8 ms·
200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip
- OrangeMonkey 4y agoI imagine these would have a great place in on-prem SANS and cloud vendors.
- duffyjp 4y agoWhile I'd have no need for anywhere near 100+ TB, I'll be really happy when SSDs are cheaper than spinning disks. If they can make a 200TB drive for business, a 20TB drive for home users should be pretty reasonable.
- curiousgal 4y agoWhat about longevity though.
- k8sToGo 4y agoIf we could replace chips like we could replace cells in batteries, things would be better maybe. But I would love to have a pure SSD NAS.
- Timshel 4y ago20TB for home user is probably for storage so I would expect longevity to be way better than HDD.
- layer8 4y agoSee e.g. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-reliable-are-ssds/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-reliable-are-ssds/: “SSDs can be expected to last as long or longer than HDDs in most general applications.”
- toast0 4y agoMy experience with SSDs and rotational drives (which may be somewhat dated and also biased by the specific models I was exposed to) is SSD failure rate is significantly lower than spinning drives, although I don't think I got much experience at 5+ years with SSDs, maybe there's a cliff. The downside is that SSD failures had no known prefailure indicators and tended to result in a completely inaccessible device with no chance of a last minute copy, whereas rotational drives often give signs (SMART metrics/warnings, failed reads of specific sectors, etc) and a last minute copy can be pretty effective if the signs are noticed in time. Sure, you should have backup protocols, but many people don't... so probability of an incident goes down, but probability of full data loss given an incident goes way up. In theory, SSDs are supposed to detect when they wear out and go to read only mode, but I've never seen that happen, and I've not run write heavy workloads that got them close to wearing out anyway.
- cglan 4y agoI will say, SSD pricing is pretty frustrating. There's a lot of focus on faster and faster nvme that's barely noticeable while actual capacity has really stagnated at around 2-4tb. As someone who is very into photography, it takes not very long to fill 2tb of space. If I could buy a cheap 16tb ssd with fast reads and slow writes I'd be a happy camper but it doesn't exist unless I want to buy spinning disks (I don't)
- 00deadbeef 4y agoI had big hopes for Samsung’s QVO line but they’ve barely done anything with it. They’re often not much cheaper than EVO. And the 8TB drive is almost £200 more expensive than 20TB of spinning rust. I could get 30TB+ storage for the same money.
- 5e92cb50239222b 4y agoHave you looked at something like Intel 660p? They're pretty crappy as SSDs go, but they're quite cheap (by about 40% compared to what I would put into my desktop, at least where I live).
- layer8 4y agoLargest size is only 2 TB, and they aren’t cheaper than e.g. Samsung QVO, as far as I can see.
- wtallis 4y agoThe Intel 660p is a higher-tier product than Samsung QVO drives. Both use QLC, but the Intel drives are NVMe and thus have much higher peak performance (when operating out of the SLC cache). But Intel wasn't interested in pursuing the niche of users who wanted more than 2TB in a consumer drive.
- layer8 4y agoYes, but the topic was about QVO drives still being too expensive in terms of $/TB. The Intel drives don’t really help in that respect.
- bguberfain 4y ago200Tb is an impressive mark for a "future" product, but I was more impressed by the 100Tb offered "today": https://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive/pricing/ https://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive/pricing/
- freediver 4y agoThis is impressive. Why isn't this company better known? As if they decided to stay under the radar given the design of their website.
- wtallis 4y agoThere aren't a lot of use cases for putting that much flash storage behind the bottleneck of a single SAS or SATA port. Most of the time when you're paying tens of thousands for flash, it's worth paying for enough IO bandwidth to actually be able to use all the performance that mountain of flash can offer.
- murkt 4y ago> Micron has begun production of the first 232-layer NAND chip in sufficient volume to feed storage partners. How do they manufacture this monster?
- alyandon 4y agoMagic (at least as far as I'm concerned). I would love to see an updated version of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4
- murkt 4y agoI have basic understanding of a generic process. I mean specifically 200+ layers. Do they “just” deposit layer after layer after layer, 200-something times?
- alyandon 4y agoI am not going to pretend to be a process engineer (I am chemical engineer by education) but I can't imagine any other way to do it than as you described. Would really love for someone more knowledgeable to chime in though.
