6 ms·
WD launches 4TB SD card
- zxspectrum1982 3y agoI'm waiting for years for external 2.5" disks to go beyond 5 TB :-(
- filcuk 3y agoThere are 16TB 2.5" SSDs now, unless it must be mechanical.
- zxspectrum1982 3y agoWhat vendor? All I can find is 3.5" :-(
- kjkjadksj 3y agoWhat does that go for, price of a used car?
- kotaKat 3y agoDell sells a VisionTek 16TB for... $3800. https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/visiontek-16tb-class-qlc-7mm-25-ssd/apd/ab329068/storage-drives-media https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/visiontek-16tb-class-qlc-7mm... (Rural problems: I tried to find a used car under $3800 on Craigslist here and there's less than 5 vehicles total 'by owner' and none of them drive on their own power. Maybe this is a good deal?)
- kjkjadksj 3y agoOnly a factor of 20 higher than the equivalent 16tb spinning rust. Not as bad as I expected to be honest.
- BizarroLand 3y agoIf it were PCIe it would be a screaming deal, but it's sata. That would take a hot minute to fill at a max 500 megs/sec.
- radicality 3y agoThere are even ~62TB 2.5” ssds. I think there’s one from Solidigm/Intel.
- metadat 3y agoCaveat: Only available if you have a budget on the order of $100-300k USD.
- radicality 3y agoSeems like it’s around $8k. Which is obviously a lot, but not that bad when looking at $/GB cost. (61.4TB for $8k). https://www.cdw.com/product/solidigm-d5-p5336-61.44-tb-solid-state-drive-2.5-internal-u.2-pci-exp/7785193 https://www.cdw.com/product/solidigm-d5-p5336-61.44-tb-solid...
- metadat 3y agoWow that is pretty incredible! Thanks for the correction.
- mmh0000 3y agoWhat are you waiting for? Buy this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OJ3UJ2S https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OJ3UJ2S Buy this, and stick this in that: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089C3TZL9 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089C3TZL9
- fzzzy 3y agoThat usb a to usb a cable is beyond cursed.
- mmh0000 3y agoOkay. That's pretty funny! I didn't even notice, I just picked the first 2.5" enclosure Amazon showed me.
- TeaDude 3y agoIf only USB was peer to peer like FireWire. Then again, there'd probably be some trade-off to that.
- jiehong 3y agoUSB 4, being thunderbolt, actually allows this I think
- belthesar 3y agoThunderbolt is capable of doing this, but USB has had support for peer to peer and alternative client support for quite a while. USB OTG (On-The-Go), which allows a USB client device to also act as a host, has been around since the 2.0 spec. This is what lets USB devices like phones and tablets also connect to card readers, keyboards, and other USB devices. What Thunderbolt can do however that is quite magical, is operate as a point to point network interface. Driver support can be a bit dodgy, but it's totally feasible to build a 3 node compute cluster with point to point cluster node networking over Thunderbolt at 20 Gb/s.
- accrual 3y ago
- yread 3y agoGet an a dual nvme enclosure and stick in two nvme 8TB drives. Or get two such enclosures and 4x 4TB drives (they are 4 times cheaper)
- papichulo2023 3y agoSadly new retro handhelds dont support this format.
- ratsmack 3y agoSanDisk is still SanDisk and I don't consider them to be Western Digital. Their products have always been dodgy and I still have heartburn over some of their thumb drives where it was impossible to remove the shovel-ware installed on them. It will continue to be nothing other than Samsung products for me in the foreseeable future.
- borg16 3y agowhat has Samsung done better? just curious.
- davekeck 3y agoWhen I was researching what SD card to use for a camera product a few years ago, Samsung's high-endurance cards were by far the best bang for the buck endurance-wise. The choice ultimately came down to Samsung "PRO Endurance" / 820 TBW / $20, versus SanDisk "MAX ENDURANCE" / 719 TBW / $31. In short, the SanDisk cards were a lot more expensive for a worse product. It looks like the price of the SanDisk cards have come down a bit since then, but are still more expensive for worse specs than the Samsung cards.
- kylehotchkiss 3y agoUHS-1? Have fun getting your videos off of this
- zenexer 3y agoThis article makes several claims that are trivial to disprove: > The 4TB capacity doubles that of the largest microSD cards, earning it the title for the world's largest removable memory card. > CFexpress, known for its superior speed. Announced last year, the latest generation, CFexpress 4.0, supports up to four PCIe 4.0 lanes and 2GB/s per lane. Neither of those card formats can come close to offering 4TB of storage, however. CFexpress cards are physically larger than SD cards and have no trouble squeezing in 4 TB. They're uncommon, but they do already exist: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1711327-REG/red_digital_cinema_750_0101_pro_cfexpress_4tb_card.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1711327-REG/red_digit... CFexpress is mostly just overpriced PCIe. You can make your own 4 TB CFexpress card with a small adapter and a 4 TB M.2 SSD that supports PCIe. It stands to reason that if there are 4 TB M.2 PCIe SSDs that are about the size of a CFexpress card, then there are also 4 TB CFexpress cards. Does anyone have a better source?
