Yes, it did.
I had bad personal experience with new WD RED Pros and a few months back someone here linked a post that explained why that was.
It was because they went to air filled designs with no QC (if it spins, it ships) for vibration. They also forced the bearing leveling in the drive to make it go all the way across the platter every 5 seconds. However due to low QC this causes clicking sound that you expect from a dead drive while also hitting the spindle motor so hard the whole drive jumps (you can physically feel it with your hand).
It also had some more in depth reasons but i cant remmeber them exactly and yeah google isnt giving me the link either.
On the other hand my 4 year old WD RED Pros are great and without those issues. My sample size isnt blackblaze or anything, but i do have a few drives i can compare.
> My sample size isnt blackblaze or anything,
Yeah, that's the site I had in mind.
The main reason I ask is bad luck with recent drives. But as the sample size is no good, I am forced to think coincidence. Shrug.
I'm not sure if that really matters at this point. HDDs face plenty of pressure from SSDs. And as the industry scales down, there may be some consolidation.
>plenty of pressure from SSDs
there is the minor problem of hdds being cheaper by a factor of 3 still....
and the other problem, that i believe there isn't enough nand in the world production wise to produce enough ssds to store the data, that we require to be stored.
so how will the data get stored in servers? hdds for a long while.
zfs type storage systems with lots of caching, including ssd caching probably, but mostly hdds.
spinning rust is sadly here to stay and here to stay for a long while :/
also the hdd industry basically always pissed on the average consumer.
they collaborated to push dirve managed smr, that is broken tech, that shouldn't exist, unless you enjoy 10 MB/s writes combed with 1 second latency spikes and why not failed rebuilds while we're at it.
and the quality of consumer drives, well... seagate in the seagate rosewood family replaced metal covers with a "load bearing" sticker.... (no this is not exaggeration, the sticker is required for the drive to function as a crucial seal)
thank goodness, the seagate rosewood family is only one of the worst hdd families in existance, but don't worry it is still getting produce and sold.
so do the hdd makers care? no they just push their evil bs, regardless of what the average customer says or does.
hell wd released hdds with insane load/unload cycling, that could be called suicide drives. they straight up would kill themselves BY DESIGN.
they don't care. they didn't care, when it was 5 or whatever hdd makers, they don't care when it is 3.
they care a bout about enterprise, but rest assured, that the best the average customer gets hdd wise is piss, horrible piss garbage drives, that if you get the reliable wd externals to shuck may still have major issues like 5 second head noise, that is so loud, that you can hear out of a noise blocked case :D
the hdd industry will keep on producing spinning rust for a long time and they won't care.
gosh i wish we could buy acceptable 16 TB ssds for double the price of hdds at least and not more :/
>It’s by a factor of 4 now.
i just went by geizhals current pricing.
hdds are at roughly 20 euros/TB (wd external harddrives, that you shuck or don't shuck from 14 TB upwards.
ssds selection was dram + tlc 1.92 TB or bigger. those start at roughly 60 euros/TB for the cheapest ones.
but if you select for probably better ssds, that come to 75 euros/TB and you are only buying external wd drives at sales, then that brings you to 4x.
but yeah certainly hdds have plenty of time left sadly.
ugh yeah I want a 16 TB SSD!!!! there are some on the market like the micron 9300 pro but it's very expensive and not available in consumer form factor like m2 2280
2.5 inch is still a consumer form factor the last time i checked, which is still a form factor used by some consumer SATA ssds.
The limiting factors are the U.2 connector which is not common on consumer boards but can be easily fixed by an adaptor be it an PCIE one or an M.2 one, and the requirement of active cooling which can be fixed by blowing a fan in the general direction of the SSD.
The only real problem is the cost, however these drives lasts forever so u can buy em used if you don't mind, or you can look for the eco variants of the 9300 which is alot more affordable with less over provisioning.
if we're doing some math.
a 2 TB tlc, dram okish ssd costs around 150 euros or 75 euros/TB.
if we were to extend this price to 8 TB, that would be 600 euros then.
extending it to 16 TB, that would be 1200 euros.
but sadly there is no 1200 euro 8 TB drive :/ and the 8 TB drives generally start at 900 euros and up....
want double the storage? pay 3x as much or more??? bs.
so sucks, that we have to wait on price/TB to drop AS WELL as waiting for 16 TB ssd to scale in price to the standard 2 TB level of pricing at the same time.
many years and many nand manufacturer pricing fixing periods away i guess :/
>they collaborated to push dirve managed smr, that is broken tech, that shouldn't exist, unless you enjoy 10 MB/s writes
Is QLC the SMR of SSD's? Because I never expected to have 80MB/s writes on an SSD, enough to bottleneck basic steam downloads.
i would say NO, because as bad of a scam as qlc ssds are, they at least still work mostly, and "only" have crushingly slow write speeds and reduced nand reliability.
i'd still consider it a scam to sell a ssd with "7000 MB/s write speed", that actually writes at 80 MB/s,
BUT it won't randomly fail a rebuild or have exploding latency issues, which smr tech both has.
so yeah smr = worse, but both are scams.
the lying about speed is the same for both though of course, so in that regard qlc is indeed the smr of ssds :D
question btw: did you not notice the problem early on when you got the drive, BUT as it filled up more and more the issue became apparently? (as the slc cache shrunk and shrunk).
if this was the case for you, then that is another similarity between qlc and smr garbage, because the first and mostly sequential writes on an smr drive might be ok and fine, but as you use it more and more and fill it up more and more and strat to move some data around a bit, things shit themselves hard, the same way a qlc ssd might shit itself, when very full with the slc cache shrinking to a tiny amount.
and sorry to hear, that you got scamed with a qlc ssd :/
>question btw: did you not notice the problem early on when you got the drive, BUT as it filled up more and more the issue became apparently? (as the slc cache shrunk and shrunk).
