3 ms·

Earlier this year, Seagate were showing off their 60 TB SSD[1] for release next year. So 100 TB in a single drive isn't too far off. EDIT: Toshiba is teasing

Earlier this year, Seagate were showing off their 60 TB SSD[1] for release next year. So 100 TB in a single drive isn't too far off. EDIT: Toshiba is teasing a 100 TB SSD concept, potentially for 2018 [2] [1] 11th August - http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/08/seagate-unveils-60tb-ssd-the-worlds-largest-hard-drive/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/08/seagate-unveils-60t... [2] 10th August - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/10/toshiba_100tb_qlc_ssd/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/10/toshiba_100tb_qlc_ss...

rusanu 10y ago
60TB at 500Mb/s transfer will take +1 day to read the data. This is the problem of drinking the ocean through a straw. Even with SSD transfer rates, is still a problem at scale. Clusters give you no only capacity, but also multiplication factor for transfer rates.
- faragon 10y ago
  Just use 24 of them interleaved/stripped and it will take just one hour for loading the data.
  - rusanu 10y ago
    But then you need small disks (eg. 2TB). My point is that huge capacity drives are not appropriate in compute environments, as Hadoop is. They're more for cold storage.