HDD prices

What if we put the cloud into the cloud, but the cloud would be actually in your computer.

They were the future 7 years ago. They're the present for everyone other than the destitute today. 1TB of extremely fast storage that will likely still be working after I die for $300? Hell yes.

That being said, how big is the diffrence between an SSD and an HDD in speed?

In practice, at least double the speed and often around an order of magnitude greater.
For certain benchmarks, they can be multiple orders of magnitude greater.

Decreasing demand. lol storage? Just put it on a cloud nigga.

You must be new. HDDs die and need replaced like light bulbs. The extreme unreliability is we use RAID. You can expect to have to replace them every 2-5 years on average depending on use and quality. It's a pain in the ass if you work in a server room, replacing HDDs is a daily task, and having to rebuy them adds to the expense of using them.
SSDs are much better behaved, and their remaining lifespan can be automatically queried. Random failures of SSDs are very low which makes it easier to plan and schedule SSD replacements. RAID can be avoided for some workloads due to how predictable the drives are which saves a lot of money. Read-heavy workloads might never need a SSD replaced.
Absurdly huge. Especially with the NVM drives, but a desktop/gamer really doesn't need those and likely won't see the benefit.

Are you fucking stupid?
How do think the "cloud" stores data?

It's stored on dedicated storage servers with 10+ of these drives

Not sure if irony. The cloud isn't real fuckface

Hard drive prices have been shit ever since the Thailand floods.

And by that I mean it's not the overall cause, it was just a catalyst for the market to be fucked with, and continued to be fucked after it should've recovered.

nigga gaymers would see the most benefit
You tend notice a loading screen taking ten seconds to less than one.

don't archive anything use the cloud goyim

but really wait till SSD become even cheaper and stock up on them

NVMe mainly benefits server use cases where you increase transactions per second by several times. Gamers would at best just see decreased loading times but tend to not see them due to how poorly games are coded. Games usually read from the drive and upload to the card synchronously and that bottleneck kills almost all the performance benefit of having a high read speed.

As an example from plebbit, this measures the difference between a SSD and loading the whole game into a ramdrive. A NVMe SSD would be somewhere between the two. Some games will benefit from the increased read speed, most will not. Supposedly GTA V is the best case where load time is cut in half.

Of course it's irony you morons.

Can I store irony in the cloud?

Sure

The prices are kept up artificially. If they'd allow free market dynamics you'd get a 1TB hdd for like 20 bucks.

That being said, never use SSD if you plan on having full disk encryption. SSDs are a liability when it comes to possible stream leaking. There are tons of papers on this topic and everyone agrees that SSDs are not secure atm, even if they provide "built-in" encryption, which is a codeword for NSA READY®©

cloud storage is a viable option, cuckbeards. Redudancy + availablility.

given you understand how to encrypt your content while not using 3rd goyim software

You are hilarious user, keep posting.

Trust me I want to use SSDs for storage but I live in a third world country and hard drives already cost too much. I can't buy 12 TB in SSDs, too expensive. I like to archive everything I like, the internet will go to shit and I'd rather just get stuff now when it's available.

Im thinking of switching to those new budget western digital my passports with 1tb. theyre like 60 bucks. Slow but i dont care

Fucking assholes, it would had been so sweet to buy 5TB now for 100 bucks. This is what I thought at least a few years ago.

Well, at least hard drives will still have a purpose then besides being more affordable.

Who's everyone? And what's the threat model?

...

A typical HDD does ~100 IOPS, a good SSD does >100k IOPS

You don't have to use '>' at every line, my autistic friend.

It has all to do with a combination of less use and price manipulation.

We're probably never going to see 1TB+ hard drives under $100 any time soon. How else would they sell you prebuilts for $250?!

And don't get caught up in the faggots saying HDDs are "unreliable" for business. They spend for quality regardless of what medium they use. You can only expect ~5 years out of an SSD you use often anyway so this whole "one is less reliable than another" is a nonstarter because their reliability tends to be equal.

