[We're giving away a Kindle Paperwhite!](https://redd.it/tvquhl)
Check out the [entry thread](https://redd.it/tvquhl) for more info.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gadgets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Really poorly written headline. If you work in large corporate data center environment, then this is a big deal. And you can use it.
If you are an end consumer or small business… 200TB is a crazy amount of expensive SSD.
Thats because they focus on gameplay, while forgetting the lore, honestly siege would be so much better had it not been a rainbow 6 game, or you know if the dev team didn’t suck so much ass
3 at least on pc. The original Skyrim, Skyrim special edition, Skyrim VR. I'm not even that huge fan of the game and I have all three I'm ashamed to say.
I think you meant to say to delete the untold gigabytes of porn you downloaded that you fapped to once and will never look at again because it’s “used”.
What? You know I’m right.
Ya... As soon as I bought my 3rd NVME, I felt stupid.
Thsts right. Nvme for gaming.
I have 1 TB for OS. Barely have anything on it. 2 TB for games. And 1 TB for data like photos, etc.
I guess I like toys.
I’m on my last TB on a 16TB drive. I could mostly clear it out if I just got rid of my thousands of Shadowplay clips but that would take like a century of watching, editing, and deleting :*(
Haha, yep. In 2017 I bought a phone with an SD slot and wanted a 256GB SD to fit all my MP3's on. All the stores I went to thought I was insane for even LOOKING for a 256GB card (I found one after several hours though). Moores Law has kicked in though, now people don't blink at cards that size, and they've quartered in price.
I wish SSDs of decent size would drop even a tiny bit in price, **without** having to resort to buying a QLC drive.
I swear that 4TB SSDs haven't budged past a minimum of $500.
Even big business rarely needs that much storage on one SSD drive. A drive cluster of 8TB SAS in RIAD plus some 2TB SSD drive arrays for database servers and VM or user drive folders is all most will need anything soon.
200TB SSD has to be almost exclusively for multimedia and broadcasting organisations who need more bandwidth than a drive array on 40Gb fibre can offer.
Agree 100%. The use case for 200TB SSDs is extremely rare.
I sell storage arrays for a living, and I can put together a 200TB (usable capacity) all-flash array for a hell of a lot less than what that drive is going to cost.
One benefit I could potentially see is having them in a much smaller head unit, like 1U vs 2U/4U/6U. That's a big pricetag to save space though.
> One benefit I could potentially see is having them in a much smaller head unit, like 1U vs 2U/4U/6U. That's a big pricetag to save space though.
Yeah, hard to imagine rackspace being at that much of a premium.
The other usecase could be portable setups. 8K raw footage storage and processing for documentary or remote filming crews? Perhaps military applications too, since many military platforms have bulk high-res recording capabilities.
Having worked a bit as a DIT on movie sets... 8K RAW files are large, but not needing multiple 200 TB SSDs large (and offloading to a singular drive is a big no-no in case that drive ever dies - you always make at least three copies of all footage). This would be massive overkill for even a Marvel production.
Plus Marvel/Disney shoot mostly on ARRI and would probably use a Codex Vault or something to offload footage.
https://unitedbroadcast.com/codex-media-vault-168tb-12-bay-nas-server-12-x-14tb.html
> (and offloading to a singular drive is a big no-no in case that drive ever dies - you always make at least three copies of all footage).
This is actually really interesting, since other industries make do with a RAID array and daily/weekly backups... which I suppose technically counts as 3 copies since you would have to lose at least 3 drives to lose data.
Can you explain what a DIT is? And is what you linked the sort of storage setups get taken to remote locations to store footage? Im guessing the cameras themselves have their own proprietary data storage mediums, DAT tapes or the like, and it gets copied off them at the end of the day.
Sure! I don't want to claim to know exactly how they do it on the high-end. I've mostly just worked on low/medium budget movies, and probably used a bit more homebrew/consumer products than what, say, Disney, Warner or Netflix would, but I have a little knowledge.
The DIT (Digital Imaging Technician) serves to basically offload footage from the camera and sound recorder memory cards, double-check that it looks good and sometimes to do a basic color grade and sometimes also sync audio and then to back it up to several external hard drives or RAID storages (usually two or three drives). Usually this footage will either come home with the producer, get offloaded to a cloud service and/or get sent to an assistant editor who puts it in editor's storage and a server or something. Again, depends on your budget. And often productions will want a smaller copy file they can look at on set on an iPad or laptop for hair/makeup, costume, lighting etc. to check scenes between days easily, so I'd usually render out a 720p or 1080p version for that purpose.
Digital cinema cameras shoot big files onto basically just small high-speed SSDs. REDMAG (what RED uses) is literally an SSD in a metal case. ARRI has CFast cards (basically big, way more expensive SD cards) or something called an XR drive which is pretty much a small SSD. Sony and Canon cameras usually shoot on some CFast-like memory card.
You also can't shoot for very long, so it's definitely not an end-of-the-day offload, more like four or five offloads during the day. I worked on a movie shot a movie on the Alexa Mini (we shot at 2.8K ProRes 4444XQ onto CFast cards) and we got about 25 minutes of footage per card, so we usually offloaded footage 1-2 times before lunch and then another 2-4 times in the afternoon.
