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

200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: 200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

#21

Post by layer8 »

5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #17
00deadbeef wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had big hopes for Samsung’s QVO line but they’ve barely done anything with it. They’re often not much cheaper than EVO. And the 8TB drive is almost £200 more expensive than 20TB of spinning rust. I could get 30TB+ storage for the same money.

Have you looked at something like Intel 660p? They're pretty crappy as SSDs go, but they're quite cheap (by about 40% compared to what I would put into my desktop, at least where I live).

Largest size is only 2 TB, and they aren’t cheaper than e.g. Samsung QVO, as far as I can see.

Re: 200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

#22

Post by justsomehnguy »

didgetmaster wrote: post #12

Capacity is not the major problem. It is the $/TB price points. SSDs are still 5x more expensive than HDD for bulk storage. It doesn't matter if you can buy a 200TB SSD if it is 200x more expensive than a 1TB SSD. HAMR technology is going to give us much bigger HDD. If I can buy a 50TB HDD or a 50TB SSD in a couple years, which one will I buy if the SSD is 5x more expensive? SSDs make total sense for storing the file…

> Capacity is not the major problem. It is the $/TB price points

Only if you don't care about access time or transfer speed.

If sitting there waiting 15 minutes costs you real money then having a bunch of fast but smaller SSDs quickly starts to makes sense.

Napkin math:

If 15 min/day costs you $15 then in a month $15*5d*4w=$300, or north of $3000 a year.

And usually if something costs money per time it's more than a $15.

Re: 200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

#23

Post by layer8 »

didgetmaster wrote: post #12

Capacity is not the major problem. It is the $/TB price points. SSDs are still 5x more expensive than HDD for bulk storage. It doesn't matter if you can buy a 200TB SSD if it is 200x more expensive than a 1TB SSD. HAMR technology is going to give us much bigger HDD. If I can buy a 50TB HDD or a 50TB SSD in a couple years, which one will I buy if the SSD is 5x more expensive? SSDs make total sense for storing the file…

> which one will I buy if the SSD is 5x more expensive

SSD, because silence and random-access performance.

Re: 200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

#24

Post by layer8 »

curiousgal wrote: post #4
duffyjp wrote: post #3

While I'd have no need for anywhere near 100+ TB, I'll be really happy when SSDs are cheaper than spinning disks. If they can make a 200TB drive for business, a 20TB drive for home users should be pretty reasonable.

What about longevity though.

See e.g. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-reliable-are-ssds/: “SSDs can be expected to last as long or longer than HDDs in most general applications.”

Re: 200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

#25

Post by Dylan16807 »

abracadaniel wrote: post #15
cglan wrote: post #6

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)

I suspect the reason is due to high base costs. Throwing on more dram chips and a better controller probably don’t cost much, but drastically effect performance. So, the cost savings of a simplified drive may only be a few dollars.

There's a good chunk of price to performance tradeoff. Taking samsung as an example, currently their lower end is $95/TB and their higher end is $125/TB. WD currently has a cheap QLC for $75/TB and a gen4 drive for $140/TB.

This is looking mostly around the 2TB range, and mostly M.2

It's hard to physically fit large amounts onto an M.2, but a 2.5 inch SATA drive would hold a big pile of QLC flash just fine.

I suppose the SATA bottleneck just looks bad. Maybe if we had better consumer support for 2.5 inch drives with NVMe then companies would be more willing to make that size.

Re: 200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

#27

Post by freediver »

bguberfain wrote: post #8

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.

Re: 200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

#28

Post by NikolaNovak »

andbberger wrote: post #14
cglan wrote: post #6

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 don't you want to buy spinning disks

Not the op, but I've just switched away from spinning disks recently. Kinda.

I have a NAS of 4x 8TB WD Red Pro; and a a desktop with 4x1 TB of nvME and 1TB of (grandfathered) SATA SSD.

For batch photo processing (i.e. lightroom) spinning disk is really sub-optimal. I'd rather have a 256GB or 512GB nvme and process batch by batch (and then offload to NAS), then a 8TB 7200 RPM HDD with all my photos.

To OPs point - depending on shooting style, you might easily do 300GB+ over a single wedding (primary + secondary shooter, 2 cameras each, 46MP, 14-bit uncompressed, spray-and-pray style).

Re: 200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

#29

Post by postalrat »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #28
andbberger wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why don't you want to buy spinning disks

Not the op, but I've just switched away from spinning disks recently. Kinda. I have a NAS of 4x 8TB WD Red Pro; and a a desktop with 4x1 TB of nvME and 1TB of (grandfathered) SATA SSD. For batch photo processing (i.e. lightroom) spinning disk is really sub-optimal. I'd rather have a 256GB or 512GB nvme and process batch by batch (and then offload to NAS), then a 8TB 7200 RPM HDD with all my photos. To OPs point - dep…

I've heard but don't know if its true that SSD storage can constantly suffer data corruption if its not powered. It needs power to keep refreshing stored data.

Something that maybe spinning disks don't suffer from.

Re: 200TB SSDs could come soon thanks to Micron's new chip

#30

Post by qzw »

Just for giggles, here's what it would cost to upgrade a 256GB MBA to a 200TB one in today's prices, if such an option existed.

Currently prices are:

256GB $0

512GB $200

1TB $380

2TB $740

So the equation seems to be Price(n) = 2 * Price(n - 1) - 20 where n is the number of upgrades from base, and Price(1) = $200.

Let's assume each upgrade is a doubling of capacity, so extrapolating...

128TB $46100

256TB $92180

So 200TB should be somewhere in between, right around $70K.

Post reply on HN