Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Upgrades Hardware

The 1 Terabyte SSD Arrives 237

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the that-should-be-enough dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Over recent years Solid State Drives (SSDs) have moved from luxury to affordable additions to one's PC, but mechanical hard drives are still king when it comes to capacity. That was until the revamped Colossus LT series Solid State Drive came along this week. With up to 1TB, the drive offers offers massive storage capacities of the level normally not seen in SSDs. While 1TB of SSD space hits right at the heart of the traditional hard disk market, it comes at a high price — at around $4,000 for the 1TB model, these drives are in the realm of aspirational rather than practical."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The 1 Terabyte SSD Arrives

Comments Filter:
  • I'll wait a while. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by carlhaagen (1021273) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:08AM (#31830444)
    I have a handful of friends who adopted Intel's latest G2 X25-m models at their release. With new firmware, they are all still reporting notably reduced performance over time. Everyone knows what causes it, it is entirely understandable given the storage technology in question, but that doesn't make it any less of a drag. I'll wait and see how things change before doing the switch.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Nyder (754090)

      I have a handful of friends who adopted Intel's latest G2 X25-m models at their release. With new firmware, they are all still reporting notably reduced performance over time. Everyone knows what causes it, it is entirely understandable given the storage technology in question, but that doesn't make it any less of a drag. I'll wait and see how things change before doing the switch.

      Everyone knows what causes it huh?

      Sorry, that's a really stupid assumption, because, I don't know what causes it.

      So I guess not everyone knows what causes it.

      • by obarthelemy (160321) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @09:07AM (#31831190)

        google: why do ssd get slower over time. first answer: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2738/8 [anandtech.com]

        no comment

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by zkrige (1654085)
      Just defrag it :P
      • by Joce640k (829181)

        Ummmm, SSDs map disk sectors to physical flash cells dynamically as part of wear levelling.

        Defragging will probably make it much worse.

    • by toastar (573882)

      I have a handful of friends who adopted Intel's latest G2 X25-m models at their release. With new firmware, they are all still reporting notably reduced performance over time. Everyone knows what causes it, it is entirely understandable given the storage technology in question, but that doesn't make it any less of a drag. I'll wait and see how things change before doing the switch.

      Um, You bought a MLC drive and are now complaining about drive wear?
      You bought a cheap product. If you would of bought an SLC you wouldn't have the same level of drive wear. I want to say the difference is a factor of 10.

      next time get a X25-E.

      I'd love to know how the X25-V's are shaping up.

    • by asdf7890 (1518587)

      What OS are they running? Without TRIM support on both the drive and the OS (Windows 7, Windows 2008 at the moment IIRC, or Linux with a kernel version 2.6.33 or above but I'm not aware of any distros carrying that as standard yet - even the beta of Ubuntu 10.04 is still at 2.6.32) the block fragmentation within the drive will cause write performance degradation over time.

      I'm told that writing solid blocks of 0s will cause a drive's controller to mark the block as not needing erase-before-write next time (w

  • Speed? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kingofnexus (1721494)
    Paying $4000 for a hard drive is one thing, but how fast is it? Slapping what I assume to be a ton of chips together wont make for an impressive benchmark. If I had the cash to blow on this sort of thing I would rather raid together a bunch of and small fast ssd's than 1 big one.
    • by vlm (69642)

      Slapping what I assume to be a ton of chips together wont make for an impressive benchmark.

      Same as:

      ... I would rather raid together a bunch of and small fast ssd's than 1 big one.

      SSD seek time is zero, there is no multi-spindle advantage. Unless you are trying to exceed a system thruput of 3 gigs/sec, the limit of a single SATA channel...

  • Yay (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:12AM (#31830478) Homepage

    Can we please get an affordable, 60GB one that is actually worth buying now? Last time I checked (two months ago), most of the less expensive drives were real spotty with their reliability.

