F*k density. I'm for reliability!
Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
121–130 of 131 posts
Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well, we just had a global experiment wherein people all over world suddenly had to adjust their lives in a major way, and I think we came through alright.
I think you forgot a /s. A lot of people's mental health diminished quite a bit the past few years.
Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> windows 11 isn’t essentially different That's only if you ignore all of the differences! 8) There are many big and small differences that people just gloss over, because they feel it doesn't apply to them, or they don't even realise it's there. Windows 95 used to crash if you looked at it wrong. It was horrendously vulnerable to malware, even across the network. Its "maximums" were hilariously low due to many remai…
Yeah, but would you call all those framework improvements fundamentally different? It’s more stable, secure, and drivers are plentiful (and included!), but those feel ancillary. Most people don’t need multiple languages in the same text box. Obviously it’s fundamentally different in a ship of theseus way, in that pretty much all of what was Win 95 has been replaced. But the way people use their PC is the same.
That's more a people problem than a technology problem. Many user interface paradigms have been tried over the decades. We've largely settled on what we have because it is what people were able to adapt to. Similar to how driving a car isn't that different from 40 years ago, or even 80 years ago. There's minor iterative changes with improved reliability and accessibility, but not fundamental changes.
Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
#124At 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)?
There was a paper a while back that promised a healing process for flash: https://www.zdnet.com/article/self-healing-flash-for-infinit... I have no idea what happened to that though, because it sounded extremely promising.
Probably they're more interested in selling you new flash.
Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Increasing layers should cause roughly zero problems. As far as bits per cell, 4 already gives you very slow writes and not a lot of them. Let's say that maxes out at 5 or 6.
Thermals? SSDs have slowly but surely increased in TDP.
That's from controller chips.
Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought 32GB for 100€. That is roughly 3€/GB which is 24€ for 8GB that is a ridiculously low price for something I would have had 10 years ago.
https://thememoryguy.com/dram-prices-hit-historic-low/
So same price in 2012.
Dunno how HNers still keep falling for this.
Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Samsung rates their QVO (QLC flash) at about 0.36 DWPD for 5 years which works out to over 600 disk mean writes before failure. Even if we half that that's still easily 3x high end HDD's, with superior drive health monitoring and far superior recovery/rebuild performance. TLC Flash is 2-3 times higher than that, and exact endurance depends on the specific drive in question as there's more to endurance than single/dou…
It seems to me like initially people were worried about SSD endurance but now nobody seems to care anymore, because endurance hasn't turned out to be a significant issue. In fact, I suspect developers care a lot less about I/O patterns now because 1) the performance impact of bad I/O patterns is still high, but the performance floor is way higher on SSDs, so it basically "doesn't matter" for most 2) for end-user appl…
> now nobody seems to care anymore,
I presume you're talking about layman consumers here.
> because endurance hasn't turned out to be a significant issue
It used to be a big issue. Keep in mind SSD capacities were pretty small back in the day, with 80-120GB capacities being pretty typical. combined with just less mature overall flash technology meant that per cell endurance was not great, and it lacked the controllers and capacities to do proper wear leveling, so the massive speed boost meant you could burn through even "good" SSD's of the day pretty quick, especially in the days before TRIM and what not where the OS was doing unnecessary excessive writes to disk because it just didn't know how to handle flash. At first, the tech kinda brute forced it's way through this problem by using increased capacities (A 100GB SSD for example will often actually have more than 100GB of RAW storage to account for cell degradation, though to what extent and the nature of the transition flash and controller and DRAM or not and etcetcetc are all compounding factors in exactly how that works out), and then through improved overall endurance, controllers, cache, etc in combination with improved software and OS policies to reduce unnecessary wear to drives. So hasn't really been an issue for a while, but it absolutely was one back in the day, even for the layman with a healthy budget.
> That's not something you would have done in the spinning rust days,
Yes people did. They didn't really have a choice (unless they're having some fun with RAMdisk or something) + HDD I/O was so much slower that it took orders of magnitude longer. Even when you weren't actively doing something drive intensive, the computer the OS was consistently doing work in the background (remember defragging)?
> simply because the constant crunchy hard drive noises would have annoyed people
It's wild to me to see so many people share this sentiment. Then again I come from a background of having 8x10k 300GB Velociraptors in my personal workstation back in the day. Those were... Loud. lol.
Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see these as problems as long as software is smart enough. It merely requires the device to be always powered up (read: has a backup battery that can do periodic flash rewrites for 5 years). And it requires the controller to keep track of the current endurance of every page. A 'worn out' page can still hold data, it just holds either less data, or holds that data for fewer hours before needing to be rewritten…
>or double the ECC bits Are you aware of even a single ssd product allowing user to reconfigure capacity outside of obtaining secret/proprietary non public manufacturer service software? The only technical way for a drive to automagically shrink size on its own is by starting to mark TRIM freed sectors as BAD and hoping OS running on top will be able to recognize this and transfer BAD status to the filesystem - thats…
Intel SSD DC series https://www.ioncomputer.com/ion/body/documents/over-provisio...
Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
#129Earlier 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
I bought a Fitorch P25 last November. A LED flashlight, runs on a single li-ion cell, costs about $70. Fits in the palm of your hand. It has a light output of three thousand lumens! (A T8 florescent tube, which is four feet long and runs on mains power, does about 2600 lumens.)
It's got a couple brightness modes, which it makes you step through in series, for safety. At full grunt, if you hold your hand in the beam you have to squint against the glare and you can feel heat on your hand-- all from visible-spectrum photons only, no infrared! It's bright! Of the many warnings silkscreened onto the tube, one needs to be "do not look into flashlight with remaining eye".
I keep it on my desk, to keep me humble. I remember incandescent flashlights, and I remember alkaline batteries. Will my children remember them? Of course not.
Re: Micron's 232-layer NAND enables 2TB flash chips that deliver data 50% faster
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. If I go look at some 20TB hard drives, I see them promising 1.5 to 2.5PB of endurance. On the other hand there are 4TB SSDs promising 5PB of endurance. In full drive writes that's 75-125 vs. 1250. Even if you ignore the hard drive warranty, I'd say the maximum reasonable workload is a constant write at 50% of the minimum transfer speed. At that speed you might get over 1000 writes, depending on drive size…
Samsung rates their QVO (QLC flash) at about 0.36 DWPD for 5 years which works out to over 600 disk mean writes before failure. Even if we half that that's still easily 3x high end HDD's, with superior drive health monitoring and far superior recovery/rebuild performance. TLC Flash is 2-3 times higher than that, and exact endurance depends on the specific drive in question as there's more to endurance than single/dou…
>0.36 DWPD for 5 years
so a mechanical drive running for ~40K hours with ~5% spend writing.
>easily 3x high end HDD's
how? high end HDD offer 2M MTBF, and with something like HGST 7K6000 you end up with pallet loads being retired at 50K hours run time 100% defect free.
>superior drive health monitoring
how? SSDs usually just die without any warning
>and far superior recovery/rebuild performance
you mean recovery/rebuild on a storage box level, because your data on dead SSD is unrecoverable gone forever