Slashdot Mirror
Are Consumer Hard Drives Headed Into History?
Lucas123 writes "With NAND flash fabricators ramping up production, per GB prices of solid state drives are expected to drop by more than half by this time next year to about 50 cents. Even so, consumers still look at three things when purchasing a computer: CPU power, memory size, and drive capacity, giving spinning disk the edge. SSD manufacturers like Samsung and SanDisk have tried but failed to change consumer attitudes toward choosing SSDs for their performance, durability and lower power use. But, with the release of the new MacBook Air (sans hard disk drive), Steve Jobs has joined the marketing push and may have the clout to shift the market away from hard drives, even if they're still an order of magnitude cheaper."
He has enough clout to push about 8% of consumers to buy overpriced hardware.
I've got an SSD in my laptop, and I couldn't be happier. Its easily lengthened the life of my laptop by about 2 years.
What ever happened to transition technology? Most PCs and laptops have media card readers, PC card slots. Put the OS and Apps on a SSD card and save the spinning disk for personal storage.
I think the write cycle issues aren't as bad as before, but they probably mean physical durability. Drop one and drop a hard drive. The SSD is much more likely to survive, due to no moving parts.
SSC
Spec the street price of 3 TB of SSD to replace the new "old" drives hitting availability this week and get back to me.
Arrogant use-case much? What ever happened to the hybrid drives that were supposed to be the practical solution...
I was under the impression that with the wear leveling algorithms these drives use, and the higher quality chips used for SSDs, the lifetime under typical laptop usage is expected to far exceed a spinning platter drive.
Makes sense, really. Most disk access is reading (booting the OS, opening applications, loading libraries, viewing images/videos, listening to music), and this doesn't wear out the memory cells. Unless you're doing heavy disk work like video editing or serious photography, or running some sort of highly accessed write intensive database, I'd bet on SSDs to outlast HDDs. After all, an HDD is usually spinning and thus being worn out, even when no files are accessed.
SSDs are still not a good value for their MBTF (Mean Time Between Failures). I predict the hybrid harddrive/SSD combo drive will be the near term winner (assuming laptops don't all get as small as the Air). I have had several friends recently purchase and install hybrid drives in their laptops and they gave it a "thumbs up" for performance but are very paranoid about failure, so they backup much more frequently. Additionally, these drives spin down quite regularly which increase battery life, however there are concerns about the duty cycle of spinup/spindown before failure. Example Hybrid Drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148591&cm_re=hybrid_hard_drive-_-22-148-591-_-Product
You can get 500gb for $40 with decent specs on it which is like 8cents per gig. Unless I'm using it in a production environment I don't really care so much about the speed difference between your typical SATA hard drive and all of these new solid state things. I think speed will really matter once the price has lowered enough to about 15cents per gig and we go through a year of hard drive space not really budging in default pc's/laptops. Even then, the average consumer probably won't ever use more than 2tb legally until of course 4k resolution monitors come out and the size of games and other media will be vastly bigger, as they normally do.
In the long term? Yes I'm sure flash, or some other solid state, based storage will replace magnetic disks. It is just plain faster, not to mention other benefits. Our storage subsystem is by far the slowest thing we've got, improvements would be welcome.
In the short term? Hell no. SSDs are useful in special cases, but not for general use and not showing any signs of reaching a crossover soon.
I mean if I wanted to meet my storage needs with SSDs only, I'd have to spend on the order of $10,000. Granted, my needs for storage exceed most users, but still. It costs me all of about $500 to get them met with HDDs. Even if I left backups to magnetic media and just went with SSDs for primary storage I'd still be out about $4000. I could replace every component in my system, including my professional NEC monitor, for less than that.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to have SSDs, but they have to come down in price a shitload before they are realistic for the regular desktop. Right now, SSDs have 3 uses:
1) Systems that don't need a lot of storage and space/power are a premium. The Air is a good example. If you can live with 64GB of storage, then flash is ok price wise. Still expensive per GB, but since you have few GBs it isn't bad. If all you are doing is running basic apps then that works fine. You can't hold much media or large games or whatnot, but not all systems need that.
2) Systems where performance beyond what reasonable HDD solutions can offer is needed. Audio production sees this. New virtual instruments are getting extremely complex. Tons and tons of samples played back in heavy layers. You can't load them all in RAM (without amazing amounts of RAM) and they just overload disks when you try to stream it all. SSDs can be useful here. While a $10,000-20,000 fiber channel array would probably do the trick, a $4000 SSD will also do the trick and not only cost less but be easier to deal with.
3) Ultra high end storage solutions that need performance beyond anything HDDs can offer. With databases, you can run in to this. Heck they had SSDs back before they were popular. Expensive, expensive devils, but tons of performance. You need this to reach certain performance levels, no amount of disks can handle the IOPs you need. This is where cost just isn't an issue, performance is.
That's pretty much it. For cheap systems, HDDs reign supreme. They cost less than flash and that is that. For higher end systems, you end up needing more storage than flash can provide at a reasonable cost.
Before we see flash replace HDDs we will probably see augmentation. Intel, Adaptec, LSI, all are supporting SSDs as a cache for HDDs on various RAID controllers. If this comes down to consumer price levels, could be useful. 1TB of storage for $100 and then $100 more for some flash cache would be doable for many people.
It'll be a long time before SSDs are the way most people go, however. It is too bad, I want solid state storage now, but there is a big, BIG price gap that has to be covered.
When SSDs fail, they are still readable. So the friend of a friend's uncle wont lose his entire porn collection (life's work). He just won't be able to save that new clip he downloaded.
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
The big problem with that remark is that while they might have a better write endurance on paper, the actual LIFESPAN of the drives are very similar- the mechanical parts will wear out on a disk before you hit the write endurance and the reality of the write endurance for SSDs is that if you were to jam out 10G per day to the disk they would last approximately 5-10 years before they ran out of endurance- and then they'd be read-only. The HD would catastrophically fail (and likely before that 5-10 year window...) and you'd have no chance in Hell of getting the data back. While one should make backups against that inevitability, it rarely gets done and if you're within the price/size window for an SSD, it'll survive things that would simply KILL the HD. Vibration that would actually shake your house down. Accelerations that would actually render your bones to goo.
Price is the reason that HD's are still around, not much of anything else.
I admit I have never owned an SSD and therefore I might be ignorant. Having said that, to the best of my knowledge SSDs use the same standard connectors (SATA) as spinning hard drives. If/when an SSD fails you should be able to buy either another SSD or a spinning hard drive as a drop-in replacement. This situation is no different and no more proprietary than mechanical drives.
This may be true in general. But the new MacBook Air solders the Flash modules directly to the logic board.
No, when SSDs fail, they are not readable. The electrons, (ie. your data), literally leak out of the device over time. With each new generation of flash, the longevity of stored data decreases dramatically. Currently it is measured in years, but it won't be long before it is measured in months.
What you are referring to is the write endurance, and that is a separate issue entirely. (Though quickly receding as well.) In any case, magnetic domains are a hell of a lot more stable over time.
I will wait for PRAM or MRAM before trusting data to an SSD, thanks.
"US consumer retail market" means people walking into a store and buying a piece of hardware, and it's expressed in terms of money, not units, and people spend a lot more for their Macs than for their PCs. It probably also includes iPhone, iPad, and iPod, and accessories sales, since it refers to Apple share, not Mac share. In terms of units, their share is still around 4-5% at most.