HDDED

techpowerup.com/255181/hard-drive-shipments-expected-to-drop-nearly-50-percent-yoy-in-2019

>"SSDs are a meme", they said
>"You'll continue on buying and using HDDs until at least 2028", they said

Attached: HDDOVER.jpg (1703x895, 216K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=smartos
distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=xigmanas
distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=xstreamos
wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS
packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/admin/zfsutils-linux
packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/zfs-initramfs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

NOOOO

Attached: 1539498515913.gif (324x227, 2.46M)

normies paying monthly rent for movies & music has doomed the HDD industry

Cuck.

people like you are why optical media clung on for so long

blurays and cds are goat you streamnigger

And I will, until SSD 5TB hit $100 range. By that time, we'll see 20TB HDD for $150.

Western Digital has Sandisk but Seagate is fucking done.

You DO know and fully understand there'd be ~60TB SSDs by 2022, right? And 1TB of quality NVMe is dirt-cheap nowadays, EVEN in MLC (not QLC or TLC).

>supporting any "bullshit as a service" business
>ever
Honestly you deserve to be gassed if you do this.

Attached: 1536989318789.jpg (216x157, 11K)

That's why they bought sandisk

How much longer until SSDs are 1:1 in cost or cheaper per GB than HDDs?

I'll believe it when I see it. Chances are we'll be stuck with $500 5TB SSD until 2024.

They've already shown fully working prototypes of 60TB, 100TB, and EVEN 200TB SSDs roughly a YEAR AGO, you dumb fuck. This shit is not growing in incremental steps like with HDDs, but exponentially. And we ALREADY been having 16TB SSDs (Fixstars and etc, DDG it up) in an enterprise segment as far back as 2016, you dumb fuck.

kill yourself you subhuman digital straming goyim slave shit chugger.

Yup. I have 5tb onedrive. I finally ditched my last hdd. Now Im only running a single 1TB m. 2.

60 TB SSD was unveiled 3 years ago. 16 TB SSD 4 years ago. 1 TB SSD over 10 years ago. We only now have 1 TB SSD 10 years later at $100.

The only reason HDD brought higher capacity to consumer was WD founder understood the need for porn. Gookshits don't know that and they don't want to bring in the higher capacity SSD. They care more about exploiting the profit.

Pretty sure most estimates put it at like 2021-2022, parity is still quite a ways off. But those are just estimates, nobody knows for sure.

"Trickle down" from enterprise to end user with SSDs is going extreeeemely slow. We're only just barely getting consumer 4TB SSDs, years after they've been available in the enterprise segment.

The simple fact is, the overwhelming majority of people don't need a lot of storage anymore. Normies get their movies from Netflix and Amazon, they get their music from Spotify, and all their pictures are stored on Instagram, Facebook, or Google Drive.

Bullshit as a service is the future. This include games. Get ready for hell.

Attached: 1543389033261.jpg (1200x798, 257K)

WHY
WHY ARE YOU WASTING MONEY ON SSDS
YOU CAN GET 4 TB FOR $100
Why are you being such sheeple, spending 2x/3x/4x that on an SSD? You don't need "speed" that's only 2x faster at loading a file.

>some cuckcuckgo fag calling out anyone else

>new HDDs are noisebombs
>SSDs are expensive and when they break, they do so much worse than hdds in most cases

All is dust

>You don't need "speed"

Attached: RPCS3JANUARY2019AMDZENDOMINATIONINTELDED.jpg (1548x816, 424K)

the reboot times and program install times

>running the CPU at a higher clock speed with an ssd
>"lmao ssds are faster"
Cool "comparison" bro

Learn comprehension, retard.

only like 15% of ps3 games are playable with rpcs3

How often are you rebooting or installing? You don't need an SSD.

>rebooting
sometimes like 10 times in a row if I'm working on an overclock

>installing
updating windows or visual studio takes like 3 seconds now. I'm now no longer tempted to delay them

>3600-some individual titles released during console's official lifespan and support time
>RPCS 3 currently has 3050-some of them in a regularly tested base
>out of those 3050-some, roughly 1260 are already fully playable
>pic-related

Attached: H8RSREKT.png (858x162, 1.06M)

Why do you need an SSD if you can just run RAID?

