Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#51

Post by xyzzy123 »

mgerdts wrote: post #44
kmeisthax wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAND wear is a function of write cycles, which itself is a function of both how much data you write and how much the controller's wear-levelling and garbage collection amplifies those writes. If your benchmark is "lasting as long as well-cooled electronics" then flash already beats hard drives; since hard drives have bearings that will lose lubrication and fail until you open the drive up in a clean room and replace…

And NAND has an electrical charge that will dissipate, eventually leading to data loss. This time period is on the order of 90 days (I think I’ve seen some data sheets saying 30 days) up to one year. https://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/Alvin_Cox%20%5BCom... https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/potential-ssd-data-loss-af... The OCP NVMe Cloud SSD Specification states that drives must not have data loss when powered…

Your overall point is valid (there are lifetime constraints that mean you shouldn't rely on unpowered SSDs for long term archiving) but IMHO your post is overly pessimistic.

The spec is 1 year minimum for client and 3mo for server, but most drives exceed that.

This thread includes a response from a Micron rep:

https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/944779-enterprise-ssd...

"The very most important thing to realize when looking at these charts is that the data retention number stated are for SSDs which have reached the end of their useful life. They're worn out. If you have an enterprise-class SSD which is rated for 5 petabytes of writes over its lifetime (just to pick a typical number) , then you will not see this 3 month data retention number until you've actually written 5 petabytes to the drive. When NAND Flash is brand new out of the box, the data retention is actually several years (although we typically don't rate data retention when new).

Honestly, Flash-based storage probably isn't optimal for unpowered archiving. That three-month, EOL spec reflects this. In enterprise computing, when the NAND lifetime is used up, the intent should be to move any important data to a new device (or wipe the old device for security reasons).

In client computing (notebooks and desktops), we rarely see the typical user getting to the point where NAND wearout is a concern, so we rarely see data retention as an issue, either.

So, you needn't be concerned about data retention until your SSD gets really, really old."

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#52

Post by userbinator »

Robotbeat wrote: post #2

At what point will the wear resistance be so low from increasing the layers (and bits) per cell that flash becomes effectively write-once, read many (WORM)?

Even the reads aren't truly nondestructive --- look up "read disturb".

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#53

Post by ardit33 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #33

I see phrases like this "doubles the density of bits stored per unit area versus competing chips, packing in 14.6 gigabits per square millimeter. Its 1-terabit chips are bundled into 2-terabyte packages, each of which is barely more than a centimeter on a side" and I just imagine sending this sentence back to my 12 year old self, sitting in front of my Commodore VIC-20 and imagine how science fiction that would sound…

You don't have to go even that far. The minimum hardware requirements for Microsoft Windows 95 were:

A personal computer with a 386DX, 20MHz or higher processor, 4MB of memory (8MB recommended) At least 70MB of available hard disk space for installation

A hard drive at the time, had 250-500MB space. Not even 1GB (that was a luxury), This not even 1/4000 of this small chip. So, you have stack 4000 of those Windows 95 PC Hard Drives, to match the capacity of this chip. Only super computers/clusters of the time had that capacity.

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#54

Post by mgerdts »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #51
mgerdts wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And NAND has an electrical charge that will dissipate, eventually leading to data loss. This time period is on the order of 90 days (I think I’ve seen some data sheets saying 30 days) up to one year. https://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/Alvin_Cox%20%5BCom... https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/potential-ssd-data-loss-af... The OCP NVMe Cloud SSD Specification states that drives must not have data loss when powered…

Your overall point is valid (there are lifetime constraints that mean you shouldn't rely on unpowered SSDs for long term archiving) but IMHO your post is overly pessimistic. The spec is 1 year minimum for client and 3mo for server, but most drives exceed that. This thread includes a response from a Micron rep: https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/944779-enterprise-ssd... "The very most important thing to realize wh…

That makes sense. The numbers from standards and spec sheets do look quite pessimistic compared to the retention I’ve experienced with cheap USB drives and old SD cards that are rarely powered.

