Why are HDDs still relevant? Why is the happy merchan allowed

They're more reliable for long term storage and cheaper than SSDs still. There.

>>58666596
60TB M.2 when?

>>58666633
Source: my bruised and cum filled ass

>>58667073
You may not be able to see past your shitty chinkpad, but corporations and data centers are the largest consumer of storage media. And they like reliability and longevity.

>>58667209
So, SSDs?

Even when they died the data is not lost, they become read-only

>>58667209
And 50% of servers have flash memory. The enterprise market is what is driving demand, and ultimately low prices for gamer plebs like you.

>>58667073
DESU most high density SSD's that are for Enterprise usage (ie:servers) are mostly scratch drives or those that aren't scratch drives are high availability drives that it's data deteriorate when unplugged.
So here's the thing hard drives are good because the rate of attrition to the data when powered down is lower then the SSD's and the fact they have higher data density then SSD's for a much smaller cost .

>>58667358
Source: My bruised and cum filled ass

>>58667358
https://www.kingston.com/en/ssd/enterprise/best_practices/enterprise_versus_client_ssd
http://www.stormagic.com/blog/choosing-an-ssd-we-compare-consumer-vs-enterprise-models/
http://serverfault.com/questions/660715/what-are-the-differences-between-consumer-grade-ssds-and-the-much-more-expensive

>>58666596
Same thing why tape is still a thing. Cost efficiency.

>>58667358
You never gave a source over why a server would be un-powered.
You just linked some forum posts.

Face it: flash memory great, and it's only getting better

>>58667465
Tape is a meme

>>58667403
Not that guy but you just posted comparisons between consumer and enterprise SSDs. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? It doesn't support any of your claims at all.

>>58667073
SSD lose data if they aren't powered on for some time.

>>58667560
No one uses SSD for archival purposes, that's what Read only mediums are for retard.

>>58666596
>limited number of writes
Top meme tech.

>>58667358
>they have higher data density then SSD's
>then
>SSD's
Your intelligence shines through your posts with such blinding brilliance that I can't help but wonder why you bother gracing us low-lifes with your presence.

That aside, you're absolutely right in that HDDs are cheaper than SSDs. Density/volume/cost is absolutely meaningless though. Are you related to that beawesome faggot, by any chance? You seem just as stupid and vocal.

>>58667560
One year unpowered for consumer drives and three months unpowered for enterprise drives, minimum, as stated by JEDEC standards. When's the last time you stored your desktop or laptop at 30 degrees celsius for a year? How often do you think a server gets stored at 40 degrees celsius for three months?

>>58667635
Now follow the ridiculously long line of discussion(whooping 3 posts) and realize you're a fucking moron.

>>58667529
>what is cold storage

>>58667560
Why the fuck would anyone have a server unplugged for years?
Why would anyone ever use sdds for archiving?
Can you even point to ONE recommendation for ssds for long term storage?
Or one recent article demonstrating precisely how long this period is?

In a few years flash will be on par with rust cost wise. Rust has absolutely no more cost reduction ability.

>>51971506
dont hdds also get data rot tho

>>58667702
>What is desperately grasping at straws

i love my 5TB hard drive

i can dump my 1000s of gigs of chinese cartoons and lossless music on it

>>58667714
See >>58667671
>HDDs are better than SSDs for archival
>NO BECAUSE I SAY NO
>I explain why
>BUT NOBODY USES THEM FOR ARCHIVAL ANYWAY

>>58667741
They also randomly stop working, just like ssds.

>>58666773
Considering Moore's law and that we have 2tb m2 SSDs today, about 10 years.

>>58667778
>I am a poorfag that suffers from sour grape syndrome

Its the only logical explanation for anyone not using flash

>>58666596
> stuck in a shitloop/5% improvement year
That's not stuck, that's an amazing growth rate for something old.

You think our car prices went down that much? Food production up that much? Nope.

>>58667801
Moore's conjecture, and it's essentially dead already, even in the revised form.

>>58667815
What did he mean by that?

Because i need 15 tb storage for a homeserver and 8 tb for my pc, i have a ssd in my homeserver for the os and in my pc too. If i want a 8tb ssd i'm going to need 4 x 2tb drives, which costs around 650$ per drive.

File: 1485289980650.jpg (76KB, 718x1024px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 718x1024px

>>58667815
>>I am a poorfag that suffers from sour grape syndrome

>>58667912
Which still is amazingly cheap, all things considered.

