Seagate launches 30/32TB capacity Exos M mechanical HDD (30/32TB capacity)

"The two models, the 30TB ... and the 32TB ..., each offer a minimum of 3TB per disk". Well, yes, I would hope something advertised as being 30TB would offer at least 3TB. Am I misreading this sentence somehow?

Haven’t bought Seagate in 15 years. They improve their longevity?

whoa

Seagate. The company that sold me an HDD which broke down two days after the warranty expired.

No thanks.
laughing in Western Digital HDD running for about 10 years now

Heck yeah.

Always a fan of more storage. Speed isn't everything!

Great, can't wait to afford one in 2050.

Everybody taking shit about Seagate here. Meanwhile I've never had a hard drive die on me. Eventually the capacity just became too little to keep around and I got bigger ones.

Oldest I'm using right now is a decade old, Seagate. Actually, all the HDDs are Seagate. The SSDs are Samsung. Granted, my OS is on an SSD, as well as my most used things, so the HDDs don't actually get hit all that much.

It never ceases to amaze me how far we can still take a piece of technology that was invented in the 50s.

That's like developing punch cards to the point where the holes are microscopic and can also store terabytes of data. It's almost Steampunk-y.

How many platters?!

I can't wait for datacenters to decommission these so I can actually afford an array of them on the second-hand market.

30/32 = 0.938

That’s less than a single terabyte. I have a microSD card bigger than that!

;)

radarr goes brrrrrr

Lmao the HDD in the first machine I built in the mid 90s was 1.2GB

Good. However, 2 x 16TB Seagate HDDs still cheaper, isn't it?

Avoid these like the plague. I made the mistake of buying 2 16 TB Exos drives a couple years ago and have had to RMA them 3 times already.

My first HDD had a capacity of 42MB. Still a short way to go until factor 10⁶.

I mean, cool and all, but call me when sata or m2 ssds are 10TB for $250, then we'll talk.

This is for cold and archival storage right?

I couldn't imagine seek times on any disk that large. Or rebuild times....yikes.

These things are unreliable, I had 3 seagate HDDs in a row fail on me. Never had an issue with SSDs and never looked back.

I thought I read somewhere that larger drives had a higher chance of failure. Quick look around and that seems to be untrue relative to newer drives.

Just one would be a great backup, but I’m not ready to run a server with 30TB drives.

cool never will buy another seagate ever though.

The two models, [...] each offer a minimum of 3TB per disk

Huh? The hell is this supposed to mean? Are they talking about the internal platters?

That's good, really good news, to see that HDDs are still being manufactured and being thought of. Because I'm having a serious problem trying to find a new 2.5" HDD for my old laptop here in Brazil. I can quickly find SSDs across the Brazilian online marketplaces, and they're not much expensive, but I'm intending on purchasing a mechanical one because SSDs won't hold data for much longer compared to HDDs, but there are so few HDD for sale, and those I could find aren't brand-new.

How can someone without programming skills make a cloud server at home for cheap?

Here i am still rocking 6TB.

Just a reminder: These massive drives are really more a "budget" version of a proper tape backup system. The fundamental physics of a spinning disc mean that these aren't a good solution for rapid seeking of specific sectors to read and write and so forth.

So a decent choice for the big machine you backup all your VMs to in a corporate environment. Not a great solution for all the anime you totally legally obtained on Yahoo.

Not sure if the general advice has changed, but you are still looking for a sweet spot in the 8-12 TB range for a home NAS where you expect to regularly access and update a large number of small files rather than a few massive ones.