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#55

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

gigatexal wrote: post #48
Zandikar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a death knell for hard drives if they could actually get it that cheap (~$25/TB). In addition to obvious benefits for consumers, More and more in the enterprise space (which is the dominant buyer of HDD unit purchase volume) HDD's are being regulated to write few, read lots if not outright WORM, and focused on Sequential speeds. You can knock an order of magnitude of speed off modern NAND Flash and stil…

Not really sure about that. Isn’t the write endurance of hard dives still much higher than that of flash?

Yes. Flash can’t be stored unused for long periods without losing data.

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#56

Post by Aeolun »

ardit33 wrote: post #53
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #33

I see phrases like this "doubles the density of bits stored per unit area versus competing chips, packing in 14.6 gigabits per square millimeter. Its 1-terabit chips are bundled into 2-terabyte packages, each of which is barely more than a centimeter on a side" and I just imagine sending this sentence back to my 12 year old self, sitting in front of my Commodore VIC-20 and imagine how science fiction that would sound…

You don't have to go even that far. The minimum hardware requirements for Microsoft Windows 95 were: A personal computer with a 386DX, 20MHz or higher processor, 4MB of memory (8MB recommended) At least 70MB of available hard disk space for installation A hard drive at the time, had 250-500MB space. Not even 1GB (that was a luxury), This not even 1/4000 of this small chip. So, you have stack 4000 of those Windows 95…

Honestly, what I think is more amazing is how far we didn’t come given the enormous increase in processing power.

Windows 95 was pretty good for it’s time, but windows 11 isn’t essentially different.

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#57

Post by Aeolun »

metadat wrote: post #38
jiggawatts wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And affordable for common people. I remember tiny “spy cameras” being a movie trope, now everyone has one in their pocket.

Yeah, human technological progress has come a long way! The human mind acclimates to improvements remarkably fast, and the joy found in such novelties tends to be fleeting and quickly fade as it becomes just another normal part of everyday life we take for granted (e.g. fancy new tech, or really anything new and nice). I like to frequently reflect on how amazing it is I am alive and even exist at all! Gratitude is tr…

> The human mind acclimates to improvements remarkably fast, and the joy found in such novelties tends to be fleeting and quickly fade as it becomes just another normal part of everyday life

The good (?) news is that this also works in reverse. So if we ever suffer a serious downgrade in living standards it’s not a serious issue. We’ll get used to it in no time :)

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#58

Post by usrusr »

Aeolun wrote: post #57
metadat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, human technological progress has come a long way! The human mind acclimates to improvements remarkably fast, and the joy found in such novelties tends to be fleeting and quickly fade as it becomes just another normal part of everyday life we take for granted (e.g. fancy new tech, or really anything new and nice). I like to frequently reflect on how amazing it is I am alive and even exist at all! Gratitude is tr…

> The human mind acclimates to improvements remarkably fast, and the joy found in such novelties tends to be fleeting and quickly fade as it becomes just another normal part of everyday life The good (?) news is that this also works in reverse. So if we ever suffer a serious downgrade in living standards it’s not a serious issue. We’ll get used to it in no time :)

Does it? I get painfully nostalgic even about stuff that was objectively worse, don't even want to try to imagine how it must be with things that were better.

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#59

Post by Dunedan »

robbiet480 wrote: post #37

Maybe now I can get a 2TB SSD for my Steam Deck.

You likely can very soon. Linus Tech Tips just fitted a Steam Deck with an engineering sample of a Micron M.2 2230 2TB SSD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXhT13oZchA&t=122s

Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster

#60

Post by hulitu »

Aeolun wrote: post #56
ardit33 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to go even that far. The minimum hardware requirements for Microsoft Windows 95 were: A personal computer with a 386DX, 20MHz or higher processor, 4MB of memory (8MB recommended) At least 70MB of available hard disk space for installation A hard drive at the time, had 250-500MB space. Not even 1GB (that was a luxury), This not even 1/4000 of this small chip. So, you have stack 4000 of those Windows 95…

Honestly, what I think is more amazing is how far we didn’t come given the enormous increase in processing power. Windows 95 was pretty good for it’s time, but windows 11 isn’t essentially different.

Windows from 7 onwards is worse even for 1995.
Post reply on HN