But yea, you can also do it with still very capable HDD for a lot less. Life with computers is pretty decent in that sense.

>>58667912
And why would i need ssds when i dont have over ~ 2gbps internet speed, i use my homeserver for movies and it's fast enough copying them. The copy speeds are around 86.9 mb/s. If i bought ssds in my homeserver i would need a 10 gbps switch + 2 network cards.

File: 1465491264854.gif (4MB, 391x237px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 391x237px

>2tb HDD
>$81
https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-3-5-Inch-Internal-Retail-STBD2000101/dp/B005OKQUJ6
>2tb SSD
>$656
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-75E2T0B-AM/dp/B010QD6W9I

>>58667801
>>58667863
Moore's law only applies to CPUs. That being said, the increase in SSD storage density is still astounding and will probably continue for some time as there are numerous tricks that manufacturers and fabs can use to keep pushing development.

>>58667887
Flash memory?

>>58667969
I'm sure they will progress, but I personally don't expect it to be at the rate of moore's conjecture.

If we are lucky, maybe once someone halves prices at some point. Okay. But then that won't continue every ~two years for a longer time.

>>58667969
Moore's law doesn't apply to CPUs. It applies to the number of transistors. Both CPUs and SSDs are made of them.

>>58667987
PS: Also the same to getting twice as much storage per flat surface area or whatever.

That probably won't even happen once.

File: 226.jpg (42KB, 500x514px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x514px

>>58667635
>that's what Read only mediums are for retard.

>Spend night after night burning stacks of optical media in this day and age

>>58668009
>PS: Also the same to getting twice as much storage per flat surface area or whatever.
>That probably won't even happen once.
But that's already happened with stack flash. It'll probably happen again as we get better at stacking things.

File: 52481.jpg (15KB, 480x479px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x479px

>>58667989

>>58667073
that made me laugh

>>58666596
SSDs went up in price. I ain't buying one until they're cheap like they were a few months back.

>>58666596
They are aesthetic, I have a Barracuda in my computer isn't that neat

>>58668059
Maybe if you don't count stacked arrangements. I feel the next layer of the stack is mounted on a "surface" itself, though.

And yes, in the past it has happened, same as moore's conjecture in general. But I think it's not gonna happen now.

>>58666633
Is it not that ssd's last longer than hdd's?

>>58668080
Just bought 500gb for $120
But yes, you are correct

>>58668101
>Going from flat surface to counting individual surfaces in three dimensions to discount a recent example just to push a pessimistic view of the future
I'll bet you're the life and soul of any party you go to.

File: inxi-drives-Screenshot_2017-01-26_17-26-16.png (60KB, 649x167px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 649x167px

>>58666773
I'm not in the camp of when since it will happen, what I want to know is when it will be affordable? I bought a 1TB SSD for $400 three or so years ago and the prices haven't dropped that much during the time. Sure, you could find a $200 1TB SSD on sales, but that is still quite the premium compared to a 1TB HDD. On another note, I'm probably going to buy 24TB of drives this year as hopefully the final time I put mechanical drives on a system, I really want SSDs to catch up in GB/shekel.

>>58668059
My 850 evo is already running hotter than my CPU and this shit is going to be even worse.
>liquid cooling for hard drive
Lmao

>>58668207
So what is a reasonable price drop per year?
30%
200%
400%

>>58667209
>they like reliability and longevity.
which is why they favor tape

>>58668293

They only use tape because there is no other option, not because its great.
It has a shitton of problems, total meme

>>58668218
The only thing that generates a non-negligible amount of heat on an SSD is the controller. If the controller is warmer than ~50 celsius then something is wrong and it's probably user error.

>>58668293
>which is why they favor tape

Tape is dying, it's all about HDDs and distributed storage in the data centers now. There is no room for tape in the clouds.

>>58667220
got to love intel that makes the drive kill itself on restart once the driver hits it set number of writes.

>>58668293
They favor tape because they've been doing it that way for the past 20+ years and couldn't dream of switching. You know how difficult and expensive it is to securely transfer data from tape storage to HDD? Retardedly, and for no really good reason other than it's old and unwieldy.

Source: I did consulting work for Datalink.

File: 1331596838570.jpg (96KB, 800x859px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x859px

>>58668878
Makes me wonder why people didn't just compress their data into split archives with parity before transferring to tape? That way even if the transfer isn't 100%, the data can still be recovered.