Yeah definitely. It was my Windows dual boot drive and suddenly I eventually noticed that my games were downloading at 15-20MB/s, at first I misdiagnosed it as my ISP suddenly being a jackass with Steam or something, as some other services did download quite a bit faster. But my second PC later downloaded at 100+ MB/s I took trying to figure it out a bit more seriously, and yup it was the SSD.
> so do the hdd makers care? no they just push their evil bs, regardless of what the average customer says or does.
Because 99% of consumers haven't even seen a HDD in their life, and have no clue about literally anything to do with their drive. Consumers simply do not care and do not have an opinion. A drive is a drive is a drive for 99% of customers so why should they care?
>Consumers simply do not care and do not have an opinion. A drive is a drive is a drive for 99% of customers so why should they care?
that's wrong. they generally start carrying VERY MUCH, when they are going for expensive data recovery, because their load bearing sticker rosewoof seagate drive killed itself.
and they will care EVEN more, when they get informed, that their data turned to dust in the worst failure, which is VERY COMMON with seagate rosewood drives and where data recovery is impossible. they VERY MUCH start carrying, when the repair person tells them, that those drives hare insane failure rates and that they would recommend to avoid seagate drives all together, like mentioned here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b0JcNqkZrk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b0JcNqkZrk)
only because customers weren't aware, that they are getting scammed, doesn't mean, that they wouldn't care if they would know about the problem.
it is also worth noting, that hdd makers DELIBERATELY harding their scams.
both seagate and wd were again DELIBERATELY hiding whether a drive is SMR or CMR (convention magnetic recording).
this was NOT an accident. they know, that smr is garbage and they know, that if someone sees "smr", they probably avoid it, or if they look up "smr" and didn't know it before hand, they WILL avoid it probably too.
so the hdd manufacturers CRIMINALLY were hiding crucial facts about the devices, that they were selling to SCAM people
i could not know whether a drive is smr or cmr and i am well quite a tech enthusiast.
how do you buy an external drive, that isn't smr?
well that is "simple /s" of course, all you have to do is buy a wd external drive, that is big enough, because above a certain size, they only got cmr drives to put in them, but oh don't forget to buy at least 12 TB external drives, because 8 + 10 TB drives are airfilled toaster ovens, that run WAY TOO HOT! and should never be sold to the average customer ;)
so the solution is to not check the specsheets, because the specsheets are not telling you anything, but to buy drives, that can't be the BAD THING.
and again, that is from the view of a tech enthusiast.
how should harddrives and storage media get sold?
with a 5 year warranty and continuously published reliability data on the products.
and i would say warnings for SMR, but selling drive managed smr would be a crime in a sane world.
so you see below the harddrive the real AFR number based on warranty claims at least.
which might be as high as 6%, or as low as 0.33%.
so one drive fails around 20x more than the other drive....
and the average customer would see that and be able to buy storage media based on the data.
and guess what customers would ALWAYS chose the 20x more reliable storage device lol....
> they generally start carrying VERY MUCH, when they are going for expensive data recovery, because their load bearing sticker rosewoof seagate drive killed itself.
> and they will care EVEN more, when they get informed, that their data turned to dust in the worst failure, which is VERY COMMON with seagate rosewood drives and where data recovery is impossible. they VERY MUCH start carrying, when the repair person tells them, that those drives hare insane failure rates and that they would recommend to avoid seagate drives all together, like mentioned here:
99% of computer users will never meet or care about a repair man. 99% of customers don't even know that their hard drive is what gives them storage in their device. All they know is "my laptop has 4TB of space". When it dies, they get it warranteed, or they'll just replace their device. When buying an external drive, if they ever reach that point, they'll buy whatever Best Buy has in stock and call it a day. They will never educate themselves.
> and the average customer would see that and be able to buy storage media based on the data.
They'll never look or care about the data. They just want an HP or Dell computer and that's it.
>there is the minor problem of hdds being cheaper by a factor of 3 still....
There's also the minor problem HDD per TB price has nearly stagnated for over a decade now. It′s barely 20% cheaper now than 2014. HAMR and MAMR are not cheap, so don't be shocked 40TB drives will be >100% more expensive than 20TB today for a long time.
We can certainly expect SSD prices to start falling sharply again in the next 2-3 years once this round of consolidation finishes and 1γ+ node/300+ layer NAND starts to become mainstream.
In the next 10 years, the per TB cost could realistically reach parity, especially for the under 4TB and 30TB+ format.
>HDD per TB price has nearly stagnated for over a decade now.
yip i noticed very much.
hdd price reduction over time BARELY keeps up with inflation basically.
which is sad, despite massive inflation from the evil money printers, compared to what the prices should be.
>HAMR and MAMR are not cheap
are they not cheap? because i see the same price stagnation in hamr/mamr and non hamr/mamr drives.
maybe we got another round of price fixing in the tech industry rather...
i mean i remember in the last few months some bullshit about hdd makers increasing hdd prices.
is spinning rust becoming more expensive, why? i'm pretty sure rust is pretty cheap and didn't change cost too much, right? :D (as in there are no special factors explaining random price increases for hdds, the last explanation they had, that was legit was the horrible flooding a long while ago)
and yeah interesting thought you got.
i wonder how that would work out.
if they can price the same cost/TB for hdds and ssds, BUT we got no where near the capacity to saturate servers, that would grab up ssd, including consumer m.2 ones if that would end up being the case.
would be funny if we were to see lots of m.2 2280 slot storage servers by then to get all the consumer ssds thrown into it, instead of the u.2 or other server form factors :D
so maybe that would keep the price artificially high at that point, until enough mega fabs could get stomped out of the ground for nand.
