• somedev@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I would not risk 36TB of data on a single drive let alone a Seagate. Never had a good experience with them.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Ignoring the Seagate part, which makes sense… Is there a reason with 36TB?

      I recall IT people losing their minds when we hit the 1TB, when the average hard drive was like 80GB.

      So this growth seems right.

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 hours ago

        It’s raid rebuild times.

        The bigger the drive, the longer the time.

        The longer the time, the more likely the rebuild will fail.

        That said, modern raid is much more robust against this kind of fault, but still: if you have one parity drive, one dead drive, and a raid rebuild, if you lose another drive you’re fucked.

        • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Just rebuilt onto Ceph and it’s a game changer. Drive fails? Who cares, replace it with a bigger drive and go about your day. If total drive count is large enough, and depends if using EC or replication, it could mean pulling data from tons of drives instead of a handful.

      • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I recall IT people losing their minds when we hit the 1TB

        1TB? I remember when my first computer had a state of the art 200MB hard drive.

        • Keelhaul@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Quick note, HDD storage is not using transistors to store the data, so is not really directly related to Moore’s law. SSDs do use transistors/nano structures (NAND) for storage and it’s storage capacity is more related to Moore’s law.

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The only thing I want is reasonably cheap 3.5" SSDs. Sata is fine just let me pay $500 for a 12TB SSD please.

    • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      You couldn’t afford this drive unless you are enterprise so there’s nothing to worry about. They don’t sell them by the 1. You have to buy enough for a rack at once.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      12 hours ago

      They seem to be very hit and miss in that there are some models with very low failure rates, but then there are some with very high.

      That said, the 36 TB drive is most definitely not meant to be used as a single drive without any redundancy. I have no idea what the big guys at Backblaze for an example, are doing, but I’d want to be able to lose two drives in an array before I lose all my shit. So RAID 6 for me. Still, I’d likely be going with smaller drives because however much a 36 TB drive costs, I don’t wanna feel like I’m spending 2x the cost of one of those just for redundancy lmao

      • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I’d want to be able to lose two drives in an array before I lose all my shit. So RAID 6 for me.

        Repeat after me: RAID is not a backup solution, RAID is a high-availability solution.

        The point of RAID is not to safeguard your data, you need proper backups for that (3-2-1 rule of backups: 3 copies of the data on 2 different storage media, with 1 copy off-site). RAID will not protect your data from deletion from user error, malware, OS bugs, or anything like that.

        The point of RAID is so everyone can keep working if there is a hardware failure. It’s there to prevent downtime.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          It’s 36 TB drives. Most people are planning on keeping anything legal or self-produced there. It’s going to be pirated media and idk about you but I’m not uploading that to any cloud provider lmao

          • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            These are enterprise drives, they aren’t going to contain anything pirated. They are probably going to one of those cloud providers you don’t want to upload your data to.

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              I can easily buy enterprise drives for home use. What are you on about?

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I use mirrors, so RAID 1 right now and likely RAID 10 when I get more drives. That’s the safest IMO, since you don’t need the rest of the array to resilver your new drive, only the ones in its mirror pool, which reduces the likelihood of a cascading failure.