Intel and Micron Partnership Soon To Launch 10TB SSD For Enterprise Market (hothardware.com) 94
MojoKid writes: Intel and Micron have been tag-teaming various storage and memory technologies and word on the web is that the fruits of that partnership is a 10-terebyte SSD that's right around the corner. The largest SSD in Intel's stable at the moment is 4TB, which itself is pretty large. However, both Micron and Intel are of the opinion that typical planar NAND flash memory has gone about as far as it can go, and that 3D stacked Flash memory is the future. They've also developed a "floating gate cell" design - a first for 3D stacked memory - resulting in 256Gb multi-level cell (MLC) and 384Gb triple-level cell (TLC) die that fit inside of a standard package. The two companies are targeting gumstick-sized SSDs reaching 3.5TB and regular 2.5-inch SSDs hitting (and even surpassing) 10TB. Apparently that's about to become a reality.
Almost there... (Score:1)
Re: Almost there... (Score:2)
What do you all want to make a bet all the items will still include mechanical disks to keep them slow so people keep on the upgrade treadmill?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Won't matter they will just make windows slower to compensate...
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the new method was to shorten the support forcing people to update or risk getting exploited from un-patched windows. Android phone manufactures (Samsung being one of the worse) have been doing it for a few years now.
Re: (Score:2)
You can currently upgrade from the last two editions of windows to the latest one for pretty much free.
Windows 7 will still get security updates until Jan 14, 2020.
by upgrading to windows 10 you get another 5 years until Oct 14, 2025.
Dropping the ability to install new versions on older hardware is mostly just a phone thing.
As for samsung my samsung convoy 3 (a stupid phone) is still receiving updates nearly 2 & 1/2 years after release. From what I hear a lot of smartphones have no support after that am
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]You can currently upgrade from the last two editions of windows to the latest one for pretty much free.[/quote]
Yeah, if you consider paying with all your freedom and privacy as "free".
Fortunately most computers available today are upgradable to Linux...
Free as in shackles. I love it.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the new method was to shorten the support forcing people to update or risk getting exploited from un-patched windows. Android phone manufactures (Samsung being one of the worse) have been doing it for a few years now.
This is one area I am in the minority and agree with Microsoft. Desktop support for an OS for 10 years is INSANE. Good luck trying to get NVME on 7 without issues.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe people still value 500GB or 1TB storage in a laptop instead of 32GB or 256GB.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as rare as a laptop with dual batteries but finding a laptop with space for two HDDs and a disc drive is still pretty friggin rare. Best of both worlds nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as rare as a laptop with dual batteries but finding a laptop with space for two HDDs and a disc drive is still pretty friggin rare.
While I do have an older laptop with 2x 2.5" bays (and 3x mini pcie, dvrw, 1920x1080 screen), nowadays it's not too uncommon to find laptops with a 2.5" and room for a mini pcie (or m.2, or similar) SSD. I used a port labeled for a wifi module, and it works fine - YMMV. My only real point here is that the GP's 120gb SSD + 1tb HDD may be that sort of setup, and not necessary 2x 2.5" bays.
Re: (Score:2)
Most ASUS and MSI gaming laptops have multiple drive bays, upgradeable RAM, and easily replaced wifi adapters.
If you're not into expensive gaming machines, look at the entry-level model that uses the same chassis for under a grand.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe people still value 500GB or 1TB storage in a laptop instead of 32GB or 256GB.
You know that Samsung and others sell 500GB SSDs (in several form factors) that are under $250? 1TB is like $580 (a deal I saw several times in the past month).
I bought a 500GB Crucial m4 SSD a while back at $500, it's now less than half.
Once you get to that size, most folks have no issues going full SSD.
Re: (Score:2)
I got a Crucial 960GB SSD for $270 at Newegg last April. Sub-$300 for around a TB was the price point I was waiting for. I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen much better since.
Re: (Score:2)
I got a Crucial 960GB SSD for $270 at Newegg last April. Sub-$300 for around a TB was the price point I was waiting for. I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen much better since.
Is that a 2.5" form factor? That's pretty damn good.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I'd seen them sub-$300 once or twice before, but hadn't pulled the trigger. This time there was some sort of 10% off deal on top of everything else. I don't think I've seen anything quite that low since, but I do believe they still dip below $300 occasionally.