The future is SSDs, as much as I fucking hate it. But so long as the price to storage cost ratio is still in favor of HDDs that's what I'll buy.

I'd assume anyone who gave more than 10 seconds as to how to secure their data from potential invaders. So in general all of Holla Forums

[citation required]

>enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-hardware/ssd-vs.-hdd-performance-and-reliability-2.html
I couldn't find any benchmarks in my level of caring about arguments on the internet which is usually around the results I see immediately on the screen after using a search engine but this was the third result when searching for "ssd reliability"

And many harddrives have warranties less than five years

Please don't post if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

see

kys

You should take your own advice imo

Good SED drives (Intel, Samsung) are fine. Businesses with a lot more to protect than you do have looked into them and trust them.

Yes, but do they know how to read random articles that's two years old? Hmmm?

Well your opinions are terrible so I'll pass thanks. :^)

whatever you say amego.

You're a fool. My Intel X-25M I've had for 7+ years is still at 98% lifetime remaining despite being used for everything from frapsing every WoW raid, gopro video editing of diving in the pacific, gaming, and software development. While the X-25M was somewhat overbuilt (to counter range anxiety nitwits such as yourself), modern consumer-tier SSDs would do just as well due to the increased capacity. The only reason I'm replacing it today is at 160GB it's too small. It would have lasted me a lifetime.

I've had hard drives for well over 10 years and if not for neglect probably would have lasted much, much longer. I won't go so far as to say a lifetime, because only retards can see that far into the future. hint, that's you

Seriously you faggots just look like you're plugging for SSD companies. Put up some supporting evidence or shut up please.

I'd link you to Google's study that shows you're a retard but I'm reluctant to do so as it requires reading more than the conclusion and I don't feel like you're capable of that.
Google's study of SSD reliability in their datacenter showed that SSDs are much less likely to require repair/replacement than the HDDs in their datacenter. They were subjected to datacenter workloads far greater than a desktop user would produce and they still did great.
However, their stats on uncorrectable sector errors lump all SSDs from all vendors and all generations together (the paper was co-written by a Pajeet), which is the line the tech press used to claim that SSDs are more likely to experience data loss. The real story buried under that was that the difference in reliability between SSD vendors is massive:

...

wew

First of all, source. Come now, you had to expect I would ask.

And since I can't read the article because you've chosen not to share it with a very flimsy excuse I can only ask follow up questions. I won't, because that would be fucking retarded and I'd be at it all day, so I'll just ask the uppermost question in my mind:
Was Google using the best SSDs and if so, did they use similar HDDs?

In case you decide to duck me I dug into it a little bit. I found a pdf which might be it and a story too. Which unlike you I'll post because I'm not a flaming homosexual.

>datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/servers-storage/googles-ssd-experience-contradicts-flash-lab-results/95789.fullarticle
Just a little snippet.

I am reading the pdf now. I'm not seeing where they benchmark to HDDs or even where they mention the age of the device when it failed if it failed, I'm not that far along yet.

smh

...

Okay. So I finished reading the pdf which I presume was your supporting evidence since you wouldn't post it.

It's hard to say what exactly is "worst" for google, considering they have the money for some decent hardware, although if you take "a couple thousand days" aka 2000, you get roughly 5.5 years.

So I suppose if you're willing to fork over the dough and know what you're buying beforehand, and know the model they found lasted 15,000 days 41.7 years that they somehow knew with 7 year old drives, I suppose they are superior. For the record, they mention benchmarking against "traditional drives" but if they did I missed it.

Also
which is a red flag. But not too much of consequence I suppose.

Honestly I was just waiting for someone to post something to me wrong. Honestly why is that so hard to get around Holla Forums anymore?

hehehe stupid goy, why are you not using cloud storage eh... you do not need your own hardware, you can trust us you filhty piece of shii........ I mean goodest goyi...oops...... i mean most valued customer, here let me open a Onedrive account for you.

Hardware is becoming more expensive goy... but cloud is absolutely free hehehehehe

I got a wd black, those things are loud as hell. I'd say it is not worth the price. Seriously, you can't imagine how loud those fuckers are. You will probably wonder why I bought them, well I was going to buy a normal hdd, but you guys said it's slow and games would have long as loading times on it and instead told me to go for a wd black.

