Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Data Storage Media

Samsung Ships 15.38TB SSD With Up To 1,200MBps Performance (computerworld.com) 103

Lucas123 writes: Samsung announced it is now shipping the world's highest capacity 2.5-in SSD, the 15.38TB PM1633a. The new SSD uses a 12Gbps SAS interface and is being marketed for use in enterprise-class storage systems where IT managers can fit twice as many of the drives in a standard 19-inch, 2U rack compared to an equivalent 3.5-inch drive. The PM1633a sports random read/write speeds of up to 200,000 and 32,000 IOPS, respectively. It delivers sequential read/write speeds of up to 1,200MBps, the company said. The SSD can sustain one full drive write (15.38TB) per day, every day over its life, which Samsung claims is two to ten times more data than typical SATA SSDs based on planar MLC and TLC NAND flash technologies. The SSD is based on Samsung's 48-layer V-NAND (3D NAND) technology, which also uses 3-bit MLC flash. Also at Hot Hardware
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Ships 15.38TB SSD With Up To 1,200MBps Performance

Comments Filter:
  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Thursday March 03, 2016 @09:50AM (#51628251)

    I could REALLY use that for my gaming rig.

    • by BlacKSacrificE ( 1089327 ) on Thursday March 03, 2016 @09:52AM (#51628271)
      Sure, you need all that storage for a "gaming" rig.

      The toilet paper roll on your desk is just for wiping your nose as well, right? ;)
      • Sure, you need all that storage for a "gaming" rig.

        Of course he does, have you seen the storage requirements for Quantum Break?

      • With downloadable games from Steam, Origin, etc running around 20-25GB, it would come in handy. What were you thinking? He was some kinda pirate?

      • by Khyber ( 864651 )

        "Sure, you need all that storage for a "gaming" rig."

        I see you've never tried to run a SecondLife sim.

      • Sure, you need all that storage for a "gaming" rig.
          The toilet paper roll on your desk is just for wiping your nose as well, right? ;)

        Yes, you could download the entire San Fernando Valley onto one of those puppies.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      That and an 8-way Xeon system with a couple TB of RAM, I presume? To play a console port...

      • Not fair! I get slightly higher fps than a console.

      • by Gazzonyx ( 982402 ) <{scott.lovenberg} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday March 03, 2016 @10:45AM (#51628699)
        We're all guilty of having overpowered machines from time to time (because when we need that horsepower, there's no alternative to having it local). In a somewhat related subject, I've got triple monitors that have beautiful color... I assume. They've all got green on transparent consoles on them at about 120 columns wide. It's enough to make a graphic designer cry.

        That being said, my laptop is a special order ThinkPad (i7 w/ 8 threads@~3.2GHz, maxed out RAM, 1/2 TB SSD, etc) - I think I get maybe 90 minutes on a 12 cell extended battery and I have docking stations at home and work because all that power means it ain't really portable for most definitions of "portable" (or at least for very long). Also makes a great heater during the Minnesota winter. There's nothing wrong with wanting a powerful machine, so long as you accept the trade offs you're making to have that power.
      • with 4 X16 PCI-e video cards (running at full pci-e 3.0 speed) + pci-e based boot disk.

    • You spelled porn wrong.
    • Better off with an PCI-e one. Cheaper too as this will also need a high end SAS card as well to make use of that speed.

    • by kuzb ( 724081 )

      Anything that cutting edge will cost as much as 5 of your gaming rigs put together.

  • by CMU_Ken ( 574499 )
    15.38 TB? That's only like 1 Library of Congress.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      How much is that in football fields?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The units in TFS are messed up. So it's 15.38TB... Assuming the stupid new IEC decimal units, not real 2^40 terabytes. But then performance is measured in MBps, or megabytes per second. TFA compares 1,200 with the typical figure of 550 MBps for consumer SSDs, but that's 2^20 byte megabytes measured by benchmarking software. Who knows if Samsung uses the same units, or is trying to screw up with decimal megabytes.

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        The units in TFS are messed up. So it's 15.38TB... Assuming the stupid new IEC decimal units, not real 2^40 terabytes. But then performance is measured in MBps, or megabytes per second. TFA compares 1,200 with the typical figure of 550 MBps for consumer SSDs, but that's 2^20 byte megabytes measured by benchmarking software. Who knows if Samsung uses the same units, or is trying to screw up with decimal megabytes.

        Which is why you use those "stupid units" so you don't confuse TB/TiB and MB/MiB. Though I just

      • With SSDs, it is possible it is not the decimal units, around half the drives are base 2 sizes from what i have found. I however am not sure how you would arrive at 15.38TB. If I assume is is 16 TIB I get 17.59 TB or 16 TB comes out as 14.55 TiB, so I am not sure where 15.38 TB comes from at all. Perhaps there is some kind of loss to the slack used for reassigning bad bits though.