Can't speak to performance relative to other SSDs, but for a laptop running an older version of OS X, it's been quite a step up from the 500GB 5400RPM drive it replaced.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I'd seen them sub-$300 once or twice before, but hadn't pulled the trigger. This time there was some sort of 10% off deal on top of everything else. I don't think I've seen anything quite that low since, but I do believe they still dip below $300 occasionally.
Can't speak to performance relative to other SSDs, but for a laptop running an older version of OS X, it's been quite a step up from the 500GB 5400RPM drive it replaced.
Yeah, I have a 2010 MBP running a fusion drive with a 1TB drive and 500GB SSD, and was looking to replace spinning rust with a 1TB SSD (or replace both with a 2TB SSD).
Fusion drive is great since I grew past 500GB, but El Cap is a bit slow now so I'd like to get back to pure SSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe people still value 500GB or 1TB storage in a laptop instead of 32GB or 256GB.
You can get a 256 GB for just $116 these days [newegg.com]. It is approaching quite rapidly and for a higher end laptop there is no reason to go mechanical unless the OEM wants to make them start slow so they can sell you a new one in 2 years
Re: (Score:2)
What do you all want to make a bet all the items will still include mechanical disks to keep them slow so people keep on the upgrade treadmill?
Won't happen. While semiconductors are getting to a point where process shrinking is no longer less expensive, the densities are catching up. Except for Comp Sci applications - taking logs of all computer activity forever, there is nothing that will fill up 10TB of space - even all the movies in the world won't fill it. In the meantime, NOR flash will reach those densities - they are typically 3 orders of binary magnitude below NAND, so chances are that there will be 1TB of NOR flash for applications whe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Mostly because you don't read much. Flash has particularly severe scaling limits and we're already up against it.
We might break through by surprise, or we might not. Bear in mind that we already had a 3.8 GHz Prescott back in 2004. It actually sucked shit, but that's another matter. There are several developments in the spinning rust pipeline that will likely keep it well ahead on the $/GB axis. Most of these developments will m
Re: (Score:1)
And "spinning rust" (which is a bad analogy as they don't use iron oxide anymore) scales very well... just stack more platters. That's how we did it back in the good old days.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not economical to go past 4-5 platters these days, and the manufacturing sweet spot will likely be a 2-platter 4-head drive for a long time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> It might even suck so bad that no-one gives a shit about $/GB any longer, for 95% of all applications. Perhaps, minus all those cat pictures, we're almost there already.
Right. At some point it's enough for most people. I repair laptops as a side business for non-computer-savvy who have gotten fed up with offshore "support", and one thing I've noticed is that most people don't even begin to touch the capacity of the original drive. I on the other hand, as a photographer, can't get enough storage (my
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the average user doesn't need much at all, but probably 5–10% of users want/need way more space than is currently available. So the options are either making radically different models with radically different capacity and annoying the high-end users with the price difference or using larger capacity everywhere so that economies of scale drive the price down for everyone. Hard drive manufacturers have always done the latter. For some reason, with flash, everybody is doing the former
Re: (Score:2)
> Now, I'm sitting here with disposable income, telling Apple "take my money!", and I still can't buy a new computer with enough storage to meet my needs at any price.
I know the feeling. My understanding is that you're supposed to put everything "in the cloud" now. How that's supposed to work on location with no network connection is anyone's guess.
For applications like this, a desktop unit is still somewhat necessary. On location, my laptop is a place where I can sort through the day's shots and get
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's a nice theory and all, but in practice, I neither trust cloud providers to be secure nor reliable. For example, last week, I was forced to move several hundred GB of public photos from a major ISP to my own server because they suddenly decided that unlimited storage for web pages wasn't unlimited, and wanted seve
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's too bad. My last Mac was a G4, which I had continued to use way past the point of unsupported. I never made the transition to Intel Macs, instead gritting my teeth and switching to Winders so I could use a purpose-built computer (built, as it happens, by me) and upgrade it as needed, instead of being stuck with whatever Apple thought I needed. I'm currently trying to make the leap to Mint, but there are still issues to iron out. I hate Winders but it's a necessary evil right now.