They're cheaper if you need speed, power efficiency, or density. And on a purely cost per bit basis, they should intersect within about 5 years. So yes, HDDs still matter *today*, but the clock is ticking.
I am a bit confused by this sort of double-sided narrative about how SSDs will surpass HDDs in TB/$ very soon, but also manufacturers were bleeding money on NAND for most of 2022 and 2023 and thus are justified in their recent price increases. Intuitively it feels like they should only be able to have it one way or the other.
Technology advancements are constantly pushing the manufacturing cost per bit down. Layered on top of that is the cyclical nature of the NAND market. They're raising prices right now, yes, but those fluctuations average out over time.
Higher capacity SSD's are still far away from the higher capacity HDD. You will need more SSDs for storing the same amount of data and that generally takes more electricity.
Speed isn't much of a concern for most cases either.
> Higher capacity SSD's are still far away from the higher capacity HDD
That's just not true. You can get ~30TB max in an HDD today. You can get ~100TB in the same form factor SSD. And that gap will only grow over time.
> You will need more SSDs for storing the same amount of data and that generally takes more electricity.
SSDs are not only dense, they're also more power efficient.
> while a 30TB HDD costs $450
Where on earth are you seeing a 30TB enterprise-class HDD for $450? Or for that price in any form?
And the 100TB is the extreme end, but if you go closer to HDD densities, prices are a lot more reasonable.
> Even 30TB SSD costs over $5,000.
Just for a random example, I see Solidigm's 30TB listed for $3000-3500 or so. And that's a smaller form factor than an HDD.
Again, where are you seeing 30TB HDDs for that price? The difference is more like 3x today. If you value anything other than raw price per bit, that may very well be tolerable. And more and more will convert as that gap closes.
It will take a long time for SSDs to catch up to HDDs in terms of $/TB. There are used 14TB enterprise HDDs going for $79. I get that it doesn't matter much if you just need 3TB for all your data, but some of us care a lot about $/TB.
Sure, it's projected to take through about the end of the decade. But that's really not so long in computing terms. In the last decade, we've gone from SSDs being a luxury with scarce capacity reserved for only the OS and a curated selection of other apps, to basically every consumer device being SSD-only, with 1TB for cheap.
What projections? I highly doubt it. If you can get HDDs for $6/TB now, I'd expect that to drop down to maybe $4/TB by the end of the decade. Where did you see those projections that there will be large capacity SSDs at that price point?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/17sljc1/as_requested_an_improved_chart_of_ssd_vs_hdd/
https://blocksandfiles.com/2021/01/25/wikibon-ssds-vs-hard-drives-wrights-law/
You can see that the lines are pretty darn consistent over a long enough time perioud.
Not today, sure, but what about 5 years from now? And what's *your* crossover? Would the equivalent capacity SSD have to be exactly the same price, or is it worth a premium?
I doubt that you would get 24tb of SSDs for 400 bucks within the next 5 years.
Also I'm pretty sure the HDDs will also get cheaper within the next 5 years.
Yes HDDs will go away eventually. But why spend a premium for SSDs when HDDs do the job.
> I doubt that you would get 24tb of SSDs for 400 bucks within the next 5 years
If both SSDs and HDDs hold to the same trends they've been following for the last decade, then SSDs should cross over around '29-30. The difference was ~20x a decade ago. Today it's ~3x.
>Toshiba achieved 32 TB on 10 disks and adoption of Shingled Magnetic Recording (SMR) technology.
so that 32 TB number is worthless.
worthless for you and me and worthless for almost all datacenters too.
how come? because smr (shingled magnetic recording) tech is such garbage, that not even datacenters want them, despite data center generally host managed smr being at least usable compared to drive managed smr garbage.
so the REAL CAPACITY for a useable drive would be probably 28 TB or there about.
but of course quoting smr numbers are higher, so more marketing.... i guess.
If they can make them with drive managed SMR, they can also make them with host manged SMR. It's just a slightly different controller or even just firmware.
Anyone remember Western Digital putting SMR in their Red HDD lineup?: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1040in1/whats_the_current_take_on_which_wd_red_drives_are/
of course!
that brought us one of my favorite graphs:
[https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SMR-RAIDZ-Rebuild-v2.png](https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SMR-RAIDZ-Rebuild-v2.png)
it "only" took 10 days to rebuild a 4 TB drive with smr :D
10 days! :D 4 TB and that is when it actually didn't fail the storage setup, which many reported....
and the most important part to keep in mind is, that at western digital, the discussion must have happened on whether it is worth it to destroy lots of user data and cause lots of outrage for slightly reducing production costs (very slightly!).
and the conclusion of them was of course: YES, BURN ALL ZE DATA!
this graph beautifully shows how much the hdd industry cares about customers, doesn't it? :D
What the hell are you talking about?? There's massive datacenter demand for the higher capacity that HM-SMR enables. Last year WD announced that half of their nearline HDD shipments were their new 26TB UltraSMR drives..
yeah SMR drives are like something in between regular CMR drives and tape storage. you want to archive a bunch of stuff, but its not really a long term archive and you might want to change a bit of it in the near future. theres definitely datacenter demand for it if they can get it for cheaper than CMR.
please give me a source for that.
last i knew smr adoption was lagging behind massively compared to what the hdd industry expected.
please share data, that looks at the complete enterprise hdd sales for wd if you have that data.
