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

256TB SSD from Samsung

semiconductor.samsung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: 256TB SSD from Samsung

#71

Post by faeriechangling »

lesuorac wrote: post #32
jaggederest wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I clearly remember getting an 80gb drive, circa 2001-2002 I think, and talking with my friends about how impossible it would be to ever fill.

The problem is that the size of media has been growing exponentially. When I keep wondering how my phone is running out of space every time its images / videos. Even when you look at an app that is like 400 MB its not 400 MB of code, its like 350 MB of images and 50 MB of code.

I’d argue media storage usage is starting to level off somewhat because we’re approaching the limits of human perception. For movie content people with average to good eyesight can’t tell the difference between 4K and 8K.

Environmental regulations also bite, an 8K tv that’s “green” is going to have to use very aggressive auto dimming. Storage capacity growth to me looks like it’s outstripping media size growth pretty handily.

Now this isn’t to say I can’t think of a few ways to use a few yottabytes of data but I don’t think there is a real need for this for media consumption. You might see media sizes increase anyways because why not store your movies as 16K RAW files if you have the storage, but such things will become increasingly frivolous.

Re: 256TB SSD from Samsung

#73

Post by mikysco »

httpz wrote: post #59
haunter wrote: post #37

I was looking for some 8TB m2 drives recently and they are still surprisingly expensive, considering you can get 2TB ones on sale for less than $100. But there are barely any options too, still a niche market https://pcpartpicker.com/products/internal-hard-drive/#A=600...

I think with the rise of streaming and cloud storage, the need for large storage devices on a personal level is really declining for most people.

Why the downvotes? This is observably true “for most people”

Re: 256TB SSD from Samsung

#74

Post by TeMPOraL »

yieldcrv wrote: post #22
dmonitor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

someday those 60GB bluray rips I see on trackers might be viable for a local media server.

its wild because the 4gb h265 ones are great I have 4k screens and an okay sound system, who are these whatever-philes that think these 60gb rips change the experience meaningfully like, how many audio tracks you need and the other 50gb so you can stare at black pixels and say “wow these blacks are so impressive”

My guess: this probably solves the issue with compression artifacts creating annoying blocks of color in dark/black areas of the video, which is increasingly important as the past decade had movie and TV show makers all switch to shooting everything ridiculously dark.

Re: 256TB SSD from Samsung

#75

Post by faeriechangling »

dmonitor wrote: post #15
twerkmonsta wrote: post #3

Are there actual situations where you would even want this much data on a single drive?

someday those 60GB bluray rips I see on trackers might be viable for a local media server.

I’d argue they already are, it’s not infeasible to get ~320tb into an overstuffed NAS (two 10 drive arrays with two drives as parity) currently with a few drives being overly hot and we’re seeing HAMR hit the market now and should probably easily see density double before too long. We’re at the point you can home movie library the size of a streaming site’s library for less than 10k without needing a rack. If you drop density a bit and use used enterprise SAS drives you could probably get things done for 5k + a decent power bill. Still inaccessible to most but plenty accessible to an enthusiast with some disposable income.

QLC would be nice for such a home application over noise/space/power usage concerns but the cost is still extremely high.

Re: 256TB SSD from Samsung

#76

Post by sebazzz »

canucker2016 wrote: post #57

It's QLC NAND (~1000 program/erase cycles from https://www.purestorage.com/knowledge/what-is-qlc-flash.html ). eesh. [Update] from https://www.anandtech.com/show/20007/samsung-teases-256-tb-s... : "Samsung's 256 TB SSD is based on 3D QLC NAND memory and probably uses innovative packaging to cram multiple 3D QLC NAND devices into stacks." 3D QLC should have higher endurance than regular QLC. We'll have to wait and see…

> The PM9D3a achieves a mean time between failure (MTBF) of 2.5Mhr, a 25% improvement over the previous generation, allowing customers to operate more stable services.

This number doesn't reflect that, but maybe the MTBF is just a distraction.

Re: 256TB SSD from Samsung

#77

Post by earthscienceman »

mikysco wrote: post #73
httpz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think with the rise of streaming and cloud storage, the need for large storage devices on a personal level is really declining for most people.

Why the downvotes? This is observably true “for most people”

This is bizarre to me. Cloud storage kills the need for small drives. So for the individual with modest storage needs, the cloud is relatively inexpensive and thought free. But the moment you get over 2TB the cloud gets extremely expensive. So if you're a person who needs to store a lot, large drives make a lot of sense.

This to me, it's the opposite of observably true. You would think large drives would be most in demand for personal use.

Re: 256TB SSD from Samsung

#78

Post by faeriechangling »

yieldcrv wrote: post #22
dmonitor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

someday those 60GB bluray rips I see on trackers might be viable for a local media server.

its wild because the 4gb h265 ones are great I have 4k screens and an okay sound system, who are these whatever-philes that think these 60gb rips change the experience meaningfully like, how many audio tracks you need and the other 50gb so you can stare at black pixels and say “wow these blacks are so impressive”

I can absolutely tell the difference and it’s frankly annoying to collect something which will become obsolete not just within your lifespan but when you’ll likely have a lot of lifespan left to go. 4K blurays to me hold up compared to 5k/6k/8k raw footage to the point I wouldn’t be too troubled if I had an old format on my NAS when an h.267 8k version came out.

You can have a great experience by streaming videos directly off shady streaming sites and using a cheap Hisense TV but there will always be a market for people dropping tens to hundreds of grand on some elite home theatre with inky blacks and perfect sound and maybe a datacenter storage array in their garage. It’s practically a hobby.

Re: 256TB SSD from Samsung

#79

Post by dijit »

faeriechangling wrote: post #71
lesuorac wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the size of media has been growing exponentially. When I keep wondering how my phone is running out of space every time its images / videos. Even when you look at an app that is like 400 MB its not 400 MB of code, its like 350 MB of images and 50 MB of code.

I’d argue media storage usage is starting to level off somewhat because we’re approaching the limits of human perception. For movie content people with average to good eyesight can’t tell the difference between 4K and 8K. Environmental regulations also bite, an 8K tv that’s “green” is going to have to use very aggressive auto dimming. Storage capacity growth to me looks like it’s outstripping media size growth pretty…

I would agree with you; but as technology improves we move the goalposts.

iPhones for example capture a small collection of images at the same time which are able to be replayed as a small animation (or loop) called “Live photos”.

I am certain the future will hold for us: video which allows us to pan left and right.

These both require more space.

Re: 256TB SSD from Samsung

#80

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

earthscienceman wrote: post #77
mikysco wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the downvotes? This is observably true “for most people”

This is bizarre to me. Cloud storage kills the need for small drives. So for the individual with modest storage needs, the cloud is relatively inexpensive and thought free. But the moment you get over 2TB the cloud gets extremely expensive. So if you're a person who needs to store a lot, large drives make a lot of sense. This to me, it's the opposite of observably true. You would think large drives would be most in d…

Naive question: Does the decline of smaller local storage undermine economies of scale that benefited larger local storage?
Post reply on HN