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

301–310 of 336 posts

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#301

Post by throwaway7767 »

rodgerd wrote: post #178
pixl97 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what kind of SSDs are you buying that you're having that kind of failure rate (god please don't say OCZ). I've been using Samsung and Intel SSDs for years now with failure rates below the failure rates of WD drives (and well below Seagate failure rates).

> I've been using Samsung Don't upgrade the firmware.

Why? I have a 1TB Samsung 840 EVO and I updated the firmware earlier this year as the previous version apparently had some performance problems with data written long ago.

Should I be worried?

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#302

Post by pedrorijo91 »

discardorama wrote: post #36

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.

Who besides Apple is 'forcing' users to use SSD? Even most of so called 'Ultrabooks' use HDD in order to become cheaper.

If almost no one understands the performance and reliability difference a SSD can give, and almost no one 'enforces' users to buy SSD, how is this technology become cheaper in a so fast rate?

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#303

Post by adibchoudhury »

These estimates seem a bit exaggerated at this point. SSD is still lagging in terms of capacity, and in my household we only have a handful of devices using SSD. While it's become more widely-adopted for sure, HDD's are not "doomed" until SSD capacity goes up and prices plummet. Still too expensive for an SSD.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#304

Post by frandroid »

pedrorijo91 wrote: post #302
discardorama wrote: post #36

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.

Who besides Apple is 'forcing' users to use SSD? Even most of so called 'Ultrabooks' use HDD in order to become cheaper. If almost no one understands the performance and reliability difference a SSD can give, and almost no one 'enforces' users to buy SSD, how is this technology become cheaper in a so fast rate?

Fabrication improvements.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#305

Post by abandonliberty »

mcv wrote: post #284
abandonliberty wrote: post #120

I wonder how reliability is doing; Unlike HDDs SSDs have a very unpredictable failure pattern, including sudden death rather than slow degradation. If you want to ensure data is safe you need to run a raid 1 or online backup service.

Are you saying HDDs can't suffer a sudden death? HD crashes aren't exactly unheard of.

>Mechanical failures account for about 60% of all drive failures.[2] While the eventual failure may be catastrophic, most mechanical failures result from gradual wear and there are usually certain indications that failure is imminent. These may include increased heat output, increased noise level, problems with reading and writing of data, or an increase in the number of damaged disk sectors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.#Background

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#306

Post by otterpro »

sneak wrote: post #204
sosuke wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any things to know about settings images to 'private' on Flickr?

Photos have lat/lon/timestamp in EXIF. You're uploading a track log to them.

Even though location is embedded in EXIF, you can disable geolocation feature in Flickr's privacy setting, so that it won't be in the photo that is displayed on flickr. But yes, it does keep EXIF info in its database. For those who are paranoid, either run exiftool or imagemagick to strip off all EXIF before uploading.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#307

Post by otterpro »

zanny wrote: post #218
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.

You can also try throwing them in an imgur album. Not sure if there is a data limit per account, but I don't think there is. I have several dozen GB of photo on there already.

Problem with imgur is that it compresses the image too much, and the degradation is noticeable. I don't recommend imgur for archival purpose.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#308

Post by Rapidwire »

zaphoyd wrote: post #213
madez wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a big waste. Why would you put games on a SSD?

Same reason as you'd want an SSD for anything else? Fast loading times of lots of data? Also, some operating systems make having programs installed to volumes other than the boot volume hard.

Which operating systems? Windows? I haven't had that problem on Windows 7 x64, but maybe that's just me.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#309

Post by toxican »

dragontamer wrote: post #139
pyrocat wrote: post #137

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.

I'm curious to see what kind of space Win10 takes up. I believe one of their focuses was stripping it down to take up less space for applications such as tablet, netbooks, et.c

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#310

Post by Kurtz79 »

rbanffy wrote: post #292
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 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,…

eMMC is not the same as SSD, in general it is slower and less reliable (and it's one of the reason the laptop is cheap).

I agree with the sentiment, though, carrying around a lightweight laptop without having to worry about theft/accidental damage is priceless.

Post reply on HN