Used to be, Ap
Re: (Score:1)
I don't actually store much of anything on my computer(s) any more. Not really. I have something between a SAN and a NAS, depending on how you look at it and how you approach it. Everything gets stored there, replicated, and sent out in various backup schemes. I don't keep a whole lot on the drive that's actually in the computer. I can always pull an image back to play with it. I've got access to huge amounts of storage (TB after TB - in large disk arrays). It's sort of like cloud storage but it's under my
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than blow my mod points on you.
What the heck are you even talking about?
Have you SEEN the areal density increases on platter disks in the last 3 to 5 years?
Things are slowing down, BADLY and when they do squeeze more in, it's with tricky, performance hampering and complicated methods like SMR and Helium.
3D Nand however has opened many new doors and new methods of storing data seem to be coming out weekly.
Disks are dying out, finally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what the marketing wankers and control freaks ("we own your data and we own you") at google, apple, amazon etc would like you to think, cloud storage will never replace local storage.
cloud storage may be OK for (relatively slow) backups for people who don't care about the privacy or security implications or the secret and/or warrantless access by spooks and LEAs, but it will never be a substitute for large, fast local storage.
ADSL or cable speeds (or even FTTP over many and varied hops across the
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what the marketing wankers and control freaks ("we own your data and we own you") at google, apple, amazon etc would like you to think, cloud storage will never replace local storage.
You can also have private cloud storage, namely NAS: In my home I already have a 3 TB NAS attached to the home network, and all the devices in my home (computers, streamers, cellphones, etc.) can use movies, photos, music, etc. stored on that shared disk. This made it un-important for individual computers to have huge hard disks: My wife's computer has a 2 TB hard disk, which remains 95% free, for example.
So it makes sense that in the future you'll have the really big (and chip low $/GB) disks only in NAS d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slowly. The nice thing is Moore's Law basically states how fast - transistor density doubling means you can get twice the storage for the same price, or the price of the drive halves.
So price per gig will roughly halve every 18 months or so. Given you can get 2TB drives for under $100 these days, it's roughly 3-4 generations away, or mayb
Re: (Score:2)
Moore's Law has been running out of steam lately.
Intel had trouble with their last several process nodes. TSMC and UMC had... more than trouble.
We'll still see progress, but we're hitting the wall on what silicon can do. Maybe alternative materials will be the answer, but even then the reason they haven't been used before is the cost to manufacture.
Chris Mack wrote a relevant article about it here: http://spectrum.ieee.org/semic... [ieee.org]
He doesn't mention the need to move to alternative materials, which Intel has
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no, density of SSD is already far surpassed that of spinning disks. This is just Intel playing catch-up at this point.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets... [arstechnica.com]
spell check? (Score:1)
Never trust reporting from a source that can't spell "Terabyte" correctly. It proves they not only didn't proofread, they didn't even run spell-check.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
aka David Altavilla, Hot Hardware's editor-in-chief. He's been doing this for ages. Not disclosing his affiliation is rather sketchy to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a little bit more... Of course.
Disk space is like closet space and income. You will eventually use up all you have and need more.
Is this based on 3D Xpoint? (Score:2)
The new Intel/Micron "flash successor" that's supposed to be faster and more durable?
Re:Is this based on 3D Xpoint? (Score:5, Informative)
The new Intel/Micron "flash successor" that's supposed to be faster and more durable?
It's not. Both from this announcement and from the original announcement [slashdot.org] covered here on Slashdot just under a year ago, we see that it's MLC and TLC nand flash. Multilayer (a.k.a. 3D! Now with more Ds!) rather than single layer, but otherwise still bog standard nand flash. Evidently it took a while to get the yields up. Looks like they intend to crater the price per gigabyte of flash-based storage while simultaneously offering up XPoint as the (higher priced) upgrade. And it sounds like Samsung anticipated [slashdot.org] them doing exactly that, and is working to unload their single layer inventory as fast as they can.
Hard Drives are dying (Score:4, Informative)
I've said for a while now, that Spinning Hard Drives are dying breed. This is just another nail in the coffin, as SSD sizes start to surpass traditional HDD. The last remaining bit that HDDs have over SSD is cost per MB. However if you include OTHER costs associated with HDDs (Watts per drive) even those advantages shrink (or go away).
