Live data from Hacker News

SSD Prices in a Free Fall

networkcomputing.com

291–300 of 336 posts

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#291
post #289
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skyrim and Fallout 3 are in my eyes counter-examples for using an SSD, since you basically have only the two loading times and afterwards it's streaming. Maybe if the Quicktravel takes too long on the HDD. > If you have the monty and the means why wouldn't you do it? Oh, sure then :) It is only a waste in the relation of price per gigabyte vs. the possible performance improvement ingame. > You're comment is very 'mat…

I have a 500gb SSD which cost ~200$. Sure 5 years ago I would agreed with you, but now days it's really not that expencive and in game load times feel much longer. IMO, Skyrim is load happy, sure the open world is fine, but go to town, get into your house, get out of your house get out of ton is 4 load screens in ~1Min of gameplay.

You see, that reasoning is perfectly valid, and when putting it like that I agree :) Well, kind of, 200$ still feels to expensive for me for that.

I just won't let me be told that the texture streaming outside in the open world needs that.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#292

Cheapest 1 TB SSD on Amazon: $350 Cheapest 1 TB HDD on Amazon: $40 Expecting a 10x drop in prices in 1 year is ludicrous. Even if the prices follow a pseudo Moore's law and fall by half every 18 months, you're looking at at least 5 years before they reach parity. And in the meantimg HDDs would have gotten cheaper; so expect even more time for parity. In other words: ain't happenin' in 2016.

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 got myself a cheap Acer with 32 gigs of eMMC storage. I removed Windows 8, its restore partition (that took 10 gigs all by itself) and installed Ubuntu. It's not as fast as the "serious" laptop, but it's light, silent, has decent battery life and I won't be devastated if a truck rolls over my backpack. I mean, if I don't have it on my back, that is.

For Python/Django/Twisted development in a couple LXD containers, it's the just right amount of computing power at an incredibly low price.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IIRC, Assassin Creed Unity required 50GB by itself. If Windows takes up 30GB, you pretty much need to wipe out everything just to play Unity on 80GB. I think 256GB to 512GB is the best bet for the standard consumer.

Expect this to be increasingly common, now that new consoles ship their games on Blu-Rays.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#294
post #74

Cheapest 1 TB SSD on Amazon: $350 Cheapest 1 TB HDD on Amazon: $40 Expecting a 10x drop in prices in 1 year is ludicrous. Even if the prices follow a pseudo Moore's law and fall by half every 18 months, you're looking at at least 5 years before they reach parity. And in the meantimg HDDs would have gotten cheaper; so expect even more time for parity. In other words: ain't happenin' in 2016.

> And in the meantimg HDDs would have gotten cheaper Don't be sure about that. Remember that the Thai floods setback HDD prices and made them more expensive for years; they still haven't returned to the pre-flood trendline last I checked. With SSDs dropping, that might deter much more investment into HDDs (and with less demand from HDDs in the first place, there will be fewer of the economies of scale & learning curv…

[deleted]

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought degradation of optical medium was already pretty well understood? (And happened on timescales generally longer than FB has been in operation)

There is Blu-ray compatible archival disk format that the manufacturers claim will last 1000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC I don't know how this claim could be verified in our lifetimes.

I've done accelerated aging on polymers (medical, but I bet it's similar).

We have an accelerated aging experiment, and we sample the part for degradation throughout the test. We also "shelf age" another test group of polymers from the same batch by placing them on the shelf.

Every year or so (or sometimes 5 year spans), we take the shelf samples and look for degradation, and compare it to the accelerated data.

In one polymer's specific case, free radicals in the polymer chain slowly react with oxygen and that's how it breaks down (takes about 10 years if the polymer isn't stable), so our accelerated aging is to put in in a pressure vessel full of high-pressure oxygen, and apply a little heat. We can get 10 years of degradation (roughly) within 2 weeks.

This is almost certainly what the archival blu-ray format has done and is doing.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#296
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious to know why you would prefer a metered approach when, as you say, for that same price you get uncapped. It seems to me that most people, in the US anyway, would rather not have caps. I can honestly say this is the first time I've heard anybody say they would, for the same price, prefer a cap. For the record, 20Mbps for £20 is roughly similar to what our local cable monopoly offers in NC.

Because at the moment s/he is bearing the cost of abusive users.

