I am using ext 5TB drives for a few years now and there is nothing on the horizon for larger capacity 2.5 inch HDD. Is this it? I like them because of their smaller size and requiring only a single USB connection to power and transfer. I usually have them in pairs for backup reasons. Unfortunately I am FAST approaching their capacity limits and I would rather not split my folders into more drives. I like to have one subject on each drive. So, anyone heard of any higher capacity 2.5 inch HDD coming any time soon?
He's looking for 2.5" though. Max for those is 5TB (which are 15mm thick mechanically). SSD's have surpassed mechanical drives in the 2.5" market with Samsung having an 8TB, while Team Group has a 15.3TB, but they are bare drives (you'd have to buy a 2.5" portable case for them).
16TB+ 2.5's are SSDs.... there's not enough significant interest for spinning rust in that size anymore....
Crude as usual , but I guess that gives an explanation on why we won't see them. BTW a 5TB 2.5" HDD external drive is about 100 Euros/$US. About 10% of a similar capacity SSD .
no denying that the 2.5" spinning rust is going to be massively cheaper.... It's just that there is a hell of a lot of people migrating AWAY from that, instead if they need to rely on spinning rust, NAS storage has apparently been the thing in major demand. I've sold significantly more NAS storage units than i have 2.5" external drives.... actually the only 2.5" externals i've sold in the last 5 years have been the enclosures rated for usb 3.1 or better (models with USB C support) with a samsung EVO or more recently QVO drive of the desired size. Currently you can get 1TB and larger USB Flash drives as well, little itty bitty sticks.
Spinning rust is love! Seriously, I've found mechanical drives to be reliable (to the point where I'm not sure if trust an SSD more than a good ol' whirry-rusty in the long term, as long as they aren't getting moved much) and I love the capacity and the price. SSD loading times are a nice to have for me, but no more than that, and if you're getting seriously bogged down by an HDD, you probably need more RAM.
Dealing with customers with plenty of ram, their machines are dog shit slow due to spinning rust. As for trusting ssds.... their reliability stats make standard HDDs look the equivalent of the reliability of first generation vehicle record player vs a recent generation mobile mp3 player. While plenty of people tend to think that ssds can't retain data that long, i've yet to find a case in which that's true, as an experiment for my own experience, i've a few ssds that data was dumped on and used as daily drivers until they were pulled and stored away. The oldest drive i've fired up has sat for about 7 years and no problems with it or any of the data on it. I've another drive that is nearly 10 years old, and i happened to come across another machine from a custom that insisted they hadn't fired it up since 2007 with a 32gb ocz ssd. So i'm curious to find out.
