this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
184 points (98.4% liked)

PC Gaming

8775 readers
231 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 87 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Finally, a hard drive with the capacity to install more than 2 AAA game titles at once.

[–] techognito 13 points 7 months ago

This is obviously just in preparation for future AAA game sizes

[–] [email protected] 31 points 7 months ago (2 children)

When I bought my first PC about 1982. The seller told me that I would never live long enough to fill up the 10MB drive. I still bought the 40MB drive and it was still too small.

[–] Couldbealeotard 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I remember getting a 2 GB hard drive and thinking I'll never be able to fill it up. Now I have video files more then 10 times that size

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think you might be off by a few years at least, a 40MB drive in 1982 would've been incredibly uncommon.

[–] Dasus 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Idk man.

In the 1980s 8-inch drives used with some mid-range systems increased from a low of about 30 MB in 1980, to a top-of-the-line 3 GB in 1989.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hard_disk_drives

Seems like 30MB wasn't horribly uncommon in "mid-range systems" in 1980, so I doubt that 40MB in 1982 would've been "incredibly uncommon."

But I've no personal experience from the time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"Mid-range systems" is not referring to personal computers. "8-inch drives" is another clue.

[–] Dasus 6 points 7 months ago

True, he did say PC, fair enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Delusional 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Awesome can't wait til they're cheap so I can replace my many hard drives with just one much larger one.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 7 months ago (30 children)

Make sure you buy two of them so you've got a backup. I'm uncomfortable storing 16TB worth of data on one drive, no way am I putting 32TB of anything I give a shit about onto one drive.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

You can buy large second hand enterprise hard disks for relatively cheap. 20TB disks are like 250 bucks.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No god, so how big is the new CoD going to be?

[–] Anticorp 8 points 7 months ago

One petabyte.

[–] hperrin 19 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Still not enough to hold all my porn.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago

I look forward to a Backblaze analysis in a few years.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wonder what the bit error rates are like at that density in practice.

[–] AnUnusualRelic 19 points 7 months ago

They're actually 128TB drives, but everything has to be written four times.

[–] esc27 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Will raid 6 still be viable at this size or will this require something like raid 10 or even moving beyond raid.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My solution is RAIDZ5 and storing the backup on LTO6 tape with parity/erasure code. I think the fact that scrub times take 24 hours even on 16TB drives is already over the safety margin. If a drive failure happens, the first thing I'll do to run a manual diff backup which should take a fraction of the time and then run the ZFS resilver.

I'm beginning to see why SSD RAID is being considered now. My guess for HDDs in enterprise is that a RAID 15 (I made this up) would be considered. What I mean is data is stored on two identical servers each running RAID5 or 6. Off the shelf solutions like Gluster exist and that seems to be gaining traction at least according to Linus Tech Tips.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

SSD RAID is actually very common outside of home use! And yeah, clustered filesystems help overcome many of these limitations, but tend to be extremely demanding (expensive hardware for comparable performance). Network almost immediately becomes the bottleneck. Even forgetting about latency and other network efficiency concerns, 100 Gbps isn't that fast when you have individual devices approaching 16 Gbps.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

ZFS has triple parity support for RAID-Z (basically RAID-5/RAID-6/RAID-7 with better data safety guarantees), so there's that.

[–] Resol 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That's enough for the entire filmography of William Hanna and Joseph Barbera in beautiful 1080p (upscaled using world class software), and it would probably still be enough for some of the early shows of Cartoon Network, at least in 480p.

But then it would take ages to load anyway since it's a hard drive and therefore has moving parts, leading to a significantly higher failure rate.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ages is an understatement. This drive uses two new technologies that essentially expand the track momentarily plus smr

[–] Resol 3 points 7 months ago

Eons perhaps?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Found the anti-HDD drama queen

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›