as almost no one noticed this launch
That's because we're having trouble just getting food. A shiny new and expensive SSD isn't even on the list at this point.
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
324 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
58131 readers
4383 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
At that size they are certainly targeting enterprise and cloud servers. Cool that they are getting that big, but they probably cost as much as a house.
At that size they are certainly targeting enterprise and cloud servers
Dunno, have you seen the new Medal of Honor?
I haven't. Was it just announced? I loved that series as a kid.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I care about affordable stuf not luxury .
These are not intended for you anyways. They are designed for servers.
It's still interesting though and server hardware eventually makes it way down to normal people.
I read 128GB SSDs and thought "who cares"
impressive.
That’s cool and all, but the only reason I would want that capacity is to store stuff that I would want to store for much longer than a lifespan of an SSD. Only HDD’s have that kind of lifespan. Like a gigantic video library/archive. I guess these aren’t for me.
But if they drive down the price of high capacity, HDDs, all the better. 
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I remember that SSDs lifespan mainly depends on how much you overwrite the drive. For 128TB, it should take you a very long time to overwrite the entire drive, let alone couple hundred or thousand times to kill the drive. I know that bit rot also happens on SSDs, but that applies to HDDs as well, and good drive maintenance practices should alleviate the issue. Though for archival purposes/cold storage, tape drives are probably better.
The lifespan of your data isn't nearly as long as the lifespan of the cells storing your data. Due to leakage of of power from the cells, and the more and more dense these cells are being packed (leading to smaller differences between what voltage maps to what binary value), SSDs have issues with bitrot. With a disk this size you would need to have data regularly checked and refreshed (rewritten) to ensure the data being stored was still correct and not corrupted.
All storage has issues with bit rot. There haven't been any studies to show that SSD is disproportionately affected.
In 2016, HDDs were more reliable (MTBF).
In 2022, for the first 5 years, SSDs are looking more reliable. With more of a constant failure rate (1%/yr), than the increasing failure rate of HDDs after 5 years.
(Caveat: not just bit rot, but general failure data.)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
If they are loading the drive up with media for archival purposes how much overwriting are they going to be doing, anyways? Theoretically the drive should last a very long time for that purpose.
Right, but if the point isn't for the drive to be actively used, and instead just hold data for archiving, then there's little reason to spend more money to get an SDD for that purpose when an HDD will hold that data just as well and for much cheaper.
The benefits of SSD over HDD are almost entirely in performance, so if SSD can develop further to provide a tangible benefit over HDD for long term storage, and do it for cheaper, then we can fully move away from it. But I don't think we're quite there yet.
SSD lifespan is expressed in terabytes written (TBW), wherein yeah they can sustain so many writes to the flash chips before they can't anymore.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It’s not for you. It’s for enterprises, but I can drive down the prices of shit you would use. No noise, better performance, less energy; it’s a win-win.
load more comments
(1 replies)
HDDs typically don’t last as long as SSDs due to their mechanics failing. Data is there but it just won’t spin. I’ve yet to have an SSD actually fail. Every HDD I’ve ever owned, save one, has.
This has not been my experience at all, nor is what I know from general knowledge— that, due to rewriting, SSDs become unusable within 3-5 years, whereas the typical lifespan of an enterprise HDD is 5-7 years, perhaps longer.
In my own use, SSDs of mine seem to crap out around 5-ish years, whereas HDDs get 7+, and the $/GB ratio makes it a no-brainer, esp for video library/archive storage where it’s mostly read/write no rewrite and long-term storage with no need for very high-speed access (like for editing 4/8K).
I buy enterprise HDDs that never spin down and last forever— they use more power, but I don’t pay for that. SSDs wear out just by reading and writing and become unreadable over time.
If I were editing giant chunks of video in 8K, and needed enormously fast cache rates and transfer speeds over thunderbolt 4, obviously, I’d go with the SSDs, especially if I had a studio I was working for that could afford to replace them when they were out. But that’s not my use case.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I’m holding out upgrading for the holographic nano dark matter drives that have infinite storage capacity and RAID data into 3 alternate universes for security.
Some high tech alien's porn stash is embedded in the fabric of our universe and that's the reason we exist.
Are we the porn? Some alien's weird fetish?
This is why I feel like an interdimensional cumshot all the time.
Damn, Interdimensional cumshot sounds like an obscure metal band.
That's some nice density you got there. While you're at it...
Can I get a 12.8TB drive 1/10th the physical size (m.2 2230) and has a steady transfer rate of 2.4GBs that costs <$200 dollhairs? Pretty please 🙏
Unless you're using a NUC or similar, M.2 is the worst form factor - and consumer grade drives are all shit. If you're in the market for storage I'd recommend looking at used enterprise U.2 drives in the 0.5-1 DWPD range. Adapters (PCIe or M.2 to U.2) are super cheap.
Edit: 12.8TB is gonna be a stretch, obviously, but even Solidigm TLC drives are quite a bit better than any consumer grade drives and I've seen some of the 7TB models go for surprisingly cheap.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Realistically, a couple of 10TB drives would have me covered for like a decade at least. If these massive drives bring down the price of much smaller ones, I'm a happy boy.
How expensive are they, $100,000 or maybe more?
$4.5k from a quick search.
Edit: I HAVE NO CLUE WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM LAST NIGHT
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-128tb-petabyte-storage
This states that a 32tb ssd costs roughly $7000
≈$35/TB or ≈3.4¢/GB Actually not a bad deal at all, consider the current SSD prices.
That's actually pretty reasonable.
I'm going to need a source for that, as it's well below even regular consumer SSDs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Still can't afford it.
What's the biggest HDD out there? I mean at sizes this big it's a lot of data to lose in one go if it dies. Even if you have backups or whatever that's a lot to have to restore.
Are we including magnetic tape?
Looks like they hit 580 TB a few years ago: https://www.pcmag.com/news/fujifilm-and-ibm-set-world-record-with-580tb-magnetic-tapes
load more comments
(6 replies)
Man I has to read that 4 times before it registered. Fucking he'll shits nuts
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›