Does it hurt when your finger is on the SSD?
SSDs - State of the Product?
- Thread starter ddrueding
- Start date
Does it hurt when your finger is on the SSD?
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
No, but it's not on.
I can see the temp of this Plextor drive with Aida64. It always reads lower than the motherboard temp.
ddrueding
Fixture
IIRC 60C?
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Okkay. Looks like I'm good.
I only just broke through that running CrystalDisk during one of the hot days earlier. Not a situation I'm likely to run into on a regular basis.
Now it is higher again. I hope someone else makes a consumer 4TB SSD before long. Why is it so difficult?
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
I feel like 2TB is starting to become a regular drive size; 4TB is still exotic.
In a product cycle or two, 4TB should gain that status and drop in price.
In a product cycle or two, 4TB should gain that status and drop in price.
Yeah, that's it. I will replace the 2TB Samsung 850 Pro in a laptop with a Crucial MX300 2.05 TB drive.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Or you could replace it with a 256GB drive and stop keeping so much crap on your laptop.
Not really. The whole point of the little 3lb. laptop is to download the RAW files from memory cards to three targets simultaneously and do a bit of viewing and processing.
The laptop currently contains a 2TB 850 Pro and a 2TB HDD. I actually have two of the same laptops at different locations and carry the drives between the domestic locations prior to the international flights.
The third copy is a combination of 1TB SSDs or 2TB drives. If required by the protocols, copies 4+ are made from the internal SSD.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Yes, really.
My laptops are now 4 years old, so in a few more years they will be done. I don't plan to ever buy a laptop again after that.
CFexpress will change the storage landscape around 2018 and we will see what the options are then.
I added about another 3TB and the drive did well. That computer is mothballed until May. I will pull the Crucial SSD in June for use on another project in December.
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
NAND is it. Let's live with it.
Newtun
Storage is nice, especially if it doesn't rotate
https://arstechnica.com/information...optane-ssd-375gb-that-you-can-also-use-as-ram; "Intel announced today the first Optane-branded product using its new 3D XPoint memory: the catchily named Intel Optane SSD DC P4800X. It's a 375GB SSD on a PCIe card. Initial limited availability starts today, for $1520...".
The HGST SS300 looks interesting.
ddrueding
Fixture
7.68TB looks very interesting. Hopefully that'll start getting the $/GB down.
There are some signs of higher density e.g., https://toshiba.semicon-storage.com/eu/company/news/2017/05/storage-20170509-1.htmlToshibia so that should help.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
I'm afraid that SSDs will run into the semiconductor fab crunch.
They just don't have the capacity to put out all of this flash, RAM, and processors.
They just don't have the capacity to put out all of this flash, RAM, and processors.
Even with the Chinese robots? Are they working like the diamondo producers to create artificially high prices?
Last I've heard the large demand are from mobile and tablet using NAND chips causing strain on supply. I can't say if it's artificial or not but it's real. The project I'm working on has had me re-code certain parts and change-out hardware to take out NVMe SSDs for SAS SSDs to save on cost and also lead-time on availability in terms of months.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Maybe you also missed the increase in RAM prices.
I'd say that AMD finally pushing out processors using DDR4 was the reason, but a few months ago I sold some used DDR3 sticks for more than I paid for them.
I'd say that AMD finally pushing out processors using DDR4 was the reason, but a few months ago I sold some used DDR3 sticks for more than I paid for them.
Oh I found this article.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Stereodude
Not really a
I had better get a few of them to have as spares then. :rofl:
ddrueding
Fixture
Doesn't even support NVMe 
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Isn't that up to the motherboard?Doesn't even support NVMe
My understanding is that the only chip on the board is a PCIe switch to split the lanes from x16 slot into four x4 M.2 connectors.
Doesn't even support NVMe
I feel like it might...what am I missing?
Their product PDF says:
M.2 (M key) circuits located on the Carrier board support any M.2 PCI Express M key
modules with any standard length (2230/2242/2260/2280 and 22110).
.........
Supports up to 4 M.2 PCI Express add-in modules (M key)
x4 PCI Express (Gen 3) connection to each M.2 circuit
One slot wide, half-height PCI Express board; x16 or x8 upstream PCI Express (Gen 3)
interface
Supports PCI Express Gen 3 (8.0 Gbps) operation
The M Key M.2 supports either x4 PCIe or SATA.
ddrueding
Fixture
Nope, I'm wrong.
I wonder why a PCIe switch requires a cooling fan?
I wonder why a PCIe switch requires a cooling fan?
Stereodude
Not really a
Because there's too much awesomeness crammed onto a single PCIe card to not have one.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Are they for servers? Why not just use a single, high-performance PCIe card flash storage device?
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Bandwidth and flexibility come to mind.
How many production x16 (let alone x8) SSD add-in cards are there? And how many of those are something other than smaller SSDs in a RAID 0?
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
The sky is not falling. Perhaps the options for SSDs such as 2.5" will dwindle, but technology at various price/performance/durability will always exist. It wasn't that long ago that everyone was against the MLC.
Maybe we will have 12 levels and people will be complaining that it is no good compared to 8. :lol:
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
I agree that things aren't nearly as bad as the author suggests.
