Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the better-than-a-shoebox-of-microSD-cards dept.

Seagate has put a new lower limit on the maximum amount of NAND flash that can be crammed into a 3.5" enclosure, by demonstrating a 60 TB solid state drive:

With the Nytro XP7200 moving toward production, Seagate has brought out another SSD tech demo with eye-catching specifications. The unnamed SAS SSD packs 60TB of 3D TLC into a 3.5" drive. In order to connect over a thousand dies of Micron's 3D TLC NAND to a single SSD controller, Seagate has introduced ONFi bridge chips to multiplex the controller's NAND channels across far more dies than would otherwise be possible. The rest of the specs for the 60TB SSD look fairly mundane and make for a drive that's better suited to read-intensive workloads, but the capacity puts even the latest hard drives to shame.

The 60TB SSD is currently just a technology demonstration, and won't be appearing as a product until next year. When it does, it will probably have a very tiny market, but for now it will give Seagate some bragging rights.

Previously: Seagate Unveils Fastest Ever Solid State Drive


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:08PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:08PM (#386019) Journal

    It makes sense to me, but I was sick when I wrote it, and still am.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by butthurt on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:37PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:37PM (#386031) Journal

    Without noticing the ambiguity, I understood your meaning as "...a new lower limit on the maximum amount..."