Do people actually use such massive hard drives? I still have my 1 TB HDD in my PC, lol.
Say Hello to the World's Largest Hard Drive, a Massive 36TB Seagate
Submitted 2 days ago by TheImpressiveX@lemmy.today to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.vice.com/en/article/worlds-largest-hard-drive-massive-36tb-seagate/
Comments
Matriks404@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Allero@lemmy.today 2 days ago
Data hoarders could be happy, but otherwise it’s mostly enterprise use.
I personally hold about 4 TB of files, and I know people holding over 30 TB.
As soon as your storage needs exceed 1-2 games and a bunch of old photos, demand for space raises quickly.
UnsavoryMollusk@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I have 50t of data total : archival, old project, backups, backups of my physical medias, etc
HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I have just shy of 8TB of data on my home file server.
That’s not including my NVR (for security cameras) which has a single 6TB SATA drive sitting around 40% capacity.
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 days ago
This is an enterprise drive, so it’s useful for any usecase where a business needs to store a lot of lightly used data, like historical records that might be accessed infrequently for reporting and therefore shouldn’t get be transfered to cold storage.
For a real world example, the business I’m currently contracting at is legally required to retain safety documentation for every machine in every plant they work in. Since the company does contract work in other people’s plants that’s hundreds of PDFs (many of which are 50+ page scans of paper forms) per plant and hundreds of plants. It all adds up very quickly. We also have a daily log processes where our field workers will log with photographs all of their work every single workday for the customer. Some of these logs contain hundreds of photographs depending on the customer’s requirements. These logs are generated every day at every plant so again it adds up to a lot of data being created each month
GlassCaseofEmotion@lemmy.world 2 days ago
FlightyPenguin@lemmy.world 2 days ago
SSD ≠ HDD
GlassCaseofEmotion@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Never change pedantic Internet, never change!
jim3692@discuss.online 2 days ago
Are people still mining chia ?
yaroto98@lemmy.org 2 days ago
Hello
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 days ago
[deleted]JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Get your meds, man
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 days ago
So how much data would I lose when it dies?
whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
about 36TB?
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Nooooooooo not all my pr0ns!!
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Assuming you aren’t striping, up to 36 TB. If you follow even halfway decent practices with basically any kind of RAID other than 0, hopefully 0 Bytes.
The main worry with stuff like this is that it potentially takes a while to recover from a failed drive even if you catch it in time (alert systems are your friend). And 36 TB is a LOT of data to work through and recover which means a LOT of stress on the remaining drives for a few days.
kevincox@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
I think you mean “are striping”.
But even with striping you have backups right? Local redundancy is for availability, not durability.
AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 2 days ago
It would probably take days to rebuild the array.
It’s important to also note that RAID (or alternatives such as unRAID) are not backup systems and should not be relied on as such. If you have a severe brownout that fries more than two or three drives at once, for example, you will lose data if you’re not backing up.