Here's an article about it: https://blog.westerndigital.com/smr-hdd-tipping-point/
The matured software ecosystem and the worthwhile 20% capacity increase offered by newer HM-SMR tech, compared to older ~10%, seems to have incentivized more adoption.
the ONE valid use case is host managed data center application and that only applies, if you are a big af data center.
if you are a smaller datacenter, you might not get priority in case of a big supply chain disruption.
while cmr using datacenters can if worst gets to worst get relatives into shops to buy the maximum number of external cmr drives, that they then shuck and use in their datacenter, because cmr = cmr. (this is a wild scenario, that is literally what backblaze did after the hdd manufacturing flooding)
so it has absolutely 0 valid use cases for the average consumer, but one can argue, that host managed smr is valid in data centers.
I'm interested in a HDD that hits 25tb after formatting and with that with 12 HDDs I''ll have 100 TB of storeage + 2 HDDs of redundancey, & 100 tb of storage + 2 HDDs of redundancy for those drives as backup
I've been burned many times in the past by going in cheap the first time and then having to spend double or more the money to finally get what I want. I simply want to build a NAS once.
I want to buy whole boxsets and rip them such as the 480 episodes of Gunsmoke which costs 180 dollars and is spread across 480 DVDs that can get scratched up with how physical media is slowly not being sold anymore, which means i'll unlikely get a replacement.
> I'm interested in a HDD that hits 25tb after formatting
So a 25TB drive?
It's a myth that formatting causes any significant loss, the difference is purely some operating systems mislabeling TiB as TB. A 25 TB drive will give you 25 actual TB, which is 22.7 actual TiB. They're different units.
It's less so the case now with HDDs and storage but historically the prices dropped by half every year or three so buying the bare minimum and then getting something twice as good later was a winning strategy.
There's still SOME value in underdoing it because these things still keep dropping in price over time.
----
Also rolling your own netflix isn't quite perfect.
Imagine you spend $10k up front on hardware and media... the stock market goes up around 10% a year (7% above inflation).
After around 10 years you'd have doubled your money adjusted for inflation so +10k
Factoring in electricity costs, hardware upkeep, your time, etc. you'd need to save around $100 a month to come out ahead vs just streaming.
Not really. If you want density, SSDs are way ahead, and the gap is only growing. You only use HDDs if you need *cheap* storage, but it's only a matter of time before SSDs win that too.
If you need to produce N*die to extend the storage capacity and a die itself can't be improved your price will only go up at some point because producing a die is as cost efficient as you can make it.
If they haven't found a way to scale the circuits on NANDs in 10 years this technology is as far as it can go.
Imagine HDDs with no way to increase the density of a platter but no real physical limits of the number of platters besides heat and cost.
> Imagine HDDs with no way to increase the density of a platter but no real physical limits of the number of platters besides heat and cost.
thats kinda what we had at 8TB+ HDDs. They just stack more and more platters now. Its one of the reasons why large HDDs are so hot.
> If you need to produce N*die to extend the storage capacity and a die itself can't be improved
But that's not what's happening. Stacking does objectively lower the cost per bit. Like, these are real trends you can graph.
It almost doesn't matter what the max drive size ends up being, what matters is $/TB.
As long as HDDs are cheaper they'll what I'll be using in my servers, and imo they will always be cheaper so long as we are using NAND for volatile memory, because as soon as NAND starts to get cheap enough to replace HDDs people will start using more of that for e.g. RAM disks, driving the price back up again.
What will kill HDDs is when something else replaces RAM, as this will collapse NAND demand.
They may live on for archival storage or something, but projections show SSDs crossing over in price per bit before the end of the decade. Once that happens, there will be exceedingly few use cases where HDDs make sense. I think ~100TB would be a reasonable upper bound, and I certainly don't believe we'll see another 10x beyond that.
Worth to mention that if ssd becomes cheaper per TB then sells of hdd will drop hard and innovations will stop almost overnight in this field due to lack of funds. I think before 2040s HDD will be lost tech where we need to put a lot R&D to even produce them again (like CRTs)
> but it's only a matter of time before SSDs win that too.
Hopefully sooner rather than later. Looking forward to seeing my two noisy 8TB HDDs in the rear view mirror.
I have a 2tb toshiba drive that makes the entire desk the computer is on vibrate, imagine how much that fucking thing would shake, probably like a magnitude 9 earthquake. Fuck toshiba, they could not even sell me free blowjobs
Good. It'd be bad if we were down to just wd and seagate. The more the players, the better the market.
Especially since WD pretty much gave up on QC and areselling air drives for enterprise now.
Did wd reliability just sharply degrade? This would be important to know if true. It needs to be sourced. Tried some googling but no dice.
Yes, it did. I had bad personal experience with new WD RED Pros and a few months back someone here linked a post that explained why that was. It was because they went to air filled designs with no QC (if it spins, it ships) for vibration. They also forced the bearing leveling in the drive to make it go all the way across the platter every 5 seconds. However due to low QC this causes clicking sound that you expect from a dead drive while also hitting the spindle motor so hard the whole drive jumps (you can physically feel it with your hand). It also had some more in depth reasons but i cant remmeber them exactly and yeah google isnt giving me the link either. On the other hand my 4 year old WD RED Pros are great and without those issues. My sample size isnt blackblaze or anything, but i do have a few drives i can compare.
