this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
279 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

58814 readers
4522 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] drkt@feddit.dk 165 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Person with vested interest in X says X will continue to proliferate. More at 11

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Could have said more at 10 (X) 😁

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

on X (the artist formerly known as Twitter)

[–] palitu@aussie.zone 3 points 10 months ago

Stupid elon

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 101 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (9 children)

Haven't hard drives been cheaper per storage amount than SSDs forever? The problem was always that they were slow. I think tape may still be cheaper per storage amount than hard drives, but the speed is abysmal.

Edit: yeah looks like tape is 3x to 4x cheaper than hard drives https://corodata.com/tape-backups-still-used-today

[–] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago

Tape will be around until something better for archival purposes comes around

It lasts significantly longer sitting on the shelf than HDD or SSD by far

I doubt it’s being used for anything other than backups and archiving though

[–] dhorse@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's criminal that some computers are still sold with mechanical hard drives, but I will still be using them in NAS for years to come. The right technology for the right job.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

I only use them in my NAS because I keep ending up with spare ones.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

That's where I have a theory about when the hard drive market will collapse. A lot of networked drive setups have 4 drives on RAID 10. With SSDs, those can become 2 drive RAID1, and will be faster. That means SSDs can be 2x the cost to eliminate hard drives as a viable option for a very common use case.

That isn't too far away. Your next NAS upgrade cycle might be with SSDs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 19 points 10 months ago

Yes. SSDs are still excellent for small form factor and speed, but for long term reliable storage in massive volumes, old fasion hard drives are only second to tape storage.

Source: I am in charge of four 1.2PB storage clusters, each consisting of 144 10TB Toshiba drives. The systems write their output to 10TB tapes for data delivery.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Slow is relative.

Are you trying to compile 1GB worth of code or load into memory 4GB of game at startup: absolutelly, they're slow.

Are you serving a compressed 1080p video file from your NAS to your media player over 100Mb/s ethernet: they're more than fast enough. (Or to put things another way, trying to fit your home collection of media files on SSDs in yout NAS is probably not so smart as you can get almost 10x the storage for the same price and the bottleneck in that system isn't the HDD)

You're not going to put a massive production database of a performance criticial system on an HDD but storing "just in case" in one your historic of RAW images files after you've processed them is probably the smart thing to do.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Tapes themselves are cheaper but there's also the upfront cost of the tape drive (we're talking thousands).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

For me, reliability is now the bottleneck.

So many HDs are crapping out after about 5 years. Not saying SSDs are better, but I haven't used any for storage. But it's starting to feel like a subscription plan as I'm rotating hard drives in my server nearly every year now since 2018.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago

That seems high. Data center drives have a failure rate around 1% per year, even for the worst manufacturer. Not sure how many drives you have or what your workload is like.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 4 points 10 months ago

Wendel from level 1 techs really likes the multi actuator spinning rust drives. You still wouldn't use them for a boot drive, but they're fast enough to saturate a sata connection, while still being much more dense than ssds. They can achieve 500MB/s sequential speeds, so they're plenty fast for large file access. Most consumers should be using SSD's but if you're dealing with more than a couple terabytes, the best solution isn't as straightforward.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

I'd love to see what could be done with current tape storage technology in standard compact cassette format.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tja@programming.dev 52 points 10 months ago (7 children)

My 8TB Seagate failed a week ago and I was looking into new drives. The cheapest HDD was around 25 EUR per TB (for the 18TB ones) and the cheapest SSD were under 50 EUR per TB. No idea where this "7 times cheaper" comes, maybe from 2015.

I ended up buying a 4TB Crucial MX500 with 4TB for 208 EUR (barely enough for my data, but with some cleanup it will hold a year for sure).

Not only it's faster, it's smaller (fits in the NUC), it's quieter and it consumes much less electricity. I don't think I will ever buy an HDD ever again. Maybe for surveillance recording?

