Say Hello to the World's Largest Hard Drive, a Massive 36TB Seagate
Technology
261
Beiträge
155
Kommentatoren
56
Aufrufe
-
What is the usecase for drives that large?
I 'only' have 12Tb drives and yet my zfs-pool already needs ~two weeks to scrub it all. With something like this it would literally not be done before the next scheduled scrub.
What's scrubbing for?
-
Yes, fuck Newegg (and amazon too). I've been using B&H for disks and I have no complaints about them. They have the Seagate Ironwolf Pro 24TB at $479 currently, but last week it was on sale for $419. (I only look at 5yr warranty disks.)
I was not in a position to take advantage as I've already made my disk purchase this go around, so I'll wait for the next deep discount to hit if it is timely.
Christ, remember when NewEgg was an actual store? Now they’re just a listing service for the scum-level of retailer and drop shippers. What a shame.
-
What's scrubbing for?
A ZFS Scrub validates all the data in a pool and corrects any errors.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Great, can't wait to afford it in 60 years.
-
What is the usecase for drives that large?
I 'only' have 12Tb drives and yet my zfs-pool already needs ~two weeks to scrub it all. With something like this it would literally not be done before the next scheduled scrub.
What drives do you have exactly? I have 7x6TB WD Red Pro drives in raidz2 and I can do a scrub less than 24 hours.
-
What is the usecase for drives that large?
I 'only' have 12Tb drives and yet my zfs-pool already needs ~two weeks to scrub it all. With something like this it would literally not be done before the next scheduled scrub.
There is an enterprise storage shelf (aka a bunch of drives that hooks up to a server) made by Dell which is 1.2 PB (yes petabytes). So there is a use, but it's not for consumers.
-
What is the usecase for drives that large?
I 'only' have 12Tb drives and yet my zfs-pool already needs ~two weeks to scrub it all. With something like this it would literally not be done before the next scheduled scrub.
I worked on a terrain render of the entire planet. We were filling three 2 Tb drives a day for a month. So this would have been handy.
-
This hard drives so big, that two people can access it at the same time and never meet.
This hard drive is so big, that astronomers thought it was a planet.
-
There is an enterprise storage shelf (aka a bunch of drives that hooks up to a server) made by Dell which is 1.2 PB (yes petabytes). So there is a use, but it's not for consumers.
That's a use-case for a fuckton of total capacity, but not necessarily a fuckton of per-drive capacity. I think what the grandparent comment is really trying to say is that the capacity has so vastly outstripped mechanical-disk data transfer speed that it's hard to actually make use of it all.
For example, let's say you have these running in a RAID 5 array, and one of the drives fails and you have to swap it out. At 190MB/s max sustained transfer rate (figure for a 28TB Seagate Exos; I assume this new one is similar), you're talking about over two days just to copy over the parity information and get the array out of degraded mode! At some point these big drives stop being suitable for that use-case just because the vulnerability window is so large that the risk of a second drive failure causing data loss is too great.
-
It isn't as much as you think, high resolution, high bitrate video files are pretty large.
high resolution, high bitrate video files are pretty large.
Can it actually transfer data fast enough to save or play them back in real-time, though?
-
So if you have been around long enough you might remember the Hitachi (IBM) deathstars https://wizardprang.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-last-deathstar/
I see Hitachi and think no fucking way, where as Seagate I used to see as an always yes. Now I just stick the disks in a zfs array and call it done
What I'm really waiting for is large capacity ssds with sata.
Yes I remeber Deathstars. However, these past years I perfunctorly peruse Backblaze's yearly drive failure reports, and have noticed a trend, which is that most drives are fine, but every year there are a few that stand out as very bad, and they usually Seagate/WDC.
Exceptions yada, yada
-
As mentioned by another user, all drives fail, it's a matter of when, not if. Which is why you should always use RAID arrangement with at least one redundant drive and/or have full backups.
Ultimately, it's a money game. If you save 30% on a recertified drive and it has 20% less total life than a new one, you're winning.
Here's where I got some.
Manufacturer Recertified Drives | Enterprise Grade
Manufacturer Recertified enterprise drives work and look like new. Rebuilt by the manufacturer and quality tested to ensure they function as new, our recertified drives save on cost. Shop now!
ServerPartDeals.com (serverpartdeals.com)
I looked around a bit, and either search engines suck nowadays (possibly true regardless) or there are no independent studies comparing certified and new drives.
All you get mostly opinion pieces or promises by resellers that actually, their products are good. Clearly no conflict of interest there. /s
The best I could find was this, but that's not amazing either.
What I do is look at backblaze's drive stats for their new drives, find a model that has a good amount of data and low failure rate, then get a recertified one and hope their recertification process is good and I don't get a lemon.
And usually by the time they break they have been obsolete anyways, at least for 24/7 use in a NAS where storage density and energy efficiency are a big concern. So you would have replaced most of them long before they break, even with recertified drives
-
What is the usecase for drives that large?
I 'only' have 12Tb drives and yet my zfs-pool already needs ~two weeks to scrub it all. With something like this it would literally not be done before the next scheduled scrub.
High capacity storage pools for enterprises.
Space is at a premium. Saving space should/could equal to better pricing/availability. -
I too, am old.
I'm older than that but didn't want to self report. the first hard disk i remember my father buying was 40mb.
-
there was a time i asked this question about 500 megabytes
I am not questioning the need for more storage but the need dor more storage without increased speeds.
-
no thanks Seagate. the trauma of losing my data because of a botched firmware with a ticking time bomb kinda put me off your products for life.
see you in hell.
Some of Seagate's drives have terrible scores on things like Blackblaze. They are probably the worst brand, but also generally the cheapest.
I have been running a raid of old Seagate barracuda's for years at things point, including a lot of boot cycles and me forcing the system off because Truenas has issues or whatnot and for some fucking reason they won't die.
I have had a WD green SSD that I use for Truenas boot die, I had some WD external drive have its controller die (the drive inside still work) and I had some crappy WD mismatched drives in a raid 0 for my Linux ISO's and those failed as well.
Whenever the Seagate start to die, I guess ill be replacing them with Toshiba's unless somebody has another suggestion.
-
What drives do you have exactly? I have 7x6TB WD Red Pro drives in raidz2 and I can do a scrub less than 24 hours.
I have 2*12TB whitelabel WD drives (harvested from external drives but Datacenter drives accourding to the SN) and one 16 TB Toshiba white-label (purchased directly also meant for datacenters) in a raidz1.
How full is your pool? I have about 2/3rds full which impacts scrubbing I think.
I also frequently access the pool which delays scrubbing. -
That's a use-case for a fuckton of total capacity, but not necessarily a fuckton of per-drive capacity. I think what the grandparent comment is really trying to say is that the capacity has so vastly outstripped mechanical-disk data transfer speed that it's hard to actually make use of it all.
For example, let's say you have these running in a RAID 5 array, and one of the drives fails and you have to swap it out. At 190MB/s max sustained transfer rate (figure for a 28TB Seagate Exos; I assume this new one is similar), you're talking about over two days just to copy over the parity information and get the array out of degraded mode! At some point these big drives stop being suitable for that use-case just because the vulnerability window is so large that the risk of a second drive failure causing data loss is too great.
Thats exactly what I wanted to say, yes :D.
-
What is the usecase for drives that large?
I 'only' have 12Tb drives and yet my zfs-pool already needs ~two weeks to scrub it all. With something like this it would literally not be done before the next scheduled scrub.
Jesus, my pool takes a little over a day, but I’ve only got around 100 tb how big is your pool?
-
This post did not contain any content.
my qbittorrent is gonna love that
