279
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] drkt@feddit.dk 155 points 7 months ago

Person with vested interest in X says X will continue to proliferate. More at 11

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 96 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Haven't hard drives been cheaper per storage amount than SSDs forever? The problem was always that they were slow. I think tape may still be cheaper per storage amount than hard drives, but the speed is abysmal.

Edit: yeah looks like tape is 3x to 4x cheaper than hard drives https://corodata.com/tape-backups-still-used-today

[-] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 56 points 7 months ago

Tape will be around until something better for archival purposes comes around

It lasts significantly longer sitting on the shelf than HDD or SSD by far

I doubt it’s being used for anything other than backups and archiving though

[-] monotremata@kbin.social 34 points 7 months ago

It's also used for sending huge amounts of data long distances. "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway." That's usually attributed to Andrew S. Tanenbaum, but wikipedia follows that with "other alleged speakers include..." so take that with a grain of salt. They do note that the first problem in his book on computer networks asks students to calculate the throughput of a Saint Bernard carrying floppy disks.

[-] blackluster117@possumpat.io 23 points 7 months ago

Do we assume the Saint Bernard is spherical and ignores air resistance?

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

No, it's for real. The bandwidth of sending a truckload of disks to a destination can get to literally Tbps speeds. Latency is a different problem

[-] blackluster117@possumpat.io 17 points 7 months ago

Oh, I'm aware. Just making a tongue in cheek physics joke since they said he put that problem in a textbook.

[-] fishos@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Amazon is using trucks to ship hard drives for the largest data transfers. It's more efficient than doing it over internet. They also offer a service where they will put the data you want in a drive, mail it to you, and after you're done, you send the drive back.

https://aws.amazon.com/snowball/

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dhorse@lemmy.world 27 points 7 months ago

It's criminal that some computers are still sold with mechanical hard drives, but I will still be using them in NAS for years to come. The right technology for the right job.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

I only use them in my NAS because I keep ending up with spare ones.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] neidu2@feddit.nl 17 points 7 months ago

Yes. SSDs are still excellent for small form factor and speed, but for long term reliable storage in massive volumes, old fasion hard drives are only second to tape storage.

Source: I am in charge of four 1.2PB storage clusters, each consisting of 144 10TB Toshiba drives. The systems write their output to 10TB tapes for data delivery.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

Slow is relative.

Are you trying to compile 1GB worth of code or load into memory 4GB of game at startup: absolutelly, they're slow.

Are you serving a compressed 1080p video file from your NAS to your media player over 100Mb/s ethernet: they're more than fast enough. (Or to put things another way, trying to fit your home collection of media files on SSDs in yout NAS is probably not so smart as you can get almost 10x the storage for the same price and the bottleneck in that system isn't the HDD)

You're not going to put a massive production database of a performance criticial system on an HDD but storing "just in case" in one your historic of RAW images files after you've processed them is probably the smart thing to do.

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 9 points 7 months ago

Tapes themselves are cheaper but there's also the upfront cost of the tape drive (we're talking thousands).

[-] umbraroze@kbin.social 11 points 7 months ago

And that there is the real crime. It's a real shame no one's making a tape drive at the consumer market price point. Tapes are a hell of a lot more convenient for backups and archival than the giant weird pile of storage formats we've seen over years.

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 6 points 7 months ago

The average consumer can make do with Blu Ray.

load more comments (1 replies)

For me, reliability is now the bottleneck.

So many HDs are crapping out after about 5 years. Not saying SSDs are better, but I haven't used any for storage. But it's starting to feel like a subscription plan as I'm rotating hard drives in my server nearly every year now since 2018.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fermion@feddit.nl 3 points 7 months ago

Wendel from level 1 techs really likes the multi actuator spinning rust drives. You still wouldn't use them for a boot drive, but they're fast enough to saturate a sata connection, while still being much more dense than ssds. They can achieve 500MB/s sequential speeds, so they're plenty fast for large file access. Most consumers should be using SSD's but if you're dealing with more than a couple terabytes, the best solution isn't as straightforward.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] qupada@kbin.social 55 points 7 months ago

We've done this exercise recently for multi-petabyte enterprise storage systems.

Not going to name brands, but in both cases this is usable (after RAID and hot spares) capacity, in a high-availability (multi-controller / cluster) system, including vendor support and power/cooling costs, but (because we run our own datacenter) not counting a $/RU cost as a company in a colo would be paying:

  • HDD: ~60TiB/RU, ~150W/RU, ~USD$ 30-35/TB/year
  • Flash: ~250TiB/RU, ~500W/RU, ~USD$ 45-50/TB/year

Note that the total power consumption for ~3.5PB of HDD vs ~5PB of flash is within spitting distance, but the flash system occupies a third of the total rack space doing it.

As this is comparing to QLC flash, the overall system performance (measured in Gbps/TB) is also quite similar, although - despite the QLC - the flash does still have a latency advantage (moreso on reads than writes).

So yeah, no. At <1.5× the per-TB cost for a usable system - the cost of one HDD vs one SSD is quite immaterial here - and at >4× the TB-per-RU density, you'd have to have a really good reason to keep buying HDDs. If lowest-possible-price is that reason, then sure.

Reliability is probably higher too, with >300 HDDs to build that system you're going to expect a few failures.

[-] Empyreus@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Most super computer systems have been doing away with hhds for the speed and energy efficiency causing ssds and tape to be the two forms of storage.

[-] qupada@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago

Being in an HPC-adjacent field, can confirm.

Looking forward to LTO10, which ought to be not far away.