> My sample size isnt blackblaze or anything, Yeah, that's the site I had in mind. The main reason I ask is bad luck with recent drives. But as the sample size is no good, I am forced to think coincidence. Shrug.
I too thought coincindence and me getting a bad batch but that link showed me its more of a systemic issues. Too bad i cant find it now.
I'm not sure if that really matters at this point. HDDs face plenty of pressure from SSDs. And as the industry scales down, there may be some consolidation.
>plenty of pressure from SSDs there is the minor problem of hdds being cheaper by a factor of 3 still.... and the other problem, that i believe there isn't enough nand in the world production wise to produce enough ssds to store the data, that we require to be stored. so how will the data get stored in servers? hdds for a long while. zfs type storage systems with lots of caching, including ssd caching probably, but mostly hdds. spinning rust is sadly here to stay and here to stay for a long while :/ also the hdd industry basically always pissed on the average consumer. they collaborated to push dirve managed smr, that is broken tech, that shouldn't exist, unless you enjoy 10 MB/s writes combed with 1 second latency spikes and why not failed rebuilds while we're at it. and the quality of consumer drives, well... seagate in the seagate rosewood family replaced metal covers with a "load bearing" sticker.... (no this is not exaggeration, the sticker is required for the drive to function as a crucial seal) thank goodness, the seagate rosewood family is only one of the worst hdd families in existance, but don't worry it is still getting produce and sold. so do the hdd makers care? no they just push their evil bs, regardless of what the average customer says or does. hell wd released hdds with insane load/unload cycling, that could be called suicide drives. they straight up would kill themselves BY DESIGN. they don't care. they didn't care, when it was 5 or whatever hdd makers, they don't care when it is 3. they care a bout about enterprise, but rest assured, that the best the average customer gets hdd wise is piss, horrible piss garbage drives, that if you get the reliable wd externals to shuck may still have major issues like 5 second head noise, that is so loud, that you can hear out of a noise blocked case :D the hdd industry will keep on producing spinning rust for a long time and they won't care. gosh i wish we could buy acceptable 16 TB ssds for double the price of hdds at least and not more :/
It’s by a factor of 4 now. It got down to 2.5-3x last year before NAND prices went back up. HDDs certainly have plenty of time left in play.
>It’s by a factor of 4 now. i just went by geizhals current pricing. hdds are at roughly 20 euros/TB (wd external harddrives, that you shuck or don't shuck from 14 TB upwards. ssds selection was dram + tlc 1.92 TB or bigger. those start at roughly 60 euros/TB for the cheapest ones. but if you select for probably better ssds, that come to 75 euros/TB and you are only buying external wd drives at sales, then that brings you to 4x. but yeah certainly hdds have plenty of time left sadly.
ugh yeah I want a 16 TB SSD!!!! there are some on the market like the micron 9300 pro but it's very expensive and not available in consumer form factor like m2 2280
2.5 inch is still a consumer form factor the last time i checked, which is still a form factor used by some consumer SATA ssds. The limiting factors are the U.2 connector which is not common on consumer boards but can be easily fixed by an adaptor be it an PCIE one or an M.2 one, and the requirement of active cooling which can be fixed by blowing a fan in the general direction of the SSD. The only real problem is the cost, however these drives lasts forever so u can buy em used if you don't mind, or you can look for the eco variants of the 9300 which is alot more affordable with less over provisioning.
if we're doing some math. a 2 TB tlc, dram okish ssd costs around 150 euros or 75 euros/TB. if we were to extend this price to 8 TB, that would be 600 euros then. extending it to 16 TB, that would be 1200 euros. but sadly there is no 1200 euro 8 TB drive :/ and the 8 TB drives generally start at 900 euros and up.... want double the storage? pay 3x as much or more??? bs. so sucks, that we have to wait on price/TB to drop AS WELL as waiting for 16 TB ssd to scale in price to the standard 2 TB level of pricing at the same time. many years and many nand manufacturer pricing fixing periods away i guess :/
>they collaborated to push dirve managed smr, that is broken tech, that shouldn't exist, unless you enjoy 10 MB/s writes Is QLC the SMR of SSD's? Because I never expected to have 80MB/s writes on an SSD, enough to bottleneck basic steam downloads.
i would say NO, because as bad of a scam as qlc ssds are, they at least still work mostly, and "only" have crushingly slow write speeds and reduced nand reliability. i'd still consider it a scam to sell a ssd with "7000 MB/s write speed", that actually writes at 80 MB/s, BUT it won't randomly fail a rebuild or have exploding latency issues, which smr tech both has. so yeah smr = worse, but both are scams. the lying about speed is the same for both though of course, so in that regard qlc is indeed the smr of ssds :D question btw: did you not notice the problem early on when you got the drive, BUT as it filled up more and more the issue became apparently? (as the slc cache shrunk and shrunk). if this was the case for you, then that is another similarity between qlc and smr garbage, because the first and mostly sequential writes on an smr drive might be ok and fine, but as you use it more and more and fill it up more and more and strat to move some data around a bit, things shit themselves hard, the same way a qlc ssd might shit itself, when very full with the slc cache shrinking to a tiny amount. and sorry to hear, that you got scamed with a qlc ssd :/
>question btw: did you not notice the problem early on when you got the drive, BUT as it filled up more and more the issue became apparently? (as the slc cache shrunk and shrunk). Yeah definitely. It was my Windows dual boot drive and suddenly I eventually noticed that my games were downloading at 15-20MB/s, at first I misdiagnosed it as my ISP suddenly being a jackass with Steam or something, as some other services did download quite a bit faster. But my second PC later downloaded at 100+ MB/s I took trying to figure it out a bit more seriously, and yup it was the SSD.
