[tracker1]

Funny, the 8TB drives I was looking at for a new NAS in a few months are around $300... I'm still debating between a 4 or 5-drive nas... but lets say, including the cost of the nas device I'm paying around $2k for 24TB of reduntant storage solution. 24TB of ssd storage alone will cost me over $6k, let alone the cost of a more expensive base NAS box, meaning 7-8K. That's upwards of 4X the cost.

That's the difference between something I can cover from my tax return, to something I won't really even consider. I won't save $6k in power in a year, or 5 to make up the difference, and I don't need the extra speed, to feed media to my htpc.

[brokenmachine]

I wouldn't use those 8Tb shingle drives for a NAS. In fact, that use is specifically mentioned as being not under warranty if I remember correctly.

Also, if (when) a drive fails and you have to resilver 8Tb of data on one of those drives, the slow write speed will kill you.

[tracker1]

The WD Red drives are expressly for NAS usage. Also, I'm aware of the slow redistribution of data. Generally there's only 0-2 connections on the NAS I have now, I just want more room. It's mostly BD/DVD rips, so if it dies, I can recover, it just takes a while. Reduced performance for a few days or a week isn't a huge deal for me.

[brokenmachine]

> The WD Red drives are expressly for NAS usage.

Oh, I was thinking about the cheaper Seagate "Archive" drives which have really slow write speed because of that shingled technology.

> Reduced performance for a few days or a week isn't a huge deal for me.

It could be a huge deal when another drive fails during that week while the array is rebuilding. But if you have more hot spares it's no big deal.

[runeks]

So if we're at only 3x the cost for SSD, how many years until HDD cost parity is reached? 5 years? This seems like a sensible guess to me.

[tracker1]

Process shrinks are increasingly expensive, so cost wise, I wouldn't expect it for another 10+ years.. also, if you need storage today?