Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Media Hardware

Toshiba Developing High-Density 1TB SSD 149

Posted by timothy
from the valentine's-day-is-over dept.
MojoKid writes "A new partnership between Toshiba and Tokyo's Keio University has led to the creation of a new technology that could allow SSDs up to 1TB in size to be made 'with a footprint no larger than a postage stamp.' The report states that the two have been able to integrate 128GB NAND Flash chips and a single controller into a stamp-sized form factor. They've even made it operational with a transfer rates of 2Gbps (or about 250MB/sec) with data transfer that relies on radio communication."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Toshiba Developing High-Density 1TB SSD

Comments Filter:
  • Gaming? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @08:38PM (#31138926)
    I really hope all these high-density storage systems will be used for gaming, HDDs are unreliable and large SSDs would allow for fast load times, better non-DRM copy protection and the ability to save games without paying extra.
    • by ae1294 (1547521)

      better non-DRM copy protection

      Really you think? Er, I mean how so?

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Darkness404 (1287218)
        Look at non-CD based systems like the Nintendo DS. The main reason why you couldn't easily boot homebrew software was because of the game cart being hard to make at home. Yes, there were a few checksum based things that needed to be avoided but those were trivial to avoid. Compare that to running your own software on a PS3 (with full hardware based access, not the crappy stripped down version you get when your run Linux on it) its -a lot- harder because they expect everyone and their brother to have Blu-Ray
        • Re:Gaming? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by EdZ (755139) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @09:36PM (#31139432)
          It's more that they were on a ROM, i.e. Read Only. This uses re-writeable NAND flash, so would be hacked in a heartbeat. Never mind that cartridges dies out from being sodamned expensive to produce compared to pressing a disc.
          OK, maybe for consoles where for some reason you don't want to just pre-load content from a BD to an internal NAND-based SSD as you play, but it seems far less cost effective to distribute everything on it's own SSD. Hot-swappable SATA HDDs are faster than current optical media, and the per-GB cost is far lower than NAND flash. But I've never heard of see anyone suggesting distributing console games on individual HDDs.
    • Bring back the cartridge.
      • I was thinking the exact same thing. What better way to enforce DRM than with the cartridge. Besides, it has a few things going for that format in that it's robust, no moving parts, and provides fast I/O. Also, you can add in future co-processor technology like Nintendo did with the FX chip (SNES console).

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I strongly suspect that cartridges would no longer be all that useful for DRM purposes. Doing a ROM dump from a cartridge takes some technical know-how and a bit of motivation; but downloading one from bittorrent doesn't and blank cartridges, fillable with those ROMs via USB, will likely be popping up on DealExtreme and the usual grey-market importers at about the same time the console comes out.

          You could always produce cartridges with embedded contactless smart cards, or some similar authentication meas
          • Re:Gaming? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by DigiShaman (671371) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @10:59PM (#31140086) Homepage

            With regards to DRM; fair enough.

            However, Blu-Ray disks only support up to 25GB per layer. In theory, an octo-layer disk would make that 200GB total. Toshiba though is talking about 1TB of space on something the size of postage stamp. That's quite game changer if I ever saw one. Having fast I/O is also a nice bonus.

            Perhaps consoles will never make it back to cartridge format because disks are so much cheaper to mass produce. But if someone can put this technology into an SSD drive at a reasonable price point, I'll be dropping one in my PS3, laptop, and desktop workstation. While were at it, maybe a few servers too.

            It always amazes me how Star Trek is so prophetic in regards to trends in technology. This new SSD revolution is equivalent to their isolinear chips. Wow, just wow!

            • by Ihmhi (1206036)

              Also in regards to your point, cartridges are tough whereas optical media is wimpy little girly men.

              You drop a cart and it'll survive. I'm sure gamers would appreciate the extra durability...

              • by ae1294 (1547521)

                You drop a cart and it'll survive. I'm sure gamers would appreciate the extra durability...

                And this helps the content providers make even mooore money how exactly???

              • by Tumbleweed (3706) *

                >> Also in regards to your point, cartridges are tough whereas optical media is wimpy little girly men.

                You drop a cart and it'll survive. I'm sure gamers would appreciate the extra durability...

                Yeah, but you can throw optical discs and behead zombies if you're good enough. A cartridge requires much more strength, and is therefore useless during a zombie outbreak. Always plan for the worst-case scenario, dude.

                Rule #1: Cardio

                • by Ihmhi (1206036)

                  All the strength in the world and the thing will just splinter when it hits something. Maybe it will go in an inch?

