Slashdot Mirror
SanDisk Announces 4TB SSD, Plans For 8TB Next Year
Lucas123 (935744) writes "SanDisk has announced what it's calling the world's highest capacity 2.5-in SAS SSD, the 4TB Optimus MAX line. The flash drive uses eMLC (enterprise multi-level cell) NAND built with 19nm process technology. The company said it plans on doubling the capacity of its SAS SSDs every one to two years and expects to release an 8TB model next year, dwarfing anything hard disk drives can ever offer over the same amount of time. he Optimus MAX SAS SSD is capable of up to 400 MBps sequential reads and writes and up to 75,000 random I/Os per second (IOPS) for both reads and writes, the company said."
Now you can pay $4000 for a drive that won't last 2 years! Yeah.. sign me up.
It is so archaic in this day and age of microization to have something mechanic bottlenecking the whole computer. It just doesn't mix in the 21st century.
For those who have used them will agree with me. It is like light and day and there is no way in hell you could pay me to do things like run several domain VM's on a mid 20th century spinning mechanical disk. No more 15 minute waits to start up and shutdown all 7 vms at the same time.
Not even a 100 disk array can match the IOPS (interrupts and operations per second) that a single ssd can provide. If the price goes down in 5 years from now only walmart specials will have any mechanical disk.
Like tape drive and paper punch cards I am sure it will live someone in a storage oriented server IDF closet or something. But for real work it is SSD all the way.
http://saveie6.com/
Anecdotal and small sample size caveats aside, I've had 4 (of 15) mechanical drives fail in my small business over the last two years and 0 (of 8) SSDs over the same time period fail on me.
The oldest mechanical drive that failed was around 2 years old. The oldest SSD currently in service is over 4 years old.
More to the point, the SSDs are all in laptops, getting jostled, bumped around, used at odd angles, and subject to routine temperature fluctuations. The mechanical drives were all case-mounted, stationary, and with adequate cooling.
This isn't enough to base an industry report on, but certainly my experience doesn't bear out the common idea that SSDs are catastrophically unreliable in comparison to mechanical drives.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Seagate already announced 8-10TB disks for next year: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/h... .
Now if SanDisk can deliver 16TB SSDs in 2016 then they might be indeed ahead of the hard-disks but not in 2015.
I've noticed years ago that Premiere was dumb, but I would have thought things would improve over the years. Especially in the age of GPU-accelerated non-destructive editing (where the need for caching processed results themselves has somewhat diminished).
Ezekiel 23:20
Why do SSD makers only make 2.5" SSDs? It seems like a lot of the capacity limitation is self-enforced by constraining themselves to laptop-sized drives.
Why can't they sell "yesterday's" flash density at larger storage capacities in the 3.5" disk form factor? For a a lot of the use cases, the 3.5" form factor isn't an issue. More, cheaper flash would enable greater capacities at lower prices.
The same thing is true for hybrid drives -- the 2.5" ones I've used have barely enough flash to make acceleration happen, a 3.5" case with a 2.5" platter and 120GB flash would be able to keep a lot more blocks in flash and reserve meaningful amounts for write caching to flash.
Yeah, but the maintenance requirements are very high, the MTBF is unacceptable, and they can say "no."
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
For a single user doing "stuff" though, a short-stroked hard drive is about 1/4 the price and well fast enough. And yes, i had a work machine (laptop) with SSD that i ditched and went back to a momentus XT hybrid due to lack of capacity.
You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it magically true.
So you had a laptop with an SSD too small for your working set and that makes SSDs bad? No. It makes you or whoever provisioned the machine incompetent. More likely you were using your work machine for shit you shouldn't have, so you were all pissy that your working set was larger than your storage space.
I'd be willing to be a months pay that my 2009 macbook pro with SSD will out perform whatever brand new laptop you want to buy with spinning iron.
The fact that you think 'short stroking' a drive is some sort of massive performance increase shows your ignorance. Its a negligible performance increase for sequential operations, it doesn't do jack shit for random IO, which is thousands of times more important for normal every day working operations.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Thus, the basic idea [of a write amplification exploit] goes something like this: Fill the disk to 99.9% full.
Your attack has already failed. A 4 TB drive has 4 TiB (4*1024^4), or 4.4 TB of physical memory, but only 4 TB (4*1000^4) is partitioned. The rest is overprovisioned to prevent precisely the attack you described. You're not going to get it more than 90.95% full. And in practice, a lot of sectors in a file system will contain repeated bytes that the controller can easily compress out, such as runs of zeroes from the end of a file to the end of its last cluster or runs of spaces in indented source code.