Slashdot Mirror


512GB Solid State Disks on the Way

Viper95 writes "Samsung has announced that it has developed the world's first 64Gb(8GB) NAND flash memory chip using a 30nm production process, which opens the door for companies to produce memory cards with upto 128GB capacity"

6 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. 512GB? by loshwomp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You could use the same logic to conclude that 512 terabyte solid-state media is on the way.

  2. Re:Cost? by NickCatal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, defense department would love these. Store a lot of data in places where there is constant vibrations and heat issues (Iraq) without worrying about damaging the disks.

    --
    -nick
  3. Re:Cost? by eebra82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    News flash! We all know that cutting-edge hardware is in almost all cases too expensive. It takes time to adopt new hardware regardless of how practical it is. Once vendors acknowledge the need for such disks and once Samsung receives a boat load of orders, things will look different, but until then, it's expensive to produce because it's being done in small quantities.

    I guess that the next generation of iPods will completely remove the hard drive capable devices from their line-up.

  4. Re:number of writes still limited? by sholden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's already so high as to be meaningless, it will outlast mechanical failure of a traditional hard drive for example.

  5. Re:I bet the HD makers are going to be pissed! by pslam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On that subject, whenever the 2^n or 10^n units thing gets brought up, some smart arse always says "it's so illogical to have binary based sizes like that, it's so confusing and the media doesn't work in binary anyway."

    This is just history re-writing bullshit that someone spouts to get mod points and continue another meme.

    There was a time when hard disks were all based on megabytes, and megabytes were always 2^20 = 1048576 bytes. NOBODY EVER GOT CONFUSED. History re-writers say otherwise, obviously. Where did it all change? Well, for hard disk manufacturers, it was a blatantly cheap trick to save 5-10% costs, and whenever anyone complained they could just to that viral history re-write meme about how binary based units were always confusing. Hell, they even convinced SI. SI have absolutely no authority or experience with determining computer units, and the "solution" they came up with is even more confusing and ugly. How do you tell if MeB or MiB is 2^20 or 10^6? Muppets.

    Then came flash cards. Here's a thing a lot of people don't know: flash actually DOES come in binary sizes. That's how it's manufactured. Another thing a lot of people don't know: flash actually gets WORSE for write endurance as its density goes up. It's actually got much worse over time. To begin with, low density flash cards did not suffer much from write endurance problems - to the extent that when you got an 8MB flash card it was basically just writing straight through.

    Densities went up, and you started to need a lot of spares, more error correction, and wear leveling. The result was that after formatting, you ended up with about 5-10% of your flash used up. Quite handily close to the decimal-based size. So manufacturers (and I believe SanDisk were the first to do this) silently started selling 64MB cards as 64,000,000 bytes of data instead of 67,108,864. No asterisks, no notes on the bottom of the packaging - nothing. It's fair enough, but done in a fucking deceptive manner.

    I remember getting bug reports about our MP3 players (years back now) misreporting SanDisk flash cards as 61MB instead of 64MB. In the end (sigh) we put in a hack to spot deceptive cards and switch units to powers of 10.

    So before anyone else spouts how the units are confusing - they weren't until manufacturers tried their damned hardest to make sure they were.

    Next, people will complain about how SDRAM, caches and even registers are in silly powers of 2...

  6. unprofessional by PMBjornerud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No conspiracy. Just system dynamics. And programmers still think of storage in powers of 2, because that's what they work in. (This is less true when you work in higher level langauges, but if you don't take advantage of the powers of two that the algorithms are friendly with, it will cost you in performance, even if you don't realize it.) However, our job as professionals is to know these facts without bothering the end user with it. 2^10 is a nice and useful hack, but not something to show the end user. Computer users are no longer computer experts, and we should not bother them with internal details.

    Disk capacity is reported to my mother in powers of 2. This simply does not make sense.

    Technical details should not trump users. This makes us look like geeks with a binary fetish instead of professionals.
    --
    I lost my sig.