IMHO once these higher density SSD drives arrive, there will be little or nothing for me to recommend standard HDD, for any application. None. There is barely any reason to have spinning drives right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hard Drives are dying (Score:5, Funny)
Well one reason to keep hard drives around is because their capacity can be measured in terabytes, instead of SSD's which are apparently measured in terabytes.
The Terebyte is a common unit of measurement for Imperial bytes.
Imperial bytes are similar to standard bytes, except that they were invented before the widespread adoption of Arabic numbers, so instead of storing the bits as 0's and 1's, they store them as I's and II's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the enterprise storage vendors *want* to hang onto HDDs as long as possible because it lets them keep marking up SSDs to stratospheric heights, in addition to charging a whole bunch extra for magic tiering/caching systems so the 6 SSDs you can afford to put into the thing will actually have a chance of getting used.
I also think they're somewhat scared of the evidence of greater durability that SSDs seem to have because a big part of their justification for increased cost for their enterprise SSDs in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Disclosure: I work in this field but I won't tell you who I work for.
Regarding endurance, the myth that HDDs have greater endurance than flash (even MLC and TLC) is just that - a myth. Every HDD will die eventually, frequently when they have to be turned off and won't start up again because all of the grease has been spun out of the motor bearings.
See this: https://www.micron.com/about/blogs/2016/february/the-myth-of-hdd-endurance
SSD density (at 4TB in 2.5" x 7mm or 9mm high) is already more dense per squa
Re:Hard Drives are dying (Score:4, Informative)
That said, we have been calling for the death of the mainframe for years, as well as the death of tape for years, and neither have died. HDDs will continue to have a place in the world, but they will be by and large replaced with flash. In the enterprise space, changes in software also mean that most of this flash will be server attached rather than part of a SAN.
I think the death of tape hasn't happened because there isn't a functional replacement for it for high capacity, long-term archiving. HDDs don't work well in changers, are more fragile and I don't think anyone trusts their powered off shelf life.
I know that clustered/distributed/server-local storage is becoming a competitor to centralized SAN, but I think it will be something of a limited market. Virtualization and CPU improvements have cut node counts significantly, making it harder to obtain redundant node counts necessary for this to see a lot of adoption.
Even the vendors with decent products now charge so much for licensing that they're not remotely competitive on pricing. I saw a price analysis of VMware vSAN that put it more expensive by 2-3x over a conventional SAN. MS Storage Spaces isn't really flexible enough yet although it's clear MS wants it to go this way, but it doesn't seem like it will be there or agnostic enough for heterogeneous workloads for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Our view is that vSAN is "beta" quality. If we could get our money back, we would. What a waste.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't run into it at a client yet, the guy I work who has says it really sucks and he had a lot of problems with it.
I guess I don't see what problems it solves, either, although I think it's an interesting idea.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a creative way to use commodity drives as a virtual SAN across physical boxes. The problem is, if a drive goes offline, the systems that depend on it get wonky. no data loss, just goofy not working virtual systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Combined with the fact that HDDs today are slower per megabyte than ever (10TB drives spin at the same 7200 RPM that 120GB drives did), the near future holds the end of the HDD in the majority of applications.
"Slower per megabyte than ever"? What does this even mean?
If you're packing data more densely within a track, you'll be able to read it faster at a given rotational speed, unless your hardware can't keep up and you have to fall back to interleaving (or, perhaps worse, multiple reads to correct errors). I didn't think drives had been interleaved in years.
My own disclaimer: it's been many years since I paid close attention to drive transfer rates, so I have no idea what actual rates you get out of the new dri
Re: (Score:3)
For example, if you're going to be writing to a particular sector over and over and over, SSD wears out. You no doubt will bring up that all the wear evening that SSDs use but remember those only work if the drive isn't near capacity.
For example, your example makes no sense. Wear Leveling does change it so that you CAN'T do what your initial postulation suggested. AND if you're at "near capacity" AND doing that many "writes", might I suggest that you're using the wrong size. EVEN if you were writing video streams, you'd be better off using larger capacity.
