$500

>RAID 1 IS PARITY
what did he mean by this

>SSDs are less than $0.10 per GB
>people still buy caveman HDD tech
You get what you deserve

Well he's not technically wrong. Each drive is equal to the other in terms of information stored, the parity is all focused in an entire drive though, as opposed to being stripped across multiple drives via parity bits.

>Is it really cheaper?
Yes I bought 3 for $569 after tax
The 8TB externals have a better $ per GB than the 10TB ones

>2k for 14 TB
>never fails
>don't lose any data

Attached: 1522256343647.jpg (350x350, 27K)

Thanks for the info user. How hard is it to open these things? I opened one about 10 years ago and I had to destroy the outer casing to get the drive out. Like it was intentionally designed not to be shucked or something.

The 10TB aren't on sale anymore the 8TB are

bestbuy.com/site/wd-easystore-8tb-external-usb-3-0-hard-drive-black/5792401.p?skuId=5792401

Its not hard to open you just need a few guitar picks and a hard plastic card
youtube.com/watch?v=7XyUHcaJLLE

You mention the statistical likelihood of a drive failure, then go on to recommend a solution that has much higher odds of a disk failure

these drives were never meant to be used by average consumer. you put many of these in a raid. you obviously get like 3x 3-4TB drives and set them up in raid if you don't want to lose data.

Exactly. You can't buy one. You have to buy at least two, and RAID them. Then when one dies you have a nice little $500 to cough up another one.

You guys are talking about raid as if its backup. Raid 1 with a backup should be good enough.

does anyone actually use these? i hear people say they're good but i can't seem to find anyone testing m-disc compatible disc drives or different types of m-discs.

Attached: 1521663408431.jpg (1280x720, 76K)

What will the backup be, then?

True, but that's why I mentioned how you could still easily budget in enough data to have two drive redundancy while still having ~14TB of space.

That doesn't stop people from thinking it's a good idea for consumer use.

When you're dealing with 14TB of data RAID1 and RAID5 aren't enough desu.

You say RAID1 as if you can't put three 14TB disks in a 14TB RAID1

>That doesn't stop people from thinking it's a good idea for consumer use.
if you're rich enough for these drives you're probably smart enough to buy them only if you really have to.

>tfw no 5D optical data storage

True again, but at that point you are spending $1500. You'd be better off buying 6x8TB instead. Cheaper and you get twice as much space while still having two drive redundancy.
The costs scale too much with 14TB drives. These only make sense if you absolutely need as much space as possible per drive.

Yeah no argument from me. These 14TB drives are mainly for people who can buy 6+ of them. My arrays are built from 4TBs.

O P T A N E
P
T
A
N
E

What's the cheapest form of 14TB of storage?

two of these
bestbuy.com/site/wd-easystore-8tb-external-usb-3-0-hard-drive-black/5792401.p?skuId=5792401

so basically the one in the OP will be cheaper once the sale ends

You can literally make that excuse about everything

If you enjoy losing 14TB of data at some point in your life, yes.

raid 5

Minimum of $1500 if you're using 14TB drives.

These are on sale so often that it might as well be the actual price

buy 2gb ones

>what is redundancy
>what is space saving
retard

Redundancy is not backups.

So?

If you want redundancy you'll need another drive. If you want to backup the data on that redundant storage you need at least 14TB of more space.

>chown 14tb of data
oops lol

Pfft like I've ever accidentally fucked up data.

I really need to have some kind of protection so I don't do it again.

20 years ago:
>$500
>lose 200MB of data
>What's the point exactly?

>10 years ago:
>$500
>lose 1TB of data
>What's the point exactly?

now:
>$500
>lose 14TB of data
>What's the point exactly?

10 years later:
>$500
>lose 140TB of data
>What's the point exactly?

I still can't see the problem.

>What's the point exactly?
storage density, obviously.

I don't know how to tell you this but sometimes the correct answer is temporally dependent

>the absolute state of Jow Forums
When will you retards stop pretending to know shit about tech? 14TB drives are useful as fuck for servers. They aren't meant to store your anime.

Also power usage. Halving the number of drives isn't too much when it's like 4-8 drive

>servers
>using HDD
LMAO. Enterprise has access to SSD with higher data densities than HDD will ever be capable of.

>1x14TB + whateverx14TB as redundancy vs 7x2TB + at least 7x2TB as redundancy
Idiots.

>not understanding that different people want different things
If someone wants a NAS with 12-16 TB of storage, then they're gonna use a bunch of 4-6 TB drives in raid 5 or 6. If someone wants a NAS with 40-60 TB of storage, then they aren't gonna fuck around with a gorillion small drives because that's retarded, they're gonna go for a few of these 14 TB bad boys.

>Doesn't know how parity bits and striping work
LOLE

Of course they do, but not every server needs SSDs, and you'd be hard pressed to find a company willing to shell out SSD density prices unless they actually needed the performance offered from them.

The density alone of flash storage generally isn't enough of a reason to pay up for it, if you need density AND performance, of course you'll go with SSDs, but if you just need high density cheap storage, $500 for 14TB is pretty hard to beat.