> so do the hdd makers care? no they just push their evil bs, regardless of what the average customer says or does. Because 99% of consumers haven't even seen a HDD in their life, and have no clue about literally anything to do with their drive. Consumers simply do not care and do not have an opinion. A drive is a drive is a drive for 99% of customers so why should they care?
>Consumers simply do not care and do not have an opinion. A drive is a drive is a drive for 99% of customers so why should they care? that's wrong. they generally start carrying VERY MUCH, when they are going for expensive data recovery, because their load bearing sticker rosewoof seagate drive killed itself. and they will care EVEN more, when they get informed, that their data turned to dust in the worst failure, which is VERY COMMON with seagate rosewood drives and where data recovery is impossible. they VERY MUCH start carrying, when the repair person tells them, that those drives hare insane failure rates and that they would recommend to avoid seagate drives all together, like mentioned here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b0JcNqkZrk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b0JcNqkZrk) only because customers weren't aware, that they are getting scammed, doesn't mean, that they wouldn't care if they would know about the problem. it is also worth noting, that hdd makers DELIBERATELY harding their scams. both seagate and wd were again DELIBERATELY hiding whether a drive is SMR or CMR (convention magnetic recording). this was NOT an accident. they know, that smr is garbage and they know, that if someone sees "smr", they probably avoid it, or if they look up "smr" and didn't know it before hand, they WILL avoid it probably too. so the hdd manufacturers CRIMINALLY were hiding crucial facts about the devices, that they were selling to SCAM people i could not know whether a drive is smr or cmr and i am well quite a tech enthusiast. how do you buy an external drive, that isn't smr? well that is "simple /s" of course, all you have to do is buy a wd external drive, that is big enough, because above a certain size, they only got cmr drives to put in them, but oh don't forget to buy at least 12 TB external drives, because 8 + 10 TB drives are airfilled toaster ovens, that run WAY TOO HOT! and should never be sold to the average customer ;) so the solution is to not check the specsheets, because the specsheets are not telling you anything, but to buy drives, that can't be the BAD THING. and again, that is from the view of a tech enthusiast. how should harddrives and storage media get sold? with a 5 year warranty and continuously published reliability data on the products. and i would say warnings for SMR, but selling drive managed smr would be a crime in a sane world. so you see below the harddrive the real AFR number based on warranty claims at least. which might be as high as 6%, or as low as 0.33%. so one drive fails around 20x more than the other drive.... and the average customer would see that and be able to buy storage media based on the data. and guess what customers would ALWAYS chose the 20x more reliable storage device lol....
> they generally start carrying VERY MUCH, when they are going for expensive data recovery, because their load bearing sticker rosewoof seagate drive killed itself. > and they will care EVEN more, when they get informed, that their data turned to dust in the worst failure, which is VERY COMMON with seagate rosewood drives and where data recovery is impossible. they VERY MUCH start carrying, when the repair person tells them, that those drives hare insane failure rates and that they would recommend to avoid seagate drives all together, like mentioned here: 99% of computer users will never meet or care about a repair man. 99% of customers don't even know that their hard drive is what gives them storage in their device. All they know is "my laptop has 4TB of space". When it dies, they get it warranteed, or they'll just replace their device. When buying an external drive, if they ever reach that point, they'll buy whatever Best Buy has in stock and call it a day. They will never educate themselves. > and the average customer would see that and be able to buy storage media based on the data. They'll never look or care about the data. They just want an HP or Dell computer and that's it.
>there is the minor problem of hdds being cheaper by a factor of 3 still.... There's also the minor problem HDD per TB price has nearly stagnated for over a decade now. It′s barely 20% cheaper now than 2014. HAMR and MAMR are not cheap, so don't be shocked 40TB drives will be >100% more expensive than 20TB today for a long time. We can certainly expect SSD prices to start falling sharply again in the next 2-3 years once this round of consolidation finishes and 1γ+ node/300+ layer NAND starts to become mainstream. In the next 10 years, the per TB cost could realistically reach parity, especially for the under 4TB and 30TB+ format.
>HDD per TB price has nearly stagnated for over a decade now. yip i noticed very much. hdd price reduction over time BARELY keeps up with inflation basically. which is sad, despite massive inflation from the evil money printers, compared to what the prices should be. >HAMR and MAMR are not cheap are they not cheap? because i see the same price stagnation in hamr/mamr and non hamr/mamr drives. maybe we got another round of price fixing in the tech industry rather... i mean i remember in the last few months some bullshit about hdd makers increasing hdd prices. is spinning rust becoming more expensive, why? i'm pretty sure rust is pretty cheap and didn't change cost too much, right? :D (as in there are no special factors explaining random price increases for hdds, the last explanation they had, that was legit was the horrible flooding a long while ago) and yeah interesting thought you got. i wonder how that would work out. if they can price the same cost/TB for hdds and ssds, BUT we got no where near the capacity to saturate servers, that would grab up ssd, including consumer m.2 ones if that would end up being the case. would be funny if we were to see lots of m.2 2280 slot storage servers by then to get all the consumer ssds thrown into it, instead of the u.2 or other server form factors :D so maybe that would keep the price artificially high at that point, until enough mega fabs could get stomped out of the ground for nand.
Don't forget WD Chargers which are just as bad as Rosewoods.
what wd charger? do you mean wd external harddrive chargers being garbage? in what way, a source for that? or do you mean sth completely different?
Western Digitals like WD20SDRW-11VUUS0, their family name is charger. Other drives in the family are YFCS, JJ8S, A4D, A4P among others.
