5 ms·

It's going to be rough without Anandtech reporting anymori wonder if a new outlet will spring up to fill the void. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4139987

It's going to be rough without Anandtech reporting anymori wonder if a new outlet will spring up to fill the void. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41399872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41399872 Here's to hoping this PM9E1 drive makes it into the Samsung EVO 9x series drives.. I'm curious why the capacity only goes to 4TB, aren't there a bunch of 8TB NVMe's out there? When will we see consumer-grade 16TB SSDs? Capacity hasn't seemed to increase in more than half a decade.

pixl97 2y ago
The question is if consumers are willing to pay the prices of the larger SSDs. I consider myself a pro-sumer and have not needed that much fast SSD myself.
- metadat 2y ago
  Me either :) But it'd be nice to ditch the magnetic storage someday.
  - hakfoo 2y ago
    Going all-flash was compelling for a while, but it seems like SSDs have failed to deliver on some important promises: * The whole "it's SLC cache until you fill it up, then drops to pretty mediocre performance" thing is frightening because I suspect a lot of reviews aren't sufficiently battering the drive to report on this. I gather this is a bigger problem as they move to TLC and QLC and beyond and any corner-cutting they can do in the controller. TBH, I'd love to see sanctioned first-party tooling to manage my overprovision and caching strategy, so if I want to spend $130 to turn a 2Gb drive into a really overbuilt 512Gb drive, let me. * The "we don't guarantee it will maintain data if left unpowered for 3 months" story doesn't make it a great choice for cold storage/intermittent access. If you just plug in a drive once a year to back up your tax returns, I'm not sure you want a SSD for it. I ended up setting up a NAS with a cheap spinning-rust drive, figure that gives me a different reliability profile than the flash for that tier of backup.
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      I went all flash for my NAs last round. Here's why: I found the sustained write concern to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. I went for budget drives, MP34, and the sustained performance of a single drive is still greater than what the maximum performance of a SATA 3 interface a spinning disk would be on. Add on that the random performance at such times is still orders of magnitude better than that plus 2 drives worth sustained writes is enough to saturate a 10G link. Between all that it feels a bit silly to shy away from SSDs just because they are only significantly faster in sustained workloads instead of monumentally faster. I also found actual tests people have been performing on SSDs have shown no loss on a shelf in 4x-10x that timeframe, not that I plan on buying a NAS and only powering it on once a quarter anyways. Particularly with the power savings and lack of spin time or spin up/spin down cycles or related noise I've just been leaving this one to run 24/7. The other big benefit I found is spinning disks commonly used in NAS building have write limits that are often worse than the write limits of SSDs. On SSDs there is also no operational concern with the impact of a read workflow https://serverfault.com/questions/582170/limits-on-read-transfer-from-hard-drives https://serverfault.com/questions/582170/limits-on-read-tran... so you can set your pool scrub to occur much more often without lifespan concern. The cost downside of course remains though. $/GB has only went back up since I built the all flash NAS.
- xelamonster 2y ago
  For some reason 8TB drives are consistently a worse value. I did need that much fast SSD but ended up getting two 4TB M.2 drives because it was significantly cheaper.
Panzer04 2y ago
4TB seems like the upper end for most normal consumers, I would hazard. We had 1-2TB HDDs a decade ago, and there's been little reason to go higher in the consumer space. Arguably SSDs only now getting cheap enough at those capacities might have limited it, but even so I think we're running out of things that consume that much space. Video and pictures are the main culprit (even in games), but 4k is likely to be the upper end of consumer usage for the forseeable future, photos have been 20-40MP for a decade, and perceivable quality benefits from going higher are fairly minimal. We can always use more space, but from a practical perspective there's not the same explosion in space required from everything else scaling to use it, I'd say.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Videogames seem to be continuing to bloat.
  - ErikBjare 2y ago
    You don't need them on an expensive Gen5 drive
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I think videogames are the most bandwidth-hungry workload that most normal people have, so I think it would be hard to justify this sort of drive otherwise.
- nxicvyvy 2y ago
  8tb needed dual sided PCBs, they tend not to fit in a bunch of laptops would be my guess

pixl97 2y ago

The question is if consumers are willing to pay the prices of the larger SSDs. I consider myself a pro-sumer and have not needed that much fast SSD myself.

metadat 2y ago
Me either :) But it'd be nice to ditch the magnetic storage someday.
- hakfoo 2y ago
  Going all-flash was compelling for a while, but it seems like SSDs have failed to deliver on some important promises: * The whole "it's SLC cache until you fill it up, then drops to pretty mediocre performance" thing is frightening because I suspect a lot of reviews aren't sufficiently battering the drive to report on this. I gather this is a bigger problem as they move to TLC and QLC and beyond and any corner-cutting they can do in the controller. TBH, I'd love to see sanctioned first-party tooling to manage my overprovision and caching strategy, so if I want to spend $130 to turn a 2Gb drive into a really overbuilt 512Gb drive, let me. * The "we don't guarantee it will maintain data if left unpowered for 3 months" story doesn't make it a great choice for cold storage/intermittent access. If you just plug in a drive once a year to back up your tax returns, I'm not sure you want a SSD for it. I ended up setting up a NAS with a cheap spinning-rust drive, figure that gives me a different reliability profile than the flash for that tier of backup.
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    I went all flash for my NAs last round. Here's why: I found the sustained write concern to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. I went for budget drives, MP34, and the sustained performance of a single drive is still greater than what the maximum performance of a SATA 3 interface a spinning disk would be on. Add on that the random performance at such times is still orders of magnitude better than that plus 2 drives worth sustained writes is enough to saturate a 10G link. Between all that it feels a bit silly to shy away from SSDs just because they are only significantly faster in sustained workloads instead of monumentally faster. I also found actual tests people have been performing on SSDs have shown no loss on a shelf in 4x-10x that timeframe, not that I plan on buying a NAS and only powering it on once a quarter anyways. Particularly with the power savings and lack of spin time or spin up/spin down cycles or related noise I've just been leaving this one to run 24/7. The other big benefit I found is spinning disks commonly used in NAS building have write limits that are often worse than the write limits of SSDs. On SSDs there is also no operational concern with the impact of a read workflow https://serverfault.com/questions/582170/limits-on-read-transfer-from-hard-drives https://serverfault.com/questions/582170/limits-on-read-tran... so you can set your pool scrub to occur much more often without lifespan concern. The cost downside of course remains though. $/GB has only went back up since I built the all flash NAS.
xelamonster 2y ago
For some reason 8TB drives are consistently a worse value. I did need that much fast SSD but ended up getting two 4TB M.2 drives because it was significantly cheaper.

Panzer04 2y ago

4TB seems like the upper end for most normal consumers, I would hazard. We had 1-2TB HDDs a decade ago, and there's been little reason to go higher in the consumer space. Arguably SSDs only now getting cheap enough at those capacities might have limited it, but even so I think we're running out of things that consume that much space. Video and pictures are the main culprit (even in games), but 4k is likely to be the upper end of consumer usage for the forseeable future, photos have been 20-40MP for a decade, and perceivable quality benefits from going higher are fairly minimal. We can always use more space, but from a practical perspective there's not the same explosion in space required from everything else scaling to use it, I'd say.

bee_rider 2y ago
Videogames seem to be continuing to bloat.
- ErikBjare 2y ago
  You don't need them on an expensive Gen5 drive
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I think videogames are the most bandwidth-hungry workload that most normal people have, so I think it would be hard to justify this sort of drive otherwise.
nxicvyvy 2y ago
8tb needed dual sided PCBs, they tend not to fit in a bunch of laptops would be my guess