Seagate Reveals 'World's Largest' 60TB SSD (zdnet.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seagate Reveals 'World's Largest' 60TB SSD (zdnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @08:50AM from the world-record dept.

An anonymous reader writes: While Samsung has the world's largest commercially available SSD coming in at 15.36TB, Seagate officially has the world's largest SSD for the enterprise. ZDNet reports: "[While Samsung's PM1633a has a 2.5-inch form factor,] Seagate's 60TB Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) SSD on the other hand opts for the familiar HDD 3.5-inch form factor. The company says that its drive has "twice the density and four times the capacity" of Samsung's PM1633a, and is capable of holding up to 400 million photos or 12,000 movies. Seagate thinks the 3.5-inch form factor will be useful for managing changing storage requirements in data centers since it removes the need to support separate form factors for hot and cold data. The company says it could also scale up capacity to 100TB in the same form factor. Seagate says the 60TB SSD is currently only a 'demonstration technology' though it could release the product commercially as early as next year. It hasn't revealed the price of the unit but says it will offer 'the lowest cost per gigabyte for flash available today.'"

162 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oh great by TheRealQuestor · 2016-08-10 08:51 · Score: 0

Oh great, now you have a 60TB drive that will fail taking everything with it and because of the size making backups very costly to boot.
1. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  You obviously don't understand the failure modes of SSD drives.
2. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you can't afford the baskets, stop collecting the eggs.
3. Re:Oh great by Archangel+Michael · 2016-08-10 08:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That didn't take long. Toshiba announced a 100TB drive (different type) SSD today.
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
  The end of spindle drives is nigh
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
4. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  If you can afford one of these SSD drives, I'm sure you can afford another or a rack of tapes.
5. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  Toshiba's IOPS specs are pretty low on that thing, even for SSD.
6. Re:Oh great by tlhIngan · 2016-08-10 09:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The end of spindle drives is nigh
  Is it, really?
  I mean, 100TB of spinning rust storage is probably around $3000 or so. 60TB is probably around $2000-ish.
  If Seagate and Toshiba are selling SSDs for those prices, then yes, spindle's are dead. But if we're talking about 5 figures or more, then spinning rust has a long life ahead of it.
  SSDs are great for plenty of tasks, and the largest ones on the market offer plenty of storage for most users.
  However, there are plenty of tasks that demand bulk storage (e.g., media storage, backups, etc) over sheer IOPs or throughput, and demand cheap bulk storage, at that. Spinning rust fulfills that need wonderfully (and there's plenty of demand for it, as well - I'm sure most people have at least a need to have some big bulk storage around to store their media).
7. Re:Oh great by SensitiveMale · 2016-08-10 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  If you can afford one, you can afford two.
8. Re:Oh great by npslider · 2016-08-10 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Only if it's a buy one, get one free sale.
9. Re:Oh great by DidgetMaster · 2016-08-10 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  Competing with hard drives is more than just matching their capacity. You have to come close to their $/TB too. The speed of SSDs make it attractive to replace HDDs for some data sets (boot drive, frequently accessed data, etc.). But if you are storing off-line data that is only accessed once a year, then even 2x the price is way too much. Flash has come down a lot, but it is still something like 8x the price of HDD space. Get back to us when a 1 TB SSD can be bought for $50.
10. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  Traditional hard drives have lagged sorely behind Moore's Law.
  SSD hard drives are demonstrating Moore's Law as applied to storage
  In the very near future, traditional hard drives will need to drop prices dramatically or fail as a business model
  https://itblog.sandisk.com/does-storage-break-moores-law/
11. Re:Oh great by Dragonslicer · 2016-08-10 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think capacity per disk is starting to become a bit of a factor, too. For some people (read: large companies), It might be worth spending double the price per TB of storage if it also means you need half as many servers to hold the disks. The savings in hardware costs, rack space, and electricity will make up for some of the additional cost for the hard drives.
  
  I've made the decision a couple times to buy 8 TB hard drives, even if they weren't the best price per TB, because it allows for the highest possible total storage before we would have to spend more on another chassis.
12. Re:Oh great by Dragonslicer · 2016-08-10 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Oh great, now you have a 60TB drive that will fail taking everything with it and because of the size making backups very costly to boot.
  Why does it cost more to backup 60 TB of data from a single SSD than it does to backup 60 TB of data from a dozen HDDs?
13. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  HDD drives can't fail as a business model because they complement the SSD's weaknesses.
  SSD is dependent on firmware and susceptible to software based complete failure, an HDD ain't.
  SSD is more likely to become useless after an electrical based failure and in more case than not, the data will be wiped out. An HDD ain't, so long as platters are intact you can retrieve with special equipment.
  HDD on the other hand is susceptible to vibration damage, while an SSD ain't.
  Precisely because HDDs are slower than SSDs, minimizing any malicious writing can be achieved. While HDDs will always be the main solution in servers while SSDs are at best used as cache, because their electrical vulnerability and their firmware crapup, and lower chance of retreival, make them too high risk. And it ain't ever going to change because of the nature of how the SSD stores information, which is completely different from HDDs.
  Saying SSDs will replace HDDs is like saying touchscreen will replace keyboard. Never gonna happen unless under pretense of high delusion.
14. Re:Oh great by beelsebob · 2016-08-10 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  You do realise that SSD reliability increases linearly with capacity, right? Barring manufacturing/design defects (which can affect all products equally), this thing will be far more reliable than any HDD has ever been. A typical life span for TLC SSDs (the very worst kind in terms of reliability) is 2.25kB of write per B of storage. That means that the 60TB model will survive about 135PB of writes before it starts to fail, and the 100TB one will do about 225PB of writing.
  So yeh, the 60TB model will sustain writing continuously at 550MB/s for 8 years before it starts to suffer. The 100TB one will sustain it for 13 years.
  At more sensible average write rates for a consumer (about 10GB per day), the 60TB one will last about 37,000 years, or the 100TB one will do 62,000 years.
  I have no idea why people are still worried about SSDs as being inherently less reliable than HDDs - they're not. They are in fact, much much much much more reliable.
15. Re:Oh great by Kjella · 2016-08-10 11:17 · Score: 2
  
