• JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    This is for cold and archival storage right?

    I couldn’t imagine seek times on any disk that large. Or rebuild times…yikes.

    • noobface@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      up your block size bro 💪 get them plates stacking 128KB+ a write and watch your throughput gains max out 🏋️ all the ladies will be like🙋‍♀️. Especially if you get those reps sequentially it’s like hitting the juice 💉 for your transfer speeds.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Definitely not for either of those. Can get way better density from magnetic tape.

      They say they got the increased capacity by increasing storage density, so the head shouldn’t have to move much further to read data.

      You’ll get further putting a cache drive in front of your HDD regardless, so it’s vaguely moot.

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Random access times are probably similar to smaller drives but writing the whole drive is going to be slow

    • RedWeasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 hours ago

      For a full 32GB at the max sustained speed(275MB/s), 32ish hours to transfer a full amount, 36 if you assume 250MB/s the whole run. Probably optimistic. CPU overhead could slow that down in a rebuild. That said in a RAID5 of 5 disks, that is a transfer speed of about 1GB/s if you assume not getting close to the max transfer rate. For a small business or home NAS that would be plenty unless you are running greater than 10GiBit ethernet.