News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Backblaze Drive Stats for Q2 2026 by Gigachad on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @07:27AM (#49907364)
I'm not doubting the usefulness of hard drives in general, just the ones above 20TB where it would take you most of a week to write to the drive. Hard drive fill times have been steadily going up to the point it becomes almost impractical to use these 30tb drives.

I guess if you have it all backed up in S3 it's fine, but if you put this thing in a NAS and one drive dies, your NAS is going to spend the whole week rebuilding where it's running at 100%, and another drive dying during this means data loss.

Re:Backblaze Drive Stats for Q2 2026 by atoav on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @11:35AM (#49910357)
It depends? In something like a 800TB Ceph cluster a failure of a single 20TB drive is not felt at all if configured redundantly enough. Then it does not matter how long replacing it takes, only how many bucks each TB costs and/or how much electricity each drive needs.

If the cluster as whole can stomach the drive failures without losing data and is overall fast enough, there is no need to run many small drives where running fewer big drives is cheaper.

Every application will have different trade offs

Re:Backblaze Drive Stats for Q2 2026 by lostlogin on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @02:08PM (#49912354)
> your NAS is going to spend the whole week rebuilding

I’ve got a Synology that’s mostly full of 20TB drives. As you say, adding a drive takes about a week. Expanding the array is even longer.

Re:Backblaze Drive Stats for Q2 2026 by Melatonic on Thursday October 01, 2026 @12:55AM (#49917882)
Can't you just not run a Raid 6 or whatever ? If it takes a week to rebuild but is just making a new redundant copy of the old failed drive then it doesn't seem like a huge deal ?