    Any suggestions for a decent 60GB SSD for under $120?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by IBBoard (1128019)

      You can get 60GB for under $120? Damnit, I considered an SSD recently and 30/40GB was £100 for the cheapest ones. Didn't get it in the end because of reports of degrading performance over time. That'd be one hell of a downer if you'd bought something that large and expensive!

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      yes, in about two more years. hang in there.

      and on that day I'll be getting by really cheap, as I only need about 20GB for a laptop

      • by Yvanhoe (564877)
        And mine will probably have 10 TB. "You got room for only one OS in there ? Do you know that virtualization is all the rage right now ? Be secure, man !"
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by icebraining (1313345)

          That would be excellent, if those damn HP people didn't disable the virtualization support of the CPU in the BIOS, with no option to turn it on!

          > modprobe kvm-amd
          kvm: disabled by bios

  • by Elledan (582730) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:14AM (#31830516) Homepage
    So at roughly $4/GB that'd place us where, back at the late 90s? I'm not sure what part of 'catching up' people seem to think of when they're talking about SSDs replacing HDDs. Yes, they're faster in a number of applications, but HDDs are crazy cheap at $0.10/GB or better, fast enough for most purposes and have a longer life than Flash-based media. I guess I could pull out a stack of punch cards 1 km tall and claim it's got 1 TB storage capacity too, thus having 'caught up' with HDDs.

    Considering Flash is reaching the point with its feature sizes (32 nm) where its data retention rate (1 year) and number of write cycles (8,000) is dropping rapidly (enterprise SSDs use 65+ nm SLC Flash instead), it's hard to see how Flash-based SSDs are winning, exactly.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Um, they are WAY faster. They are also growing in size more rapidly than traditional hard drives. They have gone from like 32gb to 1000gb in just a couple of years. They are also rapidly dropping in price.

      Even now, a lot of people only use like 30gb worth of disk space. Sure, they have more, but they don't use it.

      32 GB / $125 USD / Sequential Write: 187.5 MB/s / Sequential Read: 294.5 MB/s.
      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211419
      For a lot of people, that would be the largest upgrade i

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 0123456 (636235)

        32 GB / $125 USD / Sequential Write: 187.5 MB/s / Sequential Read: 294.5 MB/s.
        http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211419 [newegg.com]

        You do realise that sequential reads and writes are pretty much irrelevant to most people, right? The big benefit of SSDs is _random_ read and write speed, which is where HDDs really suck.

        For a lot of people, that would be the largest upgrade in terms of speed they could possibly give there computer. Maybe reducing the time to load photoshop from 8 seconds to 2.

        And how often do you load photoshop? For most people, saving six seconds on something they do once a day is hardly going to be 'the largest upgrade in terms of speed they could possibly give their computer'.

        I put an SSD in my new HTPC because I wanted it to boot up fast, and while it probably halves the boot time there it'

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by vlm (69642)

          I put an SSD in my new HTPC because I wanted it to boot up fast, and while it probably halves the boot time there it's otherwise pretty underwhelming.

          Isn't it quieter? When I installed a SSD in my mythtv frontend, hard drive noise went from noticeable, to gone.

          • by 0123456 (636235)

            Isn't it quieter? When I installed a SSD in my mythtv frontend, hard drive noise went from noticeable, to gone.

            True, but my MythTV backend with two hard drives is still sitting beside the TV until I get around to moving it, and while I can hear drive noise close up, I can't hear it from the sofa.

        • by timeOday (582209)

          You do realise that sequential reads and writes are pretty much irrelevant to most people, right?

          My #1 storage delay is waiting for virtual machines to suspend and resume. That means writing or reading a 1GB (or whatever the VM's RAM is) contiguous file. Before SSD, suspend/resume to disk wasn't even worth the wait, now it is. Most people don't bother with VM's, but suspend-to-disk in general is a feature that millions of home users should be using by default to save power (compared to never shutting d

          • I have an SSD, and I too use it for suspend to disk/resume goodness. It resumes much quicker than with an HDD, and my computer is a bit quieter now, too. A lot of things are just quicker.
          • by 0123456 (636235)

            My #1 storage delay is waiting for virtual machines to suspend and resume.