  The end of spindle drives is nigh
  Perhaps if size and price was related like with HDDs... checking my local pricewatch the cheapest $/GB is a 480GB drive leading by a hair over similar 240GB and 960GB models. Above that 2TB/4TB models actually cost marginally more/GB, probably because of less volume. When you can put 1TB in an M.2 format it's obvious you can go a lot bigger with 2.5" or 3.5" disks. Heck, make a 5.25" SSD for the DVD player bay and you'd probably be approaching the petabyte but it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars too.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
16. Re:Oh great by sexconker · 2016-08-10 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  While HDDs will always be the main solution in servers while SSDs are at best used as cache, because their electrical vulnerability and their firmware crapup, and lower chance of retreival, make them too high risk.
  Our servers run RAID 10 SSDs. If we need more storage we buy bigger/more SSDs.
17. Re:Oh great by Khyber · 2016-08-10 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  "SSD is dependent on firmware and susceptible to software based complete failure, an HDD ain't."
  What the fuck kind of crack are you smoking? http://knowledge.seagate.com/a...
  "HDD on the other hand is susceptible to vibration damage, while an SSD ain't."
  Hi, my name is ultrasonics, a form of very rapid vibration. I'll make your puny glass chips turn into fucking dust at the right frequency.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
18. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  This single drive is SAS, which assume is 12 Gb/s or about 1.5 GB/sec sustained transfer rate. A dozen drives will likely have sustained transfer rate of ~150 MB/sec * 12 = 1.8 GB/sec, so the dozen of drives will get a backup faster.
19. Re:Oh great by hackwrench · 2016-08-10 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Moore's law applies to processors and has to do with transistors and different corollaries get involved such that the amount of work a processor can do doubles every so-and-so years.
20. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  That isn't right.
  One failure mode, unrelocatable sector errors goes down with capacity. Other failure modes like bad solder bonds, short circuits, etc. go up with number of chips and bonds in the system.
  Since these two curves have different gamma and slope, they have to intersect at some point, where increasing capacity decreases reliability.
  I would rather have 12x 6TB SSDs than 1x 60TB SSD. Aside from a single SAS channel not being at all fast enough for a 60TB disk, an RAIM array of SSDs is much more survivable, and takes much less time to recover than a complete restore from backup for a single SSD.
  The more ideal thing would be an array of M4 mass carrier boards each connected via SAS or PCIe-ext channels to the machine.
  It's not just the reliability of the components, but the reliability of the system; if you have to replace the system as a whole (as in a single 60TB SSD) when one of the components fail, it will be less reliable than a system which allows the components to be replaced at a more granular level. The spring to land connections on M2 decrease reliability, but unit replacement more than makes up the difference in a system with active maintenance.
  
  I have no idea why people are still worried about SSDs as being inherently less reliable than HDDs - they're not. They are in fact, much much much much more reliable.
  Not correct, not entirely wrong. HDDs have much lower MTBF, but considerably higher MTTF than SSDs. If you put a HDD away in a suitable safe, you can be fairly certain it will be readable in 15 years time. If you do the same thing with a USB stick or SSD, your chances of data recovery are slim to none. The reason is that SSD suffers from charge migration over time, so without refresh has eventual dataloss, whereas HDD magnetic media has hysteresis which holds the charge permanently when stored away from a permutive force such as a dynamic magnetic field (transformers motors and moving magnets). So basically if you build a huge zfs zvol out of SSDs and resilver it monthly, it will have much higher reliability than a HDD array the same size, but if you just want to put your data away offline for safe keeping, SSD is a non-option and your only options are HDD, tape, or permanent (read super-expensive, not CDR, DVD-R or BD-R) optical media.
21. Re:Oh great by hackwrench · 2016-08-10 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  So what you are telling me is that HDDs don't have firmware? I think we're done here. Okay, bye.
  But seriously, I don't know how many of the HDD failures are due to firmware failure. Also SSDs have higher MTBFs than HDDs and thait is a figure I have seen presented.
22. Re:Oh great by hackwrench · 2016-08-10 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's part of the reason I use external USB 3.0 HDDs.
23. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Moore's law applies to processors and has to do with transistors and different corollaries get involved such that the amount of work a processor can do doubles every so-and-so years.
  Not so much...
  Moore's law, that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years, has a LOT more to do with the size of the transistor that can be made to act reliably. Averything else, the number of transistors, the density that they can be packed in and the amount of work that they can do are just the side-effects or results of scaling everything down in size.
  On the hard drive platters we have seen the same thing, smaller areas being individually magnetized and read, denser packing orders and a resultingly higher data density. Compared to the semi-conductor market they have moved at a snails pace. Even by Mark Kryder's amped-up projections, "In 2009, Kryder projected that if hard drives were to continue to progress at their then-current pace of about 40% per year, then in 2020 a two-platter, 2.5-inch disk drive would store approximately 40 terabytes (TB) and cost about $40." shows that the only future market for HDDs are low-cost
  The problem is that HDDs used to OWN the data storage market, and they have not yet realized how to compete with a product (SSDs) that is fully determined to increase their packing densities, reduce the operating power and prolong the device life in terms of reads and writes.
  The semiconductor markets are also competitive internally and will continue to push out newer technologies on smaller dies, which the hard drive manufacturers can only compete with by dropping their prices, reducing margins and falling into survival mode, ala the buggy whip manufacturers of the late 19th century.
24. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 15:51 · Score: 0
  