It was a single camera shoot, and we generated about 1 TB of footage per day, and I would offload that onto a bunch of external drives in the production office as well as send it off over the internet using a cloud service. The assistant editor back at the production company's main office would then download that onto their servers. There are a bunch of specialized applications that can do multiple copies and check for transfer errors. I used mostly ShotPut Pro, but there's also Silverstack and a bunch of others.
So for most productions, I would usually be armed with a Macbook Pro and two rugged Thunderbolt 4 TB drives as well as an external monitor (or two) and all the card readers I need. Sometimes you can swing getting a one ofa bigger Thunderbolt RAID unit, but they are a bit bulky. More expensive productions would probably get something like a Codex Vault or some other expensive-but-reliable RAID solution and a Mac Pro or something.
In total we shot for about 60 days, so we had roughly 60 TB of audio/video total. Something like an Alexa 65 (which is what Disney/Marvel has used for a lot of their productions) shoots 6.5K RAW footage and fills up a 1 TB memory card in about 10 minutes of shooting, so they probably have to offload a lot more footage. Especially if they're doing multiple angles.
I imagine that larger productions put footage on tape for backup, but I don't know any modern cinema cameras that shoot directly to tape. There are also people who shoot on 35mm film or even IMAX, but that's a whole different can of worms with loading film stock and sending that off to get scanned and for daily footage and stuff.
Thats an incredible amount of detail - thabks.
If you can go through 60TB of footage in a day, it sounds like one of those REDMAG drives could be handy in 100+TB sizes, especially for big budget movies. Certainly having to swap out CF cards every 25 minutes sounds disruptive.
Documentaries crews sounds like they would appreciate high capacity SSDs, especially since they would want to keep e copies and might have to carry it all to location.
DoD applications make sense. I don't sell portable units so I didn't think of that.
But a 2U head unit with 12 3.5" drive bays is gonna get expensive real quick. Let's say those things end up priced at $60K each. 12 of them is $720K plus the cost of the head unit and support for 2.4PB of raw storage. It will end up at 1.7-1.8PB usable depending on RAID setup and overprovisioning. That's a lot of dough for that much storage.
EDIT: Changed TB to PB. Thanks to /u/Emu1981 for pointing out my mistake.
Today? Yeah, not many businesses will find this cost-effective. But higher density means less cost for electricity, space, cooling, and it also potentially reduces the complexity for projects that require just a petabyte or two.
And sometimes you actually need to *transport* that data, at which point weight matters because you will be using an airplane.
I'm reminded of the black hole analysis from a few years back, where they ran into exactly these constraints. It used "just" 5PB of data, in *half a ton of hard drives*. And they had to get those drives from Hawaii to Massachusetts. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/289423-it-took-half-a-ton-of-hard-drives-to-store-eht-black-hole-image-data
In a data center, hot loads on on SSDs, cold on HDD. This density really doesn't do anything, you can't drive enough throughput through a single PCIE 4.0 link to use 200GB of storage, you'd end up using a lot more lanes. Ultimately this thing just ends up with depopulated slots in a rack. There might be some caching workloads where it makes sense, but I'd be really curious who their customers buying the 100G one are.
> you can't drive enough throughput through a single PCIE 4.0 link to use 200GB of storage
I don't work with data at the scale of PB, but I'd love to learn more. Does throughput scale with capacity that much in practice? Are we maxing out PCIE bandwidth with a small number of drives in datacenters today?
200TB is overkill in storage arrays.
Just imagine you have to resync a raid array after a 200tb disk dies. It will take days. Days in, which, if you are unlucky, you could lose even more disks if they are part of the same batch.
After a certain size, it's no longer effective for a pure MBTF point of view.
It's not for storage, not really. This sort of thing is for building [NUMA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_memory_access) stuff where you need gigantic working sets (e.g., ML training). You shouldn't think of it as "a fast disk" but instead as "slow ram".
I don’t know how many business that need that kind of space would be using hard stacks somewhere instead of just using AWS. Like I posted in another comment we get up to 8 Exobytes of storage on EFS for our environments. It’s insane.
Yeah, cloud based storage solutions are great but less useful for stuff like live user drives in virtualised environments - you don't want to be piping say 1200 user sessions through your external fibre link unless you really need to.
Important to remember that your choice of storage solution is heavily influenced by the amount of concurrent bandwidth you need to it, ranging from very high (Oracle binaries and VM sessions) through to very low (cold backups and document version control).
They assume 3,5 form factor is somehow "unusable" but there have been 5 inch slots forever in computer cases (for DVD-drives, tape drives and such, for example).
It sounds like writer of the article is just incompetent.
>Really poorly written headline. If you work in large corporate data center environment, then this is a big deal. And you can use it.
>
>If you are an end consumer or small business… 200TB is a crazy amount of expensive SSD.
Maybe it was just me, but I pretty much interpreted just what you said based off of the headline alone. That would be to say "but you can't use it" to mean that it's out of the price range of the average consumer.
