Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

nexthive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 223 posts

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#71

Post by Paperweight »

randyrand wrote: post #64
veridies wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I record and produce my own music as a hobby. Each project can easily reach gigabytes in size, and my biggest projects are eight gigabytes or so (eight drum mics, guitar, bass, vocals, and synthesizers, all uncompressed 24/96 audio, often with a number of different takes). I go through HDDs very quickly. I know that for development and most uses bigger HDDs are unnecessary, but for media production these improvements…

Why not use FLAC? It gets 50-70% compression and is lossless.

DAWs usually encode as WAVs for when you're working on stuff because it's faster. But it would be nice for them to losslessly compress your files down to FLAC when you're done and shut down the program!

It would be interesting to have a media-friendly archive file format for the final tracks of completed projects that automatically compresses/decompresses WAVs as FLAC...and other raw data formats as their losslesss counterparts...closest thing I can find is zipx with wavpack.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#72

Post by gammateam »

combatentropy wrote: post #2

From the article: "In a world where SSDs have become more and more common, one might ask what the point of even developing newer and bigger HDDs is." Solid state drives still cost about 10 times more per gigabyte. I'm just a web developer, but a spinning-disk drive looks 100 times more complicated to me to manufacture. I know at the beginning that hard drives would be cheaper, simply because SSDs were newer, and ther…

Regarding SSD technology, its just demand still being greater than the supply at this point.

Companies are overbidding at the fabrication lines to get their latest phones built. Data centers want SSD offerings for customers with insatiable demand for SSD servers at a premium.

The whole thing is just demand demand demand and the chips cant come out fast enough.

Will last for a while at the current rate.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#73

Post by objektif »

rixrax wrote: post #29
dlevine wrote: post #22

I know that big disks are useful for a lot of people/applications. However, I topped out at 500GB about 10 years ago. That gives me plenty of headroom. Since then, I have gone from a 500GB HDD to a SSD, but my space usage hasn't really gone up. The largest disk I own is a 1TB disk in my Time Capsule (which I could probably stand to upgrade, but I don't feel like taking it apart). I think this is probably because I st…

As you say you stream your videos. Now imagine getting that shiny new 4k video camera and start storing raw footage even after you have edited it. Rough ballbark of 120Mbits/s ==> 15MB/s ==> 900MB/minute ==> 54GB/hour. This is why I keep adding more and more disks to my NAS.

What type of NAS do you have? I am researching alternatives would appreciate your advice.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#74

Post by Symmetry »

Brockenstein wrote: post #57
combatentropy wrote: post #2

From the article: "In a world where SSDs have become more and more common, one might ask what the point of even developing newer and bigger HDDs is." Solid state drives still cost about 10 times more per gigabyte. I'm just a web developer, but a spinning-disk drive looks 100 times more complicated to me to manufacture. I know at the beginning that hard drives would be cheaper, simply because SSDs were newer, and ther…

>Solid state drives still cost about 10 times more per gigabyte I think you should go shopping, because the time where SSDs cost 10x as much as an HDD is over. When a WD Blue 1TB SATA 6 Gb/s 7200 RPM 64MB is $46 on Amazon and a Crucial MX500 1TB 3D NAND SATA 2.5 Inch is $134. Unless you're comparing the cheapest 1TB HDD you can find to a Samsung 970 pro 1TB or something... which really isn't a reasonable comparison i…

Cost isn't linear with storage. On Newegg a 1 TB drive is $37, a 2 TB is $61, a 4TB is $84, a 6 TB is $158 for $26/TB. The metal shell of the HD costs a certain amount no matter how much storage is inside. Still not a full factor of 10 but certainly more significant.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#75

Post by nineteen999 »

randyrand wrote: post #64
veridies wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I record and produce my own music as a hobby. Each project can easily reach gigabytes in size, and my biggest projects are eight gigabytes or so (eight drum mics, guitar, bass, vocals, and synthesizers, all uncompressed 24/96 audio, often with a number of different takes). I go through HDDs very quickly. I know that for development and most uses bigger HDDs are unnecessary, but for media production these improvements…

Why not use FLAC? It gets 50-70% compression and is lossless.

Audio mixing and mastering, particular with a lot of channels and hosted effects can be very CPU intensive task. As a general rule you wouldn't want to add compression/decompression to that process as well.

Granted, the industry standard in this area (ProTools) is an absolute CPU hog to begin with, so it needs all the help it can get.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#76

Post by elorant »

fallat wrote: post #30
lightbyte wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From TFA: >The Exos 16 TB hard drive using HAMR technology is now the world’s biggest HDD in terms of capacity overtaking the 14 TB Barracuda Pro. >HAMR, which is the acronym for heat-assisted magnetic recording, to be precise. This replaces the regular PMR, perpendicular magnetic recording, found in most HDDs. To the average consumer, this doesn’t mean much at all. However, Seagate believes that HAMR is the key to m…

What is the theoretical realistic limits for HDD storage? From the sounds of it this 16TB HAMR-enabled drive is just the first of many we will see year-to-year to continue HDD sales.

Seagate's roadplan is 100TB by 2025. https://www.techpowerup.com/249271/seagates-roadmap-shows-ho...

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#77

Post by BeetleB »

mkirklions wrote: post #20

Anyone have an opinion about Seagate? I had one of their HDD and it died on me within a year. Not sure if this was a 'one-off' or other people had issues with their quality. Similar issue with samsung on SSD.

>Not sure if this was a 'one-off' or other people had issues with their quality.

My last two HD failures were Seagate. On one of the PC building forums I occasionally frequent, they've had a sticky for years telling people not to buy Seagate.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#78

Post by elorant »

mkirklions wrote: post #20

Anyone have an opinion about Seagate? I had one of their HDD and it died on me within a year. Not sure if this was a 'one-off' or other people had issues with their quality. Similar issue with samsung on SSD.

I've bought a few enterprise models a couple of years ago and they're stellar (Constellation line-up). Apart from the fact that they're quite loud.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#79

Post by craftyguy »

merb wrote: post #26
dlevine wrote: post #22

I know that big disks are useful for a lot of people/applications. However, I topped out at 500GB about 10 years ago. That gives me plenty of headroom. Since then, I have gone from a 500GB HDD to a SSD, but my space usage hasn't really gone up. The largest disk I own is a 1TB disk in my Time Capsule (which I could probably stand to upgrade, but I don't feel like taking it apart). I think this is probably because I st…

you also do not game a lot. if you look at https://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=9339&game=R... you will see that you need 100gb for just that single game. I mean my own music library which is rather small has 250gb...

I game a lot, but none of the games I play even approach half that size. not all games are bloated, disk space eating messes.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#80

Post by zzzcpan »

Symmetry wrote: post #74
Brockenstein wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Solid state drives still cost about 10 times more per gigabyte I think you should go shopping, because the time where SSDs cost 10x as much as an HDD is over. When a WD Blue 1TB SATA 6 Gb/s 7200 RPM 64MB is $46 on Amazon and a Crucial MX500 1TB 3D NAND SATA 2.5 Inch is $134. Unless you're comparing the cheapest 1TB HDD you can find to a Samsung 970 pro 1TB or something... which really isn't a reasonable comparison i…

Cost isn't linear with storage. On Newegg a 1 TB drive is $37, a 2 TB is $61, a 4TB is $84, a 6 TB is $158 for $26/TB. The metal shell of the HD costs a certain amount no matter how much storage is inside. Still not a full factor of 10 but certainly more significant.

HDD market is basically a monopoly with arbitrary prices not reflecting actual cost of anything. They only compete on price with SSDs.
Post reply on HN