←back to thread

420 points speckx | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.692s | source
Show context
dylan604 ◴[] No.44533476[source]
SSD speeds are nothing short of miraculous in my mind. I come from the old days of striping 16 HDDs together (at a minimum number) to get 1GB/s throughput. Depending on the chassis, that was 2 8-drive enclosures in the "desktop" version or the large 4RU enclosures with redundant PSUs and fans loud enough to overpower arena rock concerts. Now, we can get 5+GB/s throughput from a tiny stick that can be used externally via a single cable for data&power that is absolutely silent. I edit 4K+ video as well, and now can edit directly from the same device the camera recorded to during production. I'm skipping over the parts of still making backups, but there's no more multi-hour copy from source media to edit media during a DIT step. I've spent many a shoot as a DIT wishing the 1s&0s would travel across devices much faster while everyone else on the production has already left, so this is much appreciated by me. Oh, and those 16 device units only came close to 4TB around the time of me finally dropping spinning rust.

The first enclosure I ever dealt with was a 7-bay RAID-0 that could just barely handle AVR75 encoding from Avid. Just barely to the point that only video was saved to the array. The audio throughput would put it over the top, so audio was saved to a separate external drive.

Using SSD feels like a well deserved power up from those days.

replies(8): >>44533735 #>>44534375 #>>44535266 #>>44535471 #>>44536311 #>>44536501 #>>44539458 #>>44539872 #
gchamonlive ◴[] No.44533735[source]
> I come from the old days of striping 16 HDDs together (at a minimum number) to get 1GB/s throughput

Woah, how long would that last before you'd start having to replace the drives?

replies(3): >>44533870 #>>44534101 #>>44538566 #
nordsieck ◴[] No.44534101[source]
If you're interested in some hard data, Backblaze publishes their HD failure numbers[1]. These disks are storage optimized, not performance optimized like the parent comment, but they have a pretty large collection of various hard drives, and it's pretty interesting to see how reliability can vary dramatically across brand and model.

---

1. https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive...

replies(1): >>44534434 #
1. dylan604 ◴[] No.44534434[source]
The Backblaze reports are impressive. It would have been very handy to know which models to buy. They break it down to capacity of the same family of drives so a 2TB might be sound, but the 4TB might be more flaky. That information is very useful when it comes time to think about upgrading capacity in the arrays. Having someone go through these battles and then give away the data learned would just be dumb to not take advantage of their generosity.
replies(1): >>44535004 #
2. doubled112 ◴[] No.44535004[source]
Many years ago I felt like I dodged a bullet splurging for the 4TB Seagates instead of the 3TB Seagates I needed.
replies(1): >>44535201 #
3. HansHamster ◴[] No.44535201[source]
Can confirm. My 3TB Seagate was the only disk so far (knocking on wood) that died in a way that lost some data. Still managed to make a copy with dd_rescue, but there was a big region that just returned read errors and I ended up with a bunch of corrupt files. Thankfully nothing too important...