I suppose my preference would be that providers simply build the capacity required to support the advertised bandwidth at 100% utilization. This is similar to what Google Fiber does. They don't care if you use 20GB or 20TB in a month from what I've heard. That sounds optimal in my mind. Underestimating usage and failure to anticipate demand are real issues that major ISPs have to deal with over the long run (off the top of my head AT&T's network problems after the first iPhone was released). I've always viewed these caps as short-term fixes until they figure how to increase their network capacity to support increased use.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#297
post #290
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? That HardOCP article (and HarcOCP are not really known for their quality articles anyway) is testing for framerate imrpovements. An SSD will not improve your framerate much at all (That's not what you use an SSD for). You cited main loading times like loading a game and loading a save, which are enough reason themselves to want an SSD in there. Some games are painfully long in these areas (take any T…

Are you serious? That HardOCP article (and HarcOCP are not really known for their quality articles anyway) is testing for framerate imrpovements. I don't like your tone. If texture streaming would profit much from an SSD, you would see that in the FPS. Fallout 3 was played by me on a very old machine, of course without an SSD, and I remember no noticeable cell loading outside. The streaming of those engines is just t…

I did just say this was on my own Skyrim installation, so I already have tried it out.

Area/Cell transitions are MUCH faster on an SSD.

I'm playing through the game again currently.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#298
Also the noise of the HDDs is killing me. I have quite a silent rig (fiddling with music/audio in my spare time) and the most noisy thing was the HDD where my audio samples were. So I've moved everything to SSD and I'm looking for another 512GB to add.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely prefer capped service far, far more than uncapped services. In Singapore, I can get a LTE SIM for $35, and then pay $25 for 7 days of data @14 Gigabytes, with roll over of the amounts I don't use. In general, I get 50 megabits down/20 megabits up. And, because this is a capped service, I have a reasonably good chance of actually seeing that performance. If it was, "Uncapped" or "Unlimited" - then people…

> And, because this is a capped service, I have a reasonably good chance of actually seeing that performance. If it was, "Uncapped" or "Unlimited" - then people would abuse the crap out of it, and all of a sudden that 50 megabits/sec down would quickly drop, making the system far, far less useful. Using the service I have paid for is not abusing it, anymore than watching too much cable TV or making too many local cal…

So - let's take those one at a time, because they are interesting.

"Watching too much cable TV" - Cable TV is a broadcast Medium, and watching it, like listening to broadcast radio, has no marginal cost or impact. You can leave your TV off for an entire month, or tuned to a channel for 24x7x365 - zero difference in cost to the provider, or impact to other people on the service.

"Making too many local calls" - More than one person has been required to purchase a business line when they overused their local calling privileges. Indeed, on some CO to CO trunks, if enough people (ab)used their local calling privileges, the entire exchange would be blocked and nobody could call in/out. Unlike the case of internet connectivity, there is no graceful fallback - once the trunk reaches capacity, it's dead for anyone else. (Lumby, BC to Vernon, BC - used to happen all the time - 48 people could bring down a town of 1800). That's why those types of deployments require some type of per minute charges to avoid that scenario.

"If it causes degradation for other users, that's the fault of the ISP that has over-overprovisioned us" - We totally agree here. Any ISP selling unlimited service, and not clearly explaining how many gigabytes "Unlimited" equals, is doing everyone a disservice.

"Caps are just a way to squeeze out higher profits by reducing the necessity of upgrading infrastructure." - We disagree here. ISPs should provide Caps to their customers, and clearly communicate what they are - and then compete to provide higher caps while ensuring they maintain the line rate they've committed to their customers.

For example, if I've purchased a 1 Gigabit connection, the ISP darn well better invest in their infrastructure to make sure that none of their ports are blocking. Comcast utterly failed to do that with Netflix recently, and I find that annoying beyond belief. At the same time though, I don't expect Comcast to provision enough capacity to support all of their customers at 1 Gigabit (or whatever a high speed connection is) at the same time - that's cost prohibitive - particularly as it will rarely be happening.

On the Big I internet, this is solved by what's called 95th percentile billing. This is probably too confusing for the average user, so something simpler like, "You get a 1 Gigabit connection for $75/month, with a 10 Terabyte/month Limit during Peak hours, and Unlimited Terabyte limit in Off peak hours, $20/addition Terabyte in Peak, and we make sure that none of our upstream ports our blocked on any of our peering routers" is exactly what I'd be looking for.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#300
post #28

Is keeping a SSD powered on enough to prevent bit rot?

No need to power or refresh, but if you have a cruddy SSD you should keep other backups.

> No need to power or refresh, but if you have a cruddy SSD you should keep other backups.

No need to power or refresh, but if you have data you value you should keep backups.

Seriously, no matter where you are keeping your data, if you don't have a completely independent copy somewhere, you will lose it some day.

Post reply on HN