            Then you're not most people. Most people boot up the PC, do some web browsing and email, watch some youtube video their mate on myspacebook sent them and then shut down the PC. Booting faster is a benefit, but since that's largely random reads, a higher sequential read rate might save them a few seconds of boot time... they'd save a lot more by wiping Windows and installing Linux.

            Most people don't bother with VM's, but suspend-to-disk in general is a feature that millions of home users should be using by default to save power (compared to never shutting down) and reduce waiting (compared to rebooting just to grab an email).

            So again you're talking about something people might do once or twice a day being slightly faster because the sequential read and

        • by rtb61 (674572)

          The largest potential advantage for SSD drives, is clever redesign can allow for extreme expandability. Unlike harddisk drives, SSD drives can inherently be designed as more open units, with additional slots for additional memory cards ie, it is readily possible to manufacturer a SSD drive that starts with say 50 gig of memory to which you can add additional memory cards at say 25 gig a piece. All this done before adding the additional cost of another drive with it's own expanding memory slots.

          As prices

        • I put an SSD in my new HTPC because I wanted it to boot up fast, and while it probably halves the boot time there it's otherwise pretty underwhelming.

          Which is why I hibernate, because unlike normal booting, it is a sequential read of the memory dump back to RAM (at least, if you reserve a partition for it).

        • by radish (98371)

          You know what I do a lot? Install apps. Install updates. Compile stuff. The huge increase in random access speed from an SSD makes all these things so much faster I hate going back to machines with spinning disks.

      • by bertok (226922)

        Seconded.

        Nobody who's actually used an SSD talks about how hard drives will remain relevant. Nobody.

        It's not even about the streaming speeds. Going from 60 IOPS (typical SATA disk) to 6000 IOPS(*) is a night & day difference. There's just no comparison. Meanwhile, the latest SATA 6 Gbps drives can reputedly [anandtech.com] do 60,000 IOPS!

        To put that in perspective, 60K IOPS is the same as a 350x 15K RPM drives in a SAN storage array. That's the kind of thing that banks buy for $millions, but it's still not as good as t

    • i am not a hardware expert. However, I have a few uses for something like that in the small company where I work. $4k is pricey, but for applications that rely on huge file I/O and is sensitive to speed, this is viable.

      I've already ordered a SAN solution.... but if I were making the decision again, and the price dropped by a factor of four, I would likely go with the SSD if I could mix and match with traditional hard drives.

      • by Firethorn (177587)

        i am not a hardware expert. However, I have a few uses for something like that in the small company where I work. $4k is pricey, but for applications that rely on huge file I/O and is sensitive to speed, this is viable.

        True, but I was just shopping for storage and considering a SSD.

        Newegg ran a deal on a 2TB HD yesterday for $130. Standard price for many is $140-150. $150 for 7200 RPM.

        At $4k, you can afford to have 20 of these drives and still have money for some fancy controllers. Run them in RAID-1 for the DB application to give you the necessary bandwidth/capacity. 20 Drives beat 1 SSD controller. Heck, for most applications 5-10 beat the SSD. Write doesn't matter much because, well, SSDs write about as slow as H

    • by Gruturo (141223) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:44AM (#31830882)

      I guess I could pull out a stack of punch cards 1 km tall and claim it's got 1 TB storage capacity too, thus having 'caught up' with HDDs.

      This being Slashdot, I'd expect better of you :-)
      A 1km-tall stack of cards, which, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] are 0.178mm thick and can storage 64 bytes with the most efficient coding, results in a measly 342.89 megabytes (assuming 1 megabyte= 2^20, which is admittedly uncommon when quoting storage, esp when a vendor does it. They'd use the 10^6 version, so 359.55 megabytes (I'm aware of the kibibyte/mebibyte etc scale, but I don't like using it))

      For a full terabyte you're looking at slighly over 3058km worth of stacked punch cards (or 2781.25 km if using the storage vendors' definition)

      (Disappointingly, Wolfram Alpha was no help doing the above calculations)

      • by Joce640k (829181)

        This being Slashdot, you should know that storage manufacturers always exaggerate the data capacity of their products.

