cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/24650125

Because nothing says "fun" quite like having to restore a RAID that just saw 140TB fail.

Western Digital this week outlined its near-term and mid-term plans to increase hard drive capacities to around 60TB and beyond with optimizations that significantly increase HDD performance for the AI and cloud era. In addition, the company outlined its longer-term vision for hard disk drives' evolution that includes a new laser technology for heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR), new platters with higher areal density, and HDD assemblies with up to 14 platters. As a result, WD will be able to offer drives beyond 140 TB in the 2030s.

Western Digital plans to volume produce its inaugural commercial hard drives featuring HAMR technology next year, with capacities rising from 40TB (CMR) or 44TB (SMR) in late 2026, with production ramping in 2027. These drives will use the company's proven 11-platter platform with high-density media as well as HAMR heads with edge-emitting lasers that heat iron-platinum alloy (FePt) on top of platters to its Curie temperature — the point at which its magnetic properties change — and reducing its magnetic coercivity before writing data.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 150 points 7 months ago* (19 children)

with optimizations that significantly increase HDD performance for the AI and cloud era

Can somebody do anything with a normal consumer in mind these days? 😭

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 87 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Not until somebody shuts off the investor money faucet for AI. Then they'll come crawling back — although inevitably not until after they go whining to all the world's governments about wanting a bailout.

    But hey, look at the bright side. We've already had the cryptocurrency mining boom and bust, and "AI" boom and soon to be bust. There's still time for some idiot to invent the next tech scam fad which will conveniently require a shitload of hardware for no recognizably useful purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago

    Then they’ll come crawling back — although inevitably not until after they go whining to all the world’s governments about wanting a bailout.

    And don't forget the part where, whether they get a bailout or not, they'll still have to double the prices of everything to make up for all the money they lost on that stupid AI bubble exploding in their face (which all of us are somehow to blame for, obviously, which is why we have to pay them back for it)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 46 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    Okay cool, cool, so does this mean ridiculous data centers will use these things, and then can I get another 4TB RED for my NAS so I can fit my whole life on a mirrored total of 8TB without paying 8x what it's worth, please?

    Thaaaaanks...

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

    Is there a Lemmy community for trading surplus hardware yet?

    I have a pile of HDDs and servers that I no longer use. I've transitioned almost all mine to 20tb+. I might have 8 or 10 4tb REDs laying around. They're old, probably have thousands of power on hours in the smart data though.

    I set up a community on midwest.social and the lemmy.world one is dead (because I'm in the midwest) !homelabsales@midwest.social

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 44 points 7 months ago (16 children)

    I just hope smaller sized drives become cheaper. The word "hope" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Holy fuck can you imagine how long it would take to re-stripe a failed drive in a z2 array 😭

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    When you are running a server just to store files (a NAS) you generally set it up so multiple physical hard disks are joined together into an array so if one fails, none of the data is lost. You can replace a failed drive by taking it out and putting in a new working drive and then the system has to copy all of the data over from the other drives. This process can take many hours to run even with the 10-20 TB drive you get today, so doing the same thing with 140 TB drive would take days.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    My Z2 had à drive failure recently, with 4To drives. Took me almost 3 days to re-silver the array 😅. fortunately had a hot spare setup, so it started as soon as it failed, but now a second drive is showing signs of failing soon, so I had to pay the AI tax (168€) to get one asap (arriving Monday), as well as a second one, cheaper (around 120€), but which won't arrive until the end of April.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (16 children)

    This would be a bitch to have to rebuild in a raid array. At some point a drive can get TOO big. And this is looking to cross that line.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    At some point a drive can get TOO big

    I was thinking the same. I would hate to toast a 140 TB drive. I think I'd just sit right down and cry. I'll stick with my 10 TB drives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago* (8 children)

    This is not meant for human beings. A creature that needs over 140 TB of storage in a single device can definitely afford to run them in some distributed redundancy scheme with hot swaps and just shred failed units. We know they're not worried about being wasteful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Rebuild time is the big problem with this in a RAID Array. The interface is too slow and you risk losing more drives in the array before the rebuild completes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    Realistically, is that a factor for a Microsoft-sized company, though? I'd be shocked if they only had a single layer of redundancy. Whatever they store is probably replicated between high-availability hosts and datacenters several times, to the point where losing an entire RAID array (or whatever media redundancy scheme they use) is just a small inconvenience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It doesn't really matter, the current limitations are not so much data density at rest, but getting the data in and out at a useful speed. We breached the capacity barrier long ago with disk arrays.

    SATA will no longer be improved, we now need u.2 designs for data transport that are designed for storage. This exists, but needs to filter down through industrial application to get to us plebs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    If you were to ask me a year ago I'd tell you that HDD's would be the next dead storage medium but now SSD's cost more then I spent on my rig and HDD's are pushing 140 TB's

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    As a result, will be able to offer drives beyond 140 TB in the 2030s.

    Um thanks but tell us about 2026?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    And how much will that cost? Sounds like something fantastic for my Jellyfin server. I’ll have all the 4k HDR I can get my hands on.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 13 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Probably still with only 1 year warranty...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (3 children)
    load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 12 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    Whats the point when the prices for 4-8TB disks are stable the last 5 years? (I think that they are getting higher even...)

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] [B] 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

    Fewer Letters More Letters
    NAS Network-Attached Storage
    RAID Redundant Array of Independent Disks for mass storage
    SATA Serial AT Attachment interface for mass storage
    SSD Solid State Drive mass storage
    ZFS Solaris/Linux filesystem focusing on data integrity

    5 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 8 acronyms.

    [Thread #72 for this comm, first seen 8th Feb 2026, 00:30] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Does the increased density mean that the speed also goes up? It would be nice if a 7200 RPM drive could finally saturate SATA3 bandwidth.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    I wonder why current consumer HDD's don't have NVME connectors on them. Like I know speeding up the bus isn't going to make the spinning rust access faster but the cache ram would probably benefit from not being capped at 550MBps

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Okay. I want total honesty here. How many of you could actually fill that thing up?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 7 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Question: Are failures due to issues on a specific platter? Meaning, could a ZRAID theoretically use specific platters as a way to replicate data and not require 140TB of resilvering on a failure?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    @Fmstrat @veeesix Since there's two very diffrent questions there.. The first, "where do the failures happen?": anywhere. It could be the controller dying (in which case the platters themselves are fine if you replace the board, but otherwise the whole thing is toast). It could be the head breaking. It could be issues with a specific platter. It could be something that affects _all_ the platters (like dust getting inside the sealed area). So basically, it very much depends.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    Doesn't this sound awfully similar to the Mini disc technology? The discs were only writable when heated by a laser. They were pretty impressive for the time... But not very fast. Especially when writing.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›