- wtallis 4y agoThey deposit half the layers, etch holes through them and form vertical strings of memory cells, then repeat all that to build a second deck of layers on top. The interface between decks is a potential source of problems, but is more manageable than trying to drastically increase the aspect ratio of the holes that need to be etched through the stack. Etching through lots of layers at once is why 3D NAND flash memory is actually economical, compared to basically every other kind 3D chips where layers have to be built one at a time.
- layer8 4y agoPuff pastry, nut brittle, tamagoyaki and folded-steel blades come to mind. ;)
- chazeon 4y agoProbably relavent: This is an SSD?! from Linux Tech Tips (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4AKeW0Y-F0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4AKeW0Y-F0) They introduce in the program PureStorage's FlashBlade, which uses Intel Xeon CPUs as the controller for SSDs. https://www.purestorage.com/products/file-and-object/flashblade-s.html https://www.purestorage.com/products/file-and-object/flashbl...
- foobiekr 4y agoPure is basically an enterprise flash storage company. Great products, but FlashBlade specifically has issues with maximum single stream performance due to their architecture. But why are you posting an ad for Pure?
- yurishimo 4y agoI think it's less of an ad and more an in depth explanation about the technology that goes into high capacity SSDs. Today, Pure just happens to be one of the only companies with a product on the market. That will no doubt change in a few months.
- chazeon 4y agoI am not familiar with this. I just watched the video yesterday and found it interesting to know that enterprises are considering alternative controllers, and also caches which would enable SSD with larger sizes.
- didgetmaster 4y agoCapacity is not the major problem. It is the $/TB price points. SSDs are still 5x more expensive than HDD for bulk storage. It doesn't matter if you can buy a 200TB SSD if it is 200x more expensive than a 1TB SSD. HAMR technology is going to give us much bigger HDD. If I can buy a 50TB HDD or a 50TB SSD in a couple years, which one will I buy if the SSD is 5x more expensive? SSDs make total sense for storing the files you need on a regular basis (e.g. your operating system and most used applications). They are just too expensive right now to store your massive video collection on them.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago> Capacity is not the major problem. It is the $/TB price points Only if you don't care about access time or transfer speed. If sitting there waiting 15 minutes costs you real money then having a bunch of fast but smaller SSDs quickly starts to makes sense. Napkin math: If 15 min/day costs you $15 then in a month $15*5d*4w=$300, or north of $3000 a year. And usually if something costs money per time it's more than a $15.
- layer8 4y ago> which one will I buy if the SSD is 5x more expensive SSD, because silence and random-access performance.
- didgetmaster 4y agoYou could say the same thing about CPUs. Do you buy the $400 CPU that has good performance? Or do you splurge for the top of the line Threadripper that costs a few thousand? It is always a trade-off between price and performance. If the situation is right and your job justifies saving a few minutes for lots of money, then go for it. If I needed a ton of disk space and I could buy a 50TB HDD for $1000 or a 50TB SSD for $5000 right now, I would opt for the HDD. But that is just me.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoresilience too, especially if you're just mostly storing the data and not overwriting it constantly which is the actual death of SSDs whereas it's is mechanical wear with HDDs
- qzw 4y agoJust for giggles, here's what it would cost to upgrade a 256GB MBA to a 200TB one in today's prices, if such an option existed. Currently prices are: 256GB $0 512GB $200 1TB $380 2TB $740 So the equation seems to be Price(n) = 2 * Price(n - 1) - 20 where n is the number of upgrades from base, and Price(1) = $200. Let's assume each upgrade is a doubling of capacity, so extrapolating... 128TB $46100 256TB $92180 So 200TB should be somewhere in between, right around $70K.
- Kukumber 4y agoSure, sure > By 2018, they all expect the gains to accelerate with predictions of 128 TB and 256 TB, 2.5-inch, read-optimized flash SSDs https://www.techtarget.com/searchstorage/feature/Almost-time-for-SSD-flash-storage-to-be-used-with-object-storage https://www.techtarget.com/searchstorage/feature/Almost-time...
- Daveenjay 4y ago2030 Apple device storage options: 256 GB 512 GB 10 TB 100 TB