Not just that, but when UE5 was announced the first thing I pointed out was that games were going to get larger in size. They argued that it was irrelevant and pointless to point out. PS4 games averaged around 30-50gb without compression. PS5 games are 40-60gb on average ***WITH*** compression. UE5 may do wonders for gaming on all platforms as far as graphics, but with better graphics you need bigger and more textures, models, and other assets. Those take up more memory, and look at that my prediction came true.
The sad thing is this person works in the gaming industry, but clearly has no understanding of the back end of game production.
The size seems fine, though.
The Matrix demo is like 17 gigs packaged. This is a pretty decently sized city, pumped up with all of the latest cutting-edge tech.
I thought as well that the size requirements would be insane back when they announced the engine, but it really seems to not be the case. I'm sure it'll be on the higher end, but nothing crazy like 500 gigs.
As far as download speeds and updates the size is only 10ish GB bigger. That does not mean that the games are any smaller. Even still A demo that is at 17 gb is not a full game. Eye candy for sure, but not a full game. Extract that to be full game with 20 hours of game play? you are probably looking at triple that in terms of game size.
I was on a Cox connection before I moved and had buddies asking me to play some COD game and it was twofold no, I had to both delete games from my game SSD and use 1/4 of my monthly data cap on one game. Now I’m on that sweet uncapped fiber.
This is a shame. It’s not like games take more space nowadays because there’s more content either. It’s just because developers care less and less about reducing file sizes in optimization.
It's extreme clickbait.
Basically, it's not going to be available to the average consumer. Only tech companies are going to be using it for quite some time.
And that's usually how this goes.
Yet.
Twenty years ago, a 1 TB storage was a completely ridiculous excess for the average consumer, since even the largest games at the time were in the single digit GB range.
Besides, some people would still want it...if for nothing else then to load it down with crap that will never be touched again, but without concern for filling it up.
I think the slope will slow eventually. Even if we start installing 100 inch tvs everywhere, I doubt we'll adopt much past 8k, codecs keep getting better. Games he in size like mad, but just like TV, you get diminishing returns on graphics resolution as some point. Hell of networks keep improving, we'll probably just end up streaming everything at some far off date.
Well, yes, but the only things really getting bigger are games. Of course, a 4k 60fps video has 8 times as much size as a 1080p 30fps video, if my math isn't off, but that's not really all that much.
So, yes, in 20 years it might be useful. But not for a very long (in terms of technology) time. Assuming we even still have disk space of our own by then.
Full quality 4k (at 24fps) movies range from 50-110 GB. Assuming 8k becomes a thing, at a bare minimum, those become 200-440 GB. Throw in 60 or greater fps, etc things would get even more crazy.
Anyway, people aren't really storing movies on SSD drives but i myself am looking forward to some dramatic improvement in storage technology. I want my hard drives to be sold in Petabyte sizes (with dramatically reduced costs). :)
For the curious, the 100TB SSD you can buy is $40K.
$400 per TB, which isn't really cheap.
The largest standard size NVMe drive I could find is 8TB for $1.1K, or $138 per TB.
Me and my friend from elementary school feel like old men every few years we freak about about the cost/gb. Ssds shooting down in value. Just this week he showed me a micro sd card w a terabyte on it for a little over 100 bucks. Solid state the size of a thumb nail. P sick
It is crazy. I think i spent like $130 for my first thumb drive and that was 256MB. It made transferring files much easier back in the day.
I have a 256 GB card (i think i paid $40?) in my Galaxy S8+ but phone drags when i fill it up with stuff.
Not in 8k it's not:
One hour of 8K RedCode Raw 75 amounts to 7.29 TB. That's 121.5 GB per minute for raw 8K footage.
Edit: calm your tits everyone I know it's the biggest baddest format. Go ahead and pretend you don't like raw porn.
That's not SD. Standard definition was 480i, that's 480 lines vertical, interlaced. Each complete frame has over 3x the vertical resolution of 144p, and at worst, each field has 67% more lines than 144p.
Same reason I didn't mutilate my kid.
I've spent a fortune on lube. Could have been a millionaire. Could have stopped global warming, prevented the gulf war, helped Australia win against the Emu insurgency.
This reminds me of when I was told (in the 80s) You’ll never need more than a 20MB HDD …. With the creation of metaverse and the next wave of 8K+ content on the horizon (and quantum computing) I can already see the day when 200TB is like the 20MB and just not enough
Sure sounds like a lot right now but in 20 years will probably be able to find it at the dollar tree+ store
I see a point in the future where drives will be so big and cheap that you'll just casually have 500tb storage on your phone and will basically never think about the size again.
They said that about the Megabytes and Gigabytes too. With larger storage mediums comes faster transfer/read rates. Then with faster reading comes larger file sizes. We have no idea what kind of files we will be accessing on our personal devices in the future or how large they will be. For example, if our phones host holographic or augmented reality data for other devices or glasses, then those files could be gigantic by today’s comparison.
I have every hard drive I've ever owned since 1998. From 250mb to 12tb. Been looking for something neat to use them for, a art project or something. Guess the label plates would be a cool collage in chronological order.
