Live data from Hacker News

Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

nexthive.com

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#211

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…

The big difference is that the overall performance of spinning disks is not much different than what it was 10 years ago. However, a best-in-class 2018 SSD is an entirely different beast than a 2008 model. They are somewhere around 5-30x faster now with significantly better write endurance, wear leveling, and capacity (you can get up to 4TB in consumer models for reasonable prices). The market hasn't pushed for solid…

> 2008 ...They are somewhere around 5-30x faster now with significantly better write endurance,

Thats because 2008 to SSDs was like 1982 to HDDs. If you look at 2011 both of your promises are false. SATA SSD in 2011 was as fast as SATA SSD in 2018, but with about 10x more endurance.

The technology to produce crappy SSD is there, but it will "forget" its contents in couple of months when kept unplugged, or burn thru erase cycles in a year while sitting idle, just keeping content alive.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#212
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is... exactly what everyone expects, and the assumption of every economic graph in the world? There are actually markets where the opposite holds. Basically anything with high fixed costs, because the more units sold, the less of the fixed costs each unit has to cover. But fabs don't really work like that because, while very expensive, they have finite capacity. A fab that can produce a million units costs a b…

The second fab on an identical process node is cheaper than the first.

Sure, but it's not as if the first one is a billion dollars and the second is a nickel. The numbers are of approximately the same order of magnitude.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#213
post #135
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sibling comment is dead, but I second their recommendation of the Synology 1618+. It's been excellent in my experience. Even better when paired with a 10GbE NIC.

You can vouch for dead comments to un-dead them (bring it back to life?). I've done it for the sibling comment (by twothumbsup).

Ah thanks, didn’t see a link, but I probably just wasn’t looking for it. Looks like they’re undead now :-)

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I didn't. It was your problem you misinterpreted what I said. Nobody else misunderstood me but you.

> Nobody else misunderstood me but you. I think it would be more correct to say that nobody at all misunderstood you, and nobody else bothered to correct your claims. I do see there were some downvotes, though, which suggests what others thought of them.

There was one downvote: yours.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#215
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big difference is that the overall performance of spinning disks is not much different than what it was 10 years ago. However, a best-in-class 2018 SSD is an entirely different beast than a 2008 model. They are somewhere around 5-30x faster now with significantly better write endurance, wear leveling, and capacity (you can get up to 4TB in consumer models for reasonable prices). The market hasn't pushed for solid…

> 2008 ...They are somewhere around 5-30x faster now with significantly better write endurance, Thats because 2008 to SSDs was like 1982 to HDDs. If you look at 2011 both of your promises are false. SATA SSD in 2011 was as fast as SATA SSD in 2018, but with about 10x more endurance. The technology to produce crappy SSD is there, but it will "forget" its contents in couple of months when kept unplugged, or burn thru e…

> SATA SSD in 2011 was as fast as SATA SSD in 2018

That's a meaningless distinction, M.2 SSDs are incredibly popular and are nearly 10x faster than anything you could get in 2011 (for example, an OCZ Vertex 3 would max out at 550/500 MB/s sequential read/write speeds while a Samsung 960 EVO can do 3.2/1.8 GB/s).

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody else misunderstood me but you. I think it would be more correct to say that nobody at all misunderstood you, and nobody else bothered to correct your claims. I do see there were some downvotes, though, which suggests what others thought of them.

There was one downvote: yours.

Nope, wasn't me.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

On the build your on basis, there are a number of nice atom/xeon-D micro ATX motherboards with 10G Ethernet and 8+ sata/sas ports. Combined with something like the old silverstone DS380B (8 hotswap 3.5" drives, + couple internal) makes for a nice small form factor NAS. Why would you build your own? First, because the NAS vendors charge on a non-linear scale for drive slots and 10G Ethernet. The latter is basically a…

So helpful thanks much. One thing I am not familiar with is the quality of user interface for DIY NAS. For example are there applications to upload videos from your phone directly?

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#218
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2008 ...They are somewhere around 5-30x faster now with significantly better write endurance, Thats because 2008 to SSDs was like 1982 to HDDs. If you look at 2011 both of your promises are false. SATA SSD in 2011 was as fast as SATA SSD in 2018, but with about 10x more endurance. The technology to produce crappy SSD is there, but it will "forget" its contents in couple of months when kept unplugged, or burn thru e…

> SATA SSD in 2011 was as fast as SATA SSD in 2018 That's a meaningless distinction, M.2 SSDs are incredibly popular and are nearly 10x faster than anything you could get in 2011 (for example, an OCZ Vertex 3 would max out at 550/500 MB/s sequential read/write speeds while a Samsung 960 EVO can do 3.2/1.8 GB/s).

and the real world difference when loading a game? or word document? non existent.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#219
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An added complication is that pure silicon in the required quantities is not cheap.

The amount of silicon we're talking about here is only a couple of cents per device

'16TB' of silicon at current rates is not a few cents, not even close.

Re: Seagate Announces 16TB HDD

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then wait weeks and pay real money to pull it all back if you have 8TB :)

Yeah it's something like $700 to retrieve 8 TB

AWS Lighsail can transfer 1 TB from S3 for $5. And no fear of losing a second drive while you perform a network synchronization.
Post reply on HN