Seagate to Shut Down One of Its Largest HDD Assembly Plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Seagate to Shut Down One of Its Largest HDD Assembly Plants

#91

Post by brokenmachine » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 5:37 AM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #56

vidarh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. How much do you pay to keep those HDDs powered per TB per year? How much does maintenance cost (replacing drives etc.)? How does the low IOPS of those drives affect your workload? SSDs may not win in every area yet, but if you only look at purchase price, you're not getting the right picture.

Funny, the 8TB drives I was looking at for a new NAS in a few months are around $300... I'm still debating between a 4 or 5-drive nas... but lets say, including the cost of the nas device I'm paying around $2k for 24TB of reduntant storage solution. 24TB of ssd storage alone will cost me over $6k, let alone the cost of a more expensive base NAS box, meaning 7-8K. That's upwards of 4X the cost. That's the difference b…

I wouldn't use those 8Tb shingle drives for a NAS. In fact, that use is specifically mentioned as being not under warranty if I remember correctly.

Also, if (when) a drive fails and you have to resilver 8Tb of data on one of those drives, the slow write speed will kill you.

Re: Seagate to Shut Down One of Its Largest HDD Assembly Plants

#92

Post by brokenmachine » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 5:46 AM UTC

marcofloriano wrote: post #40

tscs37 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think until SSDs can hit the price point of a HDD at same capacity they will probably stay around atleast in consumer space. A 2TB harddrive is just way to cheap compared to a 2TB SSD, even if they fail and need more power, atleast for archiving or large storage in consumer terms. Primary storage may switch to SSD though.

I'm with you, but i believe we will see more and more huge user data sets being stored on clouds. So maybe the future will be a hybrid model between SSD local drives (for day to day files) and cloud for mass user storage (like photos, videos, backups, and so on).

People keep suggesting that the cloud will take over, but for most people the time required to upload all their 4k christmas videos to the cloud will be the limiting factor.

If everyone had fiber, sure...

Re: Seagate to Shut Down One of Its Largest HDD Assembly Plants

#93

Post by tracker1 » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 5:28 PM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #91

tracker1 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, the 8TB drives I was looking at for a new NAS in a few months are around $300... I'm still debating between a 4 or 5-drive nas... but lets say, including the cost of the nas device I'm paying around $2k for 24TB of reduntant storage solution. 24TB of ssd storage alone will cost me over $6k, let alone the cost of a more expensive base NAS box, meaning 7-8K. That's upwards of 4X the cost. That's the difference b…

I wouldn't use those 8Tb shingle drives for a NAS. In fact, that use is specifically mentioned as being not under warranty if I remember correctly. Also, if ( when ) a drive fails and you have to resilver 8Tb of data on one of those drives, the slow write speed will kill you.

The WD Red drives are expressly for NAS usage. Also, I'm aware of the slow redistribution of data. Generally there's only 0-2 connections on the NAS I have now, I just want more room. It's mostly BD/DVD rips, so if it dies, I can recover, it just takes a while. Reduced performance for a few days or a week isn't a huge deal for me.

Re: Seagate to Shut Down One of Its Largest HDD Assembly Plants

#94

Post by tracker1 » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

runeks wrote: post #68

tracker1 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, the 8TB drives I was looking at for a new NAS in a few months are around $300... I'm still debating between a 4 or 5-drive nas... but lets say, including the cost of the nas device I'm paying around $2k for 24TB of reduntant storage solution. 24TB of ssd storage alone will cost me over $6k, let alone the cost of a more expensive base NAS box, meaning 7-8K. That's upwards of 4X the cost. That's the difference b…

So if we're at only 3x the cost for SSD, how many years until HDD cost parity is reached? 5 years? This seems like a sensible guess to me.

Process shrinks are increasingly expensive, so cost wise, I wouldn't expect it for another 10+ years.. also, if you need storage today?

Re: Seagate to Shut Down One of Its Largest HDD Assembly Plants

#95

Post by brokenmachine » Wed, Jan 18, 2017, 2:31 AM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #93

brokenmachine wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't use those 8Tb shingle drives for a NAS. In fact, that use is specifically mentioned as being not under warranty if I remember correctly. Also, if ( when ) a drive fails and you have to resilver 8Tb of data on one of those drives, the slow write speed will kill you.

The WD Red drives are expressly for NAS usage. Also, I'm aware of the slow redistribution of data. Generally there's only 0-2 connections on the NAS I have now, I just want more room. It's mostly BD/DVD rips, so if it dies, I can recover, it just takes a while. Reduced performance for a few days or a week isn't a huge deal for me.

> The WD Red drives are expressly for NAS usage.

Oh, I was thinking about the cheaper Seagate "Archive" drives which have really slow write speed because of that shingled technology.

> Reduced performance for a few days or a week isn't a huge deal for me.

It could be a huge deal when another drive fails during that week while the array is rebuilding. But if you have more hot spares it's no big deal.