• Teils13@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    There is already a samsung 8 Tb SSD being sold on amazon. Buying 4 of those will be far cheaper than this monstrosity. And it will be silent, and actually useful as a home server, much faster too.

    • randombullet@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 minutes ago

      Nah I don’t believe you at all.

      SAMSUNG 870 QVO SATA 8TB = $683.38 x 4 = $2,733.52

      8TB x 4 = 32TB

      $2,733.52 / 32TB = $85.4225/TB

      Yeah one of these disks does not cost more than $25/TB.

      26TB x $25 = $650

    • hobovision@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 hour ago

      No shot 4 SSDs will be the same price as a HDD of the same capacity yet. HDD is still the king of GB/$.

      If I’m wrong… Can you send me some links? I could use some cheap 8TB SSDs.

  • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    If you eyeballing these, please remind that these babies tend to be LOUD AS FUCK, so might not be suitable for home server use.

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Are they any louder than any HDD from the last 30 years?

      If so, im actually curious why that is

      Edit: fixed to say HDD not SSD

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Well I have no experience with these particular drives, but they do seem to have 11 platters. Which is beyond insane as far as I’m concerned. More platters means more moving parts, more friction more noise (all other things being equal).

      • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Oops, yes. I definitely would expect these to be much louder than your 6 GB 1998 model HDD wrangling under stress of copying files at 30 MB/s.

        • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          56 minutes ago

          Your everyday modern HDD does not much more than 60MB/s after the on-disk cache (a few GB) is full.

  • addie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Assuming that these have fairly impressive 100 MB/s sustained write speed, then it’s going to take about 93 hours to write the whole contents of the disk - basically four days. That’s a long time to replace a failed drive in a RAID array; you’d need to consider multiple disks of redundancy just in case another one fails while you’re resilvering the first.

    • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      17 hours ago

      This is one of the reasons I use unRAID with two parity disks. If one fails, I’ll still have access to my data while I rebuild the data on the replacement drive.

      Although, parity checks with these would take forever, of course…

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      That’s a pretty common failure scenario in SANs. If you buy a bunch of drives, they’re almost guaranteed to come from the same batch, meaning they’re likely to fail around the same time. The extra load of a rebuild can kill drives that are already close to failure.

      Which is why SANs have hot spares that can be allocated instantly on failure. And you should use a RAID level with enough redundancy to meet your reliability needs. And RAID is not backup, you should have backups too.

    • C126@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      2 parity is standard and should still be adequate. Likelihood of two failures within four days on the same array is small.

  • Longpork3@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    When will it be commercially available though? Supposedly Seagate has had 30TB drives out for the better part of a year, but I can’t find anything larger than 24TB actually available for purchase.

    • Pyotr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I’ve been waiting for a 32TB to become available as well, Seagate announced that drive last year and it’s still not available outside data centers. I suspect the WD one will be the same.

  • Zachariah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I’ve been looking to buy a couple 24TB drives. Hopefully, this pushes their price down.