We may not get major gains performance, but we should get decreasing price per gigabyte. I'd be okkay with that.
We may not get major gains performance, but we should get decreasing price per gigabyte. I'd be okkay with that.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
They're looking solely at STRs, which is the one metric which largely doesn't matter for most users. The key metrics are total cost, cost per GB, and to a lesser extent access time. All other things being equal, most users will choose the lowest cost per GB. However, they're willing to pay a few multiples of that for much lower access times, especially if the total cost with a capacity they can live with is still under $100.
The bottom line here is SSD manufacturers seem to be focusing primarily on decreasing the cost per GB. That's hardly going to get users to flock back to spinning disks. In fact, I'd say nowadays unless your storage needs are an outlier there's not much reason to go with spinning disks. That's only going to be more true in the future as SSDs come down in price per GB, even if their performance remains flat. The way I see it we'll end up with two possible scenarios. One, the focus will be solely on decreasing SSD cost per GB. This will mean much larger, cheaper SSDs but STRs will remain flat and access times may even increase. However, access times will still be an order of magnitude or two better than HDDs. So long as cost per GB is similar to HDDs, or not much more, nobody will want HDDs, except maybe in enterprise bulk storage where every penny counts. The other scenario would be less of a focus on decreasing cost per GB to the extent of all else. SSDs might continue to cost a few multiples per GB of what HDDs do, but they will offer access times three orders of magnitude (or more) less. And even with the latter scenario, cost per GB will still decrease, just not as aggressively. This will mean larger capacity SSDs at the sweet $100 or lower price point. Again, I'm not seeing people currently using SSDs flocking back to HDDs. There probably wouldn't be as many new SSD adopters in this scenario, but lots of people with 1TB or lower storage needs will flock to SSDs as their sole storage solution. Those with larger storage needs might have an SSD for the boot disk but HDDs for bulk storage.
The fact is other than STRs, HDDs are NOT getting any faster, nor can they get much faster. Their sole selling point is low price per GB. In the unlikely scenario SSD performance got so bad that SSDs matched HDDs in terms of access times and STRs, that still doesn't mean a mass return to HDDs. Rather, it would mean SSD manufacturers pulled out all the stops lowering cost per GB, with the end result that SSDs cost the same or less per GB than HDDs. End result, HDDs still lose. The fact is HDDs are a near obsolete technology. HDD manufacturers have already used most everything in their bag of tricks. The few things left, most of which solely increase capacity, don't even lower cost per GB by much.
The bottom line here is SSD manufacturers seem to be focusing primarily on decreasing the cost per GB. That's hardly going to get users to flock back to spinning disks. In fact, I'd say nowadays unless your storage needs are an outlier there's not much reason to go with spinning disks. That's only going to be more true in the future as SSDs come down in price per GB, even if their performance remains flat. The way I see it we'll end up with two possible scenarios. One, the focus will be solely on decreasing SSD cost per GB. This will mean much larger, cheaper SSDs but STRs will remain flat and access times may even increase. However, access times will still be an order of magnitude or two better than HDDs. So long as cost per GB is similar to HDDs, or not much more, nobody will want HDDs, except maybe in enterprise bulk storage where every penny counts. The other scenario would be less of a focus on decreasing cost per GB to the extent of all else. SSDs might continue to cost a few multiples per GB of what HDDs do, but they will offer access times three orders of magnitude (or more) less. And even with the latter scenario, cost per GB will still decrease, just not as aggressively. This will mean larger capacity SSDs at the sweet $100 or lower price point. Again, I'm not seeing people currently using SSDs flocking back to HDDs. There probably wouldn't be as many new SSD adopters in this scenario, but lots of people with 1TB or lower storage needs will flock to SSDs as their sole storage solution. Those with larger storage needs might have an SSD for the boot disk but HDDs for bulk storage.
The fact is other than STRs, HDDs are NOT getting any faster, nor can they get much faster. Their sole selling point is low price per GB. In the unlikely scenario SSD performance got so bad that SSDs matched HDDs in terms of access times and STRs, that still doesn't mean a mass return to HDDs. Rather, it would mean SSD manufacturers pulled out all the stops lowering cost per GB, with the end result that SSDs cost the same or less per GB than HDDs. End result, HDDs still lose. The fact is HDDs are a near obsolete technology. HDD manufacturers have already used most everything in their bag of tricks. The few things left, most of which solely increase capacity, don't even lower cost per GB by much.
Every year it is the same, but eventually you will be correct that HDDs are dead.
Of course Joe Blow consumer just wants a fast internet and to store everything on the clods, so he doesn't need any local HDDs.
All that data needs to reside somewhere and SSDs are still too expensive per PB for bulk storage.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
Right, like I said it's likely enterprise will be the last bastion of HDDs. As things stand now there is little reason for your average person to have an HDD when 250GB is enough storage for them and you can get a 250GB SSD for under $100. SSD prices stopped their freefall this year, but that has been mainly on account of a NAND shortage which will eventually self-correct.
https://www.zadarastorage.com/blog/tech-corner/ssd-gains-ground-on-hdd-storage-as-prices-plummet/
https://www.zadarastorage.com/blog/tech-corner/ssd-gains-ground-on-hdd-storage-as-prices-plummet/