        • by xaxa ( 988988 )

          All SSDs have plenty of spare blocks, so the final size is a decision on how many spare blocks to allocate. Measuring in a power of 1024 makes little more sense than for a hard drive.

          For one example, my SSD is 256GB:

          Disk /dev/sdg: 238.5 GiB, 256060514304 bytes

      • I for one would rather calculate with factors of 1000 than 1024. The only place where the binary units made sense was in parallel addressable memory where you have a bunch of N address wires making 2^N possible combinations. For speeds and other forms of storage, the decimal units make a lot more sense.
  • "where IT managers can fit twice as many of the drives in a standard 19-inch, 2U rack compared to an equivalent 3.5-inch drive." LOL! Who ARE these editors? Fresh out of high school?
    • by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Thursday March 03, 2016 @10:12AM (#51628427) Homepage Journal
      What is new is that now the IT MANAGERS can do it. Previously it was only possible by non-managers.
      • I know this is a 'funny', but putting a drive into a rack is trivial compared to getting a requisition approved in most organizations ;-)
    • by swb ( 14022 )

      Not new, but it's surprising how many more 3.5" enclosures there are than 2.5" enclosures.

      • by houghi ( 78078 )

        From what I have seen, they are all front loaded. Would it not be better to have them top loaded? e.g. have a drawer that you pull out and then have the SSDs mounted vertically with the contact at the bottom.
        I would imagine you could place a lot more in them as they can be closer together as the full depth could be used. Could be that it has to be 3 units instead of a 2 unit.
        So just a print plate the depth of the rack with a lot of SSD connectors on them. Plug them all in and you are done. Obvious some spac

        • The Backblaze implementation of top-loading drives is one well-known example. They've 45 drives in 3U (or 4U?) for many years.
          https://www.backblaze.com/blog... [backblaze.com]

          Nowadays you can order a 90-bay top loader off the shelf from Super Micro:
          http://www.supermicro.com/prod... [supermicro.com]

        • by swb ( 14022 )

          Compellent make a top-loading enclosure like this.

          I think the reason they're loss common is that this kind of storage density has been pretty uncommon until relatively recently. Drive sizes have grown fast enough that the same 12 or 24 drive front loading shelf met a lot of needs over time.

          The power consumption of a rack with a couple of 80 HDD drawers would be pretty intense, too.

        • Any reason why this has not been done?

          People prefer to load the disks from the front, and then tip over the racks so they lay flat on the floor.

    • 24 (25) 2.5 across a 2u is nothing new. Supermicro and others can double that 50 in a 2u but they can also get 72 3.5's in a 4ru and thats with a sever as well 90 without.

      If your talking about SSD's sas/sata is a dead end not enough performance. NMVe is what ssd's are moving to in enterprise, Mind you something like that your looking at 4 pcie lanes per devices 48 devices your a bit oversubscribed.

    • They say it fits "a 2.5 inch form factor", not "the 2.5 inch form factor". Looking at the picture, it certainly looks like the drive is 'taller' than a normal 11mm or so SSD designed for laptops, taking up a larger volume than normal. Not sure what "the" 2.5 inch form factor allows. While probably not taking up half the volume of a 3.5 inch drive, it may be close enough to not allow more than 2 in the same space, especially given the need for connectivity to the drive for power and data.

  • I have been working on enterprise-grade applications running on Raspberry-Pi type of computers. In this case, less is more (less trashing resources produce better usage). And it is possible to execute transactional monitors with a mere 6 megabyte of RAM, so the overall 1 gigabyte of memory on those machines is good enough for complex tasks when it is wisely used.

    And now we have more than 15 terabyte SSDs that it is like to lost a needle not on a haystack but on the milky way.

    Of course, it is possibl
  • I'd rather have 2-3TB at a price that's not going to leave me eating ramen for the next few months than a 15TB that's going to leave me eating ramen for the two years.

    Actually, I'd like to be able to afford two. Redundancy and all...

    • This drive isn't for you. it is for people who need the IOPS and storage density, such as Huge Databases.

      • These are mostly made for servers where people want to host large amounts of funny cat movies, and stream them to thousands of viewers at the same time. I like the one with the cucumbers. That one is hilarious.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    In an early Star Trek: The Next Generation, Data states that his storage capacity is 800 TB. With just 50 of these we match 24th century computers. We should measure storage in units of Data now.

  • The PM1633a sports random read/write speeds of up to 200,000 and 32,000 IOPS.

    Those are rather lopsided performance spec's - random reads more than six times as fast as random writes. There are much smaller SSD's [intel.com] that offer random read/write speeds of 460,000 and 290,000 IOPS, for example.

    For some applications the larger, slower SSD's may be fine, but for database applications those random write spec's are pretty lacklustre.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Once your format the drive, you're prob'ly left with about 3.5TB of usable space.

Happiness is a hard disk.

Working...