Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SanDisk Announces 4TB SSD, Plans For 8TB Next Year

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the no-moving-parts dept.

Data Storage 264

Lucas123 (935744) writes "SanDisk has announced what it's calling the world's highest capacity 2.5-in SAS SSD, the 4TB Optimus MAX line. The flash drive uses eMLC (enterprise multi-level cell) NAND built with 19nm process technology. The company said it plans on doubling the capacity of its SAS SSDs every one to two years and expects to release an 8TB model next year, dwarfing anything hard disk drives can ever offer over the same amount of time. he Optimus MAX SAS SSD is capable of up to 400 MBps sequential reads and writes and up to 75,000 random I/Os per second (IOPS) for both reads and writes, the company said."

cancel ×

264 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh goody (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906017)

Now you can pay $4000 for a drive that won't last 2 years! Yeah.. sign me up.

Re:Oh goody (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#46906047)

only 4k? probably more like 20..

Re: Oh goody (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906049)

My primary OS is running on an SSD going on 4 years old now... Out of 5 that I have only one had had issues, which was actually it's controller catastrophically failing and not a NAND issue - could have just as easily happened to a HDD.

Re: Oh goody (2, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#46906071)

I went through three different intel ssds within a year before I gave up and went back to raid spinning disks. They're fine for laptop use, and there's a place for them in data centers as caching drives, but they still suck for heavy workstation loads.

Re: Oh goody (5, Interesting)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 4 months ago | (#46906155)

False. Your one anecdotal story does not negate the collective wisdom of the entire computer industry.

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, here's some more worthless info: I've owned 8 SSD drives going all the way back to 2009 and not a single one has ever failed. They're all currently in use and still going strong. I have:

- 32 GB Mtron PATA SLC drive from 2009
- 64 GB Kingston from 2010 (crappy JMicron controller but it was cheap)
- 80 GB Intel G2 from 2010
- 80 GB Intel G3 from 2011
- 2x 80 GB Intel 320 from 2011
- 2x 240 GB Intel 520 in my work computer, it gets pretty heavily used, from 2012
- Whatever is in my Macbook Pro from 2012
- Just purchased a 250GB Samsung 840 Evo

Not a single failure on any of them, even the old 32 GB Mtron and the piece of crap JMicron controller Kingston.

But this evidence doesn't really matter; it's the broad experience of the industry as a whole that matters, and I assure you, SSDs have already been decided as ready for prime time.

For a recent example, linode.com, my data center host for like 10 years now, just switched over to all SSDs in all of their systems.

Re: Oh goody (5, Informative)

shitzu (931108) | about 4 months ago | (#46906329)

We have ~100 SSDs installed in our company, workstations, laptops and servers. Over five years only 3 of them died, all Kingstons. Samsung and Intel have been spotless. All of those that died had the following symptoms - if you accessed a certain sector the drive just dropped off - as if you switched off its power. The drive did not remap them as it always dropped off before it could do so. Otherwise the drive remained functional. Got them replaced under warranty.

Re: Oh goody (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906361)

For a recent example, linode.com, my data center host for like 10 years now, just switched over to all SSDs in all of their systems.

Figures. They only host Linux servers, so it's not like they care about reliability or economy. Anyone who's serious about enterprise-quality hosting is using Windows Server.

Re: Oh goody (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906573)

For a recent example, linode.com, my data center host for like 10 years now, just switched over to all SSDs in all of their systems.

Figures. They only host Linux servers, so it's not like they care about reliability or economy. Anyone who's serious about enterprise-quality hosting is using Windows Server.

APK, is that you?

Re: Oh goody (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906411)

BTW, that's not "evidence" that's ANECDOTE.

Anecdotes are a FORM of evidence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906535)

Anecdotes are a FORM of evidence. Not very strong evidence (to put it mildly), but still... evidence.

Re: Oh goody (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906429)

_Your_ tale of completely flawless SSD operation is anecdotal. What uncited "collective wisdom" gains a Code Horror [codinghorror.com] post? Every SSD hard drive that I've owned has failed within a year, and I don't see the value in that when <spoiler>my neighbor's Windows 98 box still chugs out IE6 within 10 seconds.

