460
This new 40TB hard drive from Seagate is just the beginning—50TB is coming fast!
(www.techradar.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
460 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
71396 readers
5176 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
You'd still put the 40TB drives in a raid? But eventually you'll be limited by the number of bays, so larger size is better.
Of course, because you don't want to lose the data if one of the drives dies. And backing up that much data is painful.
depends on a lot of factors. If you only need ~30TB of storage and two spare RAID disks, 3x 40TB disks will be much more costly than 6x 10TB disks, or even 4x 20TB disks.
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.
I upgraded my 7 year old 4tb drives with 14tb drives (both setups raid1). A week later, one of the 14tb drives failed. It was a tense time waiting for a new drive and the 24 hours or so for resilvering. No issues since, but boy was that an experience. I've since added some automated backup processes.
Yes this and also scrubs and smart tests. I have 6 14TB spinning drives and a long smart test takes roughly a week, so running 2 at a time takes close to a month to do all 6 and then it all starts over again, so for half to 75% of the time, 2 of my drives are doing smart tests. Then there's scrubs which I do monthly. I would consider larger drives if it didn't mean that my smart/scrub schedule would take more than a month. Rebuilds aren't too bad, and I have double redundancy for extra peace of mind but I also wouldn't want that taking much longer either
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.
These are literally only sold by the rack to data centers.
What are you going on about?