Slashdot Mirror
Intel SSD Roadmap Points To 2TB Drives Arriving In 2014
MojoKid writes "A leaked Intel roadmap for solid state storage technology suggests the company is pushing ahead with its plans to introduce new high-end drives based on cutting-edge NAND flash. It's significant for Intel to be adopting 20nm NAND in its highest-end data center products, because of the challenges smaller NAND nodes present in terms of data retention and reliability. Intel introduced 20nm NAND lower in the product stack over a year ago, but apparently has waited till now to bring 20nm to the highest end. Reportedly, next year, Intel will debut three new drive families — the SSD Pro 2500 Series (codenamed Temple Star), the DC P3500 Series (Pleasantdale) and the DC P3700 Series (Fultondale). The Temple Star family uses the M.2 and M.25 form factors, which are meant to replace the older mSATA form factor for ultrabooks and tablets. The M.2 standard allows more space on PCBs for actual NAND storage and can interface with PCIe, SATA, and USB 3.0-attached storage in the same design. The new high-end enterprise drives, meanwhile, will hit 2TB (up from 800GB), ship in 2.5" and add-in card form factors, and offer vastly improved performance. The current DC S3700 series offers 500MBps writes and 460MBps reads. The DC P3700 will increase this to 2800MBps read and 1700MBps writes. The primary difference between the DC P3500 and DC P3700 families appears to be that the P3700 family will use Intel's High Endurance Technology (HET) MLC, while the DC P3500 family sticks with traditional MLC."
English much?
Oh, bitter irony, I stab at thee!
The computer world moves fast. You'd better keep up. Write limits, lol.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Of course, that spread across a 2TB drive, means needing to write 2PB of data before the drive dies, so at even a fairly high usage home user's 10GB per day, that'll be 550 years before they have problems.
Why do people still think SSD write limits are an issue?
High end flash add in cards (like FusionIO) typically specify the "write limit" (I think this is what you mean) in Petabytes Written (PBW). So a flash card might be guaranteed to give you a minimum of 5 petabytes written over the life of the card.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
I tried to find out for a large customer how long the current enterprise SSDs live, but Intel declined to comment. Through the grapevine I have heard of people doing complete replacements every 6 months to prevent failures in production environments, after they learned the hard way that these are not as reliable or long-lived as many people think. Especially small-write endurance seems to be pretty bad.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
SSDs aren't for mass storage. You're better off with hard drives or tape for that.
SSDs are for blindingly fast performance first, everything else second. Install your OS and applications on a SSD. Keep your movie and music collection on a hard drive.
10GB/day is still 300GB/month. Even with your 17GB/day usage the device is going to out-last the life of your, your children and your childrens children life.
Generally all platter disks have unlimited write limit. Unlike flash cells, the magnetic medium does not degrade much at all.
Not according to Samsung. I've done the math on how it calculates the SMART values.
The Samsung 840 Series SSD has a total of 1000 P/E Cycles.
The SMART Wear Leveling Count value has two values; the normalized value (out of 100) and the raw value (out of 1000).
So, if the raw value is 30 it means that the cells have been erased 30 times out of the total 1000 times that the SSD can endure.
The normalized value is calculated like so
FLOOR.PRECISE((1000 - X) / 10)
With X being the raw value.
So, it would be like this
(1000-30)=970
970/10=97.0
FLOOR.PRECISE(97.0)=97 -- This is your normalized value.
Everything degrades. Even the paint on the walls of your home degrades. But it's not something you have to take into account.
So: for all practical purposes, the magnetic medium of a mechanical hard drive platter does not degrade at all.
P3500 = 374TB for 2TB model = 2 days of continuous writing and drive dies = mlc
P3700 = 50 days of continuous writing = slc
while old Samsung 830 routinely did >1PB with 256GB model.
No, you wont write 20GB per day, those are not home use drives, they go into servers and get killed by bcache.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
That's why these high-end solutions are now in the form of SSD PCIe cards. Bandwidth.
Life is not for the lazy.
Not true, failure rates for SSDs are an order of magnitude lower than those for HDDs (around 0.5% for SSDs vs 5% for HDDs per year)
My rule for SSD hasn't changed since their invention.
My rule for storage is I don't trust anyone who can't get the suffixes for bits and bytes straight.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So: for all practical purposes, the magnetic medium of a mechanical hard drive platter does not degrade at all.
Basically, even though it degrades slightly, I can pretend that it doesn't?
This would mean that, ohhh yes, I'm degrade pretender (ooh-ooh).
Also, does it matter how many Platters the drive has?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I dislike SSDs because when they fail they do it catastrophically.
Huh? The typical failure mode for an SSD that hits its write limit is actually to simply become read only. Compared to an HDD's likely "all your data is gone", I'd hardly call that catastrophic.
I'm not quite sure exactly where these would be used, other than in niche systems that need large amounts of local, superfast storage.
Wireless access to a NAS? You've got it backwards _you_ are the 'niche'. Every NAS I touch is connected via 10GB, and in some cases bonded 10GB lines that aggregate to 40-50GBS. We don't want these for playing warcraft at home - we want them for work.
Example: I have NAS's as storage targets for backup daemons that receive 40-50 simultaneous backup streams from clients. Each stream can average 120-150 mBytes/sec on it's own; usually the network link is the bottleneck. Even if we pack several dozen 15k SAS drives in the bays - they can't handle that without the network buffer backlogging waiting on disk IO. Solutions like larger and faster SSD's fix these business problems for us.
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
> who re-writes and entire HD 2x per day?
We would. Actually at that rate you'd expect it to die within 3-4 years. Drives dying is bad, so you need to replace them BEFORE they are likely to wear out. So figure you can write no more than 1/2 of the capacity per day.
For our hot spare server offering, we use raid arrays of 14 3TB drives, yielding 36 TB.
We'd like to use bcache or dm-cache. With a 500 GB SSD, we could write 250 GB / day - less than 1% of the array's capacity.
Maybe your application, but not for others. SSD's fit well into niche areas in the server market, the last server install I did with SSD's was 5 years ago, they're still going strong. On the otherhand, I've had entire SCSI arrays fail in a year and a half. At least hotswapping makes it less of a pain all the way around.
Om, nomnomnom...
This is not a failure of SSDs; it is a failure of the vendor you bought your SSDs from.
Yes. Like every SSD vendor on the planet.
While it's purely anecdotal, I only know one person who's ever worn out an SSD. I know plenty who've lost all their data when the SSD failed due to buggy firmware; most commonly when there's a sudden loss of power.