6mo ago

Seagate Sets New Record With 36TB Hard Drive And Teases Upcoming 60TB Model

techcrawlr.com

You're viewing a single thread.

79 comments

I would not risk 36TB of data on a single drive let alone a Seagate. Never had a good experience with them.
- 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
  
  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.
  
  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
  
  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.
  
  I can easily buy enterprise drives for home use. What are you on about?
  
  There’s a big difference between “most people” in your original comment and your shift to “I” in this reply. That’s what the other commenter is “on about”
  
  Do consumer oriented stores not carry them in your country? I can, as a private person, simply buy them from a consumer computer parts store. Anyone can. You can order one from here if you want, but idk how they'd manage delivery lol
  
  How do you get from there to your theory that “most people” buying these drives will be consumer pirates and not enterprise customers. That’s where you lose everyone.
  
  I meant most private citizens buying them when I said "most people", sorry if that wasn't clear. A lot more will be bought by enterprise customers which have their own use cases and their own rules for backups and such. I was specifically talking about people as private individuals. I guess I forgot this wasn't the self hosting community lol
  
  I think maybe you also forgot that it's important to say what you mean if you want to be understood.
  
  Could you imagine the time it would take to resilver one drive.. Crazy.
  
  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.
- 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.
  
  100%. 36tb is peanuts for data centres
- The only thing I want is reasonably cheap 3.5" SSDs. Sata is fine just let me pay $500 for a 12TB SSD please.
- 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.
  
  I remember first hearing about 1TB and thinking (who needs that much storage?) wasn't an IT person then just a regular nerd but am now and it took me a while to ever fill up my first 1TB HDD (steam folder) now I have a 2TB NVME in my desktop and a 4TB NVME in my server (for my Linux ISOs ;))
  
  Remembering when Zip drives sounded so big!
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  It's still the same issue, RAID or Ceph. If a physical drive can only write 100 MB/s, a 36TB drive will take 360,000 seconds (6000 minutes or 100 hours) to write. During the 100-hour window, you'll be down a drive, and be vulnerable to a second failure. Both RAID and Ceph can be configured for more redundancy at the cost of less storage capacity, but even Ceph fails (down to read only mode, or data loss) if too many physical drives fail.
  
  While true, it can fill the drive replacement with data spread from way more number of drives than raid can, so the point I was trying to make is that a second failure due to resilvering cam be greatly mitigated by using a Ceph setup.
  
  It's so consistent it has a name: Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
  I heard that we were at the theoretical limit but apparently there's been a break through: https://phys.org/news/2020-09-bits-atom.html
  
  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.

79 comments