  I just threw up in my mouth a little imagining what your SAN rack looks like
25. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  Hi, my name is ultrasonics, a form of very rapid vibration. I'll make your puny glass chips turn into fucking dust at the right frequency.
  WTF? How often, if ever, is that relevant to hard drive longevity? Decades ago when they changed IC packaging and designs to no longer be sensitive to strong light, did you complain, "Hi, my name is 1 kW laser cutter..."
26. Re:Oh great by Joe_Dragon · 2016-08-10 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  half as many servers to hold the disks with half of the redundancy.
  Now this is cool still need mon servers
  http://ceph.com/community/500-...
27. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  Saying SSDs will replace HDDs is like saying touchscreen will replace keyboard.
  Hey now, SSDs have their flaws but lets not get crazy here.
  The correct answer for the "Keyboards : Touchscreens :: HDDs : _______" SAT analogy question would be chiseling your data into a sheet of rock with a half-melted cheese stick.
28. Re:Oh great by hackwrench · 2016-08-10 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Rack? We don't need no freaking rack. And as for SAN, I have two 3TB external HDDs hooked up to my laptop that serves as my main machine that I bought for around $400 open box at a Best Buy about 2 years ago. They quasi mirror each other for the harder to replace data and have different parts of my Steam collection and other easy to replace data unmirrored. My mom has a refurbished laptop with a 1TB hard drive with a 1 year warranty from the seller. I've been thinking about stashing some files on her internal drive and getting an external 4TB drive.
29. Re:Oh great by AaronW · 2016-08-10 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  I've had three SSD drives fail (all OCZ). Two of them suddenly bricked to the point that they could not be seen as SATA devices. The other one, an "enterprise class" OCZ drive started corrupting itself after two weeks of use. I'd call bricking taking everything with it. I was able to recover data from the self-corrupting drive. I still have two OCZ drives. One is used only for swap and the other gets fully backed up weekly with nightly incremental backups.
  
  --
  This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
30. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 17:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, I get it...
  My little joke was based on the premise that you were replying to a post regarding an enterprise configuration by describing your home user setup.... So I extrapolated what it would look like if the original enterprise was set up with your approach
  kaptcha = humored
31. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 18:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That is what happens when you run faulty firmware and has nothing to do with flash technology.
  Buying OCZ is more closely comparable to running the testing version of a filesystem.
32. Re: Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 18:59 · Score: 0
  
  Presumably parmesan cheese, to complement his noodly appendage when writing those commandments.
33. Re:Oh great by Bongo · 2016-08-10 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  As a mere mortal, I often wonder how many TB per square metre they do in a data centre. Any rough ideas? I dunno what to subtract for all the extra components.
34. Re:Oh great by justthinkit · 2016-08-11 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  What about the RAM needs for this?
  1GB per TB is the general rule. So a 60TB drive would demand 60GB of RAM. 100TB drive would need 100GB.
  Anyone currently running with 100GB of RAM?
  
  --
  I come here for the love
35. Re:Oh great by Dragonslicer · 2016-08-11 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  I can do some very approximate math for you.
  
  If you have 42U racks that take up 1 m^2 each (they're about 2x4') and use 4U servers with 36 disk bays (which is the last one I got), you get 360 hard disks per m^2. If you use 8 TB disks, you'd get about 2.8 PB per m^2.
36. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  It's an Enterprise grade drive, so yes, we have some > 128 GB ECC ram server.
37. Re:Oh great by luis_a_espinal · 2016-08-11 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Oh great, now you have a 60TB drive that will fail taking everything with it and because of the size making backups very costly to boot.
  The lengths some people go just to post some asinine negative shit. People that can afford these things can typically afford redundancy. These things aren't for stashing your pr0n.
38. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Don't correct little Alex, he knows everything. He is wrong, of course. He'll cite that he walked past a data center once so he is now an expert on hard drives.
39. Re: Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  128GB isn't unusual today, but why exactly would ram need to scale with secondary storage?
40. Re: Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  You really have no idea what you're talking about.
41. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone using a 60 TB SSD will also have over 1 TB of RAM. They just wont be using it the way an idiot like you thinks they should. Do you have *ANY* idea how memory/disk/OS systems interact? The 1 GB per TB rule was made up by some doom 3 kid to impress his friends. Don't go around repeating stupid shit, it just makes you sound dumber than you really are.
42. Re: Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  Show me a tape drive that does 1.8 GB/sec
43. Re:Oh great by b0bby · 2016-08-11 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Our servers run RAID 10 SSDs.
  How is that working for you? I'm hesitant to go that route, especially for DB servers, because of the stories I've read about mirrored SSDs failing close to one another due to the wear being the same on each. Are you seeing any problems like that, or do you swap out drives before there's a problem or anything?
44. Re:Oh great by KingMotley · 2016-08-11 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Why yes, my desktop has 64GB of RAM in it, and it's not even a server let alone an enterprise server.
45. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  One thing is that IOPS get worse for higher density SSD, while they get better with higher density HDD.
46. Re:Oh great by Khyber · 2016-08-11 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Very often. Plenty of your components generate a ton of ultrasonic noise and vibration. Get a spectral analyzer and proper recording equipment and 'listen' to your computer, phone, etc.
  Also, the transfer of energy is a rapid vibration. Too strong of one, your silicon fries (ESD death.)
  Basic electronics.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
47. Re:Oh great by Khyber · 2016-08-11 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, the ever-wrong AC who's too stupid and such a life failure that all they can do is obsess over me like some strung-out groupie. No job, no life, obviously hasn't left mommy's basement (and could probably never offer proof of having done so in any meaningful manner in the first place,) and obviously no life partner.
  Such a pathetic existence you have. It's so pathetic that you have to hide yourself while you fail at mocking me.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
48. Re:Oh great by fastasleep · 2016-08-11 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  What does the amount of RAM have to do with the amount of connected storage?
49. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, and by the way, of the five objectively measurable insults you threw at me, all five were wrong. Damn you are stupid.
50. Re: Oh great by Billly+Gates · 2016-08-11 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  Look up cache?
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
51. Re:Oh great by cthulhu11 · 2016-08-11 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  The cost of rotational storage is more than just the drives - they need a chassis, HBA, backplane, cooling, power etc.
52. Re:Oh great by Bongo · 2016-08-11 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. Thanks.
53. Re:Oh great by Archangel+Michael · 2016-08-12 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  It is a low power SDD, suited for low access / Archiving.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
54. Re:Oh great by Archangel+Michael · 2016-08-12 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  IF all you are concerned about is storage capacity, you're probably right. But there are other things to consider, such as IOPs, Energy Costs (spinning, heat/cooling etc) and MTBF rates. Actual VALUE is in SSDs, all things being equal. But if all you look at is Cost / TB, you're right ... for now. My suggestion is that is going to change, very rapidly in the next few years.
  You are already seeing Drive Denisities exceeding Spindle drives. You're gonna need eight 8TB spindle drives to match one 60TB SSD. More than eight times the power, cooling, not to mention much much lower IOPs. What good is having all that data if it takes forever (computer time) to get it all off the drive.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
My Nigger by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 08:52 · Score: -1