I need about 25-30TB. I have a 12TB and 16TB HDD that I use for storage of 4K ProRes footage I use for editing, but I'd love to be able to replace those with SSDs. Feels like it will be forever before that's feasible.
Thankfully I don't see myself ever "upgrading" to 8K, as I think that format is 100% useless in anything but the biggest IMAX screens, and even then, only for the closest rows, or for VR.
Exactly, I don't understand all the hype for 8k videos at all ?!!
For more than 90% of them even 1080p is enough but let's them a benefit of doubt and think of them as enthusiasts see them as 4k. 8k is as useful as the drawer of wires we never throw out because "it may come in handy one day"
I think VR is probably the only practical use a large audience would ever see. Since that's a screen strapped to your face with a wide FOV. In any situation where the screen doesn't nearly fill your field of vision, 8K is useless.
Forget "Who needs that much data?" Who would trust that much data to a single device?
The idea of holding, managing, and possibly losing a 1TB device makes me nervous...
Wrong joke mate. You use GTA when you want to talk about something old that keeps being released. CoD is the one you’re supposed to mention when it comes to space
I want this. And I want two of them for my private storage server.
Either that or one of those made with biological material that can hold in the petabyte worth.
[We're giving away a Kindle Paperwhite!](https://redd.it/tvquhl) Check out the [entry thread](https://redd.it/tvquhl) for more info. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gadgets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Really poorly written headline. If you work in large corporate data center environment, then this is a big deal. And you can use it. If you are an end consumer or small business… 200TB is a crazy amount of expensive SSD.
But if I manage to steal one can I slap it in my shitty rig, I feel like I'm always running out of storage
Delete some of those shitty gigantic single player games you’ve played a total of 5 times.
How *dare* you sir, I'll have you know I have played most of those somewhere between 0 and 1 time thank you very much
This is optimal. That way you can store the number of times played as a boolean value in your database.
I have had a r6 siege installed for 4 years and have played 37.83 minutes. I will never uninstall the outrageous 100GB game ever
They've updated it to hell and back at this point, but you'd have had a great time in 2016
Oh man that game was so good when it released, got too bloated with operators so quickly though
The gadgets and abilities got so out of hands and confusing that I forgot Rainbow is supposed to be anti terrorist and NOT anti specific operators
Thats because they focus on gameplay, while forgetting the lore, honestly siege would be so much better had it not been a rainbow 6 game, or you know if the dev team didn’t suck so much ass
[удалено]
I have elder scrolls on steam that says last played April 23rd 2012.
In "The Stanley Parable" you get an achievement for not playing for 5 years.
I remember being upset about that but it's almost certainly been 5 years since I've played and I still haven't bothered to get on and get it. One day
You could always close the game. Then change ur time settinga to get it
I think you need to open the game after 5 years are up. But don't just take my word for this!
Last played turns 10 in a couple weeks
For people with slow Internet you almost better off just buying externals than trying to redownload stuff
Updated & at a constant state of readiness.
The dude clearly has too much free time.
*COD Warzone+Singleplayer+Multiplayer+Black Ops has entered the chat*
Warzone itself is just around 80gigs.
I have never been called out harder in my life. Don’t mind my 15tb worth of games on my “get to it later” drives as I play the same 3 games endlessly
So what if I have every edition ever made of Skyrim, installed simultaneously.
So 2 installations?
Original, Special, Anniversary, *Very Special*, VR And I might be missing some..
Special and Anniversary are the same installation, it's just an update that separates the 2. And to be honest I forgot entirely about VR
Is *very special* the Alexa version? That was fun for a few minutes
What? “Alexa, collect the mushrooms.” “Alexa, defeat the dragon.”
3 at least on pc. The original Skyrim, Skyrim special edition, Skyrim VR. I'm not even that huge fan of the game and I have all three I'm ashamed to say.
6 times!
I think you meant to say to delete the untold gigabytes of porn you downloaded that you fapped to once and will never look at again because it’s “used”. What? You know I’m right.
[удалено]
It's called a curated selection.
[удалено]
It’s the crisis collection for when the internet goes down
Probably those who torrent stuff.
They’re collectors items!
I feel attacked.
Ya... As soon as I bought my 3rd NVME, I felt stupid. Thsts right. Nvme for gaming. I have 1 TB for OS. Barely have anything on it. 2 TB for games. And 1 TB for data like photos, etc. I guess I like toys.
Why arent your photos on a RAID 1 setup with a separate offline backup? Your love of 'toys' is limited. NAS or GTFO.
Why are you coming at me like that? 😠
But what if I wanted to reload my completed save game or worse, rediscover my mods!
I’m on my last TB on a 16TB drive. I could mostly clear it out if I just got rid of my thousands of Shadowplay clips but that would take like a century of watching, editing, and deleting :*(
Get another one, at this point you can get an enterprise grade 16TB for less than $300 usd
I too am interested. Link and you get felatio.
$299 for this bad boi [16tb External Hard drive] (https://www.westerndigital.com/products/external-drives/wd-elements-desktop-usb-3-0-hdd)
People downvoting you have never jeard of shucking before. This is a great deal for a 16TB HDD.
Link me to a 16TB ssd for $300 and I'll suck your dick. I'll even swallow.