Re: Oh goody (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906447)

I've had a 64GB Kingmax PATA SSD (Jmicron controller) and a G-skill 32GB MicroSDXC card fail in the past couple years. Flash isn't infallible.

Re: Oh goody (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906721)

Your name is misspelled. Your parents must have been fucking idiots.

Re: Oh goody (0)

dugancent (2616577) | about 4 months ago | (#46906789)

"Collective wisdom"? Is that slang for circle-jerking and fanboyism? That's all I really see.

Re: Oh goody (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906359)

It's all about loads. Read the article, these are designed for 90% read-heavy, and very little writing. These are not designed for "using" computers just cold storage.

eg, I'm going to make a hot-backup of my 4TB RAID array every day for the next 3 years, that should burn out the drive after a theoretical 30 years.

But no, this is not designed for web servers unless it's being used as a storage drive, not an operating system/swap/logging/tmp drive. The problem is that CMS systems need to do a lot of static caching which means extremely-busy sites will blow through the write performance like wet tissue paper and eventually kill the drive after 3 years.

Re: Oh goody (0)

Hadlock (143607) | about 4 months ago | (#46906375)

I hope you weren't using OCZ branded drives...

Re:Oh goody (5, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 months ago | (#46906083)

Assuming you write an average of 100GB a day to this drive (which is... an enormous overestimate for anything except a video editor's scratch disk), that's 40,000 days before you write over every cell on the disk 1000 times. Aka, 100 years before it reaches its write limit. So no... SSDs are far from the 2 year proposition that people who bought first gen 16/32GB drives make them out to be.

Re:Oh goody (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46906151)

If you only write infrequently (use for image editing) and then backup storage - how many years would the SSD maintain values?

Re:Oh goody (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 months ago | (#46906393)

Of course, in the worst case, with a suitable synthetic workload in which every 512-byte block write causes a 512 KB flash page (again, worst case) to get erased and rewritten, that could translate to only a 40-day lifespan. Mind you, that worst-case scenario isn't likely to occur in the real world, but....

Re:Oh goody (1)

smallfries (601545) | about 4 months ago | (#46906511)

How is that the worst case? Block erasure is only necessary to free up space, not to make a write.

Re:Oh goody (3, Informative)

Mr Z (6791) | about 4 months ago | (#46906733)

If you know something about the drive's sector migration policies, in theory you could construct a worst-case amplification attack against a given drive. Leverage that against the drive's wear leveling policies. But, that seems rather unlikely.

Flash pages retain their data until they're erased. You can write at the byte level, but you must erase at the full page level. You can't rewrite a byte until you erase the page that contains it. That's the heart of the attack: Rewriting sectors with new data. You can't rewrite a sector in-place. You mark the old location as "dirty but free", and write the new data to a new location. The SSD can't reclaim the dirty-but-free sectors for writing until they're erased.

Thus, the basic idea goes something like this: Fill the disk to 99.9% full. Then, selectively rewrite individual sectors, forcing the sector to migrate to a new flash page. Wash, rinse, repeat until the drive fails.

If the drive only performs dynamic wear leveling, all subsequent rewrites will erase and reuse only among the free space. (Note: This free space includes all of the space the drive reserves to itself for dynamic wear leveling purposes.) Now all you need to do is reach the erase/rewrite limit among the available dynamic wear leveling pool, which is significantly smaller than the full drive capacity. You can achieve this by rewriting a small subset of sectors until the disk falls over.

Modern drives perform a blend of dynamic and static wear leveling. Dynamic wear leveling only erases/rewrites among the "free" space. Static wear leveling gets otherwise untouched sectors into the fray by wear leveling over all sectors. This blended approach defers static wear leveling until it becomes absolutely necessary. The flash translation layer (FTL) detects when the wear difference between sectors gets too imbalanced, and migrates static sectors into the worn regions and wear-levels over the previously "static" sectors.

