this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
204 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60704 readers
3905 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would not risk 36TB of data on a single drive let alone a Seagate. Never had a good experience with them.
Ignoring the Seagate part, which makes sense... Is there a reason with 36TB?
I recall IT people losing their minds when we hit the 1TB, when the average hard drive was like 80GB.
So this growth seems right.
It's raid rebuild times.
The bigger the drive, the longer the time.
The longer the time, the more likely the rebuild will fail.
That said, modern raid is much more robust against this kind of fault, but still: if you have one parity drive, one dead drive, and a raid rebuild, if you lose another drive you're fucked.
Just rebuilt onto Ceph and it’s a game changer. Drive fails? Who cares, replace it with a bigger drive and go about your day. If total drive count is large enough, and depends if using EC or replication, it could mean pulling data from tons of drives instead of a handful.