Samsung Unveils V-NAND High Performance SSDs, Fast NVMe Card At 5.5GB Per Second 61
MojoKid writes: Sometimes it's the enterprise sector that gets dibs on the coolest technology, and so it goes with a trio of TCO-optimized, high-performance solid state drives from Samsung that were just announced, all three of which are based on three-dimensional (3D) Vertical NAND (V-NAND) flash memory technology. The fastest of bunch can read data at up to 5,500 megabytes per second. That's the rated sequential read speed of Samsung's PM1725, a half-height, half-length (HHHL) PCIe card-type NVMe SSD. Other rated specs include a random read speed of up to 1,000,000 IOPS, random write performance of up to 120,000 IOPS, and sequential writes topping out at 1,800MB/s. The PM1725 comes in just two beastly storage capacities, 3.2TB and 6.4TB, the latter of which is rated to handle five drive writes per day (32TB) for five years. Samsung also introduced two other 3D V-NAND products, the PM1633 and PM953. The PM1633 is a 2.5-inch 12Gb/s SAS SSD that will be offered in 480GB, 960GB, 1.92TB, and 3.84TB capacities. As for the PM953, it's an update to the SM951 and is available in M.2 and 2.5-inch form factors at capacities up to 1.92TB.
How much? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Roughly $2.50 per gig.
Re: (Score:3)
It's very expensive. On the other hand, a nearly 4TB SSD that reads at 5.5GB/s is a somewhat exceptional SSD.
Re:How much? (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine a beowulf cluster of 4TB SSD
Imagine a beowulf cluster of ancient redundant slashdot memes, written on scrap lumber and jammed up your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, the children think of you.
Re: (Score:3)
$10k is extremely cheap when you are looking at speeding up a multi-TB database with a 100+ queries per second 24/7.
Re:How much? (Score:5, Informative)
$10k is extremely cheap when you are looking at speeding up a multi-TB database with a 100+ queries per second 24/7.
The only alternative without a performance hit, would be battery backed RAM. 4TB of battery backed RAM would cost about four times as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: How much? (Score:2)
it's what I paid for a 1.2TB raid array 10 years ago, based on PATA hard disks.
This one is three times as big and four orders of magnitude faster. That's an amazing evolution.
Slapping together vs enterprise storage. $1200 car (Score:1)
Slapping together a bare bones system costs a lot less than buying enterprise storage. I've done that recently, and spent about $1200, like you said. I bought a use raid card on eBay because the card cost almost $1200 new. Then you get a proper chassis with reliable, hotswappable cooling for all those drives running 24/7, redundant power supplies, a backplane, etc. About the only way you're going to get enterprise grade raid for $1200 is to buy used, which I often do.
Re:How much? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's dirt cheap. You have to realize what it's used for. It's built for speed, not storage capacity.
What matters here is the IOPS per $.
Your 2 TB spinning HD fro $100 might seem cheap, but it only gets some 200 IOPS. So lets say 2 IOPS per dollar.
These puppies can do some 480k IOPS in a 75/25 read/write workload, which gives us 48 IOPS per dollar.
So it is in fact 24 times cheaper than a regular HD.
Then consider electricity, cooling, floor space, floor weight etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Hush, don't confuse the consumers, they can only handle one number at a time.
Storage capacity is the only thing that matters for hard drives. Diagonal inches is the only thing that matters for TV's, brilliant move to switch to widescreen by the way, higher numbers for less screen area!
Re: (Score:3)
They should really be called shortscreens.
Re: (Score:2)
IOPS/$ and latency, the time from someone runs a report or clicks a filter until the result is returned means a lot for productivity. Of course you can do a lot with smart systems too, but much like single-thread performance a really fast IO subsystem makes everything easier.
Re:How much? (Score:4, Insightful)
So $ 9,500 for the 3.84TB one? That's insane.
This, or a whole rack of short stroked mechanical HDD to achieve the same IOPS performance, and a dedicated runner to keep replacing the failed HDD as you go along, along with the extra power and cooling requirements to boot. Seems like a bargain to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Even I have my limits.
And when speaking of anything in the latest-and-greatest category, since when has the price tag been anything south of what-the-fuck-man?!?
This is also why basketball shoes are now sold like cars, with the 2015 model commanding the most premium (or perhaps the 2016 models are now hitting the floor)
Re: (Score:2)
Even I have my limits.
Avnet seems to list something that looks like the PM953 M.2 480GB for 306.24$ per drive, but with a minimum order of 216 units.
http://avnetexpress.avnet.com/store/em/EMController/Solid-State-Storage/Samsung/MZ1LV480HCHP-00003/_/R-5004524405155/A-5004524405155/An-0?action=part&catalogId=500201&langId=-1&storeId=500201
Re: (Score:2)
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY m.... Seriously? That much, eh? Maybe I be a little bit later on the adoption curve for this one then.
1.8 GB/s write. 5 / 1.8 ~ 3 (Score:2)
It writes at 1.8 GB/s, so the math is correct. The English is bad because they mentioned the read speed in between two mentions of the write speed.
Re: (Score:2)
save a 5GB file in under 3 seconds
Read speeds are up to 5.5GBps. Write speeds are up to 1.8GBps.
Your fast reads are impressive too, but you failed the comprehension benchmark.
Re: (Score:3)
(Mind you, HH still failed on editing, but at least the numbers are right)
Re: (Score:2)
save a 5GB file in under 3 seconds
1.8GB/s x 3s = 5.4GB
Read speeds are up to 5.5GBps. Write speeds are up to 1.8GBps.
Your fast reads are impressive too, but you failed the comprehension benchmark.
fucking dumb much?
Re: (Score:2)
Note he stated speeds in GBps instead of GB/s, which are different by a little over an order of magnitude.
Now you are confusing GBps with Gbps.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they talking about real, JEDEC standard gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes) or those silly new IEC "gigabytes" (1,000,000,000 bytes)?
symmetric read/write (Score:2)
Symmetric read/write at 5.5GB/s would be better, but as it is, it would still be quite an upgrade from my current RAID0 array. I'm only getting ~700-800MB/s sequential with four 10krpm SAS drives right now. Of course one of these SSDs will probably cost 5-10x more than a set of those spinning drives. So price/performance really isn't that great of a deal.
price found online for PM953 480GB M.2 (Score:2)
http://avnetexpress.avnet.com/... [avnet.com]
$306. I don't know if that is wholesale or what.
Re: (Score:3)
early MLC endurance? :o (Score:2)
> 6.4TB, the latter of which is rated to handle five drive writes per day (32TB) for five years
~10K write cycles. This sounds rather good.
Memories (Score:2)