Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the how-many-hours-of-video? dept.

Here's a challenge: do you reckon you can fill half-a-terabyte of memory using only a smartphone?

For some people, we're sure, the answer will be along the lines of “hold my beer while I set my camera to HDR mode and snap some selfies”. So the good news is that from February, you'll be able to lay out the readies on a 512 GB microSDXC card from Integral Memory.

At a transfer rate of 80 megabytes per second, you'd need more than an hour and a half to transfer a full card's worth of data; last year's 400 GB monster from SanDisk (no longer the world's biggest little memory card) still has the edge there, claiming a 100 MB/second transfer rate.

Integral's 512GB microSDXC V10, UHS-I U1 card is fast enough to meet V10 (Video speed class 10) for capturing full HD video.

Integral has put up a web page and a Spec sheet (pdf) for it.

Now we can set them up as media hubs for all.


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This discussion has been archived.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 Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:12AM (10 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:12AM (#627048) Journal

    Secure Digital eXtended Capacity [wikipedia.org] (SDXC) raised the maximum capacity limit to 2048 GB, when using the exFAT file system. That was in version 3.01 of the Secure Digital specification in 2009.

    The latest, Version 5.0 (2016), didn't raise the maximum capacity limit, even though it was focused on stuff like 8K video recording which wouldn't take long to fill that. It was mostly concerned with higher transfer speeds to ensure the 4K/8K/VR video could