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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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.
  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:30AM (#31830710) Homepage
    You don't need a solid state drive for storing media. It's completely useless. There's only a few really good uses of these things. Mostly in places where you have a lot of reads all over the disk in a very short amount of time. Mostly for things like Databases and stuff. For personal use, it really only makes sense to store your programs and OS on it. There's no reason to store things like movies and MP3s on there. Get a second drive spinning platter drive for that.
  • by ircmaxell (1117387) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:33AM (#31830746) Homepage
    Well, a normal 15k RPM SAS drive costs about $1400 per TB ($700 for a 500gb drive) and draws around 16 watts of power (for a Seagate Cheetah at least). Let's assume these SSD's will be like the others and draw around 1 watt. So that's a difference of $2600 and 31 watts (Because you need 2 SAS drives per SSD). So every hour, each SSD will consume 31 watts less. So with a price of $0.12 / kWh, every hour the SSD will save about $0.0036. Over the course of a year, that will add up to about $31.44 in power savings. So you'd need to run the drives for around 82 years to recoup the added cost from power savings (A higher electricty cost will lower this, but even at $0.50 per kWh, you're looking at nearly 20 years). Needless to say, that's well beyond the life span of the drive. So no, a prudent company won't buy these for power savings...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:37AM (#31830792)

    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 in terms of speed they could possibly give there computer. Maybe reducing the time to load photoshop from 8 seconds to 2. Loading Word for 3 seconds to instant. Simple as that. For $125 dollars.

    64 GB / $149 USD / Similar speed
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139132

    128 GB / $351 USD / Similar speed
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148319

    Again, these are the largest speed improvements that you can possibly give your computer right now. That isn't insignificant. At all.

    Sure, they aren't really there YET, but it won't be that long.

  • by 0123456 (636235) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:52AM (#31830990)

    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's otherwise pretty underwhelming.

  • by peter303 (12292) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @08:57AM (#31831052)
    Its all relative, folks.
  • by vlm (69642) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @09:00AM (#31831088)

    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.

  • Re:Price. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bbn (172659) <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @09:02AM (#31831128)

    Come back in a year or so.

  • Re:Yay (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yvanhoe (564877) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @10:03AM (#31832070) Journal
    Heh, everyday I find a new reason why we need open BIOSes as well.
  • by Nemyst (1383049) on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @10:29AM (#31832596) Homepage
    [citation needed]

    The wear of defragmentation is never worth the POSSIBLE increase in performance. All manufacturers say it, all tech journalists worth anything say it. Until I'm told by a reputable source (with numbers backing it all up) that defragmentation has a potential benefit for SSDs, I'll listen to the advice given by those who know what they're talking about.

    As for filesystem issues, using a modern OS like Windows 7 or recent Linux or OSX releases will mostly take care of that as there have been updates to take advantage of SSDs. Sure, if you're still using Windows 95 with FAT, you may have issues, but anything built in the last few years will take care of that nicely (and continuously improving firmware and drivers further improve performance while diminishing issues).

Ever notice that even the busiest people are never too busy to tell you just how busy they are?

Working...