New Storage Roadmap shows 100TB HDDs in 2025
Click here to post a comment for New Storage Roadmap shows 100TB HDDs in 2025 on our message forum
spectatorx
"Well a roadmap from Seagate has surfaced showing their plans and intentions and they are working on 48TB and of you follow the trendline on the roadmap, 100 TB HDDs in 2025."
So they will create a time machine and go back in time to deliver high capacity drives, that's amazing from seagate! The best company ever!
Ok, ok, you have a typo in there ;-)
Clawedge
In before people start bitching about hard drive crashes!
YAY! ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED!
slyphnier
those new tech mamr and hamr
wonder how it effect to reliability... before with pmr, platter wearing from magnetic seems close to none
i have to heard a hdd error because it lost its magnetic capability
but now with heated and microwave, by using heat, from it sounds it can permanently change the platter, so i wonder if the platter going to develop badsector more easily after many write compared to pmr tech or not ?
from the articles i read so far, the reliability are about same
especially for WD mamr, i think tech-wise is better that hamr
(https://www.crn.com/news/storage/300093791/western-digital-hammers-down-on-mamr-not-hamr-for-spinning-hard-drives.htm)
(https://www.cloudberrylab.com/blog/hamr-vs-mamr-new-hdd-technology)
but we have yet to prove it ourself i guess
schmidtbag
Kinda makes sense - as SSD prices continue to drop, there's becoming less and less of a reason to use HDDs. So, the only way forward is to increase their capacity in a way that SSDs can't keep up with, at least in an affordable manner. 100TB HDDs are the only logical way forward.
The interesting thing is with such high data density on the same size platters, this ought to make sequential read times fast enough to compete with SATA SSDs. I figure drives like this will be very appealing to people who edit videos in 4K+, 3D, or ultra-high framerate (for slow-mo). All these people need is a crapload of storage with high sequential read speeds, and that's exactly what these drives will offer.
Silva
I think this kind of density only makes sense for server and cloud usage.
The average user only needs 1 to 4 Tb of storage and the content creators would rather have more than one place where to store data.
I have all my data backed up in a 3Tb HDD that I turn on once a month to back up some stuff. I'd rather buy multiple drives over having everything on a single drive.
schmidtbag
I would totally agree, though, I don't think these drives are meant for the average person. I wouldn't be surprised if these drives will only be limited to SAS; I don't think we'll ever see 100TB SATA HDDs.
Seeing as these drives are most likely targeted toward high-end workstations and servers, anyone who buys just 1 of these drives is frankly an idiot (specifically, anyone who doesn't RAID1 or RAID10 them is also an idiot).
tsunami231
I dont know about that, I think 5 TB is not enough anymore for gaming special if you have huge steam collection and forget it on consoles now cause there all installed on the HDD there are alot goes that push 50gb these days and there those that push 100gb+ and those numbers are only gona get worse.
If I where to install all my ps4 games digital and psychical 5 tb is not large enough, I know some one that only does digital on ps4 and they have 5 3tb external drives and not enough that is enough to install all there games, Same for my steam collection.
As far as I concerned 100tb cant come soon enough. just like SSD that 1tb+ under 50$ cant come soon enough.
slyphnier
kinda funny for people think the file size itself dont grow bigger
nowdays full hd bluray already over 10GB, up to 100gb depending on quality preset + sound-quality
game like in the news few weeks ago "Red Dead Redemption 2" use over 100gb
we are not in full 4k yet, still do you think file size remain same ?
in audio, hi-resolution audio do take 10x mp3/m4a size... 100~500mb per file
now i ask u, why nowdays people using 1~4TB hdd ?
back 10years ago people using like 100~500GB hdd, right ?
schmidtbag
Is that a serious question? How closed-minded do you have to be to realize that most people don't store Blu Rays on local storage, or that not everyone plays the latest AAA titles (let alone cares about keeping them stored a couple years later)? Meanwhile, I split a lot of my data across various platforms. I use a NAS and various cloud storages.
The vast, vast majority of computer users don't have anything larger than 40GB for a single application or piece of media stored on a local drive. So yes, 1-4TB is plenty sufficient...
slyphnier
well i think its useless to argue more than this
like i alreasy ask u, why u need 1-4TB now ?
do u need 1-4TB back 10years ago ?
now if you buy pc, and only get 500GB hdd do you think its spacious like 10years ago ?
why we keep changing media from video-CD to DVD to HD-DVD/Blu-ray ?
edit : for OS let see how big it grow overtime
Windows 3.1 - installed size between 10?15MB.
Windows 95 was 19 MB and needed 50?55 MB of hard drive space depending on features selected.
Windows 98 needed at least 500 MB of hard drive space depending on features selected.
Windows XP needed 1.5 GB or higher of hard drive space depending on features selected.
now Windows Vista,7~10 well you can check it yourself
if the file size remain same or even reduced (more compressed/compatch), we wouldnt need faster internet or bigger hdds, thats the fact.
schmidtbag
I actually don't need 1-4TB, but, my main rig has a 1TB SSD merely for the sake of convenience. There was a great price for my drive at the time which is why I bought it. I certainly didn't need 1TB 10 years ago.