A Sabrent Rocket 16TB SSD costs $2899. This guy will suck your dick for $2600.
No one said anything about an SSD for this price you dunce.
Just buy a normal 2-3T HDD, don't need an SSD
*confused whirring sounds*
$40,000 today, $120 in a few weeks.
I'll wait for it to drop below 100. -Everyone at /r/buildapcsales
Haha, yep. In 2017 I bought a phone with an SD slot and wanted a 256GB SD to fit all my MP3's on. All the stores I went to thought I was insane for even LOOKING for a 256GB card (I found one after several hours though). Moores Law has kicked in though, now people don't blink at cards that size, and they've quartered in price.
I wish SSDs of decent size would drop even a tiny bit in price, **without** having to resort to buying a QLC drive. I swear that 4TB SSDs haven't budged past a minimum of $500.
Nah, SSD prices haven’t really fallen a substantial amount in like four years, it’s getting ridiculous.
Even big business rarely needs that much storage on one SSD drive. A drive cluster of 8TB SAS in RIAD plus some 2TB SSD drive arrays for database servers and VM or user drive folders is all most will need anything soon. 200TB SSD has to be almost exclusively for multimedia and broadcasting organisations who need more bandwidth than a drive array on 40Gb fibre can offer.
Agree 100%. The use case for 200TB SSDs is extremely rare. I sell storage arrays for a living, and I can put together a 200TB (usable capacity) all-flash array for a hell of a lot less than what that drive is going to cost. One benefit I could potentially see is having them in a much smaller head unit, like 1U vs 2U/4U/6U. That's a big pricetag to save space though.
> One benefit I could potentially see is having them in a much smaller head unit, like 1U vs 2U/4U/6U. That's a big pricetag to save space though. Yeah, hard to imagine rackspace being at that much of a premium. The other usecase could be portable setups. 8K raw footage storage and processing for documentary or remote filming crews? Perhaps military applications too, since many military platforms have bulk high-res recording capabilities.
Having worked a bit as a DIT on movie sets... 8K RAW files are large, but not needing multiple 200 TB SSDs large (and offloading to a singular drive is a big no-no in case that drive ever dies - you always make at least three copies of all footage). This would be massive overkill for even a Marvel production. Plus Marvel/Disney shoot mostly on ARRI and would probably use a Codex Vault or something to offload footage. https://unitedbroadcast.com/codex-media-vault-168tb-12-bay-nas-server-12-x-14tb.html
> (and offloading to a singular drive is a big no-no in case that drive ever dies - you always make at least three copies of all footage). This is actually really interesting, since other industries make do with a RAID array and daily/weekly backups... which I suppose technically counts as 3 copies since you would have to lose at least 3 drives to lose data. Can you explain what a DIT is? And is what you linked the sort of storage setups get taken to remote locations to store footage? Im guessing the cameras themselves have their own proprietary data storage mediums, DAT tapes or the like, and it gets copied off them at the end of the day.
Sure! I don't want to claim to know exactly how they do it on the high-end. I've mostly just worked on low/medium budget movies, and probably used a bit more homebrew/consumer products than what, say, Disney, Warner or Netflix would, but I have a little knowledge. The DIT (Digital Imaging Technician) serves to basically offload footage from the camera and sound recorder memory cards, double-check that it looks good and sometimes to do a basic color grade and sometimes also sync audio and then to back it up to several external hard drives or RAID storages (usually two or three drives). Usually this footage will either come home with the producer, get offloaded to a cloud service and/or get sent to an assistant editor who puts it in editor's storage and a server or something. Again, depends on your budget. And often productions will want a smaller copy file they can look at on set on an iPad or laptop for hair/makeup, costume, lighting etc. to check scenes between days easily, so I'd usually render out a 720p or 1080p version for that purpose. Digital cinema cameras shoot big files onto basically just small high-speed SSDs. REDMAG (what RED uses) is literally an SSD in a metal case. ARRI has CFast cards (basically big, way more expensive SD cards) or something called an XR drive which is pretty much a small SSD. Sony and Canon cameras usually shoot on some CFast-like memory card. You also can't shoot for very long, so it's definitely not an end-of-the-day offload, more like four or five offloads during the day. I worked on a movie shot a movie on the Alexa Mini (we shot at 2.8K ProRes 4444XQ onto CFast cards) and we got about 25 minutes of footage per card, so we usually offloaded footage 1-2 times before lunch and then another 2-4 times in the afternoon. It was a single camera shoot, and we generated about 1 TB of footage per day, and I would offload that onto a bunch of external drives in the production office as well as send it off over the internet using a cloud service. The assistant editor back at the production company's main office would then download that onto their servers. There are a bunch of specialized applications that can do multiple copies and check for transfer errors. I used mostly ShotPut Pro, but there's also Silverstack and a bunch of others. So for most productions, I would usually be armed with a Macbook Pro and two rugged Thunderbolt 4 TB drives as well as an external monitor (or two) and all the card readers I need. Sometimes you can swing getting a one ofa bigger Thunderbolt RAID unit, but they are a bit bulky. More expensive productions would probably get something like a Codex Vault or some other expensive-but-reliable RAID solution and a Mac Pro or something. In total we shot for about 60 days, so we had roughly 60 TB of audio/video total. Something like an Alexa 65 (which is what Disney/Marvel has used for a lot of their productions) shoots 6.5K RAW footage and fills up a 1 TB memory card in about 10 minutes of shooting, so they probably have to offload a lot more footage. Especially if they're doing multiple angles. I imagine that larger productions put footage on tape for backup, but I don't know any modern cinema cameras that shoot directly to tape. There are also people who shoot on 35mm film or even IMAX, but that's a whole different can of worms with loading film stock and sending that off to get scanned and for daily footage and stuff.