S C S I
C
S
I

It certainly does look like artificial manipulation, but I don't understand the why, who benefits from this?

HDD manufacturers considering you can count them on one hand.

...

tapes are for backup only dip shit

speak for yourself, I want a 10 TB for storage purposes I do not need it for muh games

I also have WD Black, yes it is loud but I can't hear it over my fans when my system is under heavy load.

What do you have that needs 10TB of storage? Do you have a hoarding problem?

It is easy to blow through HD space when dealing with 8k uncompressed videos.

contrary to popular belief, what gets posted on the internet does not stay there forever.

There are a few shows and movies that I store on my linux media centre.

A single 10TB drive isn't enough for video work at RED levels, the guys I know that do it use RAID for read speed and are closer to 100TB total storage. So again, what are you really planning to store? Hoarding Chinese cartoons?

It makes no sense to use HDDs for long-term archival. They break frequently and are expensive per byte. Pay one of the tape archival companies to store your shit long-term. They'll also manage redundancy for you.

If you consider around 5 years of active use frequent, when HDs are idle they don't ware much meaning when a HD that is hardly used can last decades.

But fast to search thorough.

...

Yes, I do. For a simple RAID 1 array of two drives you're going to be replacing a dead drive every 2.5 years. You'll find it's closer to 2 years for "active" drives in practice.
If you're doing that with popular drives like the 4TB WD caviar black that's $120 a year plus your time, $10/month. If you're doing that with "cheap" Seagates it's going to look not so cheap when you count the much higher replacement rate.
And then you still need an off-site backup solution anyway to prevent losing all your shit from fire or theft. It's just not worth it.

i have two 1TB drives from 2008 that I still use and have been working for 8 years straight with no issues.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

It is closer to 5 for quality HDs that you don't thrash, if you only get 2.5 years average you need more RAM to have more disk cache or a better file system. For backup purposes they last decades which is why there are many disk packs (that are just HD with removable platters like the image in ) with a number still working after over a quarter century after being retired from service.

There is a thing called networks, this is how the big boys done it since the 1960's, you transfer the backup across networks to a HD on a mainframe (today a server) off-site.

Is buying hard drives off ebay safe? I wanted to upgrade my thinkpad's and I'm paranoid of it having hidden shit installed inside of it.

amazon.com/Blue-Cache-Desktop-Drive-WD10EZEX/dp/B0088PUEPK/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1477185723&sr=1-2&keywords=1tb hard drive

youre fine

What's wrong with that?

HDDs need to go. if you want a good archival media, you don't want the spinning mechanical hardware inside (or you want the spinning part to be easily replaceable without data loss, like Blu-Ray)

I got a pretty silent system and I can basically hear it all the time unless I am playing something. Got a Fractal Define R5 case which is "sound dampened".

Use SSDs then.

HGST 4TB is around $100. One of the most reliable hard drives as well.

HGST MegaScale DC 4000.B HMS5C4040ALE640 (0F19847) 4TB Coolspin 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Enterprise Hard Drive

floppy disk renaissance when

How are they compared to wd? Here in Germany I find barely any information regarding them or seagate. Whenever I ask people they just tell me to get a WD instead.

...

backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/

Not him, but this speaks for itself.

macguild.org/raid.html

Stop posting that piece of crap. It was debunked long ago. The enclosures they used to test the drives induced early failures on them. Hence the skewed results.
ttp://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index.html

Archive you fucking faggot.

Works fine for me, must be you being a faggot

Stay in school.

If you have to ask you're either a lost cause or need to come be my boyslut / maid.

HGST used to be amazing (they were the spinoff of IBM's amazing Deskstar division). I'm not sure about now as all the buyers who care about reliability moved to SSDs years ago. The people at HGST probably just keep the lights on.

