5 ms·

Wouldn't it be more like $0.07/GB for BDXL? If one got particularly lucky with HDD failure rates perhaps they'd survive running that long in RAID but one would

Wouldn't it be more like $0.07/GB for BDXL? If one got particularly lucky with HDD failure rates perhaps they'd survive running that long in RAID but one would expect some replacements over such a long period. Some other things to consider are at high capacities all HDDs use helium now, which slowly leaks (WD/HGST have a SMART stat about the level*) and the cost of running drives/associated computers/maintenance over a long span vs the up front cost of passive writable media (edit: for some reason I assumed this was what was meant but they could be left cold which would likely increase survival odds and be cheaper). * And there isn't much long term data about it that I could find, though some have reported between 1-5 years the SMART stat either remaining at max or dropping a few digits. Even Backblaze outside of their first article a year into using them hasn't seemingly continued reporting on the stat that I've noticed. I get the sense though that other types of failures are expected sooner than leaks.

shiroiushi 2y ago
>Wouldn't it be more like $0.07/GB for BDXL? Whoops, thanks for pointing out the math error; I've fixed it. >If one got particularly lucky with HDD failure rates perhaps they'd survive running that long in RAID but one would expect some replacements over such a long period. I don't think so: I'm not talking about keeping these drives spinning for 50 years, but rather in cold storage, just as we'd do with the BDXL discs. >Some other things to consider are at high capacities all HDDs use helium now, which slowly leaks (WD/HGST have a SMART stat about the level*) and the cost of running drives/associated computers/maintenance over a long span vs the up front cost of passive writable media. Helium leakage is an issue I didn't think of, and I don't know how sitting in cold storage for 50 years would affect this. But again, the costs of running drives/maintenance/etc. should be zero, because I'm comparing apples to apples. No one would seriously propose a massive array of BDXL drives with BDXL discs continuously available, so likewise I'm proposing just keeping 10+TB HDDs in cold storage.

shiroiushi 2y ago

>Wouldn't it be more like $0.07/GB for BDXL? Whoops, thanks for pointing out the math error; I've fixed it. >If one got particularly lucky with HDD failure rates perhaps they'd survive running that long in RAID but one would expect some replacements over such a long period. I don't think so: I'm not talking about keeping these drives spinning for 50 years, but rather in cold storage, just as we'd do with the BDXL discs. >Some other things to consider are at high capacities all HDDs use helium now, which slowly leaks (WD/HGST have a SMART stat about the level*) and the cost of running drives/associated computers/maintenance over a long span vs the up front cost of passive writable media. Helium leakage is an issue I didn't think of, and I don't know how sitting in cold storage for 50 years would affect this. But again, the costs of running drives/maintenance/etc. should be zero, because I'm comparing apples to apples. No one would seriously propose a massive array of BDXL drives with BDXL discs continuously available, so likewise I'm proposing just keeping 10+TB HDDs in cold storage.