Oh thank God, 40,000 gigabytes was not enough
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
460 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
71073 readers
3380 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
460
This new 40TB hard drive from Seagate is just the beginning—50TB is coming fast!
(www.techradar.com)
Ah yes. Seagate. The trash storage device company. If you want to burn your money, just throw it into a fire before buying this e-waste.
Can not recommend.
load more comments
(10 replies)
I deal with large data chunks and 40TB drives are an interesting idea.... until you consider one failing
raids and arrays for these large data sets still makes more sense then all the eggs in smaller baskets
I guess the idea is you'd still do that, but have more data in each array. It does raise the risk of losing a lot of data, but that can be mitigated by sensible RAID design and backups. And then you save power for the same amount of storage.
load more comments
(14 replies)
cool. now I can lose even more data when it dies.
no thanks...