The majority of what we've got our eye on for FY '24 are SSD systems, and I expect in '25 it'll be everything.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Tja@programming.dev 48 points 7 months ago

My 8TB Seagate failed a week ago and I was looking into new drives. The cheapest HDD was around 25 EUR per TB (for the 18TB ones) and the cheapest SSD were under 50 EUR per TB. No idea where this "7 times cheaper" comes, maybe from 2015.

I ended up buying a 4TB Crucial MX500 with 4TB for 208 EUR (barely enough for my data, but with some cleanup it will hold a year for sure).

Not only it's faster, it's smaller (fits in the NUC), it's quieter and it consumes much less electricity. I don't think I will ever buy an HDD ever again. Maybe for surveillance recording?

[-] Zanz@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

Hamr drives and for data center use. Consumer ssds are made very poorly and even premium drives like a Samsung pro won't hold up in a data center environment. Hard drives on the other hand are basically only data center versions now.

[-] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 17 points 7 months ago

No idea where this "7 times cheaper" comes

Probably from back when Toshiba was relevant

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works 44 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I mean, with stuff like ZFS, it's a little hard to justify the outlay for all solid-state disk storage when I can build out a large storage array using HDD's and use one mid-size SSD for ZIL and then L2ARC to provide read/write speedups. Who actually cares what the underlying storage mechanism is as long as the dataset is backed up and the performance is good?

[-] legios@aussie.zone 11 points 7 months ago

This is my thing. I have about 122TB of spinning metal (with the same as an offsite backup) with SSDs as ZIL and L2ARC. And it's awesome. HDDs I think will genuinely be important for for the foreseeable future.

[-] Tja@programming.dev 9 points 7 months ago

Power consumption, noise, durability...

[-] nakal@kbin.social 9 points 7 months ago

There is a lot of power to waste for the savings you made, when not buying expensive SSDs (20€ a year is not much). Where we use HDDs, we don't care about noise. Durability? We use huge RAID systems with lots of redundancy.

I personally like to swap new drives after 5 years to avoid failures. So when you find a 16 TB SSD for 350€, you send me a message.

[-] Tja@programming.dev 4 points 7 months ago

My 4 bay HDD NAS uses around 45W, 50W with some light load, 70W spinning up. That's about 1kWh per day, or 150 EUR per year.

I use it in my room, so I very much care about noise.

More durability = less redundancy (less cost) + less frequent swaps (less cost). My anecdotal evidence is 1 failed SSD in 15 years (160GB Intel, basically first Gen). Every other SSD is still working. I have a drawer full of failed HDDs.

Plus more performance.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Extrasvhx9he@lemmy.today 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

As a newb I hope one day in my journey, I can look back at this and say "I finally understand this." Til then thank you, magic man

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 42 points 7 months ago

I bought 18 TB seagate exos x18 drives for about $400 AUD each this year. What price are 18TB SSDs at?

[-] rab@lemmy.ca 26 points 7 months ago

I admin a datacenter and hard drives are never going anywhere. Same with tapes.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 10 points 7 months ago

I work tech support for a NAS company and the ratio of HDDs to SSDs is roughly 85-15. Sometimes people use SSDs for stuff that requires low latency, but most commonly they're used as a cache for HDDs in my experience.

[-] preasket@lemy.lol 8 points 7 months ago

Not much point in using SSDs in a NAS if it's there just for holding your files

[-] Chobbes@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Lower power usage and smaller and maaaaaaaaybe better reliability. I’d probably do it if it was cost competitive… but it’s not yet.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] guacupado@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Work for one of the largest and we literally finished phasing out tape this year lol.

[-] CaptainProton@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

In favor of what? Spinning rust, or some other media for archival backups?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] guyrocket@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I just bought a microcenter brand 1 TB SSD for less than $50. Can a HDD compete with that on price and read/write speed?

Also recently bought a gaming PC that does not have a HD, only a 1 TB SSD.

I think HDDs day as boot drives is over. Unless they get a lot faster which I think is unlikely.

HDDs are certainly useful for larger amounts of storage, though. Self hosting, data centers, etc.

ETA: I don't think any of the responses read my entire comment. See the LAST SENTENCE in particular, friends.

[-] elscallr@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

My NAS device has 80TB of usable space (6x16TB, raid5). Equivalent would've cost tens of thousands of dollars in drives alone.

Once 16TB SSDs are even available I will probably start migrating them in, but for now mechanical drives it is.

[-] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 3 points 7 months ago

If you're able to get enterprise ssds, you could get 16tb ssds... But no clue what minimum order sizes are like for that kind of thing. But of you wanted to use 16tb ssds instead of buying a house 100% down payment, that's an option probably.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Thrashy@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The last set of NAS drives I bought for my home server were ~$120 for 8TB, and while random access may not quite measure up, I'd put them up against your $50 Inland white-label drive for sustained R/W any day of the week, especially once the SSD's write cache is saturated. That's not even comparing like-for-like -- consumer hard drives using SMR are quite a bit cheaper than the NAS drives I bought, and enterprise-grade Flash storage costs 2-4 times as much as low-end consumer flash.

There's absolutely still a case to be made for mechanical drives in near-line storage, and that's not likely to change for quite a few years yet.

[-] Vash63@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Nobody is buying $50 drives for a datacenter. What matters here is how this compares with 16TB+ sizes.

[-] preasket@lemy.lol 6 points 7 months ago

Use HDDs for linear read/write (files) and SSDs for IOPS (databases)

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
279 points (96.0% liked)

Technology

57226 readers
4764 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS