HGST (now owned by WD) never seemed to acquire a bad reputation. Always top of the charts in Backblaze's drive statistics. Longest warranties. I was sad when they got bought. Their factory still seems to produce better drives than WD in general, as of a couple years ago.
Sorry, I should have included the qualifier recent.
Western Digital has had several recent high profile data loss issues
Of course you won't find a storage vendor with a spotless history, but Western Digital flash devices are spontaneously failing in the past 2 years and there's no solid indication that they've actually fixed the root cause in the affected products.
I will never not be astounded by the rate storage has increased in my lifetime. My first PC had a whopping 20 megabyte hard disk that occupied not one but TWO 5.25” drive bays and appeared something like the following
I'm not that astounded at all. Hard drive sizes have barely changed in 10 years.
Sure, flash storage keeps increasing, and 4TB on an SD card is pretty amazing, but it's not a hard drive, and SD cards aren't really that reliable, nor can they be used as long-term offline storage.
Good ol' spinning rust HDs are the only thing that make any sense for archiving data right now, unless you have enough data to make LTO tapes economical (and here you have to worry about the tapes being readable with newer generations of drives, so you still have to cycle the data to newer tapes). (Re)writable optical discs were supposed to serve this purpose, but they utterly failed at it.
What hasn't really moved is the price - I feel like even few years ago a £100 could get me a 4TB drive, and the same is true today, the capacity vs cost ratio hasn't really followed the same curve as it did with SSDs.
> and SD cards aren't really that reliable, nor can they be used as long-term offline storage.
It would be very nice if there was storage that was more durable & reliable than current tech. As opposed to just bigger & cheaper.
Eg. that glass-based storage Microsoft is working on. If that makes it to market, even a few dozen GB per media, write-once, would be very tempting.
I don't need ever-increasing # of TBs. I need [whatever I have stored] to not disappear randomly. Hell, in this aspect even floppies in early 80s out-did current day flash storage.
Yeah I know good backup procedures protect against data loss. But that doesn't make random-failing-storage-without-warning any less pita.
> My first PC had a whopping 20 megabyte hard disk that occupied not one but TWO 5.25” drive bays
My first HDD was for a Commodore Amiga 500 and it was sold with its enclosure, so it was quite big too. I remember it did cost (in Europe) the equivalent of about $1000:
Agreed, it’s truly mind boggling. My moment: coming home from a computer show with a spectacular deal — $80 for an 80Mb drive to be installed in our Compaq 286 suitcase unit. (Imagine having 100mb!)
This article makes several claims that are trivial to disprove:
> The 4TB capacity doubles that of the largest microSD cards, earning it the title for the world's largest removable memory card.
> CFexpress, known for its superior speed. Announced last year, the latest generation, CFexpress 4.0, supports up to four PCIe 4.0 lanes and 2GB/s per lane. Neither of those card formats can come close to offering 4TB of storage, however.
CFexpress is mostly just overpriced PCIe. You can make your own 4 TB CFexpress card with a small adapter and a 4 TB M.2 SSD that supports PCIe. It stands to reason that if there are 4 TB M.2 PCIe SSDs that are about the size of a CFexpress card, then there are also 4 TB CFexpress cards.
The UHS-1 speed really limits what you can do with this; I think you might be able to do some light 4K video on some cameras in limited modes but generally I expect it'll be best for FHD which isn't as storage-hungry to begin with.
I think 4TB of 60FPS FHD ALL-I compression on my Canon R5 would take 38 hours of footage to fill; if you aren't going to do any grading and use a 24/30FPS FHD IPB that number jumps to 97 hours or 4 days of footage.
I also don't know how useful it would be for burst-mode; I filled 256GB in a few hours but that was on a v90 card and I expect on a UHS-1 card I'd have spent a good chunk of that time waiting for the buffer to clear.
I'm sure there's some application for this -- I just can't see it for videography or photography.
SanDisk is still SanDisk and I don't consider them to be Western Digital. Their products have always been dodgy and I still have heartburn over some of their thumb drives where it was impossible to remove the shovel-ware installed on them. It will continue to be nothing other than Samsung products for me in the foreseeable future.
When I was researching what SD card to use for a camera product a few years ago, Samsung's high-endurance cards were by far the best bang for the buck endurance-wise. The choice ultimately came down to Samsung "PRO Endurance" / 820 TBW / $20, versus SanDisk "MAX ENDURANCE" / 719 TBW / $31. In short, the SanDisk cards were a lot more expensive for a worse product.
It looks like the price of the SanDisk cards have come down a bit since then, but are still more expensive for worse specs than the Samsung cards.
Readit News
Western Digital has had several high profile data loss issues across multiple product lines: Western Digital SN850 [1], SanDisk Extreme [2].
Western Digital's response has been very PR and not at all helpful toward the people who have lost data due to the faults in their products.
Storage products have one job: reliably store your data. WD has shown lately that you roll the dice if your choose their products.
[1] https://community.frame.work/t/tracking-wd-black-sn850-sudde...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/05/sandisk-extreme-ssds...
There's a reason the usual advice is "Backup", not "Choose a good vendor of storage products".
Sorry, I should have included the qualifier recent.
Western Digital has had several recent high profile data loss issues
Of course you won't find a storage vendor with a spotless history, but Western Digital flash devices are spontaneously failing in the past 2 years and there's no solid indication that they've actually fixed the root cause in the affected products.
Backups and RAIDs is how we deal with that.
https://www.priceblaze.com/st4121-Seagate-Storage-Hard-Drive...
Sure, flash storage keeps increasing, and 4TB on an SD card is pretty amazing, but it's not a hard drive, and SD cards aren't really that reliable, nor can they be used as long-term offline storage.
Good ol' spinning rust HDs are the only thing that make any sense for archiving data right now, unless you have enough data to make LTO tapes economical (and here you have to worry about the tapes being readable with newer generations of drives, so you still have to cycle the data to newer tapes). (Re)writable optical discs were supposed to serve this purpose, but they utterly failed at it.
I mean, they kinda have. From what I can find online, the largest capacity 3.5" drive you could buy in 2014 was 12TB.
Now in 2024, the largest drive seems to be this 30TB Seagate - not quite a 3x increase, but close:
https://petapixel.com/2024/01/18/seagates-new-30tb-hard-driv...
What hasn't really moved is the price - I feel like even few years ago a £100 could get me a 4TB drive, and the same is true today, the capacity vs cost ratio hasn't really followed the same curve as it did with SSDs.
It would be very nice if there was storage that was more durable & reliable than current tech. As opposed to just bigger & cheaper.
Eg. that glass-based storage Microsoft is working on. If that makes it to market, even a few dozen GB per media, write-once, would be very tempting.
I don't need ever-increasing # of TBs. I need [whatever I have stored] to not disappear randomly. Hell, in this aspect even floppies in early 80s out-did current day flash storage.
Yeah I know good backup procedures protect against data loss. But that doesn't make random-failing-storage-without-warning any less pita.
My first HDD was for a Commodore Amiga 500 and it was sold with its enclosure, so it was quite big too. I remember it did cost (in Europe) the equivalent of about $1000:
https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/36474/Reference-40MB...
Very strange feeling.
> The 4TB capacity doubles that of the largest microSD cards, earning it the title for the world's largest removable memory card.
> CFexpress, known for its superior speed. Announced last year, the latest generation, CFexpress 4.0, supports up to four PCIe 4.0 lanes and 2GB/s per lane. Neither of those card formats can come close to offering 4TB of storage, however.
CFexpress cards are physically larger than SD cards and have no trouble squeezing in 4 TB. They're uncommon, but they do already exist: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1711327-REG/red_digit...
CFexpress is mostly just overpriced PCIe. You can make your own 4 TB CFexpress card with a small adapter and a 4 TB M.2 SSD that supports PCIe. It stands to reason that if there are 4 TB M.2 PCIe SSDs that are about the size of a CFexpress card, then there are also 4 TB CFexpress cards.
Does anyone have a better source?
It then goes on to say it’s larger than any CFexpress card. Also false.
I think 4TB of 60FPS FHD ALL-I compression on my Canon R5 would take 38 hours of footage to fill; if you aren't going to do any grading and use a 24/30FPS FHD IPB that number jumps to 97 hours or 4 days of footage.
I also don't know how useful it would be for burst-mode; I filled 256GB in a few hours but that was on a v90 card and I expect on a UHS-1 card I'd have spent a good chunk of that time waiting for the buffer to clear.
I'm sure there's some application for this -- I just can't see it for videography or photography.
Buy this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OJ3UJ2S
Buy this, and stick this in that: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089C3TZL9
It looks like the price of the SanDisk cards have come down a bit since then, but are still more expensive for worse specs than the Samsung cards.