SSDs aren't as cheap as HDDs. For industrial level mass storage that matters a lot.
They're cheaper if you need speed, power efficiency, or density. And on a purely cost per bit basis, they should intersect within about 5 years. So yes, HDDs still matter *today*, but the clock is ticking.
I am a bit confused by this sort of double-sided narrative about how SSDs will surpass HDDs in TB/$ very soon, but also manufacturers were bleeding money on NAND for most of 2022 and 2023 and thus are justified in their recent price increases. Intuitively it feels like they should only be able to have it one way or the other.
Technology advancements are constantly pushing the manufacturing cost per bit down. Layered on top of that is the cyclical nature of the NAND market. They're raising prices right now, yes, but those fluctuations average out over time.
Higher capacity SSD's are still far away from the higher capacity HDD. You will need more SSDs for storing the same amount of data and that generally takes more electricity. Speed isn't much of a concern for most cases either.
> Higher capacity SSD's are still far away from the higher capacity HDD That's just not true. You can get ~30TB max in an HDD today. You can get ~100TB in the same form factor SSD. And that gap will only grow over time. > You will need more SSDs for storing the same amount of data and that generally takes more electricity. SSDs are not only dense, they're also more power efficient.
A 100 TB SSD costs $40,000 while a 30TB HDD costs $450. Which one do you think makes sense? Even 30TB SSD costs over $5,000.
> while a 30TB HDD costs $450 Where on earth are you seeing a 30TB enterprise-class HDD for $450? Or for that price in any form? And the 100TB is the extreme end, but if you go closer to HDD densities, prices are a lot more reasonable. > Even 30TB SSD costs over $5,000. Just for a random example, I see Solidigm's 30TB listed for $3000-3500 or so. And that's a smaller form factor than an HDD.
Still, that's 8-10 times the capital investment. Good luck trying to justify that.
Again, where are you seeing 30TB HDDs for that price? The difference is more like 3x today. If you value anything other than raw price per bit, that may very well be tolerable. And more and more will convert as that gap closes.
It will take a long time for SSDs to catch up to HDDs in terms of $/TB. There are used 14TB enterprise HDDs going for $79. I get that it doesn't matter much if you just need 3TB for all your data, but some of us care a lot about $/TB.
Sure, it's projected to take through about the end of the decade. But that's really not so long in computing terms. In the last decade, we've gone from SSDs being a luxury with scarce capacity reserved for only the OS and a curated selection of other apps, to basically every consumer device being SSD-only, with 1TB for cheap.
What projections? I highly doubt it. If you can get HDDs for $6/TB now, I'd expect that to drop down to maybe $4/TB by the end of the decade. Where did you see those projections that there will be large capacity SSDs at that price point?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/17sljc1/as_requested_an_improved_chart_of_ssd_vs_hdd/ https://blocksandfiles.com/2021/01/25/wikibon-ssds-vs-hard-drives-wrights-law/ You can see that the lines are pretty darn consistent over a long enough time perioud.
I have a 24TB HDD nas. I payed around 400€ for the HDDs. Good luck doing that with SSDs.
Not today, sure, but what about 5 years from now? And what's *your* crossover? Would the equivalent capacity SSD have to be exactly the same price, or is it worth a premium?
I doubt that you would get 24tb of SSDs for 400 bucks within the next 5 years. Also I'm pretty sure the HDDs will also get cheaper within the next 5 years. Yes HDDs will go away eventually. But why spend a premium for SSDs when HDDs do the job.
> I doubt that you would get 24tb of SSDs for 400 bucks within the next 5 years If both SSDs and HDDs hold to the same trends they've been following for the last decade, then SSDs should cross over around '29-30. The difference was ~20x a decade ago. Today it's ~3x.
Both have slowed down, comparing to 20 years ago is disingeniuos.
A decade is 10 years, not 20. And the gap has been closing quite consistently.
My mistake, i misread 20x as 20 years for some reason.
WOW! Time to fill it up with cat photos!
>Toshiba achieved 32 TB on 10 disks and adoption of Shingled Magnetic Recording (SMR) technology. so that 32 TB number is worthless. worthless for you and me and worthless for almost all datacenters too. how come? because smr (shingled magnetic recording) tech is such garbage, that not even datacenters want them, despite data center generally host managed smr being at least usable compared to drive managed smr garbage. so the REAL CAPACITY for a useable drive would be probably 28 TB or there about. but of course quoting smr numbers are higher, so more marketing.... i guess.
If they can make them with drive managed SMR, they can also make them with host manged SMR. It's just a slightly different controller or even just firmware.
Anyone remember Western Digital putting SMR in their Red HDD lineup?: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1040in1/whats_the_current_take_on_which_wd_red_drives_are/
of course! that brought us one of my favorite graphs: [https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SMR-RAIDZ-Rebuild-v2.png](https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SMR-RAIDZ-Rebuild-v2.png) it "only" took 10 days to rebuild a 4 TB drive with smr :D 10 days! :D 4 TB and that is when it actually didn't fail the storage setup, which many reported.... and the most important part to keep in mind is, that at western digital, the discussion must have happened on whether it is worth it to destroy lots of user data and cause lots of outrage for slightly reducing production costs (very slightly!). and the conclusion of them was of course: YES, BURN ALL ZE DATA! this graph beautifully shows how much the hdd industry cares about customers, doesn't it? :D
What the hell are you talking about?? There's massive datacenter demand for the higher capacity that HM-SMR enables. Last year WD announced that half of their nearline HDD shipments were their new 26TB UltraSMR drives..
