this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
462 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

70995 readers
4539 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] goodboyjojo@lemm.ee 7 points 5 days ago

cool 50tb. i can now download more stuff.

[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 5 days ago (13 children)

I deal with large data chunks and 40TB drives are an interesting idea.... until you consider one failing

raids and arrays for these large data sets still makes more sense then all the eggs in smaller baskets

[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

The main issue I see is that the gulf between capacity and transfer speed is now so vast with mechanical drives that restoring the array after drive failure and replacement is unreasonably long. I feel like you'd need at least two parity drives, not just one, because letting the array be in a degraded state for multiple days while waiting for the data to finish copying back over would be an unacceptable risk.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago

I guess the idea is you'd still do that, but have more data in each array. It does raise the risk of losing a lot of data, but that can be mitigated by sensible RAID design and backups. And then you save power for the same amount of storage.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] figaro@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (11 children)

Oh thank God, 40,000 gigabytes was not enough

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 3 points 4 days ago (10 children)

Ah yes. Seagate. The trash storage device company. If you want to burn your money, just throw it into a fire before buying this e-waste.

Can not recommend.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] AntelopeRoom@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Thank God, pushing the limits of my 40 TB and need an upgrade /s

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›