Kind of makes sense. At least one SSD is basically a must-have in any modern computer, HDDs are too slow to run an OS and frequently used programs off of. HDDs are only required nowadays for bulk storage since they have the advantage in terms of $/TB.

I personally still use HDDs in my NAS and will continue to do so while they are cheaper for storage purposes. My next capacity expansion will probably involve 8TB+ drives, I very much doubt those will be SSDs.

>Second half of the year of our lord two thousand and nineteen
>There are still people existing out there that are falling to the RAID meme, instead of just ZFSing the flying fucks out of their archiving/media/hoarding system

Attached: CREATURA.jpg (1479x651, 567K)

does that mean cheaper HDDs or more expensive HDDs?

What is ZFS? I've never heard of it. Granted, I'm like 15 years out of date on computer technology.

Cheaper 1tb+ HDDs, more expensive

wrong

Less demand, less supply means higher prices

its RAM FIXING TIME BOIS

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS

tl;dr version: it's a file system that's a full RAID in on itself by default, so you literally don't have to do anything. And it has de facto most strongest integrity and parity on the market to date. Imagine installing an OS, but using RAID 6+ as a default file management from the get-go.

That's not due to SSD, but to multithread optimization.

Is there a userland implementation on FUSE or whatever that usable on Windows?

$hitblows cannot into ZFS. Never could.

Comprehension. Learn it, retard.

This is a HDD/SSD thread. Not a speed of cheetah or how fast your can take a shit.

Are you retarded or something? There's less demand for any HDD that isn't 1tb+. That's why the prices will go up.

>Not compatible with Windows
And thus we all use RAID, nerd.

>he doesnt know price fixing scams

It IS compatible witn $hitblows, it's just that Micro$hit REFUSES to implement full support for it.

RPCS3 is amazing, but playable just means you can play from start to finish. Important effects can be missing, framerates can be low, and there can still be some glitches. There's a difference between the playable category and actually having high-quality emulation.

Well, not gonna lie, while price are getting closer, it still makes more sense economically to get a smallish(250-500GB) hdd for system+apps and put everything else on a hdd.
Taking a look, right now, the most I can get for the cost of my 5TB hdd is a 1TB ssd.
Or, you could get a 240GB ssd+a 3TB HDD and get the best of both worlds.

This is a dark time for digital hoarders

No, "Playable" is a state of almost-perfect game. I've played through the entirety of FolksSoul/Folklore, Persona 5, and Ni No Kuni, and, aside from a couple very minor graphical glitches (a couple pixels offset, or flickering shadows/textures), all three games were almost completely intact the way they are on the original hardware. And that's while playing with 60 FPS patches and higher internal res (4K). What you're describing, is "Ingame" state.

Let's be honest, nobody in his right mind would install an os on a hdd. So I guess the loss is the amount of people that never ever use more than a few hundred Gigabytes in their PC. And I believe it's the vast majority of 'normal users'.

>Taking a look, right now, the most I can get for the cost of my 5TB hdd is a 1TB ssd
Considering the speed general ease-of-use discrepancy, 1TB equals 8TB HDD in all honesty by the factor of general everyday use. The amount of space is smaller, sure, but due to speed and responsiveness this 1TB of space will be utilized much more often than a 4TB or 8 TB drive will be addressed to. HDDs are still the king of long-term offline storage, like in a case of "wrote shit on it, then unplugged it and put it into a closet/on a shelf", but if a case of everyday usage with a constantly powered up device - SSDs utterly obliterate HDDs.

Nah, "Playable" means the game is playable with few or no issues. Frame rate depends on the hardware you have of course, for RPCS3 it's pretty much just CPU, assuming you have a decent graphics card. RPCS3 is still pretty demanding but a "Playable" title will achieve 100% speed on good hardware, or may even run at higher FPS (say, 60) than it does on an actual PS3.

It's like, your opinion, man.
I fail to understand what you're doing with your shit that would make you feel like that.
Sometimes I install a game on my ssd to see if it's any better, and it's not, except some cringe cases.
You must be spending your time uninstalling and deleting shit while I just don't give a fuck and am just waiting for it to be full. At the end of the day, 1 TB is still just 1 TB.
When it's full, if ssds are still more expensive/TB, then I'll just buy another one.
I'll go for a 5400rpm model because 7200rpm is useless now.

forgot link, of course.