A successful attack would take this into account and attempt to keep track of which sectors would be marked "static" vs. "dynamic". It would also predict how the static sectors were grouped together into pages, so it could cherry-pick and inflict the maximum damage: All it needs to do is write to a single sector in each static flash page (creating a bunch of unallocated "dirty-but-free" holes), continuing until the SSD was forced into a garbage collection cycle. That GC cycle then would have to touch all the static pages (or at least a significant fraction) to compact the holes away and make space available for future writes.

If you can keep that up, you can magnify your writes by the ratio between the page size and the sector size. If you have 512 byte sectors and 512K bytes pages, the amplification factor is 1024.

But, as I suggested above, to achieve this directly, you need to have some idea of how the SSD marks things static vs. dynamic. Without such knowledge, you have to approximate.

I imagine if you really wanted to kill an SSD without any knowledge of its algorithms, you could do something simple like rewrite every allocated sector in an arbitrary order, shuffling the order each time. SSD algorithms assume a distribution of "hotness" (ie. some sectors are "hot" and will be rewritten regularly, and most are "cold" and will be rewritten rarely if ever), and so rewriting all sectors in a random order will cause rather persistent fragmentation, recurring GC cycles, and pretty noticeable amplification.

You wouldn't get to the 40 day mark, but if you started with a mostly full SSD, you might get to a few months.

That's my back-of-the-napkin, "I wrote an FTL once and had to reason through all this" estimate.

Re:Oh goody (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#46906609)

Like someone else already said, that's what the wear levelling algorithms in the controller are for.

Re:Oh goody (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 months ago | (#46906091)

Going 4 years on my Intel SSD. I am replacing it, but only to gain capacity.

Re:Oh goody (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906131)

Just turn on DoubleSpace ... might buy you a couple of more years.

Re:Oh goody (2)

Atomic Fro (150394) | about 4 months ago | (#46906189)

LOL, does that still exist?

Guess not. Ended after Windows 98. I remember using it fondly, though my dad got upset when I told him I turned it on.

Re:Oh goody (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 months ago | (#46906693)

NTFS actually supports compressed folders. The contents are compressed transparently, so applications can work with the files easily.

Re:Oh goody (1)

Mr Z (6791) | about 4 months ago | (#46906747)

Ok, I just checked in my WinXP box: You can right click on a folder, go to "Properties". Click "Advanced", and there's an option to "Compress to save disk space." I'm too lazy to go get my Win7 laptop to see if that's still there.

So, some version of TroubleSpace...err...DoubleSpace...err...DriveSpace survived beyond Win98.

Re:Oh goody (2)

Atomic Fro (150394) | about 4 months ago | (#46906855)

I thought I remembered that on XP. Just checked, that checkbox exists on Windows 7 as well.

Re:Oh goody (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 4 months ago | (#46906167)

Now you can pay $4000 for a drive that won't last 2 years! Yeah.. sign me up.

Huh? What are you blathering on about, AC? From TFA:

In all, SanDisk announced four new data center-class SSDs. As the drives are enterprise-class, which are typically sold through third parties, SanDisk did not announce pricing with the new drives.[Emphasis added]

Re:Oh goody (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46906209)

They didn't announce pricing because it's not for us mortals, but they did announce the technology to make us and the competitors jealous. ;)

Re:Oh goody (2)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#46906249)

Easy there pardner. You can type "sandisk optimus max" into google and up comes an ad selling a Sandisk Optimus Eco 1.6 TB for $3,417.25.

So while it's true AFAIK you can't find pricing info on the Optimus Max, you can make book that it's gonna be on the high side of that figure. IMHO $4000 is a low estimate.

Not in my experience. (5, Interesting)

aussersterne (212916) | about 4 months ago | (#46906199)

Anecdotal and small sample size caveats aside, I've had 4 (of 15) mechanical drives fail in my small business over the last two years and 0 (of 8) SSDs over the same time period fail on me.

The oldest mechanical drive that failed was around 2 years old. The oldest SSD currently in service is over 4 years old.

More to the point, the SSDs are all in laptops, getting jostled, bumped around, used at odd angles, and subject to routine temperature fluctuations. The mechanical drives were all case-mounted, stationary, and with adequate cooling.

This isn't enough to base an industry report on, but certainly my experience doesn't bear out the common idea that SSDs are catastrophically unreliable in comparison to mechanical drives.

Re:Not in my experience. (2)

Number42 (3443229) | about 4 months ago | (#46906241)

In general, less moving parts = lesser chance of failure.

Re:Not in my experience. (0)

edibobb (113989) | about 4 months ago | (#46906269)

Sure, but think of all the electrons moving around in SSDs.

Re: Not in my experience. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906287)

Think of all the atoms moving in the universe! It's due to fail any day now but I can't find a suitable replacement!

Re:Not in my experience. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#46906613)

Think of all the molecules being twisted around in spinny disk drives.

Re:Not in my experience. (2)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 4 months ago | (#46906441)

I have had the opposite experience. 6 SSD's of which 4 have failed, the 2 still alive are less than 12 months old. 16 physical 2 and 3TB disks which are currently all running. both our experiences are anecdotal though I do believe the current failure rates on SSD's is still significantly higher than physical disks (at least it was in the last report I read on them early last year).

Re:Not in my experience. (1, Troll)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 4 months ago | (#46906479)

Let me guess ... you bought OCZ drives because they were cheap, and even though they kept failing, you kept buying more OCZ drives, and they failed too?

It's a common story. What I don't understand is, why *anyone* buys an OCZ drive after the first one fails.

Re:Not in my experience. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906727)

Might not be OCZ. After all why would any sane slashdotter buy an OCZ drive in the last 12 months (as per the two drives mentioned). By that time there would be plenty of reasons and evidence to not buy OCZ.

arrgh (1)

markhahn (122033) | about 4 months ago | (#46906077)

ssd vendors should be rushing to get nvme out the door, rather than wasting time on capacity. flash does not and simply never will scale the same way capacity in recording media (including that mounted in spinning disks) does...

Re:arrgh (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46906081)

Bahahaha

My Samsung pro has been tested to go over 75 TB before dying and is as fast as 100 hard disks in a raid with IOS for just a few hundred dollars.

This is like arguing the future of punch cards as they do not loose magnetism like a disk can. Only SSD's are truly suited for poorly written video apps like premiere where a single edit adds a TB easily.

Re:arrgh (0)

Dave Owen (3541825) | about 4 months ago | (#46906237)

...poorly written video apps like premiere a single edit adds a TB easily.

I'm having trouble imagining how a single edit could add a TB. Could you explain?

Re:arrgh (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46906253)

Easy. Each edit makes a copy of the video file.

Re:arrgh (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46906311)

I've noticed years ago that Premiere was dumb, but I would have thought things would improve over the years. Especially in the age of GPU-accelerated non-destructive editing (where the need for caching processed results themselves has somewhat diminished).

Re:arrgh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906407)

You would think that Premiere would improve? This is Adobe we're talking about here. They mostly just raise prices and find ways to make licensing less palatable while adding useless features that nobody asked for. Bug fixes don't sell upgrades.

Just keep reminding yourself that this is the same company that created Flash Player and Adobe Reader, and you'll understand everything you need to know about why any given Adobe product sucks.

Re:arrgh (1)

Dave Owen (3541825) | about 4 months ago | (#46906551)

Premiere has been GPU-accelerated for a while now and has always been non-destructive. I've been using it since 4.2. I've also used the other main editors in the semi-pro market and I have no particular bias towards PPRO, I just find it frustrating to hear the misinformation that gets spread about it. I've actually come to prefer PPRO over the Final Cut offerings.

Re:arrgh (1)

Dave Owen (3541825) | about 4 months ago | (#46906539)

I must be misunderstanding you or missing a troll or something. Are you talking about Adobe Premiere Pro? Because it sure doesn't work like that. In fact I've never heard of any video editing software that does. And I still can't imagine how a single edit could add a TB of data even if it did. My current video working drive is 1TB in total and I rarely get anywhere near capacity on it even if I'm working on several projects at once.

Re:arrgh (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 months ago | (#46906101)

Funny, it seams to be doing just that. It just started way behind, so it will take a while to catch up. That and the abandonment of density increases on spinning media.

Re:arrgh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906353)

Seams are on pants.

Re:arrgh (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#46906629)

and what happens when someone figures out how to make flash memory with infinite writes?
If someone can figure out how to jump a charge across the insulating layer without damaging it, flash memory will never wear out.

Re:arrgh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906799)

Flash write capacity can be restored [techspot.com] by heating it up to ~250 degrees Celsius every now and then.
There are ideas about flash chips with heaters close to each memory block but as far as I know that has not reached consumers yet.
I don't think the industry is much in a hurry either. Of all the consumer grade SSDs I've heard failed none have been out of wear.
For normal usage and functioning wear leveling you will have replaced the entire computer a couple of times before wear becomes an issue.

Finally the disk drive can die (3, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46906097)

It is so archaic in this day and age of microization to have something mechanic bottlenecking the whole computer. It just doesn't mix in the 21st century.

For those who have used them will agree with me. It is like light and day and there is no way in hell you could pay me to do things like run several domain VM's on a mid 20th century spinning mechanical disk. No more 15 minute waits to start up and shutdown all 7 vms at the same time.

Not even a 100 disk array can match the IOPS (interrupts and operations per second) that a single ssd can provide. If the price goes down in 5 years from now only walmart specials will have any mechanical disk.

Like tape drive and paper punch cards I am sure it will live someone in a storage oriented server IDF closet or something. But for real work it is SSD all the way.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906115)

But right now SSDs are just too expensive. Sure they aren't that bad if we are talking 16 GB in a phone or tablet, but for a 500 GB one for a home computer? Forget about it for at least a few more years!

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 4 months ago | (#46906129)

I just bought a Samsung 840 Evo 250 GB drive for like $150. I believe that the 500 GB was under $300.

That is eminently affordable.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

statemachine (840641) | about 4 months ago | (#46906193)

Looking at Frys.com, I see 256GB SSD at $150. But at the same price, one can buy a 3 TB hard disk.

Hopefully these new SSDs will put more price pressure on the bottom. It was several years before answering machines switched from tape to SSD, too, for a lot of the same kinds of reasons. Don't judge me.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 4 months ago | (#46906205)

Well if you really need 3 TB, then yeah, you have a hard choice to make.

The vast majority of people should, I believe, do just fine in 250 GB or less. I know I certainly can, and am more than happy to trade 2.5 TB of space I will never use for a drive that actually makes my computer fast instead of tying me to data storage speeds of the 1980s ...

Of course, the vast majority of people aren't even buying PCs anymore, they're just buying phones and pads with flash storage already built in.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46906223)

I still have a mechanical disk. It is for most of my programs and my profiles are stored there as I do not need acceleration to open a .docx file.

But with these coming out in 5 years it will be affordable to leave mechanical behind for just storage like tape archives are today.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

statemachine (840641) | about 4 months ago | (#46906255)

I have a lot photos, documents, and on/near-line backups. Over 15 years worth (and for this crowd, the surprising thing is that it isn't porn). Every few years I rebuild my server with a new RAID, and I buy based on the $99 range. A 6 disk RAID gives me a lot more capacity than with SSD right now. And I have a physical external backup disk.

You could say my setup is paranoid, but I've had so many disk failures, RAID failures (software/OS/filesystem), and backup failures, it's not even funny. And then there was the one time the house burned down. So....

I necessarily go with the most bang for the buck that I can afford.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#46906641)

I have a lot photos, documents, and on/near-line backups

You mean illegally downloaded movies and TV shows?

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906703)

Since for some reason Slashdot isn't letting me log into just this article, just take my word it's me, statemachine.

I have a lot photos, documents, and on/near-line backups

You mean illegally downloaded movies and TV shows?