                  I have years of experience throwing old vinyls at sand and other soft to hard targets for fun. Don't worry, I didn't ruin any classics - it was mostly stuff like Cher and the Monkees.

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      I really hope all these high-density storage systems will be used for gaming, HDDs are unreliable and large SSDs would allow for fast load times, better non-DRM copy protection and the ability to save games without paying extra.

      Yeah, because God forbid the game manufacturers(or anyone else for that matter) take advantage of the 1GB or more of DDR5-speed memory on video cards, or the fact that you can slam 16GB of ultra-fast DDR3 memory onto your average mobos these days for a fraction of what you would spend on this kind of hardware. I mean damn, DDR3 only pokes along at a "measly" 1600MBps...

      I really fail to see the setback in this arena. Seriously.

      • Um, because we all know that the PS3, 360 and Wii all read data from 16 GB of DDR3 memory and have 1 gig of DDR5 on video cards...
    • so you want to pay neogeo cart prices for games?
      neogeo games used to cost alot as the price of the rom chips where high back then and while you can get 1tb HDD for under $100 what will a SSD one cost $500+?

      • Would I pay a couple hundred dollars for a game with no load times, an excellent storyline, excellent play control, excellent graphics, no lag, no annoying paid DLC, near infinite customization, that required no hardware upgrade? Yes. Something along the lines of Fable II only -a lot- longer, no lag, no loading times, more weapons, etc. I would pay $200 easily for. Especially if they don't charge for DLC. Sound unreasonable? Look at World of Warcraft, with a $15 monthly fee, someone paying from 2004-2010 wo
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by wernercd (837757)
          People complain about $60 games... you seriously think $200 games would fly? It also seems you are comparing a single purchase game to an online game. WoW on a fast chip would still require a game server. So the comparison of MadeUpGame with a one time purchase vs WoW is far from valid. You should compare it to CoD, HL2, etc... a game that you buy once and play for years, $60 vs $200 simply to get faster load times? I'd pay $60 and load from an ISO if I really wanted faster load times.
          • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

            by Darkness404 (1287218)

            People complain about $60 games... you seriously think $200 games would fly?

            People complain about $60 games that are short, crappy, buggy and laggy. Look at for example the Halo series, you pay $60 for a campaign mode you can easily finish in a night.

            It also seems you are comparing a single purchase game to an online game.

            While they are two different models they both have one thing in common: new content that isn't pay-DLC. While, yes you are paying for it, you don't have to pay $15 to get the latest weapon, you pay $15 to play the game.

            WoW on a fast chip would still require a game server.

            As would almost any simi-multiplayer game out today.

            So the comparison of MadeUpGame with a one time purchase vs WoW is far from valid.

            Its only invalid because no one has so far made a game li

      • and DS games cost $100?
    • "Hi, I just received a postcard from blizzard-rewards.com with a realm on it. Is it safe to load?"
  • First (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    First postage

  • Thank god. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Karganeth (1017580) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @08:41PM (#31138958)
    I don't understand metres, they're too complicated. Thank god they used the postage stamp method of measuring.
  • Now get back to me when you've built 24+2 of them into a 1x10x10 cm 12 core blade with water cooling.

    Or 256 of them into a 1U half-depth fanless storage array.

    I loathe seeing racks upon racks of heat spewing, power sucking, storage arrays.

  • Radio? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The MAZZTer (911996) <<megazzt> <at> <gmail.com>> on Sunday February 14, 2010 @09:00PM (#31139134) Homepage

    "...with data transfer that relies on radio communication."

    Well that sounds like an eavesdropping invitation if I ever heard one.

    • Re:Radio? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @09:18PM (#31139278) Journal
      Probably more than the naive observer would expect; but less than you would think.

      My understanding, from TFA, is that the radio communication being used is very short range, a substitute for the usual maze of tiny and hard to fabricate gold wire interconnects that go between stacked dice. Die stacking itself isn't new; but the real-world manufacturability drops off unpleasantly as you stack higher, because of all the little wires. If you can use very short range RF instead, your life becomes rather less painful.

      Assuming a suitable faraday cage layer isn't baked in, somebody with a nice antenna and some serious DSP could probably capture some of the traffic from the chip if they could get within a few cm of it. I'd hesitate to base the next generation of smart cards on such a thing; but it isn't as though it would necessarily be a radical advance over what you can do today with a few needles and a logic probe.
    • Re:Radio? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Yaa 101 (664725) on Monday February 15, 2010 @12:05AM (#31140512) Journal

      Radio communication does not say it has to be over the air, it means that there is a carrier wave (in the wire) that has the signals put on top of just like radio.