Try looking at the numbers. Backblaze is a company that does Cloud Backup that published their data on HD failures, on average around 50% of their HDs last up to their 5th year with around the 4th year is when failure rates start spiking for them. This contradicts the idea that you only get 2.5 years out of a HD.

It should also be noted that backblaze has poorly designed hard drive racks that likely increase the failure rate above what it should be.

And blackblaze mostly uses consumer grade HD rather the enterpriser grade.

Not this guy

But to add one more thing

Even if you don't put your computer to sleep or turn if off, your average desktop will be idle far more often meaning the heads won't be moving and you can set your HD to spin down after a given time (like an hour of no I/O).

Not saying that the article is bullshit, because it clearly makes good points, but it's loaded up with twaddle like,

Don't tell me you're one of the idiots who believes in WD Purples. That sentence is bullshit.

Not to mention that it talks about drives being pushed, "Far past their limits" which is also complete horseshit. What this guy would need to do is provide manufacturer provided specifications about how many I/O accesses or TB read/written each drive was specifically designed to perform, same with ambient vibration, etc. if not only for legal purposes.

No, all they do is put "1 million hours MTBF, 3 year warranty" on the box, so whether it's a seagate or an HGST, what they want the consumer to assume is that the drive can run at a constant rate for that entire time, which somewhat equalizes the outcome of the backblaze "study" because it is close enough to random what drives will be put in which enclosures and subject to how many read/write cycles. The biggest issue is obviously sample size.

This is fucking bullshit, too. Anybody who isn't autistic knows that R&D tells the suits, "These drives need to be built this way, with these components, of this quality." and that the first thing out of the corporate suit's mouth is, "We are going to build it cheaper and with less precision."

That is why there is such thing as a "bad batch" of hard drives in the first place, which completely invalidates the concept of having reliability charts for hard drives across anything other than manufacturing dates. "Seagate makes the most reliable drives in the world!...on August 12th, 2013"

Relieving to see somebody else who knows the course of history for HDD manufacturers. This is the reason HGST drives are better. IBM was better than WD then (excluding the exploding platter period), and their drives are still better now. Samsung drives were kick ass, too.

user what are you going on about?

All manufacturers release spec/data sheets for all models detailing things like max load/unload cycles, operating temperature, vibration tolerances, power on hours, etc. Anyone that knows their shit is checking those and not reading the MTBF or warranty on some retail box (that they won't ever see because they're getting OEM drives).

The spec/data sheets show that the drives backblaze uses are not intended for what they're doing with them. For example the ST4000DM000 is rated for 2400 PoH and not 24/7-365 usage like NAS and enterprise drives are. Frankly it's amazing their failure rate with these have been so low.

Sata continues to improve
we are past SATA 6 now

this 4TB drive is goign for what a 2 TB drive was going for a couple years ago

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236807

I don't have that drive in my country, I only get results for Hitachi Deskstar 3.5 4TB which is 170 USD

Not for consumer drives. Seagate drives are shit, just like WD Greens.
POH is typically a shit indicator of lifespan. I have drives that are over 40k POH in a stable environment.

QC quality is by far the best indicator of potential drive lifespan. Seagate has shit QC. Hitachi and WD have good QC.

Ultrastars are extremely good, even when they're used.
Until the cost per GB drops to below HDD prices, I won't be switching to SSDs.
I won't be switching to SSDs if I have the inkling that my servers might be powered down for a prolonged period.

I pirate a shit ton of movies for my grandfather and use my PC as a media server for the rest of the house. They get tired of watching netflix all the time and having an entire curated library of movies for them to fall back on is really convenient. What would you rather have, Streaming services that have limited libraries, an entire wall of DVDs, or a 10 TB hard drive filled with movies you personally picked out from almost all the movies in the world?

an entire wall of DVDs showing my richfag status and as a man of taste

A hard drive is much easier to replace in case of an accident, such as a house fire.

I was waiting for someone to post a hard drive from the 60s/70s, I met a gent a few weeks ago during an ebay purchase that has shipping containers full of these things all still functional and I myself have a hard drive from 1984 that Is still functional in an IBM 5150 Not to mention some hard drives that I have had for well over 6 Years that once again, still work. Out of all 11 or so hard drives I have bought since 2000 Only 1 to my memory has ever just up and stopped working.

