3 ms·

Yes, I'm well aware that it isn't magnetic. I'm not sure what your point is? The typical user doesn't care about the technology behind a given storage medium, o

Yes, I'm well aware that it isn't magnetic. I'm not sure what your point is? The typical user doesn't care about the technology behind a given storage medium, only the performance characteristics such as cost, density, latency, cycle durability, power draw, environmental hardiness, and retention time. > spinning disks are magnetic storage and even today are cheaper than flash memory on a unit cost basis Presumably not for much longer though. Unless there has been a major upset recently? > the market for it never materialized and the cost of continued investment wasn't worth it An entirely empty statement. I was suggesting that unpowered retention time is almost certainly not what led to the failure. The point I'm making is that consumers are impossibly cost conscious in this area. We already tried the pitch of "clearly technically superior in every metric that matters, but noticeably more expensive" and the market soundly rejected it (much to my eternal dismay). So again I'll ask, is there any reason to expect this new type of magnet to be able to compete with flash memory on a unit cost basis? Because if not I assume it's doomed.

vlovich123 1y ago
> Presumably not for much longer though. Unless there has been a major upset recently? I’m not aware of any major slowdowns for spinning disk capacity as compared to flash. > Alongside this, we saw the price-per-GB of flash drop towards the level of spinning disk hard disk drives (HDDs) then rebound rapidly as memory manufacturers chased profitability. Meanwhile, the keenest of flash storage advocates predicted the demise of the hard drive and the imminent victory of the all-flash datacentre. Supply/demand keeps hard drives more expensive because flash is more desirable and thus those vendors are leaving money on the table otherwise. I don’t know what the true manufacturing cost is but spinning disk will always be cheaper purely because of how pricing works. https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Storage-technology-explained-Flash-vs-HDD https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Storage-technology-ex... > An entirely empty statement. I was suggesting that unpowered retention time is almost certainly not what led to the failure As I asked, can you provide any evidence this is the case? This is a bold claim to make vs the more likely boring explanation. I could find no actual claim that they lost data very quickly when unpowered for extended duration. Also, the unit cost basis does not relate to failure rates so you’re mixing concepts. > So again I'll ask, is there any reason to expect this new type of magnet to be able to compete with flash memory on a unit cost basis? Because if not I assume it's doomed. Well by your own statements you clearly seem to think durability is an important make/or/break factor and magnetic tech will have a longer lifetime (both in terms of active MTBF and unpowered storage) as compared with flash, so regardless of the accuracy of that, you’ve already admitted that competition isn’t solely on unit cost basis. Indeed, that’s obviously true or tape storage wouldn’t be around. Others in this thread have also indicated that they are probably this could reach the same speed of flash with the density of spinning disk which would be competitive for all sorts of reason. And the price point will likely be wherever it makes sense for the manufacturer to become the price/demand curve.

vlovich123 1y ago

> Presumably not for much longer though. Unless there has been a major upset recently? I’m not aware of any major slowdowns for spinning disk capacity as compared to flash. > Alongside this, we saw the price-per-GB of flash drop towards the level of spinning disk hard disk drives (HDDs) then rebound rapidly as memory manufacturers chased profitability. Meanwhile, the keenest of flash storage advocates predicted the demise of the hard drive and the imminent victory of the all-flash datacentre. Supply/demand keeps hard drives more expensive because flash is more desirable and thus those vendors are leaving money on the table otherwise. I don’t know what the true manufacturing cost is but spinning disk will always be cheaper purely because of how pricing works. https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Storage-technology-explained-Flash-vs-HDD https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Storage-technology-ex... > An entirely empty statement. I was suggesting that unpowered retention time is almost certainly not what led to the failure As I asked, can you provide any evidence this is the case? This is a bold claim to make vs the more likely boring explanation. I could find no actual claim that they lost data very quickly when unpowered for extended duration. Also, the unit cost basis does not relate to failure rates so you’re mixing concepts. > So again I'll ask, is there any reason to expect this new type of magnet to be able to compete with flash memory on a unit cost basis? Because if not I assume it's doomed. Well by your own statements you clearly seem to think durability is an important make/or/break factor and magnetic tech will have a longer lifetime (both in terms of active MTBF and unpowered storage) as compared with flash, so regardless of the accuracy of that, you’ve already admitted that competition isn’t solely on unit cost basis. Indeed, that’s obviously true or tape storage wouldn’t be around. Others in this thread have also indicated that they are probably this could reach the same speed of flash with the density of spinning disk which would be competitive for all sorts of reason. And the price point will likely be wherever it makes sense for the manufacturer to become the price/demand curve.