Cute. No, I mean photos and documents. It's hard to believe that one would have so many pictures and even videos from events, gatherings, and travels a person would want to save. It's almost like... I have a life.

But I also have copies of all my music CDs, and everything I've bought from iTunes and Amazon.

There may even be a preserved copy of my original slackware installation.

That may be hard for you to believe, peering up from your mom's basement, but I assure you, it's quite the reality.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#46906273)

Well if you really need 3 TB, then yeah, you have a hard choice to make.

No, just no. Nothing hard about it. Takes me about one second to pick the 3 TB hard drive over twelve 250 GB SSDs at 16 times the price.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

smash (1351) | about 4 months ago | (#46906335)

Pretty much. Unless you are a niche users doing video editing or something, just buy a spinning disk about 4+ times larger than you need and effectively short-stroke it. I'm doing just this on this machine I am currently using with a 2TB disk, using about 300 GB. It is reasonably snappy. It's not SSD fast, but it is plenty fast enough for general use, was about a hundred bucks.

And I don't waste my time shuffling data around constantly due to lack of space on my SSD. SSD caching I can see being a benefit, but unfortunately the intel chipset can only use 30-60GB or something for cache.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 4 months ago | (#46906309)

250GB would be about good enough for a nice, somewhat sorted out music collection - not stored in MP3 128K.
That doesn't leave room for junk/unsorted/low quality music files while you built it up, nor room for a pig OS, linux isos, and whatever other kinds of data. And then you still need a hard drive to back things up.

So if presented that choice I'll gladly pick the 3TB drive. Too bad if I have to wait a couple more seconds for the music player, the web browser etc. to launch. It's worth losing that speed, I don't do video editing and whatever high end 3D or real time audio or engineering stuff.
Even for playing around with virtual machines, drive capacity is needed.

Yeah I could certainly use the 250GB ultra fast drive. If that means relying on a file server, external storage, or more or less personal "cloud" that simply means getting back to using a hard drive. "Regular" people tend to buy USB enclosed ones.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 4 months ago | (#46906489)

Dude, if you have a 250 GB music collection you are in the like 1% of the 1% of computer users. Seriously. And virtual machine images? That's like 1% of the 1% of the 1% ...

The vast majority of people are not ripping CDs to losslessly compressed files on their computers and/or ripping off artists by pirating music and movies.

I stand by my claim that the majority of users would do just fine with 250 GB.

You may not be in that majority, and so for you, yeah, you're just going to have to continue to live with spinning metal platter technology of the 1960's for a while longer ...

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 4 months ago | (#46906521)

well, that makes me feel better! I don't have 250gb of just music, but I'm getting there. I've got both VMware and VPC images too, a rack with four PC's on it...I guess that makes me in the 1% or the 1% of the 1%?

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46906251)

If it's an "enterprise" disk (horrible word!), I can imagine a few reasons why a 4TB SSD would be desirable for companies: 1) higher spatial density, 2) almost insignificant heat emission, 3) much higher reliability, 4) the fact that there can easily be a much smaller difference in prices between enterprise HDDs and enterprise SSDs - the latter were historically more expensive by virtue of higher performance and reliability, but you get these things in SSDs "by default" and disks get thrown into large arrays today anyway (which take extra care of the "reliable" and "available" part).

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46906259)

Crap, swap "the former" in place of "the latter". But most people with brains have already done that anyway, right?

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906459)

Who the hell on /. hasn't been running multi-disk systems basically forever? I've never had a workstation that didn't have a small, fast system drive and a large, economical bulk data drive.

In years past the system drive was a scsi, a raptor, or some IDE RAID setup for speed. These days it's an SSD, which provides about 100x the performance at about 1.5-2x the price of the old "top performance" options like a Raptor (and actually cheaper than a 90s SCSI rig). The data drives are still big, slow, low cost/gb drives. These days they're the "green" drives.

