3 ms·

Compared to HDD storage, isn't all the data hot, relatively speaking? I mean it's pushing the bottleneck to the bus, sure, but the alternative of HDD storage is

Compared to HDD storage, isn't all the data hot, relatively speaking? I mean it's pushing the bottleneck to the bus, sure, but the alternative of HDD storage is slower by every meaningful metric. (Except maybe heat? I would assume these run at a higher temp than equivalent storage space in HDD, but I've nothing to actually base that on.) If money's no object, presumably it's not "there's no use case for them", it's "there's no reason to do anything else"?

codefined 8y ago
I think they're actually talking about other items being the bottleneck as opposed to the rate at which you can grab information off of disks, so if you have any meaningful fraction of your data being hot at any one point there is no advantage between either. Even with HDDs, if you actually want to use all your throughput you're likely going to have problems with the bus (rarely needs to be optimised in 99% of cases) vs the drives (needs to be optimised in all environments).
pas 8y ago
This 16TB thing has Active read/write up to 8.7/10.6 W, Idle 4.0 W power consumption properties, and HDDs range from 4 to 10 W ( https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/desktop-hdd.15-st4000dm000-4tb,3494-6.html https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/desktop-hdd.15-st4000dm... from 2013 ), so pretty much the same. And you don't have to worry about vibrations with SSDs, so you can blow a lot more air at them.