4 ms·
It’s interesting that they don’t compare to flash. SSD’s also have a much lower carbon footprint than HDD’s. The electricity it takes to keep the hard disk pl
by hedora 3y ago
It’s interesting that they don’t compare to flash.
SSD’s also have a much lower carbon footprint than HDD’s. The electricity it takes to keep the hard disk platters spinning dwarfs the footprint of the NAND, including manufacturing.
I don’t think global NAND manufacturing is anywhere near the same storage capacity as disk or tape, yet, but I wonder when those curves are set to cross.
- ggm 3y agoSSD get mixed signals in the reliability/heat stakes. They do fail, they fail in ways we haven't got used to yet, and so TRIM/SMART is only partially ameliorative. I want to be there. I'm told they run hot, so incur much the same cooling issues HDD do. I am told if you don't recharge them periodically, they are not reliable offline storage disconnected from power for various reasons. And of course, there's price.
- GhostWhisperer 3y agoprice is coming down fast and coupled with density it is becoming a realistic option it's already possible to get a 2.5 ssd with 8tb for $350
- ggm 3y agoI'm basically a cheapskate and paid $80 for 4x 2tb HDD and they've hit $120 as reputable SSD and stuck. I keep hoping they'll drop lower but I need SATA form factor and I fear they will only drop in m.2 form now, SATA is dying. SATA to m.2 carrier boards are $20
- toast0 3y ago2.5" sata SSD are falling in price about about the same as m.2 nvme sata, here's a 2TB for $62 [1] (not an endorsement, just an option; always be confirm your ssds have the features you want: bits per cell?, dram?, controller?, secure erase?, etc) m.2 sata is available at similar prices too, but many fewer choices. mSata seems to have topped out at 1TB [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Q37V1C9 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Q37V1C9
- ggm 3y agoUS/AU $ works out my price at $92. Plus postage. But, encouraging!
- RF_Savage 3y agoSSD's are not suitable for reliable long term cold storage due to their finite data retention. Newer chips with even more voltage levels per NAND cell for improved density are even worse. Some of the data center grade SSD's have rated data retention of 3 months at 40°C if unpowered. Having to keep the archival media powered to retain the data does not sound too attractive.
- nine_k 3y agoHow much power would it take? For what I could find, Samsung 970 EVO Plus (1 TB) consumes 40 mW when idle. This means that a 100 TB array would have to spend about 40W on idling, or 350.4 kWh a year. Even at $0.50 / kWh, it would cost $175, a trivial price to pay for having your data instantly available. The price per TB is not great though, about $50, while an 45TB LTO9 cartridge is about $110, or $2.44 pet TB. So it's not the price of the power.
- garblegarble 3y ago>while an 45TB LTO9 cartridge is about $110, or $2.44 pet TB 45TB is the 'compressed' capacity, the actual capacity is 18TB for LTO9, for $6.11/TB - still an order of magnitude cheaper than SSD, mind you!