Under almost no conditions, short of "archiving" would standard HDDs perform better. And having pulled an archival HDD out of storage to have it NOT function (bearings seized do to no
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone that uses tape anymore. Too much data, too much time to backup. We stopped using tape 10 years ago because the backups took longer than the day was long. Are they used still? I am sure someone somewhere still uses tapes, but have you even looked at tape drives these days?
Problems with SSD storage (Score:1)
One advantage is duration of information storage with the power off.
SSD have a temperature dependent decay probability of the bits.
It is shorter than the persistence of the magnetic bits.
So my plan is a 1TB SSD, that gets backed up to a 1TB rotating disk that is powered off most of the time.
"The statements are actually completely accurate, but a bit misleading. First, this is about what JEDEC requires, not what actual SSDs deliver. Second, this is when SSDs are stored in idle at 55C. And third the JEDEC req
Re: (Score:3)
That standard is for a flash cell that is at its wear-limit (basically at its end-of-life). A brand new flash cell that has only been written a few times has 10x the shelf life.
Those numbers are also quite misleading, because in addition to the above, a powered SSD will rewrite cells when their data becomes weak. So data retention for a powered SSD is going to be a very long time. Since SSD flash cell life is based on write activity, if you don't wear it out from writing your SSD to its limit and you lea
Re: (Score:2)
Tape is a pretty good example, but it's not quite the same. Both tape and hard drives have the attribute that they need a huge R&D investment to keep advancing and that has to be recouped. Tape has slowly moved to the high end with an ever diminishing customer base, who are willing to pay the premium because tape has good archival properties, but at the same time that premium will keep going up. Each new generation of tape (or disk) costs more to research than the previous one and as fewer people are
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
All modern SSDs have overprovisioned capacity, so they continue to wear level even when they are full.
They can even move old, untouched data onto the high-wear sectors in the background while servicing new I/O requests on the overprovisioned space.
You can never guarantee that writes issued to the same sector will be performed on the same flash cell.
This is why secure erase functionality is absolutely critical to organizations with confidentiality requirements---you cannot simply overwrite every OS-vis
Re: (Score:3)
Except that we're nowhere near that point, at least from my perspective. A 1 TB laptop SSD starts at $240. $150 will buy you 3 TB of laptop-sized spinning storage (as long as your computer can handle a 15mm drive, otherwise 2 TB for $95). More importantly, no amount of money will buy you a laptop-sized 3
Re: (Score:2)
Your example of Laptop is interesting, as my #1 reason to go to SSD on a Laptop isn't size, it is battery life. Spinning drives suck juice, and SSD's offer up substantially longer life without needing a plug. I'm talking a couple extra hours. The second greatest benefit is that powering down and back on is much quicker, so that you're more likely to shut a machine off when not in use, saving even more power (than sleep), because boot to desktop is measured in seconds, not minutes.
While there may be applicat
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly agree with what you're saying, and for a primary drive, you're absolutely right. But your original post didn't limit it to primary drives. That was my objection.
Don't get me wrong. I love my SSD's performance. It makes the laptop much, much faster than my pre-retina MBP. I don't want a spinning drive in lieu of an SSD. I want an internal spinning drive in addition to the SSD. Basically, the frequently used data (OS, apps, current projects) would live on the SSD, and bulk data (photo library
Terebyte? (Score:2)
Really? A terebyte?
Come on guys, at least try.
Re: (Score:3)
Target market (Score:2)
What's the target market for something like this? CERN? Arecibo? I would have thought that for speed reasons, anyone needing to store terabytes of data in a big hurry would use RAID arrays, in which case using fewer drives for the same capacity might actually slow them down.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone these days. 10TB isn't all that much anymore. If you need 200TB in the enterprise world today, you can get 4TB reliably (6 and 8 exist but are double and quadruple the price respectively and require heavy tradeoffs) so you need ~110-120 drives (RAID10+spares) and that's for 3.5", 15W.
Enterprise SSD's typically scale evenly with size so I expect these to cost ~5k each, 45 of these would do the job, at 0.2W and 2.5", those things save you first year in both power and space.
Re: (Score:2)
A single RAID10 is an extravagant waste, as well
Xpoint (Score:1)
Glad a researched tech that took years to developed is finally hitting production even though there's no consumer release yet.... so hopefully it will be out and see what the price point for it is.