394
Toshiba to double HDD production capacity amid devastating shortages — 65TB, 100TB drives on the roadmap (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Apparently WD and Seagate stock have already taken a hit at the announcement.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 month ago (15 children)

I don't hoard video files, so 1TB still seems unimaginably vast. I was shocked when I learned my entire CD collection, ripped to FLAC, would fit on my phone. 100TB is like a billion dollars, my mind has difficulty understanding numbers that large.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago

    You get games that are several hundred gigabytes these days - high resolution art assets are big.

    Filling up a 1TB drive is easy. 100TB, yeah, that's a lot of space.

    Don't count bytes, look at what they can store: 1TB will hold like four to eight recent AAA games.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    Even if you do need 100 TB of storage, I feel like it'd be a lot better to have multiple smaller drives rather than one massive one. To be fair, though, I'd expect such large drives to be targeted mostly to commercial customers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    Yeah, if get a few bad sectors suddenly you're spending most of a day backing things up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You should've been backing things up already.

    "If you have one, you have none".

    Without proper backup your data is just waiting to disappear at the first unrecoverable failure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    And it can be fairly invisible in day-day use with 4 drives set up in RAID5.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    just remember that raid is not a backup

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I meant to get back to ask you what you meant by this.

    My (novice-level) understanding was R5 would give you redundancy and a way to restore one of your drives if it went down unrecoverably.

    Is that just wrong, or it doesn’t count as a backup?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago*

    Larger storage is good for videos (think Blu-rays, 4K videos are very big! Security camera feeds could also take up lots of space), and you might also want to host for multiple users (for family, friends, or a business)

    But yes, _100_TB is a lot. 8-24TB (before memory became super expensive) was reasonable for most consumers, usually in a RAID configuration for redundancy. Multiple smaller drives are more reliable and modular than a single big one!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Without going into video media, I've got around 2-3TB of photos (in RAW format) and my ripped/downloaded music collection is about the same size. Probably got about 5TB of device backups and a similar amount of retro games ROMs/disk images

    I think between my desktop PC and server I've got about 70-80TB of storage (though not all of it is usable for redundancy)

    I could see myself building a new NAS in a couple of years that would make use of a few of those drives if the economics work out

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent