I expect these to have enterprise pricing meaning they will cost several thousand dollars each. Even at work where I have several hundred TB I will probably still have to stick with smaller drives as this is outside of my typical budget for increased storage once you factor in you likely need at least 4 at a time for a RAID.
Excellent points! I don't expect the upcoming large capacity drives to be affordable by any mean with the 20TB HAMR models expecting to cost upwards of $700 or so, but it should hopefully cause a decent drop in current large capacity drives (16TB) to the sub-$150 range. I can't wait until years pass so the tech cost-of-production gets reduced significantly so that it brings down the price of the lower capacity HAMR drives close to that of current high capacity drives (larger than current high capacity drives).
I'll bet for pure large data archiving those drives will be good I just wonder what kind of throughput they will have. One other bad thing about drives that big is it is a pretty big deal if 1 drive fails a 10 or a 20 is bad but 100?
Good point! From what i've read the 10-platter drives with the 20 heads should be able to hit sequential r/w speeds of 480-500MB/s, which gives traditional 2.5" SSDs a run for their money... as spinning rust! Combine those into a smaller RAID10 array and it should be able to bump up to 2GB/s read speeds depending on how it's implemented (hardware/software). That was my immediate thought for use as well... home archiving/backups as well as an excellent storage solution for home Plex. Just four drives and you could easily have all the storage you'd ever need for the next 10 years. that is, unless the goal suddenly shifts to archiving every single movie in existence in 4k. :)
@@Warning56kb Why wouldn't you want all of your plex library in 4k I know I am working on it slowly. I do keep a cold backup of the data on my server on a single 18tb drive not ideal but it's better than no backup.
Right? Mines close to maybe 75% 4k. A lot of my collection is pre-90's, so the most possible with those is usally 720 at best, if even that. Six 8tb drives in a RAID10 on an R720 with two other 2TB HDDs and pcie nvme's. Then there's the nas setup on an HP DL20, and then a few 500tb SSDs in a T420, and then a stack of eight 2TB drives in a Win storage spaces pool on an older asus 4770k board. Man, maybe I do need to downsize to just a few high capacity drives lol
I don't think I'll need a 100tb drive any time soon but the prospect of lower cost drives for home users is pretty good, with games as big as they are nowadays, as 4+TB SSDs not only are expensive but even those might lack space for game collections with many AAA titles.
They're primarily intended to be used in massive enterprise arrays where the speed of each individual drive doesn't matter mas much as the storage capacity. Since they're typically in some form of a RAID, speed isn't much of an issue for large scale storage.
@@Michael-it6gb Totally depends on the model. There are crap WD models, crap Seagate models, crap Hitachis, on and on. If you've been buying cheap Seagates, yeah. That's just like buying cheap WDs. Check out Backblaze.com and you can see the wide variances in long term reliability based upon specific model.
Finally a hard drive that can fit all my browser search history
Perfect, now I can finally have the entire archive of hentai haven in my possession.
100TB is insane. I never thought they would make storage sizes that big. 😮
I used to find 16tb hardrives for $80
5.25” bays are so back🙂
I expect these to have enterprise pricing meaning they will cost several thousand dollars each. Even at work where I have several hundred TB I will probably still have to stick with smaller drives as this is outside of my typical budget for increased storage once you factor in you likely need at least 4 at a time for a RAID.
Excellent points! I don't expect the upcoming large capacity drives to be affordable by any mean with the 20TB HAMR models expecting to cost upwards of $700 or so, but it should hopefully cause a decent drop in current large capacity drives (16TB) to the sub-$150 range. I can't wait until years pass so the tech cost-of-production gets reduced significantly so that it brings down the price of the lower capacity HAMR drives close to that of current high capacity drives (larger than current high capacity drives).
I'll bet for pure large data archiving those drives will be good I just wonder what kind of throughput they will have. One other bad thing about drives that big is it is a pretty big deal if 1 drive fails a 10 or a 20 is bad but 100?
Good point! From what i've read the 10-platter drives with the 20 heads should be able to hit sequential r/w speeds of 480-500MB/s, which gives traditional 2.5" SSDs a run for their money... as spinning rust! Combine those into a smaller RAID10 array and it should be able to bump up to 2GB/s read speeds depending on how it's implemented (hardware/software). That was my immediate thought for use as well... home archiving/backups as well as an excellent storage solution for home Plex. Just four drives and you could easily have all the storage you'd ever need for the next 10 years. that is, unless the goal suddenly shifts to archiving every single movie in existence in 4k. :)
@@Warning56kb Why wouldn't you want all of your plex library in 4k I know I am working on it slowly. I do keep a cold backup of the data on my server on a single 18tb drive not ideal but it's better than no backup.
Right? Mines close to maybe 75% 4k. A lot of my collection is pre-90's, so the most possible with those is usally 720 at best, if even that. Six 8tb drives in a RAID10 on an R720 with two other 2TB HDDs and pcie nvme's. Then there's the nas setup on an HP DL20, and then a few 500tb SSDs in a T420, and then a stack of eight 2TB drives in a Win storage spaces pool on an older asus 4770k board. Man, maybe I do need to downsize to just a few high capacity drives lol
@@scooterjes
Instead of using RAID, use ZFS.
It's whole new story with ZFS2 or ZFS3 with 100 TB drive.
I don't think I'll need a 100tb drive any time soon but the prospect of lower cost drives for home users is pretty good, with games as big as they are nowadays, as 4+TB SSDs not only are expensive but even those might lack space for game collections with many AAA titles.
Agreed!
For that size, it would have to be SSD. Or a free of charge restoration of data in case the drive fails.
They're primarily intended to be used in massive enterprise arrays where the speed of each individual drive doesn't matter mas much as the storage capacity. Since they're typically in some form of a RAID, speed isn't much of an issue for large scale storage.
after all, they can make bigger plates. and more plates in the disk. capacity won't be a problem.
The issue is limitation within the 3.5" form factor. You can only fit so many platters and heads within that height.
this will be perfect for GTA 6
🤣
yep how many times do you think I would be able to install GTA vi on a 100 TB hard drive?
@@bfdiboy7563 It looks like the install size of GTA6 will be about 95GB, so that would come out to about 1,052 times.
it might be like 200 to 500 gigabytes because of the size LOL
Gladly get 100TB drive.
Get dissapointed that it will fail soon because its Seagate.
@@Michael-it6gb Totally depends on the model. There are crap WD models, crap Seagate models, crap Hitachis, on and on. If you've been buying cheap Seagates, yeah. That's just like buying cheap WDs. Check out Backblaze.com and you can see the wide variances in long term reliability based upon specific model.
Hey!!! Can you give that thing as a gift to me?
Bro 💀
Hey!
@@ALegendaryPiratehey!