File: 90949471-detail.jpg (402KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 800x800px

>>58668878
Are we talking about the same tapes?

>>58666596
cuz they be cheap n lots of storage.

>>58668352
SSD thermal throttling is a very real problem, look it up. Sure, it happens only under sustained writing, but it's "by design", certainly not due to "user error".

All this talk about storage and here I am being angry about RAM not progressing at all.

>>58669281
Beyond error correction, when is standard RAM bottlenecking anything at the moment? Genuine question, I haven't been following its development in the past 4 years.

>>58669323
Not same anon, but it basically isn't. It's almost always like 2 generations too fast for virtually any CPU application.

I think current RAM is mainly used in GPU and GPU specialized to do HPC computations (Tesla P100 and stuff).

>>58668794
But all you have to do is put it in another machine, and you can read all the data.

>>58669242
Not on an 850 it shouldn't be

>>58669530
>Not same anon, but it basically isn't. It's almost always like 2 generations too fast for virtually any CPU application.
>I think current RAM is mainly used in GPU and GPU specialized to do HPC computations (Tesla P100 and stuff).


Basically this. It's difficult to fill a modern memory chip with (meaningful) information anywhere near its bus bandwidth using a modern CPU. Reading out and processing the data even more so.

For video cards typically the process rates are higher but still nowhere near bottleneck.

>>58669977
AFAIK, Video card onboard RAM can sometimes be meaningfully made to bottleneck. Which is why they put extremely fast RAM on there.

But if you mean video card -> system RAM, then no. there is pretty much no application that wants to bottleneck that.

System RAM is just conveniently fast for what "everyone" does already.

>>58667635
You would be surprised to know how many people do not understand this. I have seen trained engineers using SSD's as backup media. I have seen some SSD manufacturers actually market them for backup/archive purposes.

who gives a fuck if they can make huge SSD's when they can't even make small SSD's cheaper than they were a year ago?

fuck this shit i'm outta here.

>>58670546
You understand supply and demand? Have you made it that far in school yet?

File: OpL32.jpg (499KB, 1333x2000px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1333x2000px

>>58668037
>optical

What you think people archive on fucking DVD's?

>>58670575

of course i understand supply and demand, and i understand there's no fucking way nand companies are overselling to companies and underselling to consumers.

don't give me this bullshit about supply, it's fucking microchips. memory 'supply' issues have historically always been bullshit to fatten up somebody's pocket.

good thing there's that new factory in china coming up.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nand-dram-fab-tsinghua,33470.html

>>58666596
because its cheap
i dont want to pay $350 for a terabyte for my media server that doesnt need the speed

>>58666596
How it stand with the memory cell degradation over the course of time?

>>58666596
If there's something which doesn't need high bandwidth and low latency, HDD is appropriate.

>>58670751
Read: Other peoples data.

Music made by others (not yourself).
Programs made by others (not yourself).
Documents made by others (not yourself).

Am I right?

>>58670797
Where's "Images made by others (not yourself)"?
Where's "Anime made by others (not yourself)"?

>>58670828
I don't know, I somehow seem to have missed it, just like magnet rap videos made by others (not yourself).

Anyway, I'm sure you'll catch my point.

Intel memepoint and Samsung ZNAND fucking when? Fucking Intel and Micron have been having problems for years now, I hope the gooks wreck their shit in that matter.

>>58667209
> And they like reliability and longevity.
That's why we're moving from tape to the cloud

>>58670850
You just used lots of letters and words (not designed by yourself).

Please license (everything) that is not your property (everything)!

>>58670863
This.

>>58670675
You really need to lurk on ---.dramexchange.

>>58670797
>implying you can own a series of 0s and 1s

get a load of this goy

>>58671096
> not patenting every single string of binary you personally create
lmao

File: 1352872589035.png (75KB, 309x259px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 309x259px

>>58670633
WHAT IN THE FUCK IS EVEN IN THAT DATABANK

WHY THE FUCK WOULD ONE PERSON NEED SO MUCH DATA

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT

>>58671289
> WHAT IN THE FUCK IS EVEN IN THAT DATABANK
All the reasons why OP is a faggot. Volume 1 (of 7).