Fixed

...

Pirate.master.race.1080p.x265.mkv

I still have a huge ass dvd collection but I pirate most of them anyway. It's just easier that way.

But user, I don't want to pay 100+ dollars for a rare blu-ray that's 2nd hand anyway!

...wat
I don't think I've ever paid more than $15 for a blu-ray, and even then it's because I got a disc when it was a new release.
Fuck man, the average DVD is $5 and the average BD is $8 around me

And if you make a disk image, you can resell your already used media to cover most of the cost of the original disc.

then bite a pillow and buy a localized anime dvd/bd instead of importing

...

Honestly? Just get a server. 2TB drives are very cheap. On sale I got them for like $19 a drive. If you got a server, as long as you got PCI express ports, you're chillin. Maxed out my server will be able to hold 60 drives @ 2tb a piece. Once I exceed that limit, I'll consider moving more storage dense options.

Honestly? Just get a server. 2TB drives are very cheap. On sale I got them for like $19 a drive. If you got a server, as long as you got PCI express ports, you're chillin. Maxed out my server will be able to hold 60 drives @ 2tb a piece. Once I exceed that limit, I'll consider moving more storage dense options.

What on god's green earth are you smoking?

In Burgerland - which is normally where things are priced fairly average - we are at $40/TB. I refuse to believe we are THAT far off without further convincing - or do you live across the street from a drive factory or something?

What, that's not running on your server or something? Or it's on an rpi?

I wish I could make this up, a 1TB external drive costs $85 here in my country, and the fucking minimum wage is $250.

Explain that.

In my cuntry, 2TB hard drives cost €70.

Man, when are (next to) permanent, convenient storage solutions?

except that's wrong. You can restore a broken HDD, SSDs are non recoverable and 2 to 3 times more expensive.

Tape.

I got 5tb + a 250gb ssd and my storage is almost full. I got like 400gb left. And hdd's are not cheap at all, look at these prices geizhals.de/?cat=hde7s&xf=3772_3.5

Prices go up because SSD is taking over steadily. Simple really, same happens when DDR3 came along to replace DDR2, the prices of DD2 went sky rocket and I sold a shitton of second handed to people that needed. Was little gold mine.

It's about as hard as restoring a SSD, costs a fortune, and has a low success rate.
Untrue, the same companies do it by swapping chips on working boards.

You're shilling like a fucking dog in that post.
All lies

I don't get it, why is it so hard to restore a hdd? People say that you can't just destroy a hdd, even dropping it into water is not going to help and people can restore it. But then when people try to restore a perfectly fine hdd it doesn't work?

Feel free to bing it and share with the class.

Suck it, I got two new 3TB ultrastars for $140.
I could have gotten two 2TB ultrastars for 96, but I need to expand a raid array.

Did you purchase it with cash money from the automated ATM machine?

I paid like 150€ for my 3tb wd black. HDD prices need to go down so I can continue pirating shit.

WD or Seagate?

or something else?

seagate has 10tb drives now, although expensive ~$500

kek

So far I only had WD hdd's but from what I heard Seagate should be decent. Better price, same quality.

But whatever you buy, don't go for a wd black, those things are loud as fuck.

If the platters are fine it is not hard to restore a broken HDD, it is a matter of replacing the controller or heads in a clean room.

Seagate has a shit track record for drive life.
Aren't that loud.

Should I

Have one SSD for OS, one SSD for games, and a HDD for storage

or one SSD for OS, one HDD for games, and one HDD for storage

What's the cheapest, not-shit SSD? Don't even need it to be big, only need OS and some bare minimum software like browsers, shells, languages, libre office on it. 20g should be enough probably.

Sandisk's are supposedly non-shit but I wouldn't fuck with them.
Crucial's are pretty good, and not too bad for their price.

I'd just get a micro-sd and install on that. Unless this is for Windows which is retarded and can't install to external devices.