Not spacious, but sufficient. My office PC has a 500GB HDD and even with 2 VMs installed, I'm still using less than half of its available storage. 500GB is plenty for the average person.
Again, not relevant. This media is stored on a separate disc. The vast majority of people don't rip their media on local storage.
Windows Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 have all taken up roughly the same amount of disk space, plus or minus a GB or two (at least if you exclude some of the stupid unnecessary extras like Windows Movie Maker or that 3D builder).
If you exclude AAA titles that (for whatever reason) don't compress stuff like textures, most software isn't multiplying in disk consumption in the way that you think it does. Unless we enter a new age of personal computing (such as home quantum computers), I firmly believe that 500GB will be adequate for the average person for the foreseeable future. We're at a point where if an application gets noticeably bigger, it's usually because of bloat or un-optimized code.
For gamers (especially those who play AAA titles), I'm sure 1-4TB will be sufficient for the next few years. Some people may have to uninstall some games but like I said before, what's the point of holding all of that data if you have not plans to play the game again any time soon? Besides, at least for Steam users, you can archive the game into a compressed format if you want to temporarily save some space. So the point ultimately becomes: why spend more money on storage when you could just re-use what you already have?
As for the need of faster internet, that is actually a necessity, because streaming digital content is becoming the norm and video resolutions are continuing to rise. But again, people who stream 4K content aren't [permanently] storing that content on their local device. So when it comes to media, yes, disk consumption continues to rise, but that doesn't affect your needs for local storage.
Fox2232
And here I am thinking why did I ever needed 5TB storage. Those who think Movies backups... x265. And I do not even have those.
I opted out of having dead data. Most of my data are binaries and their data, not multimedia.
slyphnier
well it is not i didnt get your point or saying your POV wrong
for people not using many storage, like office-pc, yeah probably they will just enough with 1TB for years, i get it with that
for gamer, content-creator, audiophile people, those people will need bigger storage for sure
but then again "light-user" which u said vast-majority-PC-users (i kinda curious where u get those source?) most of time have their storage grow, and rarely if ever reduce ... thats 2nd fact i guess
Why ? simply because the content they are consume went bigger too
like their family pictures, videos they are taking are bigger nowdays... if before 2MP only take like 1mb per file... now with 12MP taking like 4mb+ each, so same to video size
and most people dont delete/clean-up their storage, they usually keep it on their storage forever, and thats why the storage keep getting bigger
now i bet you will saying, people now using cloud... what for big HDD... yea i agree we live in convinient era now...
But do u realize that, without u realizing the total storage u consume now is much bigger than before?
Those people paying for cloud-strorage = same to people buying hdd for storage
in the end, the storage will naturally follow the changes/follow it, which lead to bigger storage size
if now most people buying hdd is 3-4TB (less than that, i guess people buy 500GB~1TB SSD)
in next 1-2 years, people will getting 6-8TB for their storage drive and the trend will keep bigger....
thus eventually when u replace ur harddrive, it will be bigger than now, right ?
probably u wont use up all of the storage, and just say for sake-of-convenience , or even simply just because the price went down for bigger storage
but still your storage keep getting bigger than before right ?
and if we combining/look with the rest of storage-user, u should know that its inevitable for bigger storage
schmidtbag
Except if you understood my point then you'd realize my POV isn't wrong. You are looking at this in a very narrow-minded perspective. Case in point:
Most people don't conform to that description. I agree that those people need more storage; I've already established that before you even commented in this thread. But you're acting like 100TB drives are soon to be the norm, and I'm telling you it isn't.
First of all, I never said or even implied that storage is shrinking (although, there was that time when SSDs were first getting popular, but that was only a couple years and is a bit besides the point).
Second of all, storage capacities are increasing because storage is getting cheaper. It costs the same to buy an 80GB HDD as it does to buy an 800GB HDD. Why would you ever buy a smaller drive when you can get 10x the capacity for the same price? The cost of a 512GB SSD today is the same price as a 64GB SSD less than 5 years ago. The simple fact of the matter is it's not cost effective to get smaller drives.
I seriously can't stress this enough - most people aren't storing their media locally. You don't need a 1TB drive to watch Netflix. The photos and video people record on their phones are highly compressed and usually stored on a cloud. Furthermore, many of these people still manage to get thousands of 12MP+ photos on their built-in phone storage, which might be as low as 64GB.
Except when they run out of storage, they do. But do you not realize this point you made is working against you? People have more storage than they know what to do with. They don't delete anything because they don't have to. They let junk pile up and there's no reason to get rid of it. It encourages wastefulness.
Again, we're talking about what the average user involves. There is an absolute necessity for 100TB drives, but not for the average user.