Yes, I own a nigger. Any questions....???????
1. Re:My Nigger by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  Looking at selling?
woohoo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 08:53 · Score: 1

hurray more porn!
In a few years... by Jason1729 · 2016-08-10 08:53 · Score: 1

I'll buy 4 of these for $99 each on black Friday 2021 and put them in a RAID.
1. Re:In a few years... by BenJeremy · 2016-08-10 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's still not going to handle my porn, or more specifically, just the midget tranny porn part of my collection.
2. Re:In a few years... by npslider · 2016-08-10 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  By then we will all be subscribed to MicroAppleBook on our augmented reality glasses, and refinancing our monthly payments so we can still get 16K streaming video. Personal storage will be banned by the Affordable Cloud Care Act.
3. Re:In a few years... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  But then you can access the midget tranny porn with teeny-tiny latency.
4. Re:In a few years... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 18:35 · Score: 0
  
  I would use it for the shemale on female collection.
  I know "there are no chicks with dicks, only dudes with tits" saying, but I like to think of it as vanilla porn with twice as many boobs.
Weird. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 08:54 · Score: 0

Why hype up how large it is? It's not a penis. Typically you want your storage devices to be small but high capacity.
1. Re: Weird. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Because existing chassis already have bays of this size. And lots of them.
2. Re:Weird. by HumanWiki · 2016-08-10 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  If only there was some sort of summary or link that would explain why they "hyped" 3.5 over 2.5.
Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 08:54 · Score: -1

Who gives a fuck? How does this affect anyone at all? I don't know anyone who has or needs anywhere close to this amount if storage. I'll get modded down to -1 for sure because nobody will want to answer my question. But it needs to be asked. Can anyone tell me why this matters and how it affects anyone at all? I think not!
1. Re:Simple question by CRCulver · 2016-08-10 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Who gives a fuck? How does this affect anyone at all? I don't know anyone who has or needs anywhere close to this amount if storage.
  
  I can definitely imagine needing the 15TB one in a few years. After being more of a classical literature and music person for most of my life, I've been getting into film. The canon of great films consists of hundreds of titles, at least. In the past you'd have to be lucky to live in a developed country with a well-stocked library, or have a truly massive disposable income to buy all the DVDs yourself. But people today have an incredible opportunity, regardless of their means or location, to educate themselves about this (or any other) art form thanks to torrent communities.
  When you're downloading Bluray rips at full quality, where a single film can be 25GB, then storage space starts filling up quickly. One could delete after viewing to save space, but who knows, maybe someday you'll want to watch a particular title again or show it to a friend or loved one, and at that point there might not be any seeders left on the torrent. So, if storage gets cheap enough, then it's worth keeping it all on disk.
2. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  How about 400 to 500 4K (or higher) uncompressed movies...
3. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  You buy 4 or 5 of these and put them in a NAS which you put somewhere in your electric meter box, close to your battery pack that stores your solar energy and fast chargers your electric car. With this amount of space you can make hourly progressive backups forever and never have to wonder if you still have enough space.
4. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  This would hold a lot of video of you and your mom.
5. Re:Simple question by amicusNYCL · 2016-08-10 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know anyone who has or needs anywhere close to this amount if storage.
  An enterprise SSD drive is not targeted at individuals, it is targeted at companies. Hence the "enterprise" designation. A single drive that large would potentially replace an entire RAID array, although you're obviously going to trade some performance and reliability, but it's a great place for storing large long-term backup images.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
6. Re:Simple question by PTBarnum · 2016-08-10 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking of individuals, but the very first sentence of the summary says "for the enterprise". Lots of companies have tons of data that they could store on something like this. Since many nerds work for such companies, this seems relevant to their interests.
7. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  I work for a government Agency and manage 5 PB of cold data, which is mostly atmospheric and air data. Our backup with compression and DeDup is 2.2PB. This need is widespread. We accomplish this now with multiple NAS/SAN devices.This does not to include our production systems which require about 18TB of data per site, and we have 8 sites collecting data only holding for 30 days. IoT and all of the data analytics being recorded with it will make 60TB seem like 60gb in about 10 years time. This technology is usually 10 years away from consumer so stop being so pessimistic.
8. Re:Simple question by HumanWiki · 2016-08-10 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's a pretty narrow minded view of the world. I'm glad people like you aren't the ones in charge of technical advancement.
9. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  unfortunately, they are the ones getting business degrees and holding the purse strings
10. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares what a big talker with no substance like you has to say AmicusNYCL after APK kicked your ass again https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... you pitiful fucking blowhard bullshit artist liar!
11. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  Go make some actual friends, Alex. You don't have any here, and everyone can see it. Nobody has ever been fooled by your sockpuppets.
12. Re:Simple question by kimvette · 2016-08-10 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  > How does this affect anyone at all? I don't know anyone who has or needs anywhere close to this amount if storage.
  Whether you realize it or not, you probably use multi-petabyte storage arrays daily or have some running nearby without even realizing it.
  Walk into a large modern casino with thousands of cameras following your every move, there is probably a multi-petabyte SAN with video footage of you.
  Do you use Bank of America, Citicorp, etc? You're accessing data that are stored on SANs that are many petabytes in size.
  Do you have a VPS with a larger hosting company? Chances are it's on a half-petabyte or larger SAN.
  This will be a huge breakthrough - for data centers they will pay for themselves in energy savings pretty quickly, and also will allow for installation of physically-smaller SANs, with buildouts only being needed as storage bandwidth is saturated.
  Plus, Windows' install footprint could be approaching a terabyte in a decade. I'm joking but think it is plausible that this may actually come true. >_>
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
13. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  amicusNYCL I don't know who alex is but say what you want by anonymous posts now, you got your behind handed to you by APK and you're all talk.
14. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  Walk into a large modern casino with thousands of cameras following your every move, there is probably a multi-petabyte SAN with video footage of you.
  Yea, but nobody in their right mind is using SSD SANs for storing video surveillance.
  My concern, as someone who runs petabyte scale SSD arrays, is the rebuild and reliability factors of this drive. Our typical system is built on top of a custom and very simple M2. carrier PCB, with 16x M2 slots, a SAS PMP and a 4x SAS connector. Failures of individual M2 modules are quickly handled by pulling the sled, removing the failed module and replacing it. A typical sled is 7.68TB raw or about 5TB when formatted with RAIDZ2. Having to mirror 60TB of data over a 1x SAS interface would really upset our reliability margins. Also this thing would be ridiculously slow. We currently throw away some performance for the sake of cost scaling by having 48Gbps SAS per 7.68TB, but having 12Gbps SAS for 60TB would just be too slow.
  I don't know who this is targeted at, but it doesn't work for us, it's just too slow and unreliable. If anything we want a low cost way to replace our SAS expander boards with a native PCIe NVMe solution to increase our bandwidth/capacity ratio. This product makes sense for people who are density constrained, but for us a rack consumes roughly 3 m^2 of floor (including standing room in front and rear of the rack), and doesn't cost anything like $16k; for our bulk storage, HDDs still make sense, even though they take up many times the space of this thing.
  There are data-centers under stock exchanges and other high priced real estate where a rack costs much more than ours, and those people are going to love a device like this. Also mobile telemetry operators are going to love these. It looks like this thing might well be lighter or the same weight as a HDD, and at 8x the density, it would be fantastic for recording highly detailed phototelemetry, though SAS12 only gives you ~ 1GB/s of write performance, an aircraft would need to be airborne for 60k seconds (~16.7 hours) for it to be used to its full capability.
  Looking at the Samsung PM1633A, I would replace all the HDDs in my home NAS if it was 10x cheaper. Currently I have 6x 240GB SSDs in my home NAS, for L2ARC, ZIL and fast storage. I have no need for greater capacity at home, and the write and read performance is basically identical to the 480GB SSDs. I might double this to 12 SSDs, but more likely I will use an NVMe SSD, though having to buy 2 of them for any sane level of reliability makes it less appealing than scaling out SATA SSDs with SAS controllers.
  Most homes don't have 40GigE, but I'm rich and I like to play, so I do. To flog my 40G network, I really need a minimum of 8 SATA3 saturating SSDs, but in practice less will do with the 256GB of RAM in my NAS. The ZFS ARC really makes things fly. Windows boots like a flash over 40G iSCSI.
15. Re:Simple question by EndlessNameless · 2016-08-11 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  This is clearly an enterprise product.
  If you're doing a lot of random database reads, a low-latency disk with decently high bandwidth is exactly what you want. (Patterned reads should end up cached or prefetched into RAM.)
  A larger array of smaller-capacity SSDs would be better for an intensive write environment, but if you primarily need random bits of data very quickly then this will be of interest. (A database write generates more IOs than a read, plus writes often take longer to begin with---so having fewer IOPS is more likely to be acceptable for read-heavy loads.)
  This product may appeal to enterprises as an economical purchase if they have a specific workload. Or, if they need as much high-performance storage as they can get, then this will deliver it using less rack space and power.
  