  • by FridayBob (619244) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @09:25PM (#31139330) Homepage
    ... it's reliability that's the real issue. SSDs are a great idea in theory, but in practice the only time I tried to build a server around one, taking great care to ensure that as little as possible would ever be ever written to it (e.g. turned off atime, while /var, /temp, /home etc. were located on hard disks), it ended up lasting only about a month.

    I would love to replace my hard disks, arguably the most critical and vulnerable components of my computers, with SSDs, but only if they are more reliable in the first place, and can thereafter be regarded generally as an improvement.
    • by nedlohs (1335013) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @09:33PM (#31139410)

      Whereas mine ran for 3 years until I replaced the whole device.

      Aren't anecdotes great!

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @09:38PM (#31139444) Journal
      Was your SSD from the cheap seats, or one of the decent ones? People were doing substantially better than that, in terms of lifespan, back when "SSD" meant "CF card in an IDE adapter"... With an N of 1, I suspect that you might have just gotten a dud. Mechanical drives that are dead when you open the box aren't exactly unknown in the field(on the other hand, though, intel has had a couple of really embarrasing firmware issues, and anything that JMicron has cursed with their misbegotten controllers is utter junk, so the field does have some maturing to do).

      More broadly, though, size and reliability are actually closely linked with Flash SSDs. It is inherent in the nature of Flash that it will only survive a limited number of writes before a given block of cells becomes unwriteable at best and unreliable at worst. SSD controllers deal with this by trying to spread writes as evenly as possible over the available Flash space, and by having some amount of reserve space that can silently be substituted for failed blocks. The trouble, of course, is that since Flash is expensive, there is a strong commercial imperative to make as much as possible of the Flash you include visible storage space, so you can put a big shiny number on the box, and as little as possible reserve space, since that is hard to brag about. As a consequence, you'll note that cheap consumer SSDs ship with substantially less reserve flash than do the expensive; but reliability focused, enterprise ones(some of which will even let the customer adjust the allocation between storage and reserve).

      If you can make Flash denser and cheaper, you'll make it more likely that, for all but the crappiest fly-by-night shops soldering together stuff stolen from nearby dumpsters, adding more reserve Flash is cheaper than processing RMAs and dealing with angry customers. Improvements in the intrinsic reliability of Flash cells would be nice as well, of course; but we are already using vaguely RAID-like techniques to turn quantity into reliability, so improvements in density and cost are almost as good.
    • Would you care to provide the model number of the SSD you used for reference?

      Thanks!

    • by noidentity (188756) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @10:03PM (#31139662)
      I, for one, will not buy a 1TB SSD until it's small enough that I'm guaranteed to lose it within the first day of getting it.
      • I seriously thought about ssding it this time around when purchasing a laptop. I just couldn't quantify the supposed advantages in power use of SSD over a HD. Still, SSD may have other advantages in random access situations. It would have been nice to try.

        Anyway, I'm thinking of putting my whole installation on a 16 GB usb keychain thingie, and using the hard drive for archival purposes. Maybe I can just shut the HD off when not in use. Still, those aren't very big. There'd be a lot of writing going on

        • by bertok (226922)

          I seriously thought about ssding it this time around when purchasing a laptop. I just couldn't quantify the supposed advantages in power use of SSD over a HD. Still, SSD may have other advantages in random access situations. It would have been nice to try.

          Anyway, I'm thinking of putting my whole installation on a 16 GB usb keychain thingie, and using the hard drive for archival purposes. Maybe I can just shut the HD off when not in use. Still, those aren't very big. There'd be a lot of writing going on for just 16 GBs.. Maybe it would die quick. Still, maybe 128 gigs will be cheap soon..

          It's not about the power, many SSDs use about the same amount as a normal hard drive. It's about speed. An SSD vs a traditional disk is a night & day difference. It's like computers have been reinvented. There's just no comparison, and no going back!

          The only other time I got a speed boost this big was when I switched from floppies to hard drives back in the IBM XT days.

    • by FridayBob (619244)
      Sorry, but I neglected to mention that the SSD in question was indeed both an early and a cheap model. I believe the manufacturer was OCZ, but I forget which model it was. This may subtract some weight from my original assertion, but I don't think all of it.

      By the end of 2008 the Intel X25-M was supposed to be the best thing around, but even that model suffered from a form of low-level fragmentation that was the result of using both wear leveling and write combining. These are workarounds for problems tha
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bertok (226922)

      ... it's reliability that's the real issue. SSDs are a great idea in theory, but in practice the only time I tried to build a server around one, taking great care to ensure that as little as possible would ever be ever written to it (e.g. turned off atime, while /var, /temp, /home etc. were located on hard disks), it ended up lasting only about a month.

      I would love to replace my hard disks, arguably the most critical and vulnerable components of my computers, with SSDs, but only if they are more reliable in the first place, and can thereafter be regarded generally as an improvement.

      You either used a really cheap drive meant for netbooks, or you simply got a broken drive and didn't do a burn-in period. It's not like mechanical drives never fail, so just because you had a bad experience, once, that doesn't mean you should give out bad advice based on an anecdote.

      Even a decent desktop drive can be overwritten at least a thousand times, and most 'enterprise grade' drives are rated for 100,000 or more. At the high-end, look at the products made by FusionIO or EMC, you'll get drives that m

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dnaumov (453672)

      ... it's reliability that's the real issue. SSDs are a great idea in theory, but in practice the only time I tried to build a server around one, taking great care to ensure that as little as possible would ever be ever written to it (e.g. turned off atime, while /var, /temp, /home etc. were located on hard disks), it ended up lasting only about a month.

      You had a broken/faulty unit, this can happen with any kind of disk. Even cheap USB flash sticks easily last over a year of the kind of use you describe. Intel X25-M SSDs for example, are specced for 24/7 use with 100gb of data being written to disk EVERY DAY and this is a consumer MLC SSD. Enterprise SLC disks are much more resilient then that (albeit a lot more expensive).

    • by hahn (101816)

      ... it's reliability that's the real issue. SSDs are a great idea in theory, but in practice the only time I tried to build a server around one, taking great care to ensure that as little as possible would ever be ever written to it (e.g. turned off atime, while /var, /temp, /home etc. were located on hard disks), it ended up lasting only about a month. I would love to replace my hard disks, arguably the most critical and vulnerable components of my computers, with SSDs, but only if they are more reliable in the first place, and can thereafter be regarded generally as an improvement.

      Um, those of us who would like a much smaller desktop or a smaller (and lighter) notebook computer care about size. If you can have 1 TB postage sized hard drive, engineers would have a MUCH easier time creating smaller form factors. Furthermore, besides the smaller size, you also have far fewer concerns about heat AND moving parts (a factor for notebook computers which are dropped fairly frequently). With non-server usage levels, SSD's in my experience have been quite reliable.

    • by MobyDisk (75490)

      That's odd. SSDs are far more reliable than hard drives. So either you did something very wrong, or they were defective and I hope you had them replaced since they would be under warranty. Did they tell you why it failed? Even large-scale MMOs run on SSDs [ramsan.com] and don't have reliability problems.

  • In Imperial Earth, he mentions a device called a "minisec", which has enough storage to retain anything someone cares to store in their whole lifetime. I wonder what it would mean to have something like an iPad with couple petabytes of capacity?

    -jcr

    • Yeah but the minisec recorded audio, not video and handled email and encryption. I don't think Clarke thought that device would store more than a few gigs of data.

      • by compro01 (777531) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @10:56PM (#31140054)

        It would take about 200TB to record a lifetime of audio at CD quality.

        • It would take about 200TB to record a lifetime of audio at CD quality.

          Yeah but this was just a note taker, and it could offload storage to bigger machines anyway.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ZosX (517789)

          You sure about that? 75 years is 657,000 hours. At FLAC sized files (350mb/hr) it would require 229,950,000 megabytes. I guess you are pretty close there!

          • by compro01 (777531)

            My number was using raw CD quality (16 bit 44.1KHz) PCM recorded in mono and a life expectancy of 81 years.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by DigiShaman (671371)

          And with a few PetaBytes, video as well. It wont be long before bluetooth ear pieces capture video as well. You too could be walking talking 24/7 YouTuber in all of its annoying glory. At least this would have value for Policemen.

        • by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:42AM (#31141308)

          It would take about 200TB to record a lifetime of audio at CD quality.

          Sure, but would you want to record your *life* with the empty soundstage and lack of warmth inherent to mere "CD quality" ?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mcrbids (148650)

          ... or about 35 TB to record a lifetime at 128k MP3, stereo, "near CD quality".

          Really - do you need your entire life recorded in CD quality? Mostly, you'll worry about proving crimes you didn't commit, so anything better than 32 Kbps MP3 is probably a waste. And while there will be those precious moments, most of your life will consist of you sitting and consuming media that's already recorded elsewhere anyway. Really, do you want hi-def audio copies of the Dresden and Star Trek reruns that you watched?

          A TB

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by BobMcD (601576)

            And while there will be those precious moments, most of your life will consist of you sitting and consuming media that's already recorded elsewhere anyway.

            Oh heck, its worse than that. I'd contend that fully 3/4 of a person's life isn't fit for being recorded at all:

            Sleeping
            Driving
            Toileting/Grooming
            Showering
            Cooking
            Eating
            Cleaning
            Consuming Media

            I'd say that the vast majority of those recordings would be of you talking to yourself, at best. Without video, the time spend doing most of it would lose its context anyway.

            In short, I'm guessing you could get all the important bits on less than 9 TBs...

    • It would still be an iPad, so everyone would mock it.

      What's that? I'm missing the point? Hmmm...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KillShill (877105)

      I wonder what a useful device like the "minisec" would be without it being straddled to a crippled-by-design product like the iXXXX.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It would be wasted. That's what always happens to excess capacity. ( Hmm, I don't know if I might be interested in the entire contents of your storage thingy, so I'll just copy it onto mine in it's entirety. ) Of course you've copied many other people's thingies, onto yours and they've copied each other's and through six degrees of separation there's a copy of my thingy of a few versions ago already on your thingie that I've just recopied onto mine. I could clean it out, but I won't because it's more
  • Hard drive development just hasn't been keeping place with flash memory. And either portable/netbook owner would rather have flash memory, of course i bet these terabyte flash drives are expensive right now, But could we have terabyte+ flash in average computers within 5 years seems likely now, and my laptop will be that mush faster for it.

    ---

    Storage Feed [feeddistiller.com] @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14, 2010 @10:18PM (#31139784)

      Hard drive development just hasn't been keeping place with flash memory.

      I think you're confused. I happen to have a hard drive in a system that creates and deletes thousands of gigabytes of files a month. It's been doing that for seven years straight. Show me any SSD that can achieve the same. Hard drives and flash memory have different properties and that necessarily makes them more or less applicable to different usage scenarios.

      • by izomiac (815208) on Monday February 15, 2010 @12:26AM (#31140656) Homepage
        7 years * 12 months/year * 10,000 GB/month = 840 TB of data written/deleted
        10,000 Erases * 128 GB = 1280 TB of data written/deleted

        It seems like any SSD of appropriate capacity will do that. 10,000 erases is actually extremely conservative, most SSDs advertise 2-3 orders of magnitude more than that. It'd take continuous writing at maximum speed for more than a decade* to kill most modern SSDs. Or at least that's the theory, I'm sure someone has gotten a defective one that died in a month or something.

        * 5,000,000 Erases * (256 GB / 100 MB/sec) = 405 years
      • It has to come down in price a lot to compete with magnetic storage. Right now, I'd say you'd have to get it to 10% of the current price to be competitive at the high end. Currently, it is about $1500 or so for a 500GB SSD. It is currently about $50 for a 500GB magnetic drive. Now if you could get flash down to about 10%, well then you'd be talking 3x the price of magnetic storage. Still expensive, but due to the high speed it would be feasible in high performance desktops. As it stands, 300GB of 10k magnet

        • Solid state storage scales down in terms of price a lot better. The fixed price of a hard disk is the enclosure, motors for moving the disk heads, the heads themselves, the controller, and so on. The fixed costs of an SSD are the chip housing, which costs round $0.10. Halving the size of the die more than doubles the yield, so you can make smaller SSDs for much less than you can make cheap HDDs. The cheapest hard disks you can buy have been the same price for years. The capacity has increased, but you

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by petermgreen (876956)

      Lets look at a few metrics.

      1: performance: afaict SSDs are already the clear winner here.
      2: density: I can put a 2TB drive in a standard 3.5 inch bay. Afaict SSDs are generally the same size as laptop hard drives and you can put two of those in a 3.5 inch bay with readilly available adaptor kits. Afaict the drives go up to 512GB so the density is about half that of HDDs. For laptops the density situation is even closer (especially if the laptop in question only has a 9.5mm high bay).
      3: cost: the aforementio

  • Bah... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Let me know when they make communication between chips using quantum entanglement.

  • The future is here (Score:3, Informative)

    by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Sunday February 14, 2010 @10:22PM (#31139816) Homepage

    Stamp-sized chips storing the contents of multiple libraries, fully downloadable over short-range radio transfer in roughly an hour.

    Listen to us complaining that we don't have flying cars yet. :P

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Listen to us complaining that we don't have flying cars yet. :P

      It's because we're afraid of being diddled [imdb.com] by a german scientist with a foot fetish.

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@nOSPam.lynx.bc.ca> on Sunday February 14, 2010 @11:18PM (#31140208) Journal
    The total weight of the money that you spend on end-user storage exceeds the weight of the storage device itself.
    • by jez9999 (618189)

      The total weight of the money that you spend on end-user storage exceeds the weight of the storage device itself.

      I pay for my tech stuff online, using a debit card. What's the weight of the bits needed to carry out that transaction?

      • by sFurbo (1361249)
        The energy lost in a irreversible bit flip is on the order of kT, so assuming that the server operates at 300 K, one megabyte consumes at least 3.5*10^-14 joule [google.dk], which is equivalent to 3.9*10^-31 kg [google.dk] of relativistic mass, or about a third of the mass of one electron, so storage need to become quite a lot lighter before the bits used to purchase it weighs less then it.
    • by guspasho (941623)

      What format of money have you been using? This happened decades ago, but then again I only use pennies.

    • That has been true for regular A4 paper for quite a while...

  • by viking80 (697716) on Monday February 15, 2010 @12:04AM (#31140502) Journal

    Seems very impressive, but what is this phrase "postage stamp". Is this also part of some newfangled technology we may never see? I for on will probably be fine with good old email for a long time to come.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    We always hear about SSD flash technology and how cool it is but we never seem to get it. SSDs are now more expensive than last year...So, what's the point of 1TB SSD when I can't even afford a 30GB one?

    • by glitch23 (557124)

      We always hear about SSD flash technology and how cool it is but we never seem to get it. SSDs are now more expensive than last year...So, what's the point of 1TB SSD when I can't even afford a 30GB one?

      Bigger drives will cause the smaller drives to be discounted so that the bigger ones can squeeze into the market. Intel does this all the time with their CPUs. If you don't buy them when they are initially released you can get a particular CPU for cheap after waiting a year and letting other CPUs replace it as the top tier CPU available on the market. Traditional hard drives are more expensive when they are released because they have higher capacity which means the lower capacity drives have to drop in pric

  • SSDs and Cost (Score:3, Insightful)

    by yoshi_mon (172895) on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:56AM (#31141396)

    I really like the idea of a device that does not need to be constantly de-fragmented. To me, above the moving parts issue/noise/heat issues, it is paramount. However I need my data storage to be reliable and right now SSDs still don't have the track record.

    I understand that there are those people who are running 2-4x SSD drives in a RAID0 that are fully happy. But mostly they are gamers who don't care if they have to do a reinstall if that array fails. And or don't really have any sort of long term data that they mind wiping at the drop of a hat.

    I personally deal with end users who care a lot about their digital pictures, email, and other assorted crap. As it stands right now those ol' spinning platters still offer us all the best reliability at the lowest cost point.

    • by yoshi_mon (172895)

      Sorry to reply to my own post but I wanted to just also say that SSDs as a rule are not unreliable. Rather that at the space/cost ratio that matters for current end users.

      Most of us need these days a lot of space for all the digital media we have and SSDs don't offer that at a price point that is even near what HDs offer. (And as I said HDs, even with their own failure rates, are still preferred.)

  • The number one thing that I want, is the ability to read/write really fast.

    And the other number one thing is: Don’t ever die (or become significantly slower) after less then ten years of usage!

    • by amorsen (7485)

      Why do you care if a 5 year old drive is getting slow? In 5 years it'll be less than half (likely less than a quarter) of the original price to replace.

  • What ever happened to the THNS064GF8BEAA?

    Announced Jan 2009:

    Samples of the new drives will be available in late first quarter of 2009, with mass production in the second quarter.

    And where is it now?

  • A superphone with a 1TB SSD in it. Plug it into a dock at home with your huge screen, keyboard and mouse, and take it with you when you go. Rsync when you connect to the dock, which replicates to your off-site storage. Easy-peasy. With 1-2gHz dual-core (and quad core, according to NEC) smartphones coming out this year, the vast majority of computer users won't require anything more. Rock on.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

Working...