• Ignotum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Still cheaper, i use them for large volumes of data that isn’t read or written that often

      • Dohnakun@lemmy.fmhy.mlB
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t get why we research DNA as storage.

        It is sensible as fuck, deteriorates quickly, is slow to write and read…

        Only advantage it’s bio-compatibility

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The information density is insane, both volumetric and by mass.

          I sort of agree, though. With current methods it seems like it would probably be just as easy to record information in a synthetic polymer.

    • Lachy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re great for a NAS, where the priority is high capacity and low cost, over high performance and high cost of SSDs for comparable capacity.

    • zaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      HDD is still the superior way to store data compared to ssd’s. Ssd’s are great for accessing your data fast but for people who have a lot of data they don’t access regularly the reliability and price of an HDD is unbeatable.

    • zbecker@mastodon.zbecker.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @Chev @produnis

      As the other guy said, because they are way cheaper. I use them for media storage.

      For 20tb of hard drive storage, you could expect to spend ~$400 (probably less these days), but the same price will get you a 5th that on ssds (maybe more these days)

      If you are streaming video, hard drive read speeds are good enough.