61–70 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If one SSD has a failure rate of 5%, 4 SSDs will have a failure rate of 18.6% That doesn't make sense, the probability that all 4 SSDs will simultaneously fail at any given moment, assuming a uniform distribution, is p(0.05)^4.
You don't need all 4 to fail, you need one, assuming no redundancy, but then you are sacrificing space, thus requiring you to buy even more drives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Silly question - what makes you dislike buying four 4tb SSDs compared to buying one 16tb SSD? I could see it being less portable to have multiple drives, but I would presume that 16 TB isn’t really something that needs to be brought around portably unless you’re going somewhere for extended period of time without internet (preventing the use of a NAS/cloud storage). Multiple SSDs also allows the use of RAID for incre…
if you are moving that data around, nas/cloud storage can be super frustrating. copying 16tb of data over usb3/c is much faster than 100mbps or 200mbps internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Largest size is only 2 TB, and they aren’t cheaper than e.g. Samsung QVO, as far as I can see.
The Intel 660p is a higher-tier product than Samsung QVO drives. Both use QLC, but the Intel drives are NVMe and thus have much higher peak performance (when operating out of the SLC cache). But Intel wasn't interested in pursuing the niche of users who wanted more than 2TB in a consumer drive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magic (at least as far as I'm concerned). I would love to see an updated version of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4
I have basic understanding of a generic process. I mean specifically 200+ layers. Do they “just” deposit layer after layer after layer, 200-something times?
Etching through lots of layers at once is why 3D NAND flash memory is actually economical, compared to basically every other kind 3D chips where layers have to be built one at a time.
200Tb is an impressive mark for a "future" product, but I was more impressed by the 100Tb offered "today": https://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive/pricing/
This is impressive. Why isn't this company better known? As if they decided to stay under the radar given the design of their website.
I will say, SSD pricing is pretty frustrating. There's a lot of focus on faster and faster nvme that's barely noticeable while actual capacity has really stagnated at around 2-4tb. As someone who is very into photography, it takes not very long to fill 2tb of space. If I could buy a cheap 16tb ssd with fast reads and slow writes I'd be a happy camper but it doesn't exist unless I want to buy spinning disks (I don't)
Why you need SSD for photography? An HD seems a better solution to be honest, isn't? Opening a single picture is a sequential operation, as well as dumping pictures from camera to disk. Am I missing something obvious?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need all 4 to fail, you need one, assuming no redundancy, but then you are sacrificing space, thus requiring you to buy even more drives.
If only one drive fails why would you lose all your data?
So we desperately need a parity drive, which will bring the odds of data loss down to 2.3% for 4+1. (Though there are other factors that significantly complicate these odds.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need all 4 to fail, you need one, assuming no redundancy, but then you are sacrificing space, thus requiring you to buy even more drives.
If only one drive fails why would you lose all your data?
I will say, SSD pricing is pretty frustrating. There's a lot of focus on faster and faster nvme that's barely noticeable while actual capacity has really stagnated at around 2-4tb. As someone who is very into photography, it takes not very long to fill 2tb of space. If I could buy a cheap 16tb ssd with fast reads and slow writes I'd be a happy camper but it doesn't exist unless I want to buy spinning disks (I don't)
Most of it seems absurd to the majority of users, even if you could subtract the placebo effect.
I will say, SSD pricing is pretty frustrating. There's a lot of focus on faster and faster nvme that's barely noticeable while actual capacity has really stagnated at around 2-4tb. As someone who is very into photography, it takes not very long to fill 2tb of space. If I could buy a cheap 16tb ssd with fast reads and slow writes I'd be a happy camper but it doesn't exist unless I want to buy spinning disks (I don't)
Yeah, I'd gladly take a cheap large capacity SSD that can only do 500MB/s for storing data. It's still gonna be much faster, quieter and cooler than a HDD. Looking at the prices, they have barely gone down at all in the last 3 years (for the same specs). And the best price per capacity is still at 1TB.