        The _unformatted_ capacity of 5.6 million punch cards is 998,320,126,812 bytes.

      • A 1km-tall stack of cards ... results in a measly 342.89 megabytes

        ... nice.

        But you forgot a nice wording flame:

        I could pull out a stack of punch cards 1 km tall and claim it's got 1 TB storage capacity too, thus having 'caught up' with HDDs.

        You "catch up" with somebody how had a headstart. Given that HDDs are newer technology than punch cards, it's cute to claim the punch cards could "catch up" with HDDs, even if there was a way to make a 1TB stack of them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by vlm (69642)

      So at roughly $4/GB that'd place us where, back at the late 90s? I'm not sure what part of 'catching up' people seem to think of when they're talking about SSDs replacing HDDs.

      I deployed a 586 based single board computer using a 4 gig CF as the boot drive about a year ago. Entire system draws about 4 watts total and no moving parts. I would call it vaguely mid 90s ish specifications. If you define HDD as advancing about one year per year, then SSDs seem to be advancing about half a decade per year, thus "catching up" at a rate of about 4 years per calendar year, and currently "about a decade behind" so figure SSD will pass HDD around the end of the world, late 2012-ish. Sign

      • I deployed a 586 based single board computer using a 4 gig CF as the boot drive about a year ago.

        I'll bet it's a Soekris box, and you've added a spinning 2.5 hard drive to it to as well. Did I guess right?

        Did something similar about a year ago, too, but I opted for single 16GB Mtron MOBI SLC SSDs. All the units still work as expected.

    • by dylan_- (1661)

      So at roughly $4/GB that'd place us where, back at the late 90s?

      Around 2002 [mkomo.com]

      I'm not sure what part of 'catching up' people seem to think of when they're talking about SSDs replacing HDDs.

      They're thinking of SSDs previously being 12 years behind HDDs in $/GB (in 2007!) and now being 7 years behind. That's pretty good "catching up" by any measure!

    • by MrNemesis (587188)

      They're not faster in a number of apps; last time I looked (or, indeed, used a mechanical drive as a system disc) SSD's were the performance king by a nautical mile. I'm not aware of any type or number of hard discs that can compete on performance with even a mid-range SSD these days.

      In the 90's your only option other than an array the size of a fridge was an enterprise ramdisc (and try getting either of those into your laptop). Depending on which metric is most important to you (and it should be random rea

    • So at roughly $4/GB that'd place us where, back at the late 90s?

      Why yes, if you completely ignore the performance difference, which is the main selling point for flash drives.

      It would be similar if I complained about how my tricked out Honda Odyssey is no cheaper than a new 1980's Chevy van was.

  • by sackvillian (1476885) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:16AM (#31830534)
    It's too bad that I won't be able to take this baby for a spin...
  • great scot! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rarel (697734) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:17AM (#31830544) Homepage
    This sucker's electrical. But I need a nuclear reaction to compress the data to the 1 terabyte of capacity I need.
  • "aspirational more than affordable" ? For business ( on-site programming ) purposes I just ordered a new laptop with two 256-Gb SSD drives. Only a few hundred bucks more expensive than one with disks. Wait a year or two, and 1 Tb SSD drives will be perfectly normal items on a medium to high end computer.
    • by Urza9814 (883915)

      Yea. Only a few hundred bucks more expensive for the entire laptop, which may not seem like much...but is it really worth it? Of all the things you could have spent that money on, it went to the hard drives? You're adding a few hundred bucks for a part that is usually under a hundred bucks.

