71–80 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
https://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-endurance-experi...
"After a reboot, the SSD disappeared completely from the Intel software. It was still detected by the storage driver, but only as an inaccessible, 0GB SATA device.
According to Intel, this end-of-life behavior generally matches what’s supposed to happen. The write errors suggest the 335 Series had entered read-only mode. When the power is cycled in this state, a sort of self-destruct mechanism is triggered, rendering the drive unresponsive. "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is to not lose any data. In the example, if you need 4 drives to store 16 TB of data instead of 1, your probability of data loss is 18.6% vs 5%.
How do you get 18.6%?
Disclaimer: I got a D in Probability & Statistics
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one SSD has a failure rate of 5%, 4 SSDs will have a failure rate of 18.6%. If the 4 devices are in a RAID0 for convenience (don't have to figure out where to put files), there is an 18.6% chance of losing all data vs 5% with a 16TB drive. You can use RAID5/6 to mitigate the risk but then lose capacity. IMO, higher SSD speeds are not a target for improvement by manufacturers, but a side-effect of using higher-dens…
> 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.
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.
That makes sense considering that QLC (2^4 charge levels) only stores 33% more data per cell than TLC (2^3 charge levels). Therefore at best it can only be 33% cheaper/bigger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I wouldnt touch Intel SSD. They ship documentation stating read-only failure mode in case of reaching end of life/defects. In a big endurance test some time ago Intel drive simply died and vanished from the system on reboot, followed up by Intel mouthpiece claiming _this is by design_. https://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-endurance-experi... "After a reboot, the SSD disappeared completely from the Intel softwa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldnt touch Intel SSD. They ship documentation stating read-only failure mode in case of reaching end of life/defects. In a big endurance test some time ago Intel drive simply died and vanished from the system on reboot, followed up by Intel mouthpiece claiming _this is by design_. https://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-endurance-experi... "After a reboot, the SSD disappeared completely from the Intel softwa…
That article is nearly 10 years old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes sense considering that QLC (2^4 charge levels) only stores 33% more data per cell than TLC (2^3 charge levels). Therefore at best it can only be 33% cheaper/bigger.
QLC is 2x TLC (16/8=2).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
QLC is 2x TLC (16/8=2).
Quad bits to triple bits is 4/3=1.33. Taking your way of counting to the extreme: if I have a cell that can handle 1 million bits, I can't just add an extra bit of storage for another 1 million bits of storage. I have to actually add the full megabit of storage.