[–] Zanz@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

Hamr drives and for data center use. Consumer ssds are made very poorly and even premium drives like a Samsung pro won't hold up in a data center environment. Hard drives on the other hand are basically only data center versions now.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 17 points 10 months ago

No idea where this "7 times cheaper" comes

Probably from back when Toshiba was relevant

[–] dishpanman@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

$200 for a refurbished 20TB drive on Newegg

The new ones were on sale for $270 so around $10-15 per TB. The best I can find is $40-50 per TB for SSD. Certainly not 7times more expensive but more like 3-5.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

Yea, you can't compare consumer to business. Very different. Article is talking about datacenters, which don't typically rely on consumer grade products.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

Maybe regional differences. I've been looking for 3 days last week and have found anything under 20 EUR per TB, more like 25 for non-sketchy sites. For new drives, I'd never buy a refurbished again. SSDs are similarly priced, around 50 per TB for brand named ones.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 47 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I bought 18 TB seagate exos x18 drives for about $400 AUD each this year. What price are 18TB SSDs at?

[–] emptiestplace@lemmy.ml 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 4 points 10 months ago

Mr Toshiba needs to fix his numbers!

[–] guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works 45 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

I mean, with stuff like ZFS, it's a little hard to justify the outlay for all solid-state disk storage when I can build out a large storage array using HDD's and use one mid-size SSD for ZIL and then L2ARC to provide read/write speedups. Who actually cares what the underlying storage mechanism is as long as the dataset is backed up and the performance is good?

[–] legios@aussie.zone 11 points 10 months ago

This is my thing. I have about 122TB of spinning metal (with the same as an offsite backup) with SSDs as ZIL and L2ARC. And it's awesome. HDDs I think will genuinely be important for for the foreseeable future.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 9 points 10 months ago

Power consumption, noise, durability...

[–] Extrasvhx9he@lemmy.today 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

As a newb I hope one day in my journey, I can look back at this and say "I finally understand this." Til then thank you, magic man

[–] PoopMonster@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Don't let your dreams be dreams, I didn't know Jack shit about nas and just built my own with an old pc, I tried truenas but ended up paying for unraid, it was just easier for my needs.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rab@lemmy.ca 27 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I admin a datacenter and hard drives are never going anywhere. Same with tapes.

[–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I work tech support for a NAS company and the ratio of HDDs to SSDs is roughly 85-15. Sometimes people use SSDs for stuff that requires low latency, but most commonly they're used as a cache for HDDs in my experience.

[–] preasket@lemy.lol 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Not much point in using SSDs in a NAS if it's there just for holding your files

[–] Chobbes@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lower power usage and smaller and maaaaaaaaybe better reliability. I’d probably do it if it was cost competitive… but it’s not yet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CaptainProton@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

If the NAS supports tiered storage, you benefit from high I/O performance for things like video editing.

My home storage is a NAS connected over 10GbE, I never bothered trying to play games off of it, but I'll bet they'd run great. Read & write over the network at 10 gigabit is faster on a machine with (separate) RAID arrays of SSDs and HDDs than internal SATA3 connectivity which is kind of bonkers for a home user. Plus that has virtual machines and cloud backups running on the NAS side.

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Work for one of the largest and we literally finished phasing out tape this year lol.

[–] CaptainProton@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

In favor of what? Spinning rust, or some other media for archival backups?

[–] Redward@yiffit.net 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s going to the cloud. Soon as we find a way to store data in water

[–] Meron35@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Microsoft has already proven that underwater data centers are viable - they just need to scale up now

Project Natick Phase 2 - https://natick.research.microsoft.com/

[–] preasket@lemy.lol 7 points 10 months ago

Use HDDs for linear read/write (files) and SSDs for IOPS (databases)

[–] Meganium97@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 10 months ago

And yet, at my local microcenter, I couldn't find a hard drive cheaper than an ssd of the same size.

[–] key@lemmy.keychat.org 3 points 10 months ago

Toshiba's estimates feel reasonable. While the price difference is slowly narrowing compared to the widening performance and form factor gap, it'll certainly continue to be a slow death. The current price ratio would need to be inverted before it makes sense to drop hdds entirely. And even then tapes will still be around forever.

With investments in storage tech being so diverted away from HDD technologies I wonder how much further capacity will get. We're already at the point where disks have many platters and HAMR is finally going to be delivered after decades of "coming soon". It feels like, much akin to processor fab, we're approaching a wall.

load more comments
view more: next ›