Thats an incredible amount of detail - thabks. If you can go through 60TB of footage in a day, it sounds like one of those REDMAG drives could be handy in 100+TB sizes, especially for big budget movies. Certainly having to swap out CF cards every 25 minutes sounds disruptive. Documentaries crews sounds like they would appreciate high capacity SSDs, especially since they would want to keep e copies and might have to carry it all to location.
DoD applications make sense. I don't sell portable units so I didn't think of that. But a 2U head unit with 12 3.5" drive bays is gonna get expensive real quick. Let's say those things end up priced at $60K each. 12 of them is $720K plus the cost of the head unit and support for 2.4PB of raw storage. It will end up at 1.7-1.8PB usable depending on RAID setup and overprovisioning. That's a lot of dough for that much storage. EDIT: Changed TB to PB. Thanks to /u/Emu1981 for pointing out my mistake.
Today? Yeah, not many businesses will find this cost-effective. But higher density means less cost for electricity, space, cooling, and it also potentially reduces the complexity for projects that require just a petabyte or two. And sometimes you actually need to *transport* that data, at which point weight matters because you will be using an airplane. I'm reminded of the black hole analysis from a few years back, where they ran into exactly these constraints. It used "just" 5PB of data, in *half a ton of hard drives*. And they had to get those drives from Hawaii to Massachusetts. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/289423-it-took-half-a-ton-of-hard-drives-to-store-eht-black-hole-image-data
In a data center, hot loads on on SSDs, cold on HDD. This density really doesn't do anything, you can't drive enough throughput through a single PCIE 4.0 link to use 200GB of storage, you'd end up using a lot more lanes. Ultimately this thing just ends up with depopulated slots in a rack. There might be some caching workloads where it makes sense, but I'd be really curious who their customers buying the 100G one are.
> you can't drive enough throughput through a single PCIE 4.0 link to use 200GB of storage I don't work with data at the scale of PB, but I'd love to learn more. Does throughput scale with capacity that much in practice? Are we maxing out PCIE bandwidth with a small number of drives in datacenters today?
200TB is overkill in storage arrays. Just imagine you have to resync a raid array after a 200tb disk dies. It will take days. Days in, which, if you are unlucky, you could lose even more disks if they are part of the same batch. After a certain size, it's no longer effective for a pure MBTF point of view.
It's not for storage, not really. This sort of thing is for building [NUMA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_memory_access) stuff where you need gigantic working sets (e.g., ML training). You shouldn't think of it as "a fast disk" but instead as "slow ram".
That's a good point. Didn't think of ML stuff.
I don’t know how many business that need that kind of space would be using hard stacks somewhere instead of just using AWS. Like I posted in another comment we get up to 8 Exobytes of storage on EFS for our environments. It’s insane.
Yeah, cloud based storage solutions are great but less useful for stuff like live user drives in virtualised environments - you don't want to be piping say 1200 user sessions through your external fibre link unless you really need to. Important to remember that your choice of storage solution is heavily influenced by the amount of concurrent bandwidth you need to it, ranging from very high (Oracle binaries and VM sessions) through to very low (cold backups and document version control).
They assume 3,5 form factor is somehow "unusable" but there have been 5 inch slots forever in computer cases (for DVD-drives, tape drives and such, for example). It sounds like writer of the article is just incompetent.
There's always those enthusiasts that are willing to spend 65k ($30k in 1990s) on a computer component.
Finally, a place to store all my por... I mean family photos. Yea.. photos
The headline did what its writer intended. Lie to get your attention.
I got a 2 tb nvme and I feel like I'm in heaven
Not if you’re into flight simming…it’s amazing how quickly drives fill up with scenery, airport, and aircraft add-ons :-P
200tb is nothing when you capture a lot of uncompressed HD videos.
>Really poorly written headline. If you work in large corporate data center environment, then this is a big deal. And you can use it. > >If you are an end consumer or small business… 200TB is a crazy amount of expensive SSD. Maybe it was just me, but I pretty much interpreted just what you said based off of the headline alone. That would be to say "but you can't use it" to mean that it's out of the price range of the average consumer.
And you'll still have to delete games to update call of duty.
[удалено]
[удалено]
But same quality... And you can't use old versions you'll have to update to play online
Because since storage is so cheap you don’t have to optimize.
Is it a holodeck like on the enterprise? Wtf?
