• Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Slow is relative.

      Are you trying to compile 1GB worth of code or load into memory 4GB of game at startup: absolutelly, they’re slow.

      Are you serving a compressed 1080p video file from your NAS to your media player over 100Mb/s ethernet: they’re more than fast enough. (Or to put things another way, trying to fit your home collection of media files on SSDs in yout NAS is probably not so smart as you can get almost 10x the storage for the same price and the bottleneck in that system isn’t the HDD)

      You’re not going to put a massive production database of a performance criticial system on an HDD but storing “just in case” in one your historic of RAW images files after you’ve processed them is probably the smart thing to do.

    • neidu2@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes. SSDs are still excellent for small form factor and speed, but for long term reliable storage in massive volumes, old fasion hard drives are only second to tape storage.

      Source: I am in charge of four 1.2PB storage clusters, each consisting of 144 10TB Toshiba drives. The systems write their output to 10TB tapes for data delivery.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Tapes themselves are cheaper but there’s also the upfront cost of the tape drive (we’re talking thousands).

      • umbraroze@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        And that there is the real crime. It’s a real shame no one’s making a tape drive at the consumer market price point. Tapes are a hell of a lot more convenient for backups and archival than the giant weird pile of storage formats we’ve seen over years.

      • AtariDump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Agreed and was looking for this comment.

        The medium is cheap but the device to read/write is pricy.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      For me, reliability is now the bottleneck.

      So many HDs are crapping out after about 5 years. Not saying SSDs are better, but I haven’t used any for storage. But it’s starting to feel like a subscription plan as I’m rotating hard drives in my server nearly every year now since 2018.

    • Fermion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Wendel from level 1 techs really likes the multi actuator spinning rust drives. You still wouldn’t use them for a boot drive, but they’re fast enough to saturate a sata connection, while still being much more dense than ssds. They can achieve 500MB/s sequential speeds, so they’re plenty fast for large file access. Most consumers should be using SSD’s but if you’re dealing with more than a couple terabytes, the best solution isn’t as straightforward.

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There’s not much price difference between SSDs and hard drives that are 1 TB or less. Larger than that, hard drives are still much cheaper.