  --
  
  ---
  According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
16. Re:Simple question by amicusNYCL · 2016-08-15 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  I really, really hope you continue to link to that thread, APK. I know I will. Keep it up with the "third-party" posts too, that totally helps your case.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
17. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-16 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  I read that exchange. Apk's done a lot more than you have in computing. You can't produce a single thing amicusNYCL.
18. Re:Simple question by amicusNYCL · 2016-08-16 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yes APK, I read that exchange too. I'm glad you did, even though you chose to retreat and stop responding, because you're a pussy.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
19. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-16 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  amicusnycl you're a pussy hiding behind a fake name online since you haven't done anything others said is good in publication or trade shows in computing as apk has you pusscake punk. Show us proof you've done more than apk has in computing pussy. He challenged you to do that and you can't. You're a loser. Apk didn't have to reply anymore after proving you've accomplished nothing and he produced tons of things he did that did well in the areas noted above.
20. Re:Simple question by amicusNYCL · 2016-08-16 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, you're definitely not APK, obviously some other random person who supports APK. Because everyone totally uses phrases like "in computing" in normal, everyday conversation. Yep, definitely someone completely different and obviously not the little bitch who got called out on his bullshit. There is not a single person here who would possibly look at that post and assume that it is the same bitch that got called out. It is obviously someone completely different, maybe the same completely different person who started posting and defending APK at the exact same time when you, sorry I mean he, decided to stop posting as himself. Yes, clearly he has many supporters who are definitely not him just being a little bitch because he got called out and exposed. He's far too clever to do anything like that, and definitely has the nuts to create an account and let everyone know when he's posting.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
21. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-16 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  You're a pathetic do nothing chattering roach hiding behind a fake name online amicusnycl. This proves you got called out exposed as a do nothing nobody https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9505391&cid=52680321/ and you couldn't show you've done anything worthwhile but apk could.
22. Re:Simple question by amicusNYCL · 2016-08-16 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, you dumb bitch, that doesn't show me being exposed as anything. What that shows is that you think that suggesting improvements to a piece of software 16 years ago, and getting paid $100 for a forum post 8 years ago, are things that should be on the top of your resume today. What that shows is you hold up gold stars from your teacher and use those to argue that you're a superior programmer. And you do all of this without even knowing anything about my own work. Seriously, what kind of professional argues that they are better at their job than someone that they know nothing about? In short, it shows you for the bullshit artist that you are. Really though, keep posting that link.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
23. Re:Simple question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-16 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yes amicusnycl you FAT disgusting pathetic do nothing chattering bloatbody roach hiding behind a fake name online. You got called out exposed as a do nothing https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9505391&cid=52680321/ and can't show you've done anything worthwhile. Apk can. We know all about you and you can't stand it. Apk's done well. You haven't. Look at your foaming at the mouth reactions! Says it all, hahahahaha (yes we're laughing at you fat roach).
Where is the pci-e based one? by Joe_Dragon · 2016-08-10 08:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Where is the pci-e based one?
Stray neutrons flipping bits by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 08:59 · Score: 1

