Just a reminder: These massive drives are really more a “budget” version of a proper tape backup system. The fundamental physics of a spinning disc mean that these aren’t a good solution for rapid seeking of specific sectors to read and write and so forth.
So a decent choice for the big machine you backup all your VMs to in a corporate environment. Not a great solution for all the anime you totally legally obtained on Yahoo.
Not sure if the general advice has changed, but you are still looking for a sweet spot in the 8-12 TB range for a home NAS where you expect to regularly access and update a large number of small files rather than a few massive ones.
honestly curious, why the hell was this downvoted? I work in this space and I thought this was still the generally accepted advice?
Because people are thinking through specific niche use cases coupled with “Well it works for me and I never do anything ‘wrong’”.
I’ll definitely admit that I made the mistake of trying to have a bit of fun when talking about something that triggers the dunning kruger effect. But people SHOULD be aware of how different use patterns impacts performance, how that performance impacts users, and generally how different use patterns impact wear and tear of the drive.
Come on man, everything, and mean everything you said is wrong.
Budget tape backup?
No, you can’t even begin to compare drives to tape. They’re completely different use cases. A hard drive can contain a backup but it’s not physically robust to be unplugged, rotated off site , and put into long term storage like tape. You might as well say a Honda Accord is a budget Semi tractor trailer.
Then you specifically called out personal downloads of anime as a bad use case. That’s absolutely wrong in all cases.
It is absurd to imply that everyone else except for you is less knowledgeable and using a niche case except you.
Not a great solution for all the anime you totally legally obtained on Yahoo.
Mainly because of that. Spinning rust drives are perfect for large media libraries.
There isn’t a hard drive made in the last 15 years that couldn’t handle watching media files. Even the SMR crap the manufacturers introduced a while back could do that without issue. For 4k video you’re going to see average transfer speeds of 50MB/s and peak in the low 100MB/s range, and that’s for high quality videos. Write speed is irrelevant for media consumption, and unless your hard drive is ridiculously fragmented, seek speed is also irrelevant. Even an old 5400 RPM SATA drive is going to be able to handle that load 99.99% of the time. And anything lower than 4K video is a slam dunk.
Everything I just said goes right out the window for a multi-user system that’s streaming multiple media files concurrently, but the vast majority of people never need to worry about that.
The fundamental physics of a spinning disc mean that these aren’t a good solution for rapid seeking of specific sectors to read and write and so forth.
It’s no ssd but is no slower than any other 12TB drive. It’s not shingled but HAMR. The sectors are closer together so it has even better seeking speed than a regular 12TB drive.
Not a great solution for all the anime you totally legally obtained on Yahoo.
???
It’s absolutely perfect for that. Even if it was shingled tech, that only slows write speeds. Unless you are editing your own video, write seek times are irrelevant. For media playback use only consistent read speed matters. Not even read seek matters except in extreme conditions like comparing tape seek to drive seek. You cannot measure 10 ms difference between clicking a video and it starting to play because of all the other delays caused by media streaming over a network.
But that’s not even relevant because these have faster read seeking than older drives because sectors are closer together.
HDD read rates are way faster than media playback rates, and seek times are just about irrelevant in that use case. Spinning rust is fine for media storage. It’s boot drives, VM/container storage, etc, that you would want to have on an SSD instead of the big HDD.
Not sure what you’re going on about here. Even these discs have plenty of performance for read/wrote ops for rarely written data like media. They have the same ability to be used by error checking filesystems like zfs or btrfs, and can be used in raid arrays, which add redundancy for disc failure.
The only negatives of large drives in home media arrays is the cost, slightly higher idle power usage, and the resilvering time on replacing a bad disc in an array.
Your 8-12TB recommendation already has most of these negatives. Adding more space per disc is just scaling them linearly.
Additionally, most media is read in a contiguous scan. Streaming media is very much not random access.
Your typical access pattern is going to be seeking to a chunk, reading a few megabytes of data in a row for the streaming application to buffer, and then moving on. The ~10ms of access time at the start are next to irrelevant. Particularly when you consider that the OS has likely observed that you have unutilized RAM and loads the entire file into the memory cache to bypass the hard drive entirely.
Seagate. The company that sold me an HDD which broke down two days after the warranty expired.
No thanks.
laughing in Western Digital HDD running for about 10 years now
Funny because I have a box of Seagate consumer drives recovered from systems going to recycling that just won’t quit. And my experience with WD drives is the same as your experience with Seagate.
Edit: now that I think about it, my WD experience is from many years ago. But the Seagate drives I have are not new either.
Survivorship bias. Obviously the ones that survived their users long enough to go to recycling would last longer than those that crap out right away and need to be replaced before the end of the life of the whole system.
I mean, obviously the whole thing is biased, if objective stats state that neither is particularly more prone to failure than the other, it’s just people who used a different brand once and had it fail. Which happens sometimes.
Had the same experience and opinion for years, they do fine on Backblaze’s drive stats but don’t know that I’ll ever super trust them just 'cus.
That said, the current home server has a mix of drives from different manufacturers including seagate to hopefully mitigate the chances that more than one fails at a time.
I currently have an 8 year old Seagate external 4TB drive. Should I be concerned?
Any 8 years old hard drive is a concern. Don’t get sucked into thinking Seagate is a bad brand because of anecdotal evidence. He might’ve bought a Seagate hard drive with manufacturing defect, but actual data don’t really show any particular brand with worse reliability, IIRC. What you should do is research whether the particular model of your drive is known to have reliability problems or not. That’s a better indicator than the brand.
I had the opposite experience. My Seagates have been running for over a decade now. The one time I went with Western Digital, both drives crapped out in a few years.
30/32 = 0.938
That’s less than a single terabyte. I have a microSD card bigger than that!
;)
Now now, no self-shaming about the size of your card. It’s how you use it!
That’s good, really good news, to see that HDDs are still being manufactured and being thought of. Because I’m having a serious problem trying to find a new 2.5" HDD for my old laptop here in Brazil. I can quickly find SSDs across the Brazilian online marketplaces, and they’re not much expensive, but I’m intending on purchasing a mechanical one because SSDs won’t hold data for much longer compared to HDDs, but there are so few HDD for sale, and those I could find aren’t brand-new.
Dude i had a 240 gb ssd 14 years old. And the SMART is telling me that has 84% life yet. This was a main OS drive and was formatted multiple times. Literally data is going to be discontinued before this disk is going to die. Stop spreading fake news. Realistically how many times you fill a SSD in a typical scenario?
As per my previous comment, I had /var, /var/log, /home/me/.cache, among many other frequently written directories on the SSD since 2019. SSDs have fewer write cycles than HDDs, it’s not “fake news”.
“However, SSDs are generally more expensive on a per-gigabyte basis and have a finite number of write cycles, which can lead to data loss over time.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive)
I’m not really sure why exactly mine it’s coil whining, it happens occasionally and nothing else happens aside from the high-pitched sound, but it’s coil whining.
