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

SSD Prices in a Free Fall

networkcomputing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–336 of 336 posts

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#331

Post by __z »

sneak wrote: post #203
samstave wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, 240SSD for The fact that it can take two internal drives (both SSD) is awesome - so having dual 240GB drives allows for plenty of space. I have a 1TB external that I glacerize my other stuff to. Also, get a Flickr account which can host your 1TB of pics for free (money for nothin')... and you wont consume space on your local box with pics.

If Flickr (or their publicly traded overlords Yahoo) decide arbitrarily for whatever reason one day you violated their TOS with an errant nipple or whatever, kiss a decade of professional archives goodbye. No thanks. My photos live in four places, and two of them are owned by me.

No problem with nipples - Flickr allows full nudity as long as you mark them correctly for search purposes. Nobody said you should keep the only copy of everything you have on Flickr.

https://help.yahoo.com/kb/flickr/safety-levels-flickr-sln110...

Safe - Content suitable for a global, public audience.

Moderate - If you're not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience, but you don't think that it needs to be restricted.

Restricted - This is content you probably wouldn't show to your mother, and definitely shouldn't be seen by kids.

Guide - Bare breasts and bottoms are "moderate," but full frontal nudity is "restricted."

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#332

Post by vidarh »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #322
vidarh wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And how did you wipe 50 servers at once? Fire does that quite easily...

That's destruction, not wiping. If you are buying new servers as part of rebuilding you don't exactly need all the data downloaded in a 10 hour window.

That's an absolutely irrelevant distinction: The data is gone.

And why, in this day of rapid provisioning via cloud providers, do you expect a company to suffer the extended loss of waiting for new servers to want to bring the data back?

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#333

Post by Dylan16807 »

vidarh wrote: post #332
Dylan16807 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's destruction, not wiping. If you are buying new servers as part of rebuilding you don't exactly need all the data downloaded in a 10 hour window.

That's an absolutely irrelevant distinction: The data is gone. And why, in this day of rapid provisioning via cloud providers, do you expect a company to suffer the extended loss of waiting for new servers to want to bring the data back?

So you're talking about a company using entirely physical servers and switching to an entirely virtual infrastructure, while also dealing with the other effects of the disaster that hit them.

They're doing this in less than half a week, or assuming not all the backups are live data they're doing this in less than a day.

I submit that this is an extremely atypical company, and that in practice a company that just had a devastating fire is not going to be impacted more than marginally by the download speed limit.

There are a good few scenarios where there's total data loss. There are much fewer where you need to restore all the data in under a working day.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#334

Post by cjensen »

aNoob7000 wrote: post #311
cjensen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, and I've done it! I accidentally used a consumer grade (Crucial M500) in an application where endurance would be reached in less than a month. In fairness to Micron/Crucial, the drives did not lose any data.... but the write bandwidth degraded down to 10MB/s which counts as a failure for most apps. That's the catch in the report you cite: the bandwidth of a used-up drive is so poor that it's hard to actually wr…

Can you please elaborate on what application would basically kill an SSD in a month? It is my understanding that the Crucial M500 drives support something like 72TB of writes. Please don't take any offense, I'm just interested in how you were using the drive.

Continuous record of 8 streams of 220Mb/s video. There were 10 SSDs for storage in a RAID-6 configuration.

So the effective endurance of the RAID was (10 - 2) * 72TB = 720TB.

8 Streams of 220Mb/s is 220/s, 13.2GB/minute, 792GB/hour, 19TB/day. So about 38 days.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#335

Post by jldugger »

ghshephard wrote: post #243
jldugger wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data! http://www.jcmit.com/flash2015.htm You can see there's about a 10x difference between the two on the logarithmic scale chart. The trend is slightly faster for SSD, but a quick straightedge-on-monitor projection suggests the intercept is closer to 2015, if ever.

Is that a typo? Did you mean "2025" (i.e. 10 years out?) - I looked at the graph, and that's what it looked like to me based on historical projections. The author, Jim O'Reilly, is not basing his article on historical analysis, but on an understanding of the impact of 3D NAND + his communication with the major flash providers - some of whom are committing to 8 TB and 16 TB SSD drives in the next 18 months. That, in c…

It is a typo; my 10key isn't as good as I imagine it is, clearly =( I meant 2018.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#336

Post by hobarrera »

pyrocat wrote: post #137
brownbat wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point, although we should also talk about the way storage use has shifted. I used to have some massive programs installed, a lot of digital media and video games at one point. Now Steam / GOG / Blizzard "stores" my games when not in use. Google / Apple / Pandora / Spotify "stores" my music. Amazon or Netflix "stores" my movies. When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all…

I agree to a large extent but I think 80GB is an extreme on the low end. Many modern games (especially MMOs) are 20GB+. Windows 7 alone requires a huge amount of storage. I have a 120GB partition at home (just for OS+programs, not data) and I'm constantly uninstalling steam games in order to install others. If you want a modicum of breathing room, I'd say minimum 200GB.

I've Eve-Online and StarCraft 2 installed, which use about 30GB in total. Add another 6-8GB for the OS, and you've still got about 50GB left (which I actually fill up with even more games).

IMHO, 120GB is way more than enough.

Post reply on HN