all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Nobody needs more than 245 TB storage" or something like that.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Think of all the Chia you could farm 🙄

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • put me down for two

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Data hoarders frothing with excitement…

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Been doing a lot of data verification lately. That max-sized drive would take almost a day to fill up at max speed (assuming you had a data source to max it’s interface out). Reading it all out again would only take a bit longer than 5 1/2 hours.
    I’m sure there are plenty of orgs that these things would be a godsend.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Just... show me the price...

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Anyone got an idea of cost? Of course this is going to be brutal, but it's literally ten times what I have in my NAS, in a size slightly longer than a 2.5" drive.

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/datahoarder@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    hypothetically what are we looking at for one? $5k? also what about redundancy at these insane sizes? I am not that knowledgeable about enterprise redundancy but it takes a few days for me to do a parity check on my small 4x4TB RAID.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • These enterprise drives will probably be closer to $50k-100k range since they're using QLC NAND and aimed at datacenters, and the redundancy nightmare would be real - imagine loosing 245TB of data during a rebuild that could take weeks!

  • source
  • parent