• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I mean personally, for long term data hoarding, I dislike running anything below raidz2, and imo anything less than 5 disks in that setup is just silly and inefficient in terms of cost/benefit. So I currently have 5x16TB in raidz2. The 60% capacity efficiency kinda blows, but also I didn’t want to spend any more on rust than I did at the time, and the array is still working great, so whatever. For me, that was a reasonable balance between power draw, disk count, cost, and capacity.

    • MangioneDontMiss@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      honestly though. I kinda dislike that a 40 or 50tb mechanical drive is even a thing. What we really need is larger, more affordable solid state drives. Mechanical drives have had their place, but their limits are fairly clear at this point. And your point about rebuilding an array makes that obvious. They are just too slow. This move by seagate to make ridiculously large mechanical drives, should not be the beginning, as this article suggests. It should really be the end.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        They’re slow, but they’re WAY more robust than most SSDs - and in terms of $/TB, it’s not even close. Especially if you’re comparing to SLC enterprise-grade.