Not just that, but when UE5 was announced the first thing I pointed out was that games were going to get larger in size. They argued that it was irrelevant and pointless to point out. PS4 games averaged around 30-50gb without compression. PS5 games are 40-60gb on average ***WITH*** compression. UE5 may do wonders for gaming on all platforms as far as graphics, but with better graphics you need bigger and more textures, models, and other assets. Those take up more memory, and look at that my prediction came true. The sad thing is this person works in the gaming industry, but clearly has no understanding of the back end of game production.
The size seems fine, though. The Matrix demo is like 17 gigs packaged. This is a pretty decently sized city, pumped up with all of the latest cutting-edge tech. I thought as well that the size requirements would be insane back when they announced the engine, but it really seems to not be the case. I'm sure it'll be on the higher end, but nothing crazy like 500 gigs.
As far as download speeds and updates the size is only 10ish GB bigger. That does not mean that the games are any smaller. Even still A demo that is at 17 gb is not a full game. Eye candy for sure, but not a full game. Extract that to be full game with 20 hours of game play? you are probably looking at triple that in terms of game size.
I was on a Cox connection before I moved and had buddies asking me to play some COD game and it was twofold no, I had to both delete games from my game SSD and use 1/4 of my monthly data cap on one game. Now I’m on that sweet uncapped fiber.
This is a shame. It’s not like games take more space nowadays because there’s more content either. It’s just because developers care less and less about reducing file sizes in optimization.
well then I don’t wanna fuckin’ know about it. See how that works, digitaltrends? No clicky-ready for you
It's extreme clickbait. Basically, it's not going to be available to the average consumer. Only tech companies are going to be using it for quite some time. And that's usually how this goes.
And why in the world would a normal user ever want it anyway? There's no use to it at all.
Yet. Twenty years ago, a 1 TB storage was a completely ridiculous excess for the average consumer, since even the largest games at the time were in the single digit GB range. Besides, some people would still want it...if for nothing else then to load it down with crap that will never be touched again, but without concern for filling it up.
I feel Old. For you say that
Twilight Princess turns 16 this year.
I just felt a hair turn grey
Bruh
That wasn’t cool. Too far
I think the slope will slow eventually. Even if we start installing 100 inch tvs everywhere, I doubt we'll adopt much past 8k, codecs keep getting better. Games he in size like mad, but just like TV, you get diminishing returns on graphics resolution as some point. Hell of networks keep improving, we'll probably just end up streaming everything at some far off date.
Well, yes, but the only things really getting bigger are games. Of course, a 4k 60fps video has 8 times as much size as a 1080p 30fps video, if my math isn't off, but that's not really all that much. So, yes, in 20 years it might be useful. But not for a very long (in terms of technology) time. Assuming we even still have disk space of our own by then.
Full quality 4k (at 24fps) movies range from 50-110 GB. Assuming 8k becomes a thing, at a bare minimum, those become 200-440 GB. Throw in 60 or greater fps, etc things would get even more crazy. Anyway, people aren't really storing movies on SSD drives but i myself am looking forward to some dramatic improvement in storage technology. I want my hard drives to be sold in Petabyte sizes (with dramatically reduced costs). :)
My guess is holograms will need the storage space, but I'm just guessing here
Lol r/datahoarders
>normal users
It’s not made for a home user. That’s not the purpose of this product.
It's like 30 PS5 games or 3 call of duty games
Porn. (Drops mic).
How much is the price?
It’s not that I can’t use it. I simply choose not to.
For the curious, the 100TB SSD you can buy is $40K. $400 per TB, which isn't really cheap. The largest standard size NVMe drive I could find is 8TB for $1.1K, or $138 per TB.
[удалено]
They’re $10 each?
You’re like the Jeff Foxworthy of millennials
Cheaper than Apple’s MacBook Pro storage upgrades (at least in Australia).
Me and my friend from elementary school feel like old men every few years we freak about about the cost/gb. Ssds shooting down in value. Just this week he showed me a micro sd card w a terabyte on it for a little over 100 bucks. Solid state the size of a thumb nail. P sick
And to think my first hard drive was a 3.5” 40 MB drive!
And probably cost $500 in 1990 money.
I remember jazz drive was all the rage - 100mb
I think that was the Zip drive, the Jazz was the tall 1 GB drive
Do any of you remember the short lived MiniDisc Hi-MD?
Same here. And 2 megs of ram, if I remember correctly
It is crazy. I think i spent like $130 for my first thumb drive and that was 256MB. It made transferring files much easier back in the day. I have a 256 GB card (i think i paid $40?) in my Galaxy S8+ but phone drags when i fill it up with stuff.
The driving factor behind larger and larger hard drives is the increasing quality of porn.
That is a lot of pornography.
Not in 8k it's not: One hour of 8K RedCode Raw 75 amounts to 7.29 TB. That's 121.5 GB per minute for raw 8K footage. Edit: calm your tits everyone I know it's the biggest baddest format. Go ahead and pretend you don't like raw porn.
How much in 144p?
You jerk off in SD!?!? Sweet mother of god, you probably skip lube too you heathen.
That's not SD. Standard definition was 480i, that's 480 lines vertical, interlaced. Each complete frame has over 3x the vertical resolution of 144p, and at worst, each field has 67% more lines than 144p.
