3 ms·
> Flash is not getting cheaper faster than HDD's, once you control for write endurance. Is the category of WORM-suitable data (like videos) not large enough to
by kps 11y ago
> Flash is not getting cheaper faster than HDD's, once you control for write endurance.
Is the category of WORM-suitable data (like videos) not large enough to be interesting, or is there simply no WORM technology better than writable?
- pjc50 11y agoThere's no WORM technology better than rewritable as far as I'm aware. Storage density is already well above the point where optical technologies are viable.
- zaroth 11y agoI think the question is why does P/E cycle count matter for storing YouTube videos? As videos are uploaded, you shard them with FEC across your SSD array, but once the blocks are written, when would you ever need to erase them? The only concern is longevity of a single block which requires some amount of P/E (re-charging the cell) but lets say that's just 1 full disk write per month to keep everything fresh...
- kps 11y agoOK. I was thinking more along the lines of PROM (i.e. random access) but I can imagine there's nothing now more useful than flash.
- pjc50 11y agoThere is "antifuse", although it's a little slow to program. Commonly available on chips in small amounts for secure key storage, serial numbers, calibration etc. I'm not aware of anyone selling standalone parts, but here is an IEEE paper: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1240972&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4%2F27824%2F01240972.pdf%3Farnumber%3D1240972 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=124097... (512Mb in 2003!) If Google really wanted to, they could make a couple of petabytes of slow-to-write memory by commissioning it themselves for low numbers of millions of dollars. But I suspect they value the rewritability. See also http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1328234 http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1328234