My current setup = 500GB EVO 840 ($275) + two 3TB WD green drives (mirrored) ($240) + 1 3TD external drive for backup ($120). About the same cost as my previous setups in older rigs.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 4 months ago | (#46906495)

I work all day long, on large projects, and manage just fine at work with 480 GB of SSD storage. My work is as a software developer with 6 - 8 40 GB source/build trees checked out at any one time.

So I for one don't run multi-disk systems. The headache of having to think about whether or not I should store something on 'fast' storage vs 'cheap bulk' storage is just not something I ever want to think about. I want it all fast, all the time.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 4 months ago | (#46906657)

Agreed. When my work put SSD's in the developer machines, build times went from 40 minutes to 6 minutes.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906811)

Looking at Frys.com, I see 256GB SSD at $150. But at the same price, one can buy a 3 TB hard disk.

You can buy a 3TB hard drive but if you system isn't on an SSD these days it is like upgrading from a 3.0GHz CPU to a 3.2GHz one when you only have 256MB RAM.

A HDD isn't a replacement for an SSD.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (2)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#46906265)

I just bought a Samsung 840 Evo 250 GB drive for like $150. I believe that the 500 GB was under $300.

So what? I picked up a 3 TB hard drive for $110. You're paying 16 times as much per GB for the SSD. They are still pie in the sky for serious storage.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906473)

As we all know, you absolutely must keep your 10 TB pr0n collection on the same disk as your system and apps.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 4 months ago | (#46906337)

That is eminently affordable.

Until they fail in less than a month because you exceeded theeeeeeeeeeeeeir write endurance. Thereee's a ressaon no one uses SSDs in seserrvvvvvvvveeeeeeers.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 4 months ago | (#46906499)

No one uses SSDs in servers? You have no clue. None.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906845)

I see a pink slip in your future.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906699)

SSD write endurance increases dramatically with the amount of storage it has available and whatever else the server can't access for overprovisioning.

A 480GB Micron M500DC has about 1.9PB of write endurance according to the manufacturer. I know the 800GB version (with the same 1.9PB end. spec) actually has 1024GB in capacity, so that's still 224GB overprovisioning if you fill it.

I don't have a clue how much the 4TB SSD will be able to write, but I'm damn sure it's alot more than 2PB worth of data. 500GB written daily would put it at spec. wearout in about 11 years. A terabyte a day would be around 5 years-ish.

Even account for the 1000/1024 fuckup in my calculations, I think it's a good investment assuming you actually backup all that data.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

davidhoude (1868300) | about 4 months ago | (#46906147)

How much space do you need for your computer?

250GB SSD's are about $100 if you catch them on sale, some even cheaper. The prices are dropping by the day, they were twice the price last year. I expect 500GB to be around $150 here soon.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46906229)

Hard drive is the new tape. SSD is the new hard drive.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

shitzu (931108) | about 4 months ago | (#46906345)

Word.

Re: Finally the disk drive can die (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#46906625)

PowerPoint.

Re:Finally the disk drive can die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906169)

It's "night and day" numbnuts. There isn't much difference between "light" and day, is there?

Re:Finally the disk drive can die (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46906227)

Light AND day == doubleplus shiny!

Re:Finally the disk drive can die (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#46906627)

There isn't much difference between "light" and day, is there?

Apparently you haven't been to Finland.

Re:Finally the disk drive can die (1)

Threni (635302) | about 4 months ago | (#46906787)

> It is so archaic in this day and age of microization to have something mechanic
> bottlenecking the whole computer

And yet...nothing has replaced it in terms of cost of lifespan. SSDs still suck in terms of reliability. If you're got a lot of money then sure, get a smallish one for your OS to boot from, but come back and give me a call when there's something to replace my 1/2TB drives full of pictures/music.

At that speed? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906137)

Does anyone really need that much porn?

Re: At that speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906165)

My friend has terabytes of it, no lie. He just has it downloading from file sharing software in the background 24/7. Doesn't even watch most of it. Just has it "just in case he gets horny and has no internet"

Re: At that speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906635)

:D

Re: At that speed? (1)

shikaisi (1816846) | about 4 months ago | (#46906785)

My friend has terabytes of it, no lie. He just has it downloading from file sharing software in the background 24/7. Doesn't even watch most of it. Just has it "just in case he gets horny and has no internet"

For those eventualities, I recommend he tries an alternative device called a "girlfriend".