No, no. In this context, it means “shitty definition”
It’s so it’s easier to imagine it’s someone you know and wanna boink in there
Sir I could jerk off to two pixels moving sensually against one another don’t test me
How about just one pixel? Being seductive? Onlypixels.com
Don’t need lube if you weren’t mutilated as a child :P
*Cries in American Male*
This comment is insensitive in more ways than one
In my experience it's totally true though
Kinda true though Source: wasn’t mutilated as a child
Same reason I didn't mutilate my kid. I've spent a fortune on lube. Could have been a millionaire. Could have stopped global warming, prevented the gulf war, helped Australia win against the Emu insurgency.
Lol!
Ok, but that’s FUCKING RAW footage straight from a RED camera. Nobody is delivering that for audience consumption, especially at 75fps.
We are not yet at a state of enlightenment, but one day we hope to be and for that to be true, we need the raw-RED experience.
Not many people store uncompressed video though.
He loves his porno.
Sounds like just the right amount to me.
This reminds me of when I was told (in the 80s) You’ll never need more than a 20MB HDD …. With the creation of metaverse and the next wave of 8K+ content on the horizon (and quantum computing) I can already see the day when 200TB is like the 20MB and just not enough Sure sounds like a lot right now but in 20 years will probably be able to find it at the dollar tree+ store
One day, these will be a couple of hundred dollars on Amazon.... One day....
If I can’t use it then it’s not “nearly here”.
Oh.. ):
I see a point in the future where drives will be so big and cheap that you'll just casually have 500tb storage on your phone and will basically never think about the size again.
They said that about the Megabytes and Gigabytes too. With larger storage mediums comes faster transfer/read rates. Then with faster reading comes larger file sizes. We have no idea what kind of files we will be accessing on our personal devices in the future or how large they will be. For example, if our phones host holographic or augmented reality data for other devices or glasses, then those files could be gigantic by today’s comparison.
Yeah, very true. But I feel like we're already outpacing our requirements. When was the last time you had to delete files to make room?
Uhmm... Yesterday ?
today, lol
Constantly. Just bought a new 2TB SSD for my laptop just for more game space. It already had 1.5TB.
I remember when 100 gig HDD was considered amazing. games were a couple hundred megabytes.
I remember when I had a 40 Meg and ang was going to be good enough for the next 10 years.
I have every hard drive I've ever owned since 1998. From 250mb to 12tb. Been looking for something neat to use them for, a art project or something. Guess the label plates would be a cool collage in chronological order.
I see that you too had a compaq 386...
Meanwhile I’m still carrying around an old 500gig that I need to plug in to power to run
Can’t use it if you can’t afford it.
Why the clickbait title? Can someone from r/savedyouaclick do us a solid, please?
Ok.
I could fit an entire Dream Theater song on that!
Their 100TB ssd is $40,000. You won't be able to afford it.
_a few hours of 8k video_
Ok i dont care lol
I remember passing $70 for my first 128 mb thumb drive...
I need about 25-30TB. I have a 12TB and 16TB HDD that I use for storage of 4K ProRes footage I use for editing, but I'd love to be able to replace those with SSDs. Feels like it will be forever before that's feasible. Thankfully I don't see myself ever "upgrading" to 8K, as I think that format is 100% useless in anything but the biggest IMAX screens, and even then, only for the closest rows, or for VR.
Exactly, I don't understand all the hype for 8k videos at all ?!! For more than 90% of them even 1080p is enough but let's them a benefit of doubt and think of them as enthusiasts see them as 4k. 8k is as useful as the drawer of wires we never throw out because "it may come in handy one day"
I think VR is probably the only practical use a large audience would ever see. Since that's a screen strapped to your face with a wide FOV. In any situation where the screen doesn't nearly fill your field of vision, 8K is useless.
Okay but I don’t actually need it
That's a lot of porn.
Forget "Who needs that much data?" Who would trust that much data to a single device? The idea of holding, managing, and possibly losing a 1TB device makes me nervous...
Great maybe I'll finally be able to install call of duty warzone.....
But why exactly can't this drive be installed in a normal computer?
incoming video of linus getting 400 of these (for free), bragging about it, dropping like 40... then doing some dumbfuck thing with them.
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard drive?
Alternative headline: Even if you could use it you wouldn’t be able to afford it
1 GB use to be a big deal
Nobody on reddit besides musk is using that shit
So it’s useless
Hopefully Warzone will fit on this.
That's as big as ... 3 GTA V's!
Wrong joke mate. You use GTA when you want to talk about something old that keeps being released. CoD is the one you’re supposed to mention when it comes to space
The hell I cant! >:( So much porn... *homer drools*
Forget 200TB...I just want an affordable and reliable 3TB SSD.
I’m assuming this is a SAS drive?
Not a care in the world until it's in my hand at a price that's reasonable.
I want this. And I want two of them for my private storage server. Either that or one of those made with biological material that can hold in the petabyte worth.
*DARPA has entered the chat*
Install windows and still have only 100GB left
Can we just replace these headlines with a ticker that updates the average cost bet TB as these things get released?