Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Data Storage Intel Hardware

How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive 438

itwbennett writes: For too long, it looked like SSD capacity would always lag well behind hard disk drives, which were pushing into the 6TB and 8TB territory while SSDs were primarily 256GB to 512GB. That seems to be ending. In September, Samsung announced a 3.2TB SSD drive. And during an investor webcast last week, Intel announced it will begin offering 3D NAND drives in the second half of next year as part of its joint flash venture with Micron. Meanwhile, hard drive technology has hit the wall in many ways. They can't really spin the drives faster than 7,200 RPM without increasing heat and the rate of failure. All hard drives have now is the capacity argument; speed is all gone. Oh, and price. We'll have to wait and see on that.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive

Comments Filter:
  • If the price for GB is below $0.50 then they got a winner.
    • by Twinbee ( 767046 )
      It is already. See: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsun... [amazon.co.uk]
      • From the first review I stumbled upon;

        Cons:
        - Samsung recommends turning off indexing for reliability. Doing so means that you can no longer search for files from the "Search programs or files"

        Eh?

        • by Twinbee ( 767046 )
          Like as if you'd want to use Windows own search. It's poor compared to third party search programs.
    • by Pinkfud ( 781828 )
      Yeah... when I can buy a terabyte drive for a hundred bucks or so, it might be interesting.
    • by Guspaz ( 556486 )

      The price per GB on SSDs has been below $0.50 for some time now.

    • by pla ( 258480 )
      $0.50/GB? Seriously?

      That would put this thing at $1,600, vs an HDD with twice the capacity at $300.

      Until they get below $0.1/GB, HDDs will have a very, very safe hold on the "capacity" side of the market.
  • Empty article.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Junta ( 36770 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @05:10PM (#48461885)

    I don't know why Intel and Micron get any special consideration given that right in the summary the fact that Samsung has already announced the same move.

    Also incorrect assertion that drives don't go faster than 7200 (there are 15k drives, just they are pointless for most with SSD caching strategies available).

    • by crtreece ( 59298 )

      From the summary, "They can't really spin the drives faster than 7,200 RPM without increasing heat and the rate of failure. "

      I don't see an assertion in the summary, or the article, that drives are physically limited to 7200 rpm. You couldn't finish the sentence before replying?

      • I wonder what I'm supposed to do with these 10k and 12k RPM disks now that Slashdot has decided they're impossible.

        • by swilly ( 24960 )

          You fail at reading comprehension. There is nothing in the summary that says those drives aren't possible, just that they have increased heat and (therefore) an increased rate of failure. This is one reason why average hard drive speeds haven't improved much in the last 15 years.

          I once bought six Western Digital 10000 RPM drives for a RAID setup. Three of them failed within the first year. Two failed the next year (including one of the warranty replacements). I replaced them all with six of their 7200

    • by Chas ( 5144 )

      Also incorrect assertion that drives don't go faster than 7200 (there are 15k drives, just they are pointless for most with SSD caching strategies available).

      That isn't what was asserted.

      They asserted there's no REAL market for 10K/15K hard drives, as the performance increase isn't helpful, the cost to manufacture and test skyrockets, and the additional physical and thermal stresses shorten the drive's lifespan and make them unsuitable for some applications (laptops).

      • The only REAL market for 10, 12, 15k RPM disks is the same market large SSDs are targetting.

        • And the point is that SSDs fill that market need so much better (the fast disks aren't much cheaper, if at all, and they suffer decreased reliability) that there's no point to them.

    • Also, didn't Intel exit the flash market a while back, spinning off its flash division along with ST Micro to Numonyx, which later got acquired by Micron? I thought that the whole idea then was that memory was so unprofitable that it wasn't worth keeping it as an albatross on corporate margins.

      Also, memory fabs are different from the ones used for making processors/controllers - it's not like fabs that don't make more Atoms or Celerons will be repurposed for SSDs. So how does it make sense for Intel to

    • Also incorrect assertion that drives don't go faster than 7200

      Also premise from SSD article spindle speed is a limiting factor is a bogus oversimplification.

      Density increases have always translated to correspondingly higher I/O rates at same rotational speeds.

