3 ms·

While 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,

While 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 ago
What about longevity though.
- k8sToGo 4y ago
  If 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 ago
  20TB for home user is probably for storage so I would expect longevity to be way better than HDD.
- layer8 4y ago
  See 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 ago
  My 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.

3 ms·

While 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,

by duffyjp 4y ago

curiousgal 4y ago
What about longevity though.
- k8sToGo 4y ago
  If 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 ago
  20TB for home user is probably for storage so I would expect longevity to be way better than HDD.
- layer8 4y ago
  See 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 ago
  My 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.