I’m going to remind you that these fuckers are LOUD, like ROARING LOUD, so might not be suitable for your living room server.
OK…what’s this HAMR technology and how does it play compared to the typical CMR/SMR performance differences?
Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording. It uses a laser to heat the drive platter, allowing for higher areal density and increased capacity.
I am ignorant on the CMR/SMR differences in performance
I fear HAMR sounds like a variation on the idea of getting a coarser method to prepare the data to be written, just like on SMR. These kind of hard drives are good for slow predictable sequential storage, but they suck at writing more randomly. They’re good for surveillance storage and things like that, but no good for daily use in a computer.
That sounds absolutely fine to me.
Compared to an NVME SSD, which is what I have my OS and software installed on, every spinning disk drive is glacially slow. So it really doesn’t make much of a difference if my archive drive is a little bit slower at random R/W than it otherwise would be.
In fact I wish tape drives weren’t so expensive because I’m pretty sure I’d rather have one of those.
If you need high R/W performance and huge capacity at the same time (like for editing gigantic high resolution videos) you probably want some kind of RAID array.
What about the writing and reading speeds?
I mean, newer server-grade models with independent actuators can easily saturate a SATA 3 connection. As far as speeds go, a raid-5 or raid-6 setup or equivalent should be pretty damn fast, especially if they start rolling out those independent actuators into the consumer market.
As far as latency goes? Yeah, you should stick to solid state…but this breathes new life into the HDD market for sure.
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
The only thing I want is reasonably cheap 3.5" SSDs. Sata is fine just let me pay $500 for a 12TB SSD please.
Yeah, nvme drives show how little space the storage takes up. Just stick a bunch of them inside the 3.5" format, along with a controller and cooling, and that would be great for a large/slow (relative to NVME) drive capped by SATA speeds.
I don’t miss the noise hard drives make, plus it’s nice to not really worry as much about what kind of magnetic activity might be going on around it, like is my subwoofer too close or what if my kid somehow gets her hands on a powerful magnet and wants to see if it will stick to my PC case.
Heat Didn’t read your full comment sorry. How would heat control work? Integrated fan?
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.
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.
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.
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 ;))
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’s_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
Now you can store even more data unsafely!