That's what I did for Q4OS. Worked like a charm.

I've been using PNY for over a year and have been quite happy.

You can't boot windows from external drivers? Since when?

Buy USB and Hard disk
disregard anything else

But microSD prices are pretty much the same as a proper SSD

You can but you need the drivers on a disk. At least for 7 you do. I could never get it to work.

Haha, no.

>amazon.com/SanDisk-32GB-MicroSDHC-Class-SDSDQ-032G-A11M/dp/B005OGWJUE

Were you trying to install from a USB3 port?

No, AFAIK my mobo only has support for USB 2.0 and below.

I have one and it is very loud

It's very hard with modern drives due to the precision involved. The companies that do this say it might work for an hour or so and to use that time to rescue as much as you can.

I'd ditch the HDD entirely. A high quality 1TB SSD is only $300 now and if you need more than that for non-professional use you've got a hoarding problem to address.

Do you guys have anything you'd recommend for long-term reliable archival of 20TB+ of material that isn't infinity dollars?

I've been lugging data from hard drive to hard drive for years, and having drive after drive of external backups that you're on and off deeply worried about is incredibly irritating.

On the cheapish, 6 4TiB WD Green`s or what ever the "archival" drive is, an PCIE sata controller for more slots. With a Athlon 5150 as the CPU and probably 8-16 GiB of 1.35 volt RAM. The case could be anything with ten HDD slots.

Or you could continuing to back up your stuff, you know?

I have over 5 TB of archival quality material that I keep hanging around and I only use one 5TB drive to back it all up on after compression.

Another suggestion would be to take any directories you don't plan to add to, and move those to dedicated flash containers. For example: you have a directory with a sega genesis emulator, complete with every game in the library. Since there is no more to add to the directory, move it onto a flash drive of comparable size. That should lower the required storage requirements for your active archive by quite a bit. Although finding a 1TB flash drive or SSD for a reasonable price is very difficult, so likely you'd have to split larger directories into small pairs.

i would seriously like to get some of those seagate 10 tb drives. about $500 right now but whenever, if ever, that comes down to ~$300 i'd spring for 5 - 7 of them.

i'd probably do a raid 5 configuration (for a comfy setup), or raid 0 for fast reads / writes (for numerical computing)

raid 5 with 5 - 7 drives seems to be a sweet spot (assuming failure rate @ 5%). beyond that array failure rate rises above drive failure rate. assuming i was a lazy ass and didn't replace a broken drive.

40 - 60 tb fault tolerant storage? pretty comfy. 6tb drives are already at that $300 pricepoint so i might even consider that.

SSD is not remotely secure
Don't buy it

Gonna have to back shit like that up with peer reviewed articles published on A* journals, schlomo

Yes, actually.

I hate that Rustle doujin excerpt. It's so corny.

...

Smug is fine.

wdblacks are fucking turbines, never again

Seriously, hoarding is a living hell

Nevermind, with some google I got results about that seller reseting SMART data, you got a 2-3 years of datacenter use drive

Its even in the fucking newegg/amazon page

I'd say fuck it and buy it. HGST ultrastars are pretty fucking good.

They are refubrished so they WAS broken

If they were wrongly listed as new, but were refurbs, I would still buy them, then pay a bit extra and get squaretrade to warranty them.
I do that shit on Amazon all the time.
Ultrastars are insanely reliable for right now.

There is no point for an average consumer to keep everything in an ssd. You can have 250 gb ssd for programs and OS, and hdd for the rest. They may be the future but they are not that present just yet.

Are you going to complain about the extra capacity that they put to compensate the worn out and which cannot be erased?

warranty is not going to save your files
Just buy a new drive

It's called RAID for a reason.

What the fuck are you replying to?

RAID is not a backup, it only saves you from a disk dieying nothing else.

With enough redundancy, you can use complete shit. Even Seagate shit.
I have enough redundancy to get away with some odd choices.

wiki.installgentoo.com/index.php/Storage_devices

How the hell do I know if a internal HDD will fit in a external case?

it says so on the package

Redundancy is not a backup. If your house gets enriched your data is gone.