>>58667635
>No one uses SSD for archival purposes
So what do you do once your 10 TB SSD fills up with data and you want to archive it? You have to fall back to magnetic storage/other, making it worthwhile to store large data on HDD now, instead of wasting time and money on SSDs. SSDs are for when you need IO performance, like for an OS and programs, not for storage.
>>58670215
Christ. Just imagine pulling out your 10-year old SSD from storage only to find your photos have been corrupted or completely gone. HDDs don't have this problem, even 20+year old ones.

Price, OP you fucktard.

Also large storage via SSD is unnecessary unless you're moving giant uncompressed files around.

HDDs can be set up with RAID 5/6/10 and put in an external enclosure via Thunderbolt/USB3.1 and it will work great and you will have tons of storage for cheap.

>>58672585
This. Price/gb is still lower for hdds compared to ssds.
/thread

>>58666596
> Why are HDDs still relevant?
Price.
They are cheaper.

>>58666596
HDDs are mostly used in enterprise.

You have to realise that your silly 1 / 2 / 3 drives in your PC are not the center of the world.

Enterprise clients, who really store the data, still opt for HDD simply because:
SSDs can't be relied on at the same level.
GB per inch is still lots cheaper in HDD
There is no data loss risk over time on HDD's as it is on SSD's.
- yes, storage memory on SSD is volatile
- no, as a regular consumer you have nothing to worry about and there is no need to move your precious porn collection from USB's to HDD's.

t.insider

>>58671289
>one person
wew

I'm sure Amazons AWS or Microsofts Azure have much much larger facilities.

Not even mentioning Google's setup.

>>58668103
SSDs lose information for long periods of inactivity
a well kept hard disk will last decades

>>58674670
>a well kept hard disk will last decades
So will an SSD

>>58670215
you can certainly use SSDs as backup media for a lot of situations especially in a datacenter
that doesn't really mean dick though, long-term archival storage is a different situation from short-term disaster recovery, many of those businesses are using disks and tapes as well

>>58674689
not the information on it unless you're powering it on every once and a while

>>58674708
>couple of months
>every once in a while
It's not archival storage, an SSD will usually be powered at least once a week or continuously if you suspend it instead of powering off. I'm also sure since peripherals are always powered unless you switch off your power supply, there's no reason an SSD wouldn't be if they're not already.
For long term storage M-Discs or archival grade BluRay discs are superior anyway.

we should have cheap storage by now. fuck ssds

>>58674834
FUCK

>>58674834
You have - it's called HDD.

You can even go further and use somebody's else HDD for free. It's called cloud :^)

File: 1413699817685.webm (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>58668080
>cheap like they were a few months back.


>people bitch about SSd being expensive
>they increase the price
>let it set
>reduce prices to original prices
>goys buy the SSDs at retarded price again because its cheaper than before

>>58667843
>Food production up that much?

Bitch, food production increased 1200% over the past 30 years

>>58667843
Some technology is just stalled

Cars run the same as 50 years old cars, guns are worse than 100 years ago guns,

>>58666596


>Why are HDDs still relevant?

Cheaper and more reliable so they are superior for bulk data storage for at least another 2-3 years.

>>58676064
And people still dare to shit out whatever they have eaten.

File: 1448662543799.png (275KB, 452x409px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 452x409px

i've done absolutely no research so idk but shouldn't servers be on constantly until they're dead anyways? at what point besides server maintenence would you even need to have the server off or unplugged for a prolonged period of time?

>>58676108
> another 2-3 years
Nah mate. Bought a 1,36TB WD Green five years ago for $110, still rocking. Not sure if you'll be able to say the same for 14nm TLC flash which will lose its charge over the years. I'd say for another 10 years, because HDDs are both cheaper and more reliable. Slower, yes, but that's not a concern for a home user/digital hoarder.

>>58676471
You keep on shilling the more reliable meme.
And the loosing charge meme.
You need to understand no one believes you.

>>58676492
> shilling
You need to understand I didn't name specific SSD manufacturers, so it's not a "shilling" post. We'll see in five years from now who's right.

>>58676517
Yep, no sources just like I thought.

>>58669114
because in the real world we dont have weeks to transfer 1tb of data.

File: bitchi.jpg (15KB, 196x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 196x240px

>tfw I want a HGST but I just can't buy it because I will feel like a fucking cuck paying 50% more than USfags for it because yiurotaxes and € worthing shit

I fucking hate /v/. Not every application is some 1337 gaymen rig xDD. Legacy hardware is important.

File: file.png (3KB, 539x18px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 539x18px

>>58668218
You are doing something wrong