Shwing!!! (1)

zenlessyank (748553) | about 4 months ago | (#46906171)

I can has 2 please??

Clean or Not, It Makes No Sense (-1, Offtopic)

dmomo (256005) | about 4 months ago | (#46906179)

If the goal is to clean up the UI, why show the URL at all unless asked for (CTRL+L or clicking on the "CHIP")? Don't lie to me... I'd rather you hide the URL all together than show me an incorrect one. By showing the protocol, then host name, you're showing me a valid URL, but it's the wrong one. Either say: Domain: bankofamerica.com , or just show the "Chip" and omit the url all together.
   

Re:Clean or Not, It Makes No Sense (1, Offtopic)

dmomo (256005) | about 4 months ago | (#46906191)

Oh my. This was supposed to be posted to the previous story. MOD ME INTO OBLIVION!

Time to Fill... (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 4 months ago | (#46906221)

How fast can data be pumped through the controller interface?

Re:Time to Fill... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#46906235)

On my single SATA3 Samsung pro with rapid mode I get about 600 megs a second.

But that is nto the real speed bump. My 270 meg a second Sansdisk doesn't boot Windows any faster?! Why? It is about latency and IOPS interrupt and operations per second. I can do heavy heavy simultaneous things like run 5 virtual machines for my domain in my virtual network with VMware workstation in about 1.5 minutes. This took almost 20 minutes to start and shutdown before!

A 100 meg disk raid will not be as fast as single drive so for a file server and database it makes lots of sense for an SSD to be more than 6x as fast as a mechanical drive. It can mean 500x faster easily.

Re:Time to Fill... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906341)

I get ~525mb/s sustained read and write on my 120gb SATA3 Corsair Force GT. Windows 7 on my pc goes from "Starting Operating System" to login in about 3s (for comparison. my wife's laptop with a 500gb mechanical goes from "Starting Operating System" to login in about 45s). I've apparently done 5.7tb of reads and 4.4tb of writes and the SMART reports my drive is still at 100% life left...

The only time I need to wait for anything to startup is when it is on my secondary mechanical drive. The difference between a SSD and a HDD is night and day.

The utility of SSDs (1)

mcrbids (148650) | about 4 months ago | (#46906371)

In my laptop, I have an SSD. Upgrading the HDD cost about as much as a new laptop and cost significantly less. I've been able to buy 2+ years of time on my old laptop with an upgrade at significantly less cost.

So the numbers make sense, here!

We host a heavily database-driven app. Use of an SSD reduces latency by at *least* 95% in our testing. It's a no-brainer. Even if we replaced the SSDs every single year, we'd still come out way ahead. SSDs are where it's at for perfromance!

Re:Time to Fill... (1)

smash (1351) | about 4 months ago | (#46906347)

Apple's PCIe SSD machines are getting 900 MB per second. SSD is already faster than SATA, but for all but niche applications its actually IOPs that you're chasing and the difference between SSD and spinning disk there is absolutely massive.

For a single user doing "stuff" though, a short-stroked hard drive is about 1/4 the price and well fast enough. And yes, i had a work machine (laptop) with SSD that i ditched and went back to a momentus XT hybrid due to lack of capacity.

dwarfing? Not quite yet! (3, Informative)

Nagilum23 (656991) | about 4 months ago | (#46906233)

Seagate already announced 8-10TB disks for next year: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/h... [bit-tech.net] .
Now if SanDisk can deliver 16TB SSDs in 2016 then they might be indeed ahead of the hard-disks but not in 2015.

Re:dwarfing? Not quite yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46906315)

There's no announcement in that link of yours, buddy. There's just ramblings by the CEO about some generalized, nonspecific future. He even had to clarify that whenever they DO become available, supplies will be terribly limited.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>