  • Uhmm.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sonicmerlin (1505111) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:20AM (#31830588)

    This has been on newegg for a very long time: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227500 [newegg.com]

    I've been waiting forever for its price to drop, but nothing seems to be happening. I don't think SSDs will be of any consequence to mainstream users before memristors become all the rage.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by The MAZZTer (911996)
      But look, it's only $1.99 shipping! What a deal!
    • by haruchai (17472)

      Considering how much variety and mindshare there's been around SSDs and the competition with HDDs, I find that the prices have
      stayed much too high for far too long.
      I wonder if we are going to hear about another PC/IT price-fixing scheme.

  • Not 400x (Score:4, Informative)

    by radaos (540979) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:26AM (#31830670) Homepage
    Maths fail in article. $4000 / $100 != 400x
    • You just don't know where to find the $10 1TB hard drives. I'm going to buy them out and sell them on Ebay!
  • Snow Leopard (Score:2, Interesting)

    It's a real pity OSX 10.6 failed to add TRIM support. With Win7, this is the first time I've seen MS cut Apple's lunch.
  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:39AM (#31830820)

    Paying $4000 for a thousand gigabytes is not so bad. Some of us have worked on:

    DEC DF-32: 32K 12-bit words for around $5000 (1971)

    DEC RKO5- 2.5 megabytes for $10,000 ( 1973 )

    Mac HD-20: 20 megabytes for $1000 ( 1985 )

    All those were like, 1000x or more per byte. AND WE WERE PERFECTLY HAPPY. (Well, a little cramped on the DF32)

    • by nschubach (922175)

      Is this a new play on "When I was young..."? ;)

    • Paying $4000 for a thousand gigabytes is not so bad. Some of us have worked on:

      DEC DF-32: 32K 12-bit words for around $5000 (1971)

      DEC RKO5- 2.5 megabytes for $10,000 ( 1973 )

      Mac HD-20: 20 megabytes for $1000 ( 1985 )

      All those were like, 1000x or more per byte. AND WE WERE PERFECTLY HAPPY. (Well, a little cramped on the DF32)

      Wow. I will be getting of your lawn now, sir.

  • Affordable (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mr_Silver (213637) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:50AM (#31830970)

    Over recent years Solid State Drives (SSDs) have moved from luxury to affordable additions to one's PC

    When I can get a 1TB 3.5" SATA drive [ebuyer.com] for £61.33 (approx $94.58), I'm not sure how something which is 42 times more expensive can be considered "affordable".

    Maybe I have a different definition of the word.

    • by hesiod (111176)

      Yes, you do have a different definition; your definition is entirely wrong. One item's affordability is in no way affected by the price of another item, regardless how similar it may (or may not) be.

      Many SSDs are quite affordable for many people. A $100 1TB drive is just cheap -- in price and, I suspect, in quality.

  • Sweet! Maybe now I can replace the 1.3TB of hard drives in my desktop with some solid state!

    Oh wait. Nope. I can barely afford a 30GB drive. Let me know when SSDs are less than $1/GB.

  • by peter303 (12292) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:57AM (#31831052)
    Its all relative, folks.
  • I don't pretend to even an elementary working knowledge of this stuff but the Anandtech articles seem to be the most frequently cited reference starting points. The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ [anandtech.com] and The SSD Relapse [thessdrelapse]. I've a rudimentary understanding of the problems but have yet to come across anything that speaks to whether a SSD can be "refurbished" at the end of it's relatively short life, or, if a technology could be developed that would be profitable to refurbish SSDs at the e
  • You could already get half this capacity in a laptop sized drive and a desktop drive is more than twice the volume of a laptop drive.

  • Can't we use a smallish SSD acting as cache in front of a large spinning disk? This is old technology, that may need to be modified somewhat to take the particulars of SSDs into account, but surely this is feasible? Any reason why not?

    • by dbIII (701233)
      That is pretty well exactly what mirror.aanet.edu.au do. They have the most requested content on SSD as a front end to their main disk based storage.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...