    • Re:Empty article.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by WuphonsReach ( 684551 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @12:53AM (#48464585)
      Also incorrect assertion that drives don't go faster than 7200 (there are 15k drives, just they are pointless for most with SSD caching strategies available).

      With Enterprise SSD drive prices hitting $1/GB (granted some are still $2-3/GB), the days of 15k RPM drives are definitely numbered. You get 50-100x the IOPS out of SSDs compared to the 15k RPM SAS drives. That means for a given level of IOPS that you need, you can use a lot fewer drives by switching to SSDs.

      I'd argue that if you are short-stroking your 15k SAS drives to get increased IOPS out of the array, it's past time to switch to enterprise SSDs.
  • According to Techreport, Intel's three-dimensional NAND. [techreport.com] will enable 10TB flash drives in servers in 2 years

  • ...as long as high capacity SSDs keep costing as much as an entire computer.

    • by Chas ( 5144 )

      ...as long as high capacity SSDs keep costing as much as an entire computer.

      Hard Drive [newegg.com]: $429

      Whole Computer [newegg.com]: $400 or less.

    • For $150 you can get a SSD with plenty of space for the vast majority of desktop roles, and it will beat out HDD by at least 10 times or more on speed, heat, power consumption, and noise.

      The only thing HDD is king of, is being slow. King of maybe certain roles that require a very large amount of cheap space.

      And if you want to argue capacity needs for servers, you need to start talking about enterprise HDDs, and their $/gb is not as high as consumer HDDs, and it gets worse when you factor in power consumpti

  • by ThePhilips ( 752041 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @05:36PM (#48462193) Homepage Journal

    We'll have to wait and see on that.

    What's wrong with you people. We are waiting already for 5+ MORE THAN FIVE fucking years. Still hasn't happened.

    1TB HDD - 60-80€, 1TB SSD - >350€.

    The problem is that once PC is turned on, there is not much use for the SSD speed. It's not like I'm moving terabytes of data around everyday. And even if I have to, I do not have to wait for it: I simply leave it overnight.

    Another problem is that (some) SSD have the nasty habit, once failed, to deny you access to the data at all. I hoped that at least those jackasses would straighten out the SMART support and finally standardize the monitoring parameters. But few moronic manufacturers even proclaimed that their drives are so good that they don't need no stinking SMART support...

    All in all, SSDs are developing too fast. And have pretty bad history of firmware bugs. And literally all manufacturers, instead of strengthening their stance of data safety, all like one doubled down on the "oh but look how fast it is!"

    P.S. And TRIM support is still in shambles. After all the years, some drives still require a proprietary application/driver installed.

    • by nabsltd ( 1313397 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @05:46PM (#48462315)

      The problem is that once PC is turned on, there is not much use for the SSD speed.

      Ever tried loading the next level in a game? SSDs make a big difference.

      And, you've completely forgotten all the other uses (both enterprise and personal) like database, video editing, running VMs, etc.

  • by jtownatpunk.net ( 245670 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @05:39PM (#48462241)

    I've been using Seagate's hybrids for a couple years and the combination of performance, simplicity, and economy hit the spot. I have 750 gig and 1tb drives in my laptops and a 2tb in my gaming rig. The hybrid drives were a small price bump for a big performance bump. Sure, gigantic SSDs would give me a slight performance boost but it's a big jump in price for a small jump in performance over hybrid.

  • Two out of three ain't bad.

  • by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @06:26PM (#48462729)
    The 'wear out too fast' concept is wildly overblown. You can listen to old rumors, or read actual test data.

    600TB total writes - http://techreport.com/review/2... [techreport.com]
    800TB total writes, and some of these consumer grade drives start to fail - http://techreport.com/review/2... [techreport.com]

    "By far the most telling takeaway thus far is the fact that all the drives have endured 600TB of writes without dying. That's an awful lot of data—well over 300GB per day for five years—and far more than typical PC users are ever likely to write to their drives. Even the most demanding power users would have a hard time pushing the endurance limits of these SSDs."

    By contrast, my main home machine (120GB Kingston SSD) has ~7GB total, in over 2 years of 24/7 use. I'll leave you to do the math on lifespan for that.

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...