More storage density meaning stray neutrons from space (and yes, that's a real 'thing'!!!) could flip a load of bits in one go!
It'll be interesting on how the long term storage/reliability holds up over time. If you don't continually check those CRC's (guessing in idle time) then you'll never know they've been flipped to correct them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_error (stuff relevant to this kind of thing)
1. Re:Stray neutrons flipping bits by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 17:13 · Score: 0
  
  A heavy duty 3.5" aluminium case should protect the drive a little better than the average 2.5" SSD casing does.
2. Re:Stray neutrons flipping bits by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, that is a real problem. That is why when you use an FPGA in space applications you use a flash based one rather than an sram based one since flash isn't as susceptible to this problem.
  Same goes for micro controllers. You run the program directly from flash memory and continuously check the ram for bit errors.
  Even controllers in the $5 range have parity bits and can generate interrupts on accesses to flipped memory. The flash is typically not checked since it doesn't suffer from this problem to the same extent.
  So yes, the problem exists, it just doesn't apply to this case since it is a flash based storage.
3. Re: Stray neutrons flipping bits by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Stray neutrons are not a thing so long as we still have an atmosphere.
Number of whatnows? by Chmarr · 2016-08-10 09:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why would a tech site such as slashdot ever, EVER, bother with metrics such as "number of photos" or "number of movies". We know how big a Terabyte is. We don't need it spelled out in such mundane, and ambigous terms such as "number of photos".
1. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:09 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Because it's fun to watch snotty know-it-alls like you lose their shit when things are explained in simple terms.
2. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  So brave you are under a veil of anonymity.
3. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  You're the definition of a simple term.
4. Re:Number of whatnows? by npslider · 2016-08-10 09:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  One reason: New Slashdot users
  They don't make em like they used to.
  My computer has 1.21 Gigaflops of processing power, it's as fast as a lightning bolt!
5. Re:Number of whatnows? by roman_mir · 2016-08-10 10:08 · Score: -1
  
  I don't even understand what they are talking about, 12000 movies. What kind of movies that is? I have some movies that fit in around 600-700MB. Say a GB to make it round enough.
  60TB is 60000GB, so that would be over 60,000 movies, not 12,000.
  As to photos, a high quality picture is 5MB or so (unless it's some professional level stuff, then it could be many times that). 200 of 5MB fit into a GB, we are talking 60000GB * 200, that's 12,000,000 pictures, not 400,000,000
  None of this makes any sense regardless of what site it is reported on.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
6. Re:Number of whatnows? by thegarbz · 2016-08-10 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Why would a tech site such as slashdot ever, EVER, bother with metrics such as "number of photos" or "number of movies".
  Because it's an interesting frame of reference for the math nerds.
  60TB for 12000 movies? That's 5GB per movie. Shit I remember when movies fitted on one or two CDs.
  But for some reason the opposite has happened with the photos. 400million photos in 60TB? That's only 150kb per photo.
  So for some reason our fixed size blue-ray rips have ballooned in size despite an increase in compression ratio and quality, but where we actually have had an increase in camera file size (megapixels) the file sizes appear to have gone down.
  I should post this as an Ask Slashdot article.
7. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  What kind of movies that is?
  It's obvious that you haven't followed the post as this was clearly explained in the
  heretofor comments above. But, being the nice gut that I am, I'm going to explain
  the industry standard used to guide those numbers - it's midget tranny porn movies.
  CAP === 'aiding'
8. Re:Number of whatnows? by mattack2 · 2016-08-10 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why would a tech site such as slashdot ever, EVER, bother with metrics such as "number of photos" or "number of movies". We know how big a Terabyte is. We don't need it spelled out in such mundane, and ambigous terms such as "number of photos".
  Because my only use for such massive storage is for storage of shows, either directly in my Tivo, or offloaded... So a rough estimate in hours of HD storage (since obviously it does vary depending on bitrate) is a useful comparison... otherwise I'm doing to be doing the estimate myself anyway.
9. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  So for some reason our fixed size blue-ray rips have ballooned in size despite an increase in compression ratio and quality, but where we actually have had an increase in camera file size (megapixels) the file sizes appear to have gone down.
  I should post this as an Ask Slashdot article.
  What are you smoking? File sizes on high-quality movies have been going down. This is because as CPU power increases, more CPU cycles can be thrown at optimizing the quality. Additionally, H.265 makes for a *huge* improvement. Additionally, denoisers like NLMeans are getting really good, so that you can denoise a movie before encoding it and still not lose visible detail. The days of 10 GB movie rips are gone. In fact, 5 GB rips are even rare now — if you're doing the encoding right. A 2-hour movie at 1080p should be 2 to 3 GB as H.265.
10. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  ya, but the 88mhz bus is a little slow.
11. Re:Number of whatnows? by wbr1 · 2016-08-10 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Great Scott!
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
12. Re:Number of whatnows? by Chmarr · 2016-08-10 12:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Because it's fun to watch snotty know-it-alls like you lose their shit when things are explained in simple terms.
  I... I... DON'T have a snotty nose! **sniff** Well... NOW I do... you meanie!
13. Re:Number of whatnows? by argStyopa · 2016-08-10 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  You have a 5 digit id, so I can't ask if you're new here, but really, you should know that Slashdot measures things in libraries of congress, or perhaps swimming pools.
  