- cyanydeez 3y agoMicroSD is the operative word you missed.
- whaleofatw2022 3y agoAlas, the article itself is touting a normal SD card, so in a way it's a weird comparison in the first place...
- zenexer 3y agoThe sentence claims that this card is the world’s “largest removable memory card”—that’s false. It then goes on to say it’s larger than any CFexpress card. Also false.
- Mo3 3y agoYes, these RED cards basically just contain SSDs inside. However the title clearly says "SD"
- shaggie76 3y agoThe UHS-1 speed really limits what you can do with this; I think you might be able to do some light 4K video on some cameras in limited modes but generally I expect it'll be best for FHD which isn't as storage-hungry to begin with. I think 4TB of 60FPS FHD ALL-I compression on my Canon R5 would take 38 hours of footage to fill; if you aren't going to do any grading and use a 24/30FPS FHD IPB that number jumps to 97 hours or 4 days of footage. I also don't know how useful it would be for burst-mode; I filled 256GB in a few hours but that was on a v90 card and I expect on a UHS-1 card I'd have spent a good chunk of that time waiting for the buffer to clear. I'm sure there's some application for this -- I just can't see it for videography or photography.
- gxt 3y agoAt these densities would it make sense to have raid arrays in SD form factor instead of just a bare device?
- donatj 3y agoI will never not be astounded by the rate storage has increased in my lifetime. My first PC had a whopping 20 megabyte hard disk that occupied not one but TWO 5.25” drive bays and appeared something like the following https://www.priceblaze.com/st4121-Seagate-Storage-Hard-Drives https://www.priceblaze.com/st4121-Seagate-Storage-Hard-Drive...
- agumonkey 3y agoSomehow similar, started with 50MB. I remember when 1GB became the norm, when 10GB became affordable (and seemed infinite).. and 100GB .. 500 .. 1000. Very strange feeling.
- TacticalCoder 3y ago> My first PC had a whopping 20 megabyte hard disk that occupied not one but TWO 5.25” drive bays My first HDD was for a Commodore Amiga 500 and it was sold with its enclosure, so it was quite big too. I remember it did cost (in Europe) the equivalent of about $1000: https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/36474/Reference-40MB-Amiga-SCSI-Hard-Drive/ https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/36474/Reference-40MB...
- blueboo 3y agoAgreed, it’s truly mind boggling. My moment: coming home from a computer show with a spectacular deal — $80 for an 80Mb drive to be installed in our Compaq 286 suitcase unit. (Imagine having 100mb!)
- shiroiushi 3y agoI'm not that astounded at all. Hard drive sizes have barely changed in 10 years. Sure, flash storage keeps increasing, and 4TB on an SD card is pretty amazing, but it's not a hard drive, and SD cards aren't really that reliable, nor can they be used as long-term offline storage. Good ol' spinning rust HDs are the only thing that make any sense for archiving data right now, unless you have enough data to make LTO tapes economical (and here you have to worry about the tapes being readable with newer generations of drives, so you still have to cycle the data to newer tapes). (Re)writable optical discs were supposed to serve this purpose, but they utterly failed at it.
- tapirl 3y agoYear 1997, Seagate 4.3G, $200
- kogepathic 3y agoGoing to be a hard pass from me. Western Digital has had several high profile data loss issues across multiple product lines: Western Digital SN850 [1], SanDisk Extreme [2]. Western Digital's response has been very PR and not at all helpful toward the people who have lost data due to the faults in their products. Storage products have one job: reliably store your data. WD has shown lately that you roll the dice if your choose their products. [1] https://community.frame.work/t/tracking-wd-black-sn850-sudden-death/40377 https://community.frame.work/t/tracking-wd-black-sn850-sudde... [2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/05/sandisk-extreme-ssds-keep-abruptly-failing-firmware-fix-for-only-some-promised/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/05/sandisk-extreme-ssds...
- faeriechangling 3y agoName a storage brand without such a reputation? There's a reason the usual advice is "Backup", not "Choose a good vendor of storage products".
- rasz 3y agoHitachi. Was too high quality to survive in lemon market.
- vel0city 3y agoHitachi (HGST) was originally IBM's hard drive divison as ksec said, known for their Deathstar drives.
- benlivengood 3y agoHGST (now owned by WD) never seemed to acquire a bad reputation. Always top of the charts in Backblaze's drive statistics. Longest warranties. I was sad when they got bought. Their factory still seems to produce better drives than WD in general, as of a couple years ago.
- ksec 3y agoHGST itself came from IBM hard disk and the early days of HGST HDD were far from perfect. Although Since then they have managed at least 15 years of decent reputation.