• Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      For me, reliability is now the bottleneck.

      So many HDs are crapping out after about 5 years. Not saying SSDs are better, but I haven’t used any for storage. But it’s starting to feel like a subscription plan as I’m rotating hard drives in my server nearly every year now since 2018.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That seems high. Data center drives have a failure rate around 1% per year, even for the worst manufacturer. Not sure how many drives you have or what your workload is like.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Tapes themselves are cheaper but there’s also the upfront cost of the tape drive (we’re talking thousands).

      • umbraroze@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        And that there is the real crime. It’s a real shame no one’s making a tape drive at the consumer market price point. Tapes are a hell of a lot more convenient for backups and archival than the giant weird pile of storage formats we’ve seen over years.

      • AtariDump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Agreed and was looking for this comment.

        The medium is cheap but the device to read/write is pricy.

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      There’s not much price difference between SSDs and hard drives that are 1 TB or less. Larger than that, hard drives are still much cheaper.

    • Fermion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Wendel from level 1 techs really likes the multi actuator spinning rust drives. You still wouldn’t use them for a boot drive, but they’re fast enough to saturate a sata connection, while still being much more dense than ssds. They can achieve 500MB/s sequential speeds, so they’re plenty fast for large file access. Most consumers should be using SSD’s but if you’re dealing with more than a couple terabytes, the best solution isn’t as straightforward.

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’d love to see what could be done with current tape storage technology in standard compact cassette format.

      • qupada@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        There’s some space occupied by the servo tracks (which align the heads to the tap) in LTO, but if we ignore that…

        Current-generation LTO9 has 1035m of 12.65mm wide tape, for 18TB of storage. That’s approximately 13.1m², or just under 1.4TB/m².

        A 90 minute audio cassette has around 90m of 6.4mm wide tape, or 0.576m². At the same density it could potentially hold 825GB.

        DDS (which was data tape in a similar form factor) achieved 160GB in 2009, although there’s a lot more tape in one of those cartridges (153m).

        Honestly, you’d be better off using the LTO. Because they’re single-reel cartridges (the 2nd is inside the drive), they can pack a lot more tape into the same volume.