Samsung Announces Fastest 64-GB SSD 145
XueCast writes "The new solid-state drive from Samsung can write data at 100 MB/s and read at 120 MB/s. This handily outperforms other SSDs now on the market, which typically feature only 50-80 MB/s read/write rates. Samsung's SSD will come in two form factors, 1.8" and 2.5", and will be running on the SATA II standard. It will only consume 50% of the power of current SSDs. There is no information yet about price."
I/O limited distros more popular? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, A simple buffering scheme sounds likely to solve most of the problems you're talking about (Assuming it's constantly many small writes done by the OS... for say, log file keeping or file access-time updating).
Old news (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't seen a price yet but it's going to be at least close to a grand.
Re:Vaporware (Score:3, Informative)
And bigger, 128GB:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2013240636+1421430849&name=128GB [newegg.com]
Yes, the prices are exorbitant. Just wait, patience is a virtue. At least we can actually see and purchase the current status of SSD, and at the rate they are increasing it will phase out hard disks in both capacity and price.
Double Dupe? (Score:2, Informative)
Today, plus...
Oct 28: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/28/1337207 [slashdot.org]
Oct 25: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/149202 [slashdot.org]
Re:1 essential fact missing (Score:5, Informative)
the new version has double the capacity, do the math yourself.
DELL and Alienware offers Samsung 64GB SSD... (Score:2, Informative)
And if battery life really concerns you probably getting external battery from electrovaya or batterygeek may eliminate that worries.
This is how it works (Score:3, Informative)
2. Strap the lot in parallel, giving 64 GB
3. 6|8 MB/sec/innard x 16 innards begets 100 MB/sec
4. Profit !!
Each 4GB innard is $20 currently, so 16 by 20 is 320. Figure $10 for plumbing. 1% margin for OEM (335), 50% markup by distributor (500), and another 50% by retailer (750), and there you have it $750 for 64 GB.
Thank you !! Come again !!
Re:Cheap, fast and good. (Score:3, Informative)
1) Power consumption
2) Battery life
3) Power. Consumption.
I'm looking right now at the data sheet of the latest Seagate SATA hard drive models, that tout a 3 Gb/s data rate (325 MB/s, if you are too lazy to divide by 8), and I haven't even started talking about RAID 0 algorithms yet. Yes, the Samsung SSD is fast - the caveat here is that it is fast when compared with other SSD's. The good news is that this is a relatively new technology, with great potential for improvement IMHO. But if you don't have a laptop and a need for 4-6 hrs/battery, don't. And even if you do, you'd be probably better off just buying a spare battery.
Kudos to Samsung for pushing the envelope a little further.
Re:Cheap, fast and good. (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, it's more like why are you not buying SSDs:
1. Price
2. Price
3. Price
Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (Score:3, Informative)
MTBF doesn't mean [wikipedia.org] what most people think it means, and is less useful [wikipedia.org] than most people treat it.
Re:Price depends on speed... (Score:3, Informative)
In any event, even if they are slow, the speed limit doesn't come from the flash chips themselves. The speed limit comes from the controller.
This drive has a controller and some flash chips. The cost of the controller is, maybe, $50 tops. The question is -- how much do the flash chips cost? If you can get 4GB flash cards for $24, that means the flash chips inside there must cost at most $24. The means you can sell 64GB of flash chips for $384 without losing your shirt. This even includes the cost of a controller, packaging, and the cost to advertise, stock, and sell the product that we don't need.
There is no rational reason this drive should sell for more than $500, except that there is only limited supply. As soon as supply ramps up, the price will drop to about this value. I'd guess this will take 3 months or so.
Re:We need a new spec for SSD's (Score:5, Informative)
These devices will have wear leveling. That means that if a cell is close to running out of erase cycles, the drive will move data that has not changed in a very long time into that cell. A few cells will be kept as spares in case some cells don't last as long as they are predicted to.
If you do the math, and figure a typical use scenario as a laptop's primary drive, you get that these drives should outlast mechanical hard drives by many years. For example, a 64GB hard drive with an endurance of 100,000 writes should be able to tolerate about 5 million GB of writes before it fails due to wear.
How long it will take you to run that out depends on your average write rate. But with a reasonable rate (10MB/s) that works out to about 15 years.
Re:This is how it works (Score:2, Informative)
I have to contact them to see how much they ask for the 16 slot model and if it supports SDHC. It's a bit large but still seems interesting.
Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (Score:1, Informative)
If you are writing to the same logical block over and over, a swap/remap will only happen once every 1000 writes.
But it all depends on how the algorithm/architecture was designed.
To the GPP: an algorithm that actually knows what space is used up by your files and fails to wear level using those blocks would be stupid and wrong. Don't expect wear leveling to be that bad.
Re:What speeds? (Score:5, Informative)
SATA drives have a seek latency of about 9ms. This means that the drive can perform 111 seeks per second. Assume a very pessimistic scenario of reading a 2KB cluster. Your drive's performance is now about 200KB/s.
For an expensive and low capacity SCSI drive, you can get 3.3ms, with about 600KB/s worst case scenario.
This is assuming you're actually reading data you're interested in. Some of that will involve reading filesystem metadata, which from the user's POV isn't what you're actually interested in. For a directory with lots of small files I imagine you could get maybe half of that performance.
I've seen SSD latency being quoted to be around 0.01ms. The same calculation above gives 195MB/s, assuming reading takes no extra time (which is false)
From this you can see that a hard disk is highly limited by seek latency, while a SSD is much more limited by read/write speed.
Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (Score:3, Informative)
Since there is an onboard controller with a RAM buffer, it can do a verify on every write. Flash tends to fail at erase or write time which can be recovered with no data loss, so MTBF depends on how many spare blocks you leave.