How the hell a SSD can coil whine… Without mobile parts lol… Second, realistically for a normal user, it’s probable that SSD is going to last more than 10 years. We aren’t talking about intensive data servers here. We are talking about The hardcorest of the gamers for example, normal people. And of course, to begin with HDDs haven’t a write limit lol. They fail because of its mechanical parts. Finally, cost benefit. The M.2 I was suggesting is $200 buck for 4Tb. Cmon it’s not the end of the world and you multiply speeds… By 700…
SSDs won’t hold data for much longer compared to HDDs
Realistically this is not a good reason to select SSD over HDD. If your data is important it’s being backed up (and if it’s not backed up it’s not important. Yada yada 3.2.1 backups and all. I’ll happily give real backup advise if you need it)
In my anecdotal experience across both my family’s various computers and computers I’ve seen bite the dust at work, I’ve not observed any longevity difference between HDDs and SSDs (in fact I’ve only seen 2 fail and those were front desk PCs that were effectively always on 24/7 with heavy use during all lobby hours, and that was after multiple years of that usecase) and I’ve never observed bit rot in the real world on anything other than crappy flashdrives and SD cards (literally the lowest quality flash you can get)
Honestly best way to look at it is to select based on your usecase. Always have your boot device be an SSD, and if you don’t need more storage on that computer than you feel like buying an SSD to match, don’t even worry about a HDD for that device. HDDs have one usecase only these days: bulk storage for comparatively low cost per GB
I replaced my laptop’s DVD drive with a HDD caddy adapter, so it supports two drives instead of just one. Then, I installed a 120G SSD alongside with a 500G HDD, with the HDD being connected through the caddy adapter. The entire Linux installation on this laptop was done in 2019 and, since then, I never reinstalled nor replaced the drives.
But sometimes I hear what seems to be a “coil whine” (a short high pitched sound) coming from where the SSD is, so I guess that its end is near. I have another SSD (240G) I bought a few years ago, waiting to be installed but I’m waiting to get another HDD (1TB or 2TB) in order to make another installation, because the HDD was reused from another laptop I had (therefore, it’s really old by now, although I had no I/O errors nor “coil whinings” yet).
Back when I installed the current Linux, I mistakenly placed /var and /home (and consequently, /home/me/.cache and /home/me/.config, both folders of which have high write rates because I use KDE Plasma) on the SSD. As the years passed by, I realized it was a mistake but I never had the courage to relocate things, so I did some “creative solutions” (“gambiarra”) such as creating a symlinked folder for .cache and .config, pointing them to another folder within the HDD.
As for backup, while I have three old spare HDDs holding the same old data (so it’s a redundant backup), there are so many (hundreds of GBs) new things I both produced and downloaded that I’d need lots of room to better organize all the files, finding out what is not needed anymore and renewing my backups. That’s why I was looking for either 1TB or 2TB HDDs, as brand-new as possible (also, I’m intending to tinker more with things such as data science after a fresh new installation of Linux). It’s not a thing that I’m really in a hurry to do, though.
Edit: and those old spare HDDs are 3.5" so they wouldn’t fit the laptop.
It never ceases to amaze me how far we can still take a piece of technology that was invented in the 50s.
That’s like developing punch cards to the point where the holes are microscopic and can also store terabytes of data. It’s almost Steampunk-y.
More like microscopic fidget bubble poppers.
When the computer wants a bit to be a 1, it pops it down. When it wants it to be a 0, it pops it up.
If it were like a punch card, it couldn’t be rewritten as writing to it would permanently damage the disc. A CD-RW is basically a microscopic punch card though, because the laser actually burns away material to write the data to the CD.
They work through electron tunneling through a semiconductor, so something does go through them like an old punch card reader
Talking about steam, steam-powered things are 2 thousand years old at least and we still use the technology when we crack atoms to make energy.
What the Romans had wasn’t comparable with an industrial steam engine. The working principle of steam pushing against a cylinder was similar, but they lacked the tools and metallurgy to build a steam cauldron that could be pressurized, so their steam engine could only do parlor tricks like opening a temple door once, and not perform real continuous work.
This isn’t unique to computing.
Just about all of the products and technology we see are the results of generations of innovations and improvements.
Look at the automobile, for example. It’s really shaped my view of the significance of new industries; we could be stuck with them for the rest of human history.
That’s how most technology is:
- combustion engines - early 1900s, earlier if you count steam engines
- missiles - 13th century China, gunpowder was much earlier
- wind energy - windmills appeared in the 9th century, potentially as early as the 4th
Almost everything we have today is due to incremental improvements from something much older.
