Say Hello to the World's Largest Hard Drive, a Massive 36TB Seagate
Technology
132
Beiträge
87
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
I think if I needed to store 36TB of data, I would rather get several smaller disks.
I don't think the target audience of this drive is buying one. They are trying to optimize for density and are probably buying in bulk rather than paying the $800 price tag.
-
That's a lot of porn.
You'd go broke. Of course it's all Linux, family archives and DNA test data, BTC blockchain, backed up FOSS projects, archives of Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg and OpenStreetMap, and of course - POVRay renders.
-
But if you hate your data there's no quicker way to lose it than a single 36TB Seagate drive.
That's why Seagate is the last word in the title.
-
And linux distros
Just say it's full of porn, it's easier to explain
-
Assuming you aren't striping, up to 36 TB. If you follow even halfway decent practices with basically any kind of RAID other than 0, hopefully 0 Bytes.
The main worry with stuff like this is that it potentially takes a while to recover from a failed drive even if you catch it in time (alert systems are your friend). And 36 TB is a LOT of data to work through and recover which means a LOT of stress on the remaining drives for a few days.
aren’t striping
I think you mean "are striping".
But even with striping you have backups right? Local redundancy is for availability, not durability.
-
Well, largest this week. And
Yeah, $800 isn’t a small chunk of change, but for a hard drive of this capacity, it’s monumentally cheap.
Nah, a 24TB is $300 and some 20TB's are even lower $ per TB.
I paid $600+ for a 24 TB drive, tax free. I feel robbed. Although I'm glad not to shop at Newegg.
-
I think if I needed to store 36TB of data, I would rather get several smaller disks.
But if you need a Petabyte of data you'll appreciate this existing
-
Imagine having that...then dropping it...
Summon Linus
-
about 36TB?
Nooooooooo not all my pr0ns!!
-
Defragmenting...
I've never had to defragment the ext4 drives in my server. Ext4 is fairly resistant to fragmentation.
-
aren’t striping
I think you mean "are striping".
But even with striping you have backups right? Local redundancy is for availability, not durability.
Words hard
And I would go so far as to say that nobody who is buying 36 TB spinners is doing offsite backups of that data. For any org doing offsites of that much data you are almost guaranteed using a tape drive of some form because... they pay for themselves pretty fast and are much better for actual cold storage backups.
Seagate et al keep pushing for these truly massive spinners and I really do wonder who the market is for them. They are overly expensive for cold storage and basically any setup with that volume of data is going to be better off slowly rotating out smaller drives. Partially because of recovery times and partially because nobody but a sponsored youtuber is throwing out their 24 TB drives because 36 TB hit the market.
I assume these are a byproduct of some actually useful tech that is sold to help offset the costs while maybe REALLY REALLY REALLY want 72 TBs in their four bay Synology.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yeah, but it's Seagate. I have worked in data centers, and Seagate drives had the most failures of all my drives and somehow is still in business. I'd say I was doing an RMA of 5-6 drives a month that were Seagate, and only 4-5 a year Western Digital.
-
It will take about 36 hours to fill this drive at 270mb/s
That’s a long time to backup your giraffe porn collection.
What kind of degenerate do you think I am? That’s 36 hours to back up my walrus porn collection.
-
Just say it's full of porn, it's easier to explain
Depends on the audience tbh
-
I paid $600+ for a 24 TB drive, tax free. I feel robbed. Although I'm glad not to shop at Newegg.
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.
-
Just say it's full of porn, it's easier to explain
Always a keep an nsfw tab open to swap to so your family doesnt see you on the arch linux wiki.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Hello!
-
Yeah, but it's Seagate. I have worked in data centers, and Seagate drives had the most failures of all my drives and somehow is still in business. I'd say I was doing an RMA of 5-6 drives a month that were Seagate, and only 4-5 a year Western Digital.
Out of the roughly 20 drives I've bought over the last decade or so, the only two failures were Seagate and they only made up five of the drives purchased. The other 15 are WD and all have been great (knock on wood).
-
Words hard
And I would go so far as to say that nobody who is buying 36 TB spinners is doing offsite backups of that data. For any org doing offsites of that much data you are almost guaranteed using a tape drive of some form because... they pay for themselves pretty fast and are much better for actual cold storage backups.
Seagate et al keep pushing for these truly massive spinners and I really do wonder who the market is for them. They are overly expensive for cold storage and basically any setup with that volume of data is going to be better off slowly rotating out smaller drives. Partially because of recovery times and partially because nobody but a sponsored youtuber is throwing out their 24 TB drives because 36 TB hit the market.
I assume these are a byproduct of some actually useful tech that is sold to help offset the costs while maybe REALLY REALLY REALLY want 72 TBs in their four bay Synology.
I wouldn't buy a Synology but either way I'd want a 5 or 6 bay for raid-6 with two parity drives. Going from 4 bay (raid 6 or 10) to 5 bay (raid 6) is 50% more user data for 25% more drives. I wouldn't do raid 5 with drives of this size.
-
Yeah, but it's Seagate. I have worked in data centers, and Seagate drives had the most failures of all my drives and somehow is still in business. I'd say I was doing an RMA of 5-6 drives a month that were Seagate, and only 4-5 a year Western Digital.
I hear you. I’m not sure I’ve ever had a Seagate drive not fail on me.