  --
  -Styopa
14. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  "Minutes of porn" would be much more meaningful.
15. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  Eh if you say terabyte, it could be TB or TiB. Better to use Libraries of Congress.
16. Re: Number of whatnows? by npslider · 2016-08-10 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  You built a time machine out of a bus!?
17. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 19:49 · Score: 0
  
  At least they've upgraded to HD movies. If my calculations are correct, those films are on average 4,65 GB, which is a decent quality H264 rip.
18. Re:Number of whatnows? by Malc · 2016-08-10 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  I was chuckling at these bullshit marketing numbers too. Perhaps Seagate are unwittingly admitting that they use technology from ca. year 2000? My phone's shitty pictures are 3-5MB normally, and my DSLR's RAWs are another order of magnitude larger. I wonder what crap they're using that creates 150KB photos? As for the movies, this sounds like a DVD rip using MPEG-2 rather than a modern AVC or HEVC encoder, which can give good movie quality at 1.5GB.
19. Re:Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  Welcome to millennial slashdot.
  They don't know what Linux is or why it's important, but they can tell you why it's sexist and/or racist using the intersectional calculus they learned at university.
20. Re: Number of whatnows? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  You built a time machine out of a bus!?
  Actually it was a train. And it flies.
I *still* don't trust it yet by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:04 · Score: 0

In the entirety of my personal computer inventory (8 desktops, 4 Poweredges of varying vintage, 3 laptops) I have exactly one SSD, a 32GB in a laptop that holds the OS and nothing else. Seen too many horror stories of stuff getting lost to SSD drives that die far sooner than they ought to.
Give me spinning platters or give me death!
1. Re:I *still* don't trust it yet by BenJeremy · 2016-08-10 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I've been using SSDs since 2009... I've got a 60GB Vertex from that era still running a Linux media server 24/7 - the other of the pair I bought then did die, after 5 years of service. It's the ONLY casualty I've had, and I've got 12 SSDs of various ages and capacities in systems around my home. Compared to platter drives, I've had more success with SSDs.
  It's not like they haven't been stress tested by numerous organizations... for all practical purposes, a typical SSD should last even an enthusiast user a decade or more. Probably longer than the life of those platter drive motors.
  Consider how ubiquitous they are becoming in the "cloud" space these days. Platter drives are good for one thing these days... archival storage.
2. Re: I *still* don't trust it yet by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  I use both. It's great. Install OS and most used apps/games to HDD then clone it to the SSD. Now the SSD takes the HDD's place and the HDD goes back into its box. Use external HDD for any additional apps/files and clone that to another external HDD that goes back in its box when finished.
Seagate's post-Maxtor acquisition reputation by BenJeremy · 2016-08-10 09:13 · Score: 1

Given their reputation, I expect that about a week after I've loaded it full of irreplaceable data (and not-backed-up), it will inexplicably start making clicking noises, and all of my data will be corrupted when read... to die an ignoble death 2 days later with a "pop" and a loud, winding-down whine.
1. Re:Seagate's post-Maxtor acquisition reputation by Fly+Swatter · 2016-08-10 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  ...winding-down whine.
  Quite a feat, considering this is an SSD. Although, as an anecdote, I agree seagate hard drives with those spinning disks lost any reliability years ago.
2. Re:Seagate's post-Maxtor acquisition reputation by idontgno · 2016-08-10 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  You have to appreciate the thoroughness of the engineering, to incorporate the electronics necessary to simulate the sounds of mechanical failure in a solid-state, no-moving-parts storage system.
  The only improvement would be including a pyro squib and a small smoke source for the complete effect.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
3. Re:Seagate's post-Maxtor acquisition reputation by BenJeremy · 2016-08-10 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  While my post was made (somewhat) in jest, I have heard such a whine from a solid state component (not an SSD, thankfully). Capacitors can be notoriously bad in a number of noisy ways, and typically the point of failure.
4. Re:Seagate's post-Maxtor acquisition reputation by DidgetMaster · 2016-08-10 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it is like those electric cars that piped the sound of a ICE engine through speakers so that bicyclists could hear you coming.
5. Re:Seagate's post-Maxtor acquisition reputation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  Probably fixable. in all likelihood a VREG short and capacitor failure. replacing the popped components and your data is there good as new.
6. Re:Seagate's post-Maxtor acquisition reputation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it is like those electric cars that piped the sound of a ICE engine through speakers so that bicyclists could hear you coming.
  Throw a (real) 300W speaker in the trunk of a Civic or Camry, connect your phone and soundboard app of choice and do the same. Ferrari Roar? Check. Air horn? Yup.
  But what's really fun is the crazy stuff: Inception BWOOOMMMMM, Godzilla Roar, Jaws Theme when someone starts tailgating...
That is why Avago Technologies buyed PEX by Joe_Dragon · 2016-08-10 09:17 · Score: 1

That is why Avago Technologies buyed PEX so they can start pushing pci-e based storage back planes
Just a thought... by hyades1 · 2016-08-10 09:17 · Score: 1

The cost of being too lazy to back up just went 'way, 'way up.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
1. Re:Just a thought... by npslider · 2016-08-10 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  No need to worry.
  The NSA has it all backed up.
2. Re:Just a thought... by aynoknman · 2016-08-10 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  No need to worry.
  The NSA has it all backed up.
  The problem then becomes restoring your backups.
  
  --
  We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
3. Re:Just a thought... by npslider · 2016-08-10 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Recovering data from the NSA is only slightly easier than finding Elvis with Amelia Earhart in the center of a black hole, in her plane.
4. Re:Just a thought... by hyades1 · 2016-08-10 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  ROFL! It would be a pain in the ass, though, having to file a Freedom of Information request just to get your own pron back.
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
5. Re:Just a thought... by Diss+Champ · 2016-08-11 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Even more painful will be the discovery that all the interesting bits have been redacted.
6. Re:Just a thought... by cdrudge · 2016-08-11 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  How do you tell the difference between interesting bits being redacted, and the interesting bits being censored?
Maybe someday... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:21 · Score: 0

SSDs will be able to hold my photo collection. /s
1. Re:Maybe someday... by ausekilis · 2016-08-11 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  600TB isn't enough for your pr0n folder? Now that's a collection.
Only if you ignore Tosh's 100 TB SSD by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:23 · Score: 0

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
In good tradition by npslider · 2016-08-10 09:28 · Score: 1

So, anyone know how many Library's of Congress a beowulf cluster of these would hold for our newly welcomed Solid State Overlords?
Come on seagate by shaitand · 2016-08-10 09:35 · Score: 1

Lowest price per gigabyte? When you are talking about 60-100TB drives we are now looking at the cost per TB. And we know there are initial setup costs to manufacture but at the end of the day these are still devices made of the cheapest and most plentiful materials on earth and essentially photoreplicated. Sure start it at $10 grand for the suckers like the 2.5 for 6 months but then drop this sucker down to a sane price for the next year for enterprise sales at maybe $400 with a 5 year warranty and to early adopter masses at $200 with a 1 year warranty. By the time that warranty is up make $200 a 3 year warranty and put out a $150 1 year and $100 90 day units. Make 10's of TB the new benchmark fast.

