RAID0 is fine till one of the drives goes bad. Since these are RAID0 out of the box, if you need redundancy, you'll lose half of the advertised storage amount.
Actually you'd lose 100% if your were a moron, not half. My RAID 0 drives are mirrored every 24 hours with Carbon Copy Cloner and once a week to a third set of drives which is fine for my usage. Plus I have Smart technology prediction software monitoring all drives. I build my own RAIDs so I have total control. I even have beta RAID 0 set ups running in the beta APFS. So, where is your knowledge coming from?
Who the hell needs 20TB of space? Thats a lot of stolen music and movies.
I remember in the early 90's getting a call from a designer friend of mine asking me whether she'd ever need anything larger than a 20MB hard drive. And me, being the tech genius said, "Noooooo, of course not. I've been using my Mac with a 20MB hard drive for years and only a tiny bit of it is used up." In fact, some years before that, I remember when Tandy (Radio Shack) came out with a 1MB hard drive the size of a laser disc player and I said, "who the hell would ever need that?"
And now an AAC-encoded long song can be 20MB all by itself. A single raw file out of a 36MP DSLR can be 48MB and then another 15MB for the JPG. And then you Photoshop the file, but want to keep the originals, so that's another TIFF, which can be very large or another JPG which is another 15MB. So you have at least 66MB for a single image and now multiply that by however many images one might shoot in a year. It adds up fast.
MP4 1080p movies of about 10-20 minutes can be almost 3GB each. And remember, one might store the original footage, the final edited footage and the intermediate files created by the video editing application. As people move to 4K and potentially in years forward to 8K, the storage requirements are going to be enormous.
I'm very good at getting rid of unnecessary files and clearing email boxes out, etc., and my Mac is almost at a Terabyte already. Sure, I still see 20TB as excessive, but if I was doing video every day as a pro it wouldn't be. If I bought this drive, I'd probably buy 4TB, but every time I've made a decision like that thinking it would be enough, I've always regretted it afterwards because it was never enough.
Are you sure that's in the 1990s, seems more like the late 80s. I bought a PS80 from IBM with a 40mb disk in 1987, by 1995, the normal disk size was about 300mb-500mb.
10 TB drives exist? And for only $400? Wow. That took long enough. Ten years to go from 1 TB to 10 TB when the previous 10 years went from 10 GB to 1 TB…
Who the hell needs 20TB of space? Thats a lot of stolen music and movies.
Well this product is great news for people like me who are involved in modern DNA sequencing projects, where individual data files are in the range of 50-100 GB each.....
It sounds like compression would save a LOT of space with that. What is a typical compression factor for it?
Yes, there are compression schemes, but there are limits: it must be lossless. Unlike most lossy jpeg image compression, any data loss corrupts the whole for these files. Which is why some actually propose that the best way to store some genetic data is as the DNA molecule itself, in an ultracold freezer, and just re-sequencing it when access is required.
RAID0 is fine till one of the drives goes bad. Since these are RAID0 out of the box, if you need redundancy, you'll lose half of the advertised storage amount.
Actually you'd lose 100% if your were a moron, not half. My RAID 0 drives are mirrored every 24 hours with Carbon Copy Cloner and once a week to a third set of drives which is fine for my usage. Plus I have Smart technology prediction software monitoring all drives. I build my own RAIDs so I have total control. I even have beta RAID 0 set ups running in the beta APFS. So, where is your knowledge coming from?
They meant if you switched to RAID1, you'd lose half the total capacity. Not talking about data loss here.
Interesting, these actually seem to be a good deal based on the current market prices for WD Reds, I mean there's barely a markup for the enclosure, which seems...weird:
From Amazon: 8TB = $329 vs $298 for 4TBx2 bare drives 20TB = $799 vs $758 for 10TBx2
etc
Also, some details missing from the article, all USB-C and USB-A ports are USB 3.1 gen 1. Raid supports 0, 1 and JBOD.
Would RAID 0 on a pair of WD Reds (5400rpm, assuming they're not the 7200rpm Pro's) even saturate a USB 3.1 gen 1 (5Gbps) connection? Is there any advantage to Thunderbolt 2/3 with spinner drives (like OWC's TB2 RAID box which is $270 without any drives at all)?
RAID 0 might be a good option with these, the other built-in RAID options on most consumer-grade devices can lead to data loss (because they don't have error correcting memory and capacitor/battery backup). That said, you could hook a couple of external drives to your MacPro and use the software-RAID in macOS.
Who the hell needs 20TB of space? Thats a lot of stolen music and movies.
Well I have a 12TB NAS and I have a considerable amount of raw images and video from my DSLR, I also store multiple time machine backups from all the machines in the house, I also have a good portion of my DVDs and Blu-Rays ripped, if I ripped all of them I would easily fill up 12TB when combined with all the other data that I have (various ISO images, game installer backups, and so on...)
20TB is a lot, but it's not completely insane for someone who's not a professional to end up using that much...
10 TB drives exist? And for only $400? Wow. That took long enough. Ten years to go from 1 TB to 10 TB when the previous 10 years went from 10 GB to 1 TB…
There was a huge shift in R&D from mechanical drives to SSD.
You can actually get single SSD drives that are orders of magnitude larger in capacity than the largest mechanical drives...
Who the hell needs 20TB of space? Thats a lot of stolen music and movies.
Anyone involved in video capture and editing for one. I have have 24 TB of RAID 0 attached to my Mac at this moment. That's for HD, now I have 4K who knows what will be required.
Yah, I thought I had plenty but at a GB/min for ProRes 422 (145Mbps) not so much.
ProRes UHD is 880 Mbps or 5.3 GB/min.
Shooting 4K from a GH4 much smaller in h.264 at around 0.7GB/sec.
RAID 0 might be a good option with these, the other built-in RAID options on most consumer-grade devices can lead to data loss (because they don't have error correcting memory and capacitor/battery backup). That said, you could hook a couple of external drives to your MacPro and use the software-RAID in macOS.
This is no safer than any other raid 0 device. It still needs backup. If people haven’t learned that by now, then I guess they never will.
Comments
Down with Parity!!
From Amazon:
8TB = $329 vs $298 for 4TBx2 bare drives
20TB = $799 vs $758 for 10TBx2
etc
Also, some details missing from the article, all USB-C and USB-A ports are USB 3.1 gen 1. Raid supports 0, 1 and JBOD.
Would RAID 0 on a pair of WD Reds (5400rpm, assuming they're not the 7200rpm Pro's) even saturate a USB 3.1 gen 1 (5Gbps) connection? Is there any advantage to Thunderbolt 2/3 with spinner drives (like OWC's TB2 RAID box which is $270 without any drives at all)?
I'm interested...
20TB is a lot, but it's not completely insane for someone who's not a professional to end up using that much...
You can actually get single SSD drives that are orders of magnitude larger in capacity than the largest mechanical drives...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/10/toshiba_100tb_qlc_ssd
Storage is getting to the point where it's not just raw storage capacity that matters but also speed!
SSD is the future for storage in general, mechanical drives just can't keep up.
ProRes UHD is 880 Mbps or 5.3 GB/min.
Shooting 4K from a GH4 much smaller in h.264 at around 0.7GB/sec.
So...it depends.