> we're nowhere near the bandwidth limits of a hard drive According to my calculations, SATA-3 could support almost four 4K60 streams, but only if the data for

> we're nowhere near the bandwidth limits of a hard drive According to my calculations, SATA-3 could support almost four 4K60 streams, but only if the data for those videos was very carefully interleaved (never happens). Also literally nothing else happening on the drive, no bad-block relocation, no bottlenecks elsewhere in the system, etc. Closer to reality, those files would be laid out on different parts of the disk and you'd lucky to get even two concurrent streams without seeks between them ruining your throughput. So yes, you are at the real-world bandwidth limits of a hard drive. By contrast, two physically smaller drives adding up to the same capacity in the same space could reliably deliver one stream each, plus probably a third with data stored on both if you had decent buffering (because now you have enough MB/s headroom to buffer) to cover the seeks that remain. Just as when I was building storage systems for video professionals in 1994-95, if I had to deliver such a system and it had to work before I got paid I know which way I'd go.