Micron Releases 16nm-Process SSDs With Dynamic Flash Programming

Lucas123 writes: Micron's newest client flash drive line, the M600, uses its first 16nm process technology and dynamic write acceleration firmware that allows the flash to be programmed as SLC or MLC instead of using overprovisioning or reserving a permanent pool of flash cache to accelerate writes. The ability to dynamically program the flash reduces power use and improves write performance as much as 2.8 times over models without the feature, according to Jon Tanguy, Micron's senior technical marketing engineer. The new lithography process technology also allowed Micron to reduce the price of the flash drive to 45 cents a gigabyte.

Comments

Re: Lifetime at 16nm?

[drdread66]

I read it. It makes some claims that are not actually related to cell lifetime but rather to tricks they can play with the fancy firmware that allow them to do fewer writes and erases. That has nothing to do with the native cell lifetime.

Re: Lifetime at 16nm?

[viperidaenz]

I don't understand how the native cell life is relevant.
You're not buying flash chips from them, you're buying an SSD. The write endurance of the drive is what matters. How that is achieved is irrelevant.

Re:Mixed units

[tlhIngan]

Stupid Slashdot can't even display UTF8 correctly. That was supposed to read "16um".

Thanks for nothing, "nerds" website. We're in 2014, get with the damn program instead of fucking about with your stupid beta layout.

/. displays Unicode just fine. And it has for over a decade.

The problem was back then people were abusing that functionality to screw with everything. If you google "site:slashdot.org erocS" that gives hints of what people were doing. If you don't get what that string is, try "5:erocS".

As a result, /. implemented a Unicode whitelist because they keep adding all sorts of stuff to Unicode.

Re: Lifetime at 16nm?

[Kjella]

Well, sometimes they make convenient little assumptions about the write amplification and other things in coming up with that number. Also it's the number they use for warranty claims, so it may not reflect the kind of endurance you'd normally expect. The latest trick is to basically use part of your drive as a semi-permanent SLC cache and only write it to MLC/TLC NAND later, if ever so what you actually get will depend on your usage pattern. If you just keep on rewriting a small file it'll probably not leave SLC at all, while if you use it as a scratch disk filling it up with large files and emptying it you'll hit the MLC/TLC hard. The rating is just to give consumers who don't want an in-depth look something to relate to.

Personally my first idea was, if they can deliver us a MLC drive at 45 cents/GB doesn't that mean they should be able to deliver us a SLC drive at 90 cents/GB? That's not disturbingly much, considerably faster and should have all the endurance you'll ever need. That said, TechReport got 3 (out of 6) consumer drives they've written >1 PB to, so I'm guessing most drives fail from something else than NAND exhaustion. And I don't reinstall my OS disk every day.... I just checked and I've used up 50 of my 3000 P/E cycles after 150 days of 24x7 running so at this rate it should take 25 years.

I know people who turn on their computer maybe 2-3 hours a day on average, just streaming no heavy media usage. Any SSD will last them forever, it's all about $/GB. Now if you want a guess they said 5000 P/E -> 3000 P/E (60%) for 25nm -> 20nm MLC, so I'm guessing 3000 * 0.6 = 1800 P/E for 16nm. And TLC is probably like 500 P/E, though this drive doesn't use that.