I've already put a very serious dent in my 24TB home array. The problem with a giant array is that although it is very redundant and unlikely to fail your options are pretty limited on where to shift the data to if you want to change something about it.

Mayber higher and higher drive capacities with fast drives will finally start to put some pressure on the companies with 10gbe cores to stop milking ridiculous prices for tech that is ancient. We are very fast approaching the point (in some ways we are already there) where processing is the data bottleneck.
1. Re:Come on seagate by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Lowest price per gigabyte? When you are talking about 60-100TB drives we are now looking at the cost per TB.
  Just to state the obvious here: lowest price per GB is also lowest price per TB.
2. Re:Come on seagate by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  I shoot for $25 a TB on spinning rust..so this would be $1500, but probably a few thou more in reality.
3. Re:Come on seagate by guruevi · 2016-08-10 12:11 · Score: 2
  
  The cheapest SSDs these days are ~$0.30/GB. This is an enterprise SSD though so we're usually looking at ~$1-2/GB or $4-10/GB, I'm not sure what their statement implied as far as which 'price class' it belongs to. Either way we're looking at ~$15-30k for a drive if not more if they're matching current market prices. It's "reasonably" priced but you'd need at least two of these and even then the rebuild times on these puppies will be murder.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
4. Re:Come on seagate by guruevi · 2016-08-10 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  IO is still the major bottleneck at this point for most workloads. Your SSD's will only go 'so fast' and your interconnects (Gigabit? 10GbE if you're lucky?) are usually what you'll end up filling. SSD's aren't going much faster than they did a few years ago, they sure have a bag of tricks to make it seem that way (computers capable of running BusyBox with 512MB-2GB of DRAM on their SSD chips). They have made some improvements (with huge drawbacks) in the latency of the fabric (NVMe) but it mainly improves reads.
  Enterprise SSD currently peak out at about 50k write IOPS under 'real' workloads (fsync writes with a realistic read/write ratio when the SSD is 'dirty', not a synthetic benchmark on a fresh SSD), cheap SSDs (Samsung V-NAND tech) will peak out at about 10k write IOPS. We haven't really made much progress on the matter of IOPS but we have made a huge dent in the cost. I paid a lot for a set of 32GB X-25E but they still have fairly similar write IOPS characteristics.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
5. Re:Come on seagate by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  the rebuild times on these puppies will be murder
  Maybe just merely aweful. But they are talking r/w in the 1-2GB per second ranges. This is not like a few years ago with a giant array of HDs and iops of 200-400 were the norm.
  A consumer array on something like sata3 would be murder though :)
  The cost will prob be 'I am not buying that without top 100 company money'.
6. Re:Come on seagate by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on whether going into the TB range puts you in a higher tax bracket.
Bye bye disk drives... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:37 · Score: 0

So we've finally reached the point of SSD's overtaking disk drives, and replacing them outright - and finally seem to be getting a decent boost in storage space as well, given how disk drives seem to have stagnated for quite a long time now...
1. Re:Bye bye disk drives... by guruevi · 2016-08-10 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Stagnated? 10TB drives are available for purchase. It's easier to scale SSD up, you can simply put more chips in. But the cost is still prohibitive and it will stay that way until you get the price down from $1 to 3 cents/GB.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
2. Re:Bye bye disk drives... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-11 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  So we've finally reached the point of SSD's overtaking disk drives, and replacing them outright
  Yeah, right:
  2TB HDD: GBP £75 approx
  2TB SSD: GBP £750 approx
In former Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:37 · Score: 0

would hold a bunch.
1. Re:In former Soviet Union by npslider · 2016-08-10 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet Russia, The Solid State stores you.
2. Re:In former Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  That's former Soviet Russia according to Natalie Portman.
  Greetz,
  Bob Malda (Rob's handsomer brother)
Judging by the build-quality of their drives by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 09:56 · Score: 0

as reported in these drive longevity/failure tests that are becoming popular, it probably also offers the lowest lifespan per GB. At this size and cost per unit, I would stay clear from it. Just go with the Samsung, it delivers the most value for money.
largest? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 10:16 · Score: 0

if I were looking at 60TB hard drives, why would I pick the largest one?
sooo...there are _smaller_ 60TB drives then? by 4wdloop · 2016-08-10 11:00 · Score: 4, Funny

I know...I could not help myself.

--
4wdloop
1. Re:sooo...there are _smaller_ 60TB drives then? by MobyDisk · 2016-08-10 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, this one was 14 feet long and weighed 3000 lbs.
Thanks, I'll pass ... by Qbertino · 2016-08-10 13:41 · Score: 1

... and wait 'till it costs 30 Euros in the bargain bin.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Obligatory xkcd reference. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 18:55 · Score: 0

http://www.xkcd.com/1257/
Finally by GeekWithAKnife · 2016-08-10 22:47 · Score: 1

A drive large enough to hold all my porn in the palm of my hand!

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Rent by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 23:07 · Score: 0

How much to rent for 2 hours
And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-10 23:59 · Score: 0

STILL a Seagate. You can polish a turd all you want, but at the end of the day, it's still a turd.
You are joking... by Dareth · 2016-08-11 02:02 · Score: 1

You are joking, but I am sure many of us have seen "home grown" business with mixtures of enterprise grade and home/consumer grade tech that makes us want to cry on many occasions. As long as it "still works" they will fight tooth and nail to keep it just the way it is.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Re:Stray PROTONS flipping bits by maz2331 · 2016-08-11 03:36 · Score: 1

An unbound neutron is unstable, and decays to an electron and proton (ie - a hydrogen atom) with a half-life of about 15 minutes. Unbound protons, on the other hand, are stable, and are just a hydrogen ion. When they hit the atmosphere at relativistic speeds, they unleash a chain of ionization events among air molecules, which then radiate hard gamma rays, which cause more, but less energetic ionization events, which eventually results in X-rays reaching the surface.