go to 2.5" that 4× gap shrinks to 2.7× for 5400RPM or 2.1× for 7200RPM+ when going by pure price/GB; per PCPartPicker, a 2TB 5400RPM Toshiba MQ04ABD200 is at 3.5¢/GB and a 7200RPM 1TB Seagate Constellation.2 is at 4.6¢/GB, while a Crucial BX500 is at 9.5¢/GB, all three of these being the cheapest per GB in their respective groups). And I know the inevitable response to that is 'well real data hoarders are fine with 3.5" drives and/or 5400RPM', but "real" data hoarders also might appreciate being able to saturate their gigabit Internet connections with the data they're hoarding, or being able to hoard that data more compactly and quietly (I can cram 16 2.5-inchers in a 2U SuperChassis and still have room for a 5.25" drive, or 24 without) and without having to worry nearly as much about vibration or heat killing the drives (and thus the data on 'em). ---- Speaking of a 5.25" drive, if price/GB is really all-important, it seems like tape would be the ideal option, no? A bit high of an upfront cost (an HP EH957A LTO Ultrium 5 tape drive runs for $801.15 on Newegg, though there are some much cheaper used LTO 5s on eBay), but at $18 per 1.5TB cartridge (going with the IBM one) it's hard to beat that 1.2¢/GB. As soon as you cross the 176TB mark (if not earlier; my napkin math is equating 9TB of tapes to a shucked drive), tapes would be cheaper per GB even factoring in that brand-new drive (for retail Reds, the crossover point would be 64TB). They say tape's dead, but it looks like it's still got an edge there, even with older tech. A tiered SSD + LTO 5 approach seems like it'd be the best of both worlds (at least until SSDs finally get around to closing the gap), and I'm kinda tempted to spring for one in my next home build, even if it'd be highly impractical for my needs (I can at least leave a slot open for one). You could also go with newer tech for even better absolute capacity and performance (but the cost of drives hampers the economics of it a bit, unfortunately; by my math, $3952.52 for the cheapest LTO 7 drive on Newegg + $61.30 per 6TB cartridge would push that crossover point to 264TB v. retail Reds or 504TB v. shucked - that'd be a lot of data to hoard for LTO 7 to be worth it unless you can find a screamin' deal on a drive on eBay, though I wouldn't wanna shuck 63 drives, either, lol). Going the other direction, LTO 2 has lower up-front costs, but the media kills any economic benefit (worse price/GB than hard drives). LTO 5 seems like the sweet spot there, for now at least. Of course, this is going a fair bit beyond "consumer grade", but I do know of quite a few serious data hoarders who've stuck with tape for this exact reason.