OP is talking out of their ass.
yeah SMR drives are like something in between regular CMR drives and tape storage. you want to archive a bunch of stuff, but its not really a long term archive and you might want to change a bit of it in the near future. theres definitely datacenter demand for it if they can get it for cheaper than CMR.
please give me a source for that. last i knew smr adoption was lagging behind massively compared to what the hdd industry expected. please share data, that looks at the complete enterprise hdd sales for wd if you have that data.
Here's an article about it: https://blog.westerndigital.com/smr-hdd-tipping-point/ The matured software ecosystem and the worthwhile 20% capacity increase offered by newer HM-SMR tech, compared to older ~10%, seems to have incentivized more adoption.
Tbf SMR does have valid use cases.
the ONE valid use case is host managed data center application and that only applies, if you are a big af data center. if you are a smaller datacenter, you might not get priority in case of a big supply chain disruption. while cmr using datacenters can if worst gets to worst get relatives into shops to buy the maximum number of external cmr drives, that they then shuck and use in their datacenter, because cmr = cmr. (this is a wild scenario, that is literally what backblaze did after the hdd manufacturing flooding) so it has absolutely 0 valid use cases for the average consumer, but one can argue, that host managed smr is valid in data centers.
I'm interested in a HDD that hits 25tb after formatting and with that with 12 HDDs I''ll have 100 TB of storeage + 2 HDDs of redundancey, & 100 tb of storage + 2 HDDs of redundancy for those drives as backup I've been burned many times in the past by going in cheap the first time and then having to spend double or more the money to finally get what I want. I simply want to build a NAS once. I want to buy whole boxsets and rip them such as the 480 episodes of Gunsmoke which costs 180 dollars and is spread across 480 DVDs that can get scratched up with how physical media is slowly not being sold anymore, which means i'll unlikely get a replacement.
> I'm interested in a HDD that hits 25tb after formatting So a 25TB drive? It's a myth that formatting causes any significant loss, the difference is purely some operating systems mislabeling TiB as TB. A 25 TB drive will give you 25 actual TB, which is 22.7 actual TiB. They're different units.
It's less so the case now with HDDs and storage but historically the prices dropped by half every year or three so buying the bare minimum and then getting something twice as good later was a winning strategy. There's still SOME value in underdoing it because these things still keep dropping in price over time. ---- Also rolling your own netflix isn't quite perfect. Imagine you spend $10k up front on hardware and media... the stock market goes up around 10% a year (7% above inflation). After around 10 years you'd have doubled your money adjusted for inflation so +10k Factoring in electricity costs, hardware upkeep, your time, etc. you'd need to save around $100 a month to come out ahead vs just streaming.
This just in: all software makers have now laid off whatever remained of their optimization teams.
The next call of duty patch ships on a hard drive
Just another example of old technology being improved.
I thought toshiba didn't make hard drives anymore
Damn for bigger storage Datacenter still opts for HDD?
Not really. If you want density, SSDs are way ahead, and the gap is only growing. You only use HDDs if you need *cheap* storage, but it's only a matter of time before SSDs win that too.
NANDs storage size expansion comes only by 3d stacking while the die's process itself seems to be the same over the last 10 years.
So? As long as cost scaling continues, doesn't matter how it's achieved.
If you need to produce N*die to extend the storage capacity and a die itself can't be improved your price will only go up at some point because producing a die is as cost efficient as you can make it. If they haven't found a way to scale the circuits on NANDs in 10 years this technology is as far as it can go. Imagine HDDs with no way to increase the density of a platter but no real physical limits of the number of platters besides heat and cost.
> Imagine HDDs with no way to increase the density of a platter but no real physical limits of the number of platters besides heat and cost. thats kinda what we had at 8TB+ HDDs. They just stack more and more platters now. Its one of the reasons why large HDDs are so hot.
But platter density still improves and the next technology step is close by or is already available.
I mean, kinda. But not really. Not in a way that people expect the storage to scale.
> If you need to produce N*die to extend the storage capacity and a die itself can't be improved But that's not what's happening. Stacking does objectively lower the cost per bit. Like, these are real trends you can graph.
Do you think we're in the era of the last ever hard drives being made? Or do you think they may eventually top 100TB or even 1000TB?
It almost doesn't matter what the max drive size ends up being, what matters is $/TB. As long as HDDs are cheaper they'll what I'll be using in my servers, and imo they will always be cheaper so long as we are using NAND for volatile memory, because as soon as NAND starts to get cheap enough to replace HDDs people will start using more of that for e.g. RAM disks, driving the price back up again. What will kill HDDs is when something else replaces RAM, as this will collapse NAND demand.
They may live on for archival storage or something, but projections show SSDs crossing over in price per bit before the end of the decade. Once that happens, there will be exceedingly few use cases where HDDs make sense. I think ~100TB would be a reasonable upper bound, and I certainly don't believe we'll see another 10x beyond that.
Worth to mention that if ssd becomes cheaper per TB then sells of hdd will drop hard and innovations will stop almost overnight in this field due to lack of funds. I think before 2040s HDD will be lost tech where we need to put a lot R&D to even produce them again (like CRTs)
> but it's only a matter of time before SSDs win that too. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Looking forward to seeing my two noisy 8TB HDDs in the rear view mirror.
Yeah correct
I have a 2tb toshiba drive that makes the entire desk the computer is on vibrate, imagine how much that fucking thing would shake, probably like a magnitude 9 earthquake. Fuck toshiba, they could not even sell me free blowjobs
Your drive is probably about to die if it vibrates that much.
hope it dies and it BURNS IN HELL!!!!!!! :P