>WD to launch 100TB HDDs by 2029https://videocardz.com/newz/wd-to-launch-100tb-hdds-by-2029-enough-to-store-all-call-of-duty-games-50-times
It feels insane to put that much data into one drive. Even with multi-drive redundant array, rebuilding it will take ages.
>>108068047>WD to launch 100TB HDDs by 2029But not for the goyim.
>>108068177>rebuilding it will take ageswith SMR the universe will die before it's finished
>>108068047How would such a drive even be usable. HDD speed has not really increased, as such 100TB is utterly impractical to backup.
People are hating, but I'd enjoy this a lot.
>>108068047It will hold 1 Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 14 in 2029
>>108068047So if you buy and install 10 of them, you could have a 1 Petabyte gaming PC, that would be crazy.
>>108068047I'm glad HDDs are still relevant. Buying one for sure at some point.
>100 TB>HDDif a drive fails, would an array finish rebuilding by winter if I start in spring?
>>108068203>>108069963literal mouth breathing retards
>100TB HDDsusecase?
>>108068047and they're finally increasing bandwidth toointriguing stuff
>>108071203Storing 100TB of data.
>>108071250Obsolete e-waste
Practically write only memory.
>>108068047In three years that won't be enough to store all the Call of Duty games.
>new improved tech>4chan only shits on ityou guys are miserable
>>108073711>kike vermin inflate the price of tech products to the point that the average person can no longer afford them>people stop giving a shit about the shiny new thing>surprised Pikachu faceFuck off, faggot.
>>108073739You only see the immediate effects and you are making errors of attribution.
>>108068047Can we please get a faster interface speed, then? Sucking the ocean through a straw at this point.
>>108068177Yeah. Getting 100TB HDDs is certainly cool but unless read / write speeds improve several times over it's going to become more and more of a problem.I have a RAID 6 using 16TB drives, rebuilding the array when I added more drives to it took like a solid 48h and the monthly read check takes like 24h. If these 100TB drives would only support the same speed it would take 300h (12.5 days) to do an array rebuild on them. I guess that's not totally unworkable but it's getting pretty crazy. Sequential read / write speed needs to go up in proportion to the capacity increase or drives will become impractical to work with as capacity keeps going up.I guess we will have to see if their claim of 2x higher sequential throughput pans out or not. That would still put a hypothetical RAID rebuild with such drives in the 1 whole week ballpark which still isn't great, but it would be a start.
>>1080707115.8 days empty to full at 200MB/sec. Not great but not actually unreasonable.
>>108071203Archives. Say you're a YouTuber. You shoot in 4k. Couple cameras rolling. Not unreasonable that you'd be generating 1GB/sec of data. You don't want to throw away all your source data. Record to CFPro, edit on SSD, dump to HDD when done.
>>108073893why are you raidfags projecting these fearmongering raid humiliation rituals onto others?
>>108073936I'm not sure what you're talking about and I feel like you're the one projecting some shit, but I actually have no idea what the fuck you're thinking.I say this with the assumption that you are not stupid enough to believe that sequential speeds when using the drive in an array are somehow different than when using it without one, right? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and think you're not an absolute retard. The problem remains exactly the same no matter what you use the drive for. If it dies and you have to restore from backup onto a new one it still takes just as long because the bottleneck is how fast the drive writes, not whatever software level bullshit you have on top.With a backup restore it's going to be even worse, because with RAID you at least still have the array operational even while it's restoring, but with a backup restore you only have the drive fully usable again after the entire process is complete.
