• s0ckpuppet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I wonder if in the context of storing 200 TB whether the added cost now makes sense given what a comparable SSD or HDD equivalent would run.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      SSDs aren’t great for long term archival since the nand needs to periodically be refreshed. You can build a better SSD, but that compromises storage capacity. HDDs are better, but they have other issues from sitting around not being used. Disks like these are a pretty good backup method if produced correctly. If is the big key, 100 layers sounds like a lot of layers to manufacture correctly, and you won’t know your dat is gone until it’s unreadable.

      But will it be able to replace tape for long term backup? LTO 9 is supposedly available, and up to 18TB not compressed. LTO-10 is 36, and supposedly LTO-14 is going to be 576 TB but that seems overly ambitious.

      • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Also LTO is rather expensive, way out of range for the home archivist. Discs tend to be much cheaper! Hopefully this is the case for these as well.