>I install a game on my ssd to see if it's any better, and it's not
You're literally lying out of your ass.

SPINNING RUSTING DISK KEKS ON SUICIDE WATCH.

Depends on the game, really.
95% of the time it's only a bit longer loading times.
Only games that actively access the disk while in game show real improvement, and we're talking open-world shit.
And even then it's not really true because that's only the case for poorly coded ones.

Apex felt really good after an SSD upgrade, but I honestly think the bad performance before is just because of bad code like you say

>What is ZFS
REEEEEEE

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (516x402, 40K)

Shhh, no tears.

Microsoft's answer to ZFS is called ReFS.
Only available in Win 10 Pro for Workstations (not regular Win 10 Pro), Win 10 Enterprise, and Win 10 Education (not Win 10 Pro for Education, that's not the same thing as Win 10 Education.)
Windows can't boot from it. Only available on non-OS volumes. Works with Storage Spaces for redundancy.

I'm not a streamnigger so yes I'll keep my HDDs for awhile longer. Can't wait for HAMR 20TB drives.

>The only reason HDD brought higher capacity to consumer was WD founder understood the need for porn.
Nah, it's because of surveillance and enterprise storage. At work our firewall logs around 30GB of traffic per day. That's over 10 TB per year and that needs to be redundant storage with backups. And that's just one appliance, doesn't even count our cameras and file stores.

>Microsoft's answer to ZFS is called ReFS
ReiserFS is good, but it's nowhere even remotely near to be as good as ZFS is. No other file system is. ZFS is it's own, completely unique, self-contained thing. No other file system operates the way ZFS does.

ReFS isn't ReiserFS. The former is a Microsoft creation. The latter was made by some dude who had to drop the project because he killed his wife.

Dumb retard. 10 TB HDD wasn't invented yesterday. It was invented 10 years ago back when internet traffic was 1/5 as large as today.

The only people that use the highest capacity HDDs immediately after they are available are customers that need extremely dense storage infrastructures which is limited to scientific applications (e.g. CERN) or government surveillance (e.g. NSA). They certainly were not created for porn, except in the cases where the NSA is logging your porn traffic but that's indirect.

Zoomers are retarded. Western Digital releases their commercial HDD not for government use but for consumer use.

Yeah, a 60TB SSD that uses QLC or whatever even worse successor it has so the thing shits the bed down to sub-HDD speeds once the microscopic cache fills up

It makes Micro$hit even more retarded, then.

There isn't really a difference. If you want a 14TB drive you're getting "enterprise" Seagate or HGST regardless. They don't even make "consumer" drives with that kind of storage. Go find me a 14TB WD Green, I wont wait.

say I have 4 drives with ZFS... what happens if one of them fails and it contains data?

That 60TB prototype they've shown a couple years back was MLC, you dumb fuck. A 60TB of MLC (actually eMLC) in a typical 3.5" drive form-factor, to the boot.

That's because more people are using phones in stead of PCs.

Nothing. "Silvering", a ZFS' method of rebuilding, is absolutely automatic and insanely good/solid/reliable. Just put another 4TB in there (ANY 4TB) and it'll start building up immediately. Absolute parity and integrity. Except, entire file system is built in this RAID 6-like way, so it's super-fucking-solid and reliable, unlike the RAID methodology itself.

It doesn't matter what the unveil showed years ago, when it reaches consumers it'll be using the dirt cheapest memory with a tiny ultraspeed QLC cache, just like most the reasonably priced 2TB SSDs now.

Depending on how you set it up, ZFS is functionally similar to RAID. RAID-Z1 is similar to RAID-5 having one parity disk, RAID-Z2 is similar to RAID-6 having two parity disks, RAID-Z3 has three parity disks. The difference is that ZFS offers a bunch of features you don't normally get by just using mdadm software RAID or a hardware RAID controller, and RAID-Z addresses some issues that normal RAID has.

>green
Green = archive

thanks!

just a quick followup... I read somewhere that you need a shitton of RAM to run ZFS, that still true?
also, is there a distro that makes ZFS file servers easy to setup/use?