Fucking this. I bet with those thumbsticks too, it costs the same to make a 1 TB, a 128 GB, a 64 GB, and a 32 GB thumbstick... yet they are very different prices. Fucking bullshit. Just make 1 TB the default and cheap.

What the fuck is this and who thought it was a good idea?

LED bulbs have 5 year warranties but tend to last a life-time.

Should've sold it all to you and then used the money to buy even more better tech. It's easy now to just keep everything on a single, small drive.

This. Also if you're worried about the SSD failing just take another look in 2020 at what drives are available and consider getting something new.

256 GB SSD and an then just using an external hard-drive for all your PDFs, images, text files, webms, etc. is best way to go.

I use a 128 GB thumbstick and my laptop has a 1 TB HDD... and I also have a mega.co.nz account in the cloud that can have up to 50 GB.

I still haven't even 50 GB because I actually organize, rename, etc. my files and prune out the crap.

Maybe if I gave a shit about games and movies I'd use up much more drive-space.

test

*beep boop*

*zzZZZz...zZZ-POP!!*

Oh fuck, not this cancer.
I've had this for 5 years and its so god damn slow. I ran SMART on it, and its not dying, but god fuck is it slow.

Here's a question for you, is there literally any company that sells internal HDs for less than a hundred yuros? I'm sick and tired of seeing ludicrous 250+ prices for overkill HDs.

...

Solution: don't live in an enriched neighborhood.

Which package? The HDD or the external case?

This is what always happens when you can count the number of manufacturers on one hand. Competiton in the harddrive space is gone. It's Toshiba, Seagate and Westetn Digital left and a few "brands" who are subsidiaries or resellers. The SDD space has some actual competition and it probably won't take long before price/GB on SSDs beat HDDs. Meanwhile we have to pay up for our RAID arrays.

You are lucky who had harddrives lasting 10+ years, many of mine have died a lot quicker (Specially Seagates). I am guessing you have had steady temperatures. Quickly changing temperatures in a room tend to quickly kill running harddrives. It sucks when half the drives in a raid array died because your mother-in-law clmes anx opens all the windows mid-winter.

Actually those HGST are WD drives. I'm not sure if WD makes them differently or jyst rebrands WD models these days. They were slighty different back in the day. HGST is a WD subsidiary.

both

...

I've been buying WD Reds lately for storage, even though my Seagate Barracudas from before the floods are still running.
One has bad sectors but is still going strong.

That is, the barracuda is the one with the bad sectors, but the several I have are still going strong.

Not particularly. Whether it's using the computer for some high-intensity work or just getting hot/cold for a day or two.

The temps do change more consistently though and over longer periods of time, but until recently I would throw hard drives around ad stuff so I doubt temperature has anything to do with it.

One of my more impressive hard drives as an external WD 1TB hard drive which lasted a little over 10 years I think it was 11 and change and I beat the hell out of that thing on a regular basis. Throwing it, dropping it, storing heavy objects on top of it; the works.

How can you ever say that X is enough storage? I got only 200gb free on my 6TB drive and I had to delete a shitload of files.

I don't store massive amounts of 4K video. The entirety of all digital media I have, including a few redundant back ups of the same data, is less than a terabyte. This includes everything from porn to screenshots to old family videos to thousands of hours of music to every ubuntu iso version. Hell I got over 30k porn images plus a few hundred short videos and it's not even above 20GB. Unless you're preparing for the entire internet to go down forever or are an ayylmao trying to store the entire library of congress I don't see the point in hoarding massive amounts of super high def media. I know people who will download something like the entire Star Trek series + all the movies in 4k and then never watch them, then complain they don't have enough storage space. Like, why? Hell most people don't even own a monitor/tv big enough and sharp enough for those massive files to make any difference over a 720p webm streamed on youtube.

1 bluray movie in 1080p can get up to 24gb or more and I have a lot of movies.

But more importantly I have a lot of porn. It's a crappy habit but I love to get complete sets, and a Remy LaCroix megapack can go up to 600gb, and there are a shitload of other pornstars I love that also have 100gb sets.

