Slashdot Mirror
Samsung's 64-GB Solid-State Drive
Anonymous Howard writes "Just a couple of weeks ago Sandisk introduced a 32-GB solid-state drive. Now Samsung has one-upped them, unveiling a 64-GB solid-state drive. They are expecting to begin shipping in the second quarter of this year. Samsung says the device can read 64 MB/s, write 45 MB/s, and uses just 0.5 W when operating (0.1 W when idle). In comparison, an 80-GB 1.8-inch hard drive reads at 15 MB/s, writes at 7 MB/s, and consumes 1.5 W when either operating or idle. No pricing yet."
yes. a solid-state hard drive is exactly that - a normal HDD that uses a different mechanism for storing data. Usually its a pinning platter, this uses non-volatile memory chips. The interface and size are the same, so you just use it as you otherwise would.
Personally, I think 64Gb is a bit much for me, I'd stick the OS and swap files on there - which come to about 10Gb on my current XP machine.
The SanDisk 32GB version reports a 2 million hour MTBF... http://www.sandisk.com/Oem/Default.aspx?CatID=1478
That's quite a bit better than typical hard drives these days!
Has anyone found MTBF information regarding the Samsung versions?
Last longer? The MTBF on flash storage is about an order of magnitude greater than magnetic storage these days.
TODO: Something witty here...
They specify 10 years for flash memory to hold it's data, but in practice (e.g. not at the highest temperature or most extreme operating voltage) it is significantly longer. I don't know to what extent the hard drives work around bad sectors, but they probably do it for both flash drives and the traditional magnetic type.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Well... that doesn't necessarily mean it's as fast at random access as it is at consecutive access.
Normal computer RAM is also faster at consecutive reads than random reads.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
One possible reason is an OS that will not run, or will not run correctly, without paging. Linux actually fell into the latter category once upon a time, it would run like crap without swap (unless you made some patches.) SunOS4 was SOLIDLY in that category, but it's old (BSD 4 based - IIRC mostly 4.3, with some 4.4-lite code in the last release of SunOS4?) Windows 2000 would allow you to turn of all paging files, but would blue screen on boot if you did so as it absolutely required some paging (but you could have a teensy, fixed-length paging file.) But in a system that isn't so poorly designed that it requires paging, adding more RAM is a better solution any time you have the slots and the cash. It stops you from paging! That's pure gold right there. Who wants to wait for that?
One solution, of course, is to use a DRAM SSD for your swap if you're out of DIMM slots. Then only cash is the limiting factor. Granted, it still limits me right out of that particular game...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fortunately flash fails on writing not on reading so while you can't write to sectors that have failed you can still read them.
If comparing these to 2.5" drives instead of 1.8" drives the advantages aren't as drastic.
* 2.5" drives consume between 0.8W to 2.5W (ok, seeking eats a lot, but during sequential read or write, they consume similar amounts), almost no power consumption when they spin down.
* 2.5" drives give 53MB/sec read and write.
* 2.5" drives are very cheap and have triple the capacity.
The solid state drives are still at an advantage, but it's not quite as large as compared to 1.8" drives.
It's not about the MTBF (the wear with age), yes you can almost indefinitely read data from you flash drive, when compared to harddrives, because there's no mechanical wear.
/var and /tmp, most of the rest of the installation can be read-only), and that support special file systems designed for lower wear (JFFS and such), may fare better : for example there are some Linux distribution that are tested for running from flash, like Damn Small Linux.
BUT!
The flash cells have a limited number of write cycles, which is very small compared to hard drives. If you write too much data on the same sector, the sector get very quickly broken.
If you used a flash card for swap, it won't last long at all (because some sectors get constantly written over).
To limit those damages, flash controllers use "wear level". That means that the small RISC controller that interface between the flash cells and the computer interface (ATA/CF, SD, USB, etc.) dynamically remaps the sectors so the wear caused by write cycles is distributed over several different sector.
Let's say that an OS constatly writes data on the first couple of sectors. Instead of always writing on the first few cell, the controller remaps a different physical flash cell, to the logical disc sector seen by the OS.
This works as a charm for flash media storing files likes used in digital cameras and such.
But doesn't perform as well when used by an operating system.
Windows XP is specially bad at this.
Other OS - such as Linux or *BSD, that already have good support for running on slow read-only media (LiveCDs) for a long time, that don't need writing that much (except
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
IANAL, but I have studied law and I have worked in the litigation field. I have read many letters that have had me wanting to ROFL, and this is in that category. But the best part is also the last bit:
"From there, it should be a short trip to dismissal even if it means getting our clients to mediate Mr. Merchant's positive claims in the absence of an appropriate settlement."
Translation: If you have read this far, you realize that you not only have no case, but that you are entirely out of your league because the standards of evidence in the court system where I have major influence, would procedurally bar you from even entering your case on the docket. Despite this, my client's claims against you are already demonstrated, and our claims will continue to have merit even after your case is dismissed with prejudice (and we have not offered to drop our case.)
This letter is a masterpiece because it manages to hand the plaintiff his ass, in a rather respectful colleague-to-colleague way, while at the same time threatening a counterclaim that could end up with far greater damages than the initial claim!
And the real beauty is that even though the RIAA seems to have withdrawn its claim, the damages from the malice might still hold, if they really want to push it.
Who did they sue? Directors of a Silicon Valley bank? They should do some research before they pull the pin on the hand grenade!
"I would be happy to send the airplane..." (At the plaintiff's expense of course...)
Love it.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.