>ZFS is functionally similar to RAID
I never said it isn't. I've CLEARLY said it's LITERALLY "as if RAID 6 was applied by the default, at the very installation of an OS".

>is there a distro that makes ZFS easy to setup/use?
distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=smartos

distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=xigmanas

distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=xstreamos

As you can see, all of these are not Linux. Because, out of ALL distros that Linux community had created throughout all these years, not even a single one has full ZFS support. Because Linuxcucks are anal fags and retards.

>that still true?
1GB per 1TB of storage is recommended.

lmao why is there still shitposting on SSDs? They are objectively better than a HDD for your OS, there is no refuting this. It's not even the boot-up times, it's the overall responsiveness. Do you even basic OS shit you turbofaggots?

ZFS on Linux works great these days. Solaris obviously supports it well because that's where it originated. There had been concerns about license compatibility with the GPL for a long time so it wasn't included in most distros. Now that Canonical paid a bunch of lawyers to say it's okay and it's included in the Ubuntu repos, it's getting a lot more support.

I never said you didn't, I was answering his question. Calm down user, go drink some tea or something.

>They are objectively better than a HDD for your OS, there is no refuting this
No one ever argued this. It's the long-term offline/unplugged state storage at which SSDs still lose heavily even to the shittiest of HDDs nowadays. Sure, data retention improved greatly in the last 10 years (from "barely 30 days" to "roughly 8 months", cell charge integrity-wise), but it's still nowhere near to how long a typical HDD can retain recorded data, with no loss whatsoever, while in a state of "being put on a shelf". SSDs are constantly being improved on this field, but they still have a very long road to go before they'll be able to match HDDs or Tape, by this particular parameter. I'd say SSDs need at least 5 years of development and improvement on this field before they'll finally be able to fully preserve stored data, with no leakage at all, for time course of a whole 1 year (365 days or 12 months). And SSDs that'll be able to hold data for full 2 years straight we'll definitely won't see anytime sooner than 2028 at the earliest.

>ZFS on Linux works great these days
There's no ZFS on Linux. Like, at all. Solaris is not Linux.
And there's no official ZFS in Ubuntu, so far. Not in the core, that is.

>There's no ZFS on Linux. Like, at all.
Yes there is, and there has been for years.
"The ZFS filesystem is available for Ubuntu as either a FUSE module or a native kernel module. The kernel module is provided by default. "
wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS
packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/admin/zfsutils-linux
packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/zfs-initramfs

It works great.

>Solaris is not Linux.
No shit.

>Not in the core, that is.
Wrong.

If Ubuntu supported ZFS, it'd be mentioned at DistroWatch. But it's not.

DistroWatch is outdated garbage. Ubuntu has had kernel support for ZFS for years. You can try it yourself, it's literally just "apt install zfsutils-linux"

FUCK OFF NIGGER CUNT SSDS SERVES NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN BOOT DRIVE AND TO PUT THOSE NIGGER ASS HALF PUT TOGETHER PROGRAMS FROM ADOBE THAT FAGGOTS LIKE YOU USE AND THOSE SHIT RETARDED FUCKING GAYMEN THAT CONSUMES 50+GB AND HAVE 5 MINUTES LOADING SCREENS BECAUSE "MUH MASSIVE OPEN WORLD" FUCKING MEME FUCK OFF SPINNING RUST STILL IS THE WAY TO GO FOR LONG TERM LOW COST PER TB AND FUCKING SSDS WITH LONG TERM RELIABILITY IS A SCAM I DOUBT YOU CAN BOOT ANY WELL USED SSD FROM 10 YEARS AGO AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON FUCKING MULTIPLE STANDARDS FOR CONNECTION INTERFACE

Attached: 1553474637898.jpg (640x640, 94K)

Not technically required, but since it uses RAM for read cache the more you can give it the better it can perform. Cached data in RAM is also compressed so you get more effective GBs.

That's a FreeNAS meme rule and is loose guidance at most.

>hurr durr no ZFS on Linux
Ignore the turbotards spamming this

But if SSDs are worse at not being used, that's even more reason to actually use them.
Checkmate rustfags.

Attached: AYF.jpg (500x375, 41K)

That's literally what I've said here .