• adavis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        While not hard drives, at $dayjob we bought a new server out with 16 x 64TB nvme drives. We don’t even need the speed of nvme for this machines roll. It was the density that was most appealing.

        It feels crazy having a petabytes of storage (albeit with some lost to raid redundancy). Is this what it was like working in tech up till the mid 00s with significant jumps just turning up?

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is exactly what it was like, except you didn’t need it as much.

          Storage used to cover how much a person needed and maybe 2-8x more, then datasets shot upwards with audio/mp3, then video, then again with Ai.

          • JustinA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            2 months ago

            a petabye of ssds is probably cheaper than a petabye of hdds when you account for rack costs, electricity costs, and maintenance.

        • toddestan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The size increase in hard drives around that time was insane. Compared to the mid-90’s which was just a decade ago, hard drives capacities increased around 100 times. On average, drive capacities were doubling every year.

          Then things slowed down. In the past 20 years, we’ve maybe increased the capacities 30-40 times for hard drives.

          Flash memory, on the other hand, is a different story. Sometime around 2002-3 or so I paid something like $45 for my first USB flash drive - a whole 128MB of storage. Today I can buy one that’s literally 1000 times larger, for around a third of that price. (I still have that drive, and it still works too!)

      • 9point6@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I guess you’re expected to set those up in a RAID 5 or 6 (or similar) setup to have redundancy in case of failure.

        Rebuilding after a failure would be a few days of squeaky bum time though.

        • Skydancer@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Absolutely not. At those densities, the write speed isn’t high enough to trust to RAID 5 or 6, particularly on a new system with drives from the same manufacturing batch (which may fail around the same time). You’d be looking at a RAID 10 or even a variant with more than two drives per mirror. Regardless of RAID level, at least a couple should be reserved as hot spares as well.

          EDIT: RAID 10 doesn’t necessarily rebuild any faster than RAID 5/6, but the write speed is relevant because it determines the total time to rebuild. That determines the likelihood that another drive in the array fails (more likely during a rebuild due to added drive stress). with RAID 10, it’s less likely the drive will be in the same span. Regardless, it’s always worth restating that RAID is no substitute for your 3-2-1 backups.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          At raid6, rebuilds are 4.2 roentgens, not great but they’re not horrible. Keep old backups.but the data isn’t irreplaceable.

          Raid5 is suicide if you care about your data.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m more shocked how little I need extra space!
      I’m rocking an ancient 1TB for backups. And my main is a measly 512GB SSD.
      But I don’t store movies anymore, because we always find what we want to see online, and I don’t store games I don’t actively use, because they are in my GOG or Steam libraries.
      With 1 gigabit per second internet, it only takes a few minutes to download anyways.

      Come to think of it, my phone has almost as much space for use, with the 512GB internal storage. 😋
      Maybe I’m a fringe case IDK. But it’s a long time since storage ceased to be a problem.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I can understand that having your own copy is nice, especially if the service is closed for some reason.
          I just don’t bother doing that anymore, I prefer browsing my library on GOG instead of a file-manager.