And then there are siterips, 1 year of hidden cam shit is like 150gb, and some of those sites exists since 2008.

I will of course not watch all of those, but I guess it is better to have it and not need it than not having it when you need it. I just wish storage was cheaper, I don't want to waste another 150€ on a hdd when I need a new gpu.

Because I have over 200TB of off line HDDs consisting of more than 3 cases worth of disks, but only have about 18TB worth of data.

Enough drives to backup your data 10 times, why when even 3 should be plenty?

why not? I worked in a data center center and had access to tons of disks. I stopped taking them because I reached the point of what the fuck am I ever going to do with all these disks.

All my disks are
8x 2TB HGST DeskStar
14x 3TB HGST DeskStar
14x 4TB HGST UltraStar
12x 3TB Seagate Barracuda
5x 3TB Seagate Constellation CS
2x 3TB Seagate Constellation ES
24x 4TB Seagate TeraScale

and 8 of the 4TB HGST UltraStars are in use

Kek, impressive collection. I'd take some of those HGST off your hands, just to help a fellow user out of course.

sorry user. Also just a fyi but you dont want to use disks which have been through the mail if you can help. Seagate disks in the elaborate bulk packaging in my previous post are only rated to be dropped 4" according to their datasheets. This is good enough to survive a fork lift when they're on a pallet. But UPS/Fedex will abuse the fuck out of packages if it is just a single disk in a box.

I cant find the datasheet I read which said this, it also had the rated drop heights for when they were powered on. After further review it looks like im full of shit as most data sheets are saying 60-36 inches dependent on package weight.

Your point's still valid. I'd rather not subject my drives to 6+ G shocks if I can help it.
popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/a6284/which-shipping-company-is-kindest-to-your-packages/

What if you never want to go through the grueling chore of searching for very specific things ever again, or taking 10 years to download something because it's a public torrent with so few seeders it might as well not even exist anymore, or what about if the media is censored in the future? So on and so forth.

I mean, I understand what you're saying and I agree in general, but there are very valid reasons for wanting archive-quality content that don't include being crazy or paranoid.

The Fractal Define R5 is a gamer case, it's fairly loud. They say it's sound dampened but it's just marketing.

Yeah I think so too by now, because only the front and the bottom is sound dampened, the backside is totally open.

I just got a couple of $35 2TB HGST refurbs in the mail. I decided to give refurbs a try since I'm using them for backups and eventually maybe RAID1 storage, not something where I'll regret it if they go bad.

What should I use to check their lifespan/usage/quality on linux?

Zero them for a week.
If they're going to fail, they'll fail within a few days.
If they make shitty sounds, they're fucked.

Very few of my hard drives last less than 7 years.

your wrong, SSD's fail after 4-6 years with heavy use.

businesses use Tape drives, which cost like $15 for 3tb and they are really fast.

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIAAF33ZR5487

youtube.com/watch?v=G-KhzKy8NWg

Businesses don't use tape drives. That market segment is like 1/10th of a percent and primarily exists just for legal reasons due to shit regulations for phone companies and hospitals.

A modern tape drive costs several thousand dollars. The capacity listed on the cassettes is 1/2 or 1/3 the actual capacity they literally assume your using uncompressed text data and put some bs number on the capacity because the drives will compress on the fly so that justifies there lying about capacity.

You can only over wright a tape about 4 times before you start getting excessive unrecoverable errors. Reading from a tape too many times also causes degradation.

There are very few reasons to use tape drives today for any use case if you understand the alternatives.

define heavy use

HDDs deteriorate no matter what while most of reading operations on SSD do not affect the life expectancy at all. you can only kill them with excessive writing operations

It's awesome to have around, plus lugging data is not the inconvenience that it used to be. Just for the heck of it; I'm even transcoding my x264 files to x265 to get the most of my 4 TB 2.5" external drives, freed up ~1.3 TB of space, about 3/4 of the way done, not counting the movies drive.

I've been working on this for about five months now. Somebody help me.