These drives aren't for home desktops, they're more for server setups with large datasets and redundancy. Lol why do you need a 20tb drive in your main PC?

I have 4 x 20tb drives in a truenas where I have backups, movies, and music, network accessible for the whole house.

How about a 122.88tb SSD? Large SSDs are pretty common in the enterprise market and arguably much easier to manufacture since you only need to put a bunch of nand chips on a pcb.

Oh thank God, 40,000 gigabytes was not enough

They're mechanical drives, every mechanical drive company has issues. I have had 4 of the 20tb drives in a truenas setup since last summer with zero issues. Drives in this size should be redundant and under warranty, expect drives to die, they're consumables. Replace, resilver, move on with life.

Thank you! I lol'd at the guy with one in his main PC lol. Like why?

I wish. I've got 6000 movies, 200 series, 300k songs, games, etc. pushing 30tb usage. I need to redo my setup, right now it's raid 10. I know it's not the most efficient with space, but I feel much better about redundancy.

Wow great. From seagate. The company that produces drives with the by far lowest life expectancy compared to the competiton

Hey! You! Get offa the Cloud (and grab yourself one of those drives). You can keep your thoughts to yourself, now you can keep your data to yourself, like in the recent old times.

Sure. But in my experience Seagate drives are significantly worse. So why spend money on a shit company producing shit drives, if I can spend it on products of another company where I get more use and lifetime out of the product?

Sure, but those that know of this, know that these news articles aren't talking about ssd. This is hype news for consumer stuff.

So let's just trash this company but not recommend something better?

I think you're just wanting to be negative today. I've used WD/Hitachi/Samsung/crucial drives the same way, everything dies. Resilver the data and move on, don't expect drives to last more than a decade at the very most.

Best to get at least 2 so you have a backup

When I say "compress" I mean downscale. I'm suggesting they could have dozens of copies of each texture and model in a host of different resolutions.

Yeah, that's generally the best way to do it for optimal performance. Games sometimes have an adjustable option to control this in game, LoD (level of detail).

Yeah, in my last IT job I tried to get my manager to run the big purchases by me first. Eventually he started to see why.

(He was a good manager, just not a huge hardware nerd)

And IIRC moved their headquarters to some Caribbean island to avoid paying US corporate taxes.

We all prioritize the data we want. I don't carry ps3 games because I have zero interest in them, and several shows I'd never have interest in, and I don't bsckup FLAC, I downsample to 320kbps so I doubt I'll break 25TB any time in the next five years.

I didn't want to share a recommendation. I saw a post about Seagate and wanted to share my opinion about them.

Do you want a recommendation from me?

Idk, why you're repeating yourself. If you have the option to choose between two products and you know from experience that one of them is useless earlier than the other, then it would be a waste of money to buy the inferior product as you would have to replace it sooner and therefore loose more money.

Well, 3.5" SSDs are certainly possible, but 2.5" (or in fact m.2) might just be a better form factor for SSDs. The thing is, an SSD is just a bunch of chips on a PCB, so they really don't need the extra height afforded to them by a 3.5" bay.

You could probably fit 2 pcbs one on top of the other within a 3.5" drive, but that would probably need a third PCB to connect the two which would be more complicated to manufacture and be worse for cooling than using two individual 3.5" or m.2 cards.

Also, for a bunch of reasons smaller is usually better. Generally, it tends to be cheaper to use a few large capacity chips on a small board than it is to use a lot of lower capacity chips on a larger board. Of course fewer parts also means fewer potential points of failure, so better for quality control. And again, smaller cards are better for case airflow and cooling.

I just addressed that in a post above yours.

This new 40TB hard drive from Seagate is just the beginning—50TB is coming fast! - Lemmy.World

Lemmy

(lemmy.world)

Basically, smaller form factors are probably just better in this case. 3.5" drive bays were designed with more complicated mechanical drives in mind, and given how nand flash memory works, they don't make as much sense for SSDs.

Great, can't wait for it to be affordable in 2050.