No, it really isn't. Aside from a few big games here and there (which as I already said, I can remove if I need to), my overall storage consumption has remained relatively constant. Sure, more photos, videos, and music are added to my collection, but my data consumption isn't multiplying that much. Data doesn't just magically inflate just because time has passed. As Fox2232 pointed out, we're actually shrinking data using better compression methods. We're using CPU power to reduce disk usage.
If drives are proportionately cheaper in that amount of time, yes, we could start commonly seeing drives that large. But that's the only reason why that would happen, and that being said, that is very improbable. The trend you suggest doesn't exist to the extent you suggest. To clarify, yes, people overall are consuming more data, but not as rapidly as you suggest. In other words, the increase of storage capacity isn't because of demand.
Not necessarily. After buying my 1TB drive for my gaming PC, I have bought smaller drives since then, whether that be for myself or PCs I built for others.
I'm not questioning that the increase of storage is inevitable; of course it is. But it's not increasing as much as you suggest.
Silva
I agree with some of your points, but not everyone downloads all their games library.
I certainly don't keep a backup of all my games, it's much easier to just download the thing again if I want to play.
As for games taking up 100gb or more, those are games with installations poorly designed. Most of that is localization (languages) and the game takes probably just half the space.
If we could chose to download the UHD Textures separately, it would be even better.
When I said the average consumer, I didn't meant extreme case scenarios of people who have extensive game libraries and like to have it all backed up.
tsunami231
None the less it vaild point, and reason why I prefer psychical copies. I at lest have my own copy i dont need to have worry about server going down forever and losing it.
In world where digital content is gonna make physical content obsolete, it matters the people whos internet speeds is slower then 50mbit which still aLOT people, they dont want to be downloading games that huges, if games are 100+gb now in fews years double that, and if you have collections of 100+ digital games and alot those are 50+ and just as many that 100-200gb games 1tb anit gona cut it let alone 5 tb.
I have 1 TB drive on my PS4 and have 10 games for the system and if I install 6 of big install games i already have less then 1 100gb left which mean all othe PS + games I have i cant install let alone the other games i have. I dont want to be having multiple external drive to have access to all my games, nor do i want to be delete games to install other games let alone be downloading 100+gb games constantly cause there isnt enough room.
This why I still do physical copies vs digital, PC and Steam/GOG etc are only exception to this cause it all going threw steam at this point even if bought physical copy. and now they slow pulling away from psychical copies and push digital and eveyone has there own digital platform which I dont like.
imo pysical copies I actual own, digital I buying the ability to download and play the game, and when that services goes belly up if you anit got HDD big enough to download all games to storage. which people like to forget when that server down for good and that happens all the time, you just lost all the digital games you bought over the years,
which why 100tb cant come soon enough.
I still using 500gb in PC cause still wating for SSD prices to really drop more so i get 2+ tb drive with out saying WTH i can get GPU or CPU for this price. I only have 25 steam games, and majority of then have not been played once since I bought them simply cause I dont want to be deleting games for other games just to do it some more cause there not enough room, and I have 400mbit connection and even IF i had 2TB drive they still would not fit all the games.
Forget about the people that do video/photo/audio editing which really eats up spaces
how you gona feel when you dont have HDD big enough and you can get copies of ALL your digitial content? and that server is gone forever? 5000$+ of content and you could only get copies of 1/4 before ability to get copies of it gone forever?
schmidtbag
@tsunami231
Why not copy your old games to a separate drive and compress them in an archive? No need to buy one giant drive. If you want to save money, BD-Rs aren't as expensive as they used to be. You can get a pack of 50x 25GB discs for about $0.50 per disc. Use something like bzip2 and you should be able to cram the average modern AAA title into a single disc of that capacity. In the event you'd want to restore the archive and play the game again, your current CPU might actually be a bottleneck (when decompressing straight from the disc) rather than the limited bandwidth of the Blu Ray format.
As a side note, a great way to improve load times for games is to use the NTFS compression tool (or if you're in Linux, some filesystems like btrfs have great compression methods). Generally, the CPU isn't working that hard when a game is loading, and this is especially true if the main bottleneck is the drive itself (which usually is the case). With compression, you can improve load times by shrinking the amount of data that gets loaded from the disk and having the CPU do the work instead. I would advise against this for games that don't compress well, because otherwise that will hurt performance.
Corrupt^
That really depends on the game tbh. A lot of games already implement a form of compression themselves, which is something you get to find out if you start modding them.
A few older examples (because newer games are sadly often unmoddable):
Quake / SoF2 PK3 files were essentially zip files containing game content
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. used .db files I believe (been a while) that also compressed the content
In some cases, stalker being one of them, unpacking the data actually improved load times.
schmidtbag
Well when we get into details like this, your drive speed, CPU speed, amount of RAM, and the compression method can all have an impact on the performance too. And like I said before, its not a good idea for all games.
rl66
It depend, on workstation there is more and more SATA and less SAS... For a lot of duty it is enough to have SATA.
And yes it is stupid to get only one, imagine the lost of 100To 🙂