True, but not every company will spend $400,000 on storage when they could throw together some hard-drives in the same rack for $10,000

>at least
Ignore that. It's 7x2TB + at least 1x2TB, at least two drives in total, against at least 2x14TB.

>one drive redundancy with two drives is the same as one drive redundancy with six drives
You are absolutely retarded.
RAID 1 is retarded btw. Just put the second drive in an external enclosure and rsync your data periodically. Different usage patterns = the two drives aren't likely to fail at the same time.

>having shit tons of low capacity drives instead of having one big drive plus redundancy/backup is a good thing
yeah, you guys are retarded.

>redundancy/backup
What did he mean by this?

Attached: 1540462971911.jpg (1424x1072, 150K)

Mirror

Redundancy and backup, what are you not understanding, brainlet?

They're not interchangable WHITEBOY

Of course they aren't.

what kind of failure and data?

>one 14TB drive plus backup vs seven 2TB drives or five 3TB drives plus backup

Attached: 1494156884403.jpg (391x311, 132K)

computers explained did a good YouTube video on them

The point is market analysis. Price will drop when they have an even bigger drive out.

What a shit idea. That 6x3 setup has a far higher chance of failing catastrophically than 2x14 in raid 1. And neither solution has a backup. The average user who absolutely needs 14TB (nobody) would actually be best and most conveniently served by having one 14TB disk in their machine, and one outside their machine (unplugged unless in use) for a weekly backup. You're at a grand now, and any complex shit a user will just ignore has been eliminated.

>Seagate
>S
>E
>A
>G
>A
>T
>E
God have mercy on us
What Jow Forums have become now adays

Don't parrot shit from the past. Seagate is no less reliable than WD in 2018.

Nothing wrong with Ironwolf. They are great even.

yeah, i saw it a while ago but it's the only in depth video about m-discs out there. i'd sure like to see people test other makes of disc drives/discs.

They got their shit together

Poor user, remember Jesus still loves you.

aside from seagate do hard drives actually fail all that much anymore? it seems theres like a 7 year threshold before anything starts to happen and by then you can just get a new one and transfer everything over

Seagates top the charts as the most reliable drives nowadays. This seagate is unreliable meme came from a bad batch of 1.5TB drives.

ive had a WD black drive since 2010 that still works fine while my seagate i bought in 2015 died in 4 months

>le my seagate died in x months post.

Attached: 1534275150021.png (399x400, 13K)

Just like all the other manufacturers they have like a 1-4% failure rate for the first year. It drops after that, then starts to rise again as the drive reaches EOL.

I have one of those 1.5TB drives (from what, like 2011?). It still works fine. The failure rate was absurd but some of them still worked.

Random chance my dude. Read the first part of my post: Any disk you buy has a small chance of being a lemon. Once you've put enough hours on it to ensure it's a good one, it's likely to last a very long time. Warranties exist for this very reason.

I bought one last week but they're slow as shit. I've also knocked it over a few times and now I'm worried that it's gonna go JUST.

time to buy 8 of them for some RAID action

seagate really shilling hard today

fuck seagate and fuck niggers

They're cheaper and they work okay. By the numbers, they're a better value than WD. So the only reason to not buy a Seagate is brand loyalty, which is ALWAYS retarded and is what (((they))) want.

The price/gb isn't much cheaper if you need the extra storage. If you consider the price of the included 32gb stick as $5 then the 10TB ends up being cheaper it's so close.

>. This seagate is unreliable meme came from a bad batch of 1.5TB drives.

Look up the Seagate ST3000DM001 nicknamed the "Doom" drive it was so bad

Oh and have a relevant article

techreport.com/news/29670/seagate-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-3tb-drive-failures

Teaching you to make backups.

Whoa. And I have 2 Seagate 1.5TB drives that have lasted for 6 years.

Big fucking deal.

nice seagate shill but shucking WD reds is much cheaper and WD reds are much safer in the long run

>awesome computer hardware magazines from the golden era

where did we go wrong lads?

Attached: 1518837619674.jpg (350x350, 69K)

>not using SSD
What are you doing with your life

Attached: 1529139737605.jpg (1150x720, 163K)

>Shucking
Enjoy your binned drives and pain in the ass getting warranty work. Remember to save your shells, faggot.

is m-disc better or worse than getting a tape drive?
the actual space you can get with tape is much cheaper but I can't afford them drives
also is there any reccomended blu-ray internet drive in general? for burning and general use.

People have sent in the bare drive and got a full external back. Not that it doesn't take 5 mins to put them back together.

>where did we go wrong lads?
Pretty much everywhere 2bh.

my drives are flawless i only paid $140 for top tier 8tb WD red drives umad?

They're very different beasts and you're probably better off with M-Disc, unless your backups run in the double digits of terabytes.

my dream was to one day have a massive archive of blu-ray and dvd isos. also all the jav i can find.
but i cant afford it, so all those nice things will progressively become lost to the net.

There's a store in my town that sells Blu-rays really cheap, most are $5, so I just buy anything that looks interesting so I can rip it later when I have the space. Right now they have a Fast and the Furious Blu-ray box set with all 7 movies for $20