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

81–90 of 223 posts

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#81

Post by golergka »

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.

When you have enough channels and plugins running in real time, you'd rather optimize for CPU rather than disk space.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#82

Post by davrosthedalek »

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…

You can't compare 1TB hard disks, they are comparatively expensive. The cheapest per TB I can find right now is 20 euros for HDD, and 120euro for SSD. So factor 6 if you buy the cheapest, respectively.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#83

Post by merb »

craftyguy wrote: post #79
merb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it actually depends. you can either have a game with extremly fast loading, which means that assets won't be compressed a lot or you can compress them and go for file size, you can even reduce the quality. it always depends on your target audience.

but still modern games for pc/mac are around ~10gb per game which would limit your installed game base by a lot.

(also working with docker (pc, mac not linux) or vms in general will quickly eat your 500gb hard disk)

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#84

Post by loeg »

gruez wrote: post #68
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…

>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. those are cherrypicked numbers because 1TB is at the very low end for HDD sizes. compare with a more typical HDD size (3TB or 4TB) and you'll see the differences become more obvious.

I don't know about you, but 500-1000 GB is more than enough for my SSD needs, so the comparison at 1TB is much more relevant to me than at 4TB.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#85

Post by ryacko »

zzzcpan wrote: post #80
Symmetry wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s a monopoly? Kryder’s law may have ended, but HDD prices were $40 a terabyte two years ago.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#86

Post by loeg »

golergka wrote: post #81
randyrand wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When you have enough channels and plugins running in real time, you'd rather optimize for CPU rather than disk space.

Surely OP isn't working on all projects all the time, and could "archive" some in FLAC form?

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#87

Post by loeg »

merb wrote: post #83
craftyguy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it actually depends. you can either have a game with extremly fast loading, which means that assets won't be compressed a lot or you can compress them and go for file size, you can even reduce the quality. it always depends on your target audience. but still modern games for pc/mac are around ~10gb per game which would limit your installed game base by a lot. (also working with docker (pc, mac not linux) or vms in ge…

I have a 200 GB or so SSD in my gaming computer. Yeah, I basically just install one AAA game at a time.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#88

Post by colinthompson »

loeg wrote: post #86
golergka wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have enough channels and plugins running in real time, you'd rather optimize for CPU rather than disk space.

Surely OP isn't working on all projects all the time, and could "archive" some in FLAC form?

My guess is that in terms of a time vs. money trade off, buying a new drive and shelving the old one is the preferred method of archiving. The maintenance required to convert all files to some compact format might be enough of a PITA (however minor), that it's simply more worth it to buy a new drive.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#89

Post by craftyguy »

merb wrote: post #83
craftyguy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it actually depends. you can either have a game with extremly fast loading, which means that assets won't be compressed a lot or you can compress them and go for file size, you can even reduce the quality. it always depends on your target audience. but still modern games for pc/mac are around ~10gb per game which would limit your installed game base by a lot. (also working with docker (pc, mac not linux) or vms in ge…

10GB is an order of magnitude less than what GP referenced.. I don't mind being limited to having tens of games installed on a 500GB drive.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#90

Post by opencl »

projectramo wrote: post #14
pixl97 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAND demand is insanely high. You aren't just building computer SSDs, you have phones, in particular, and hundreds of other devices that use it competing for the manufacturing capacity. Another issue with demand is IOPS. Enterprise is rarely limited by storage capacity, but instead by reliable operations per second. Pretty much every enterprise wants every SSD it can get at the right price point, which is much higher…

By that logic things should get more expensive, not cheaper, as the demand increases. To put it another way, why wouldn't someone undercut the current suppliers and sell at just above their marginal cost and take over the whole market.

The whole NAND industry is suspected to be engaging in price fixing/collusion[1]. They've already been caught doing it in the past and paid out a $300 million settlement over it back in 2006.

[1] https://bit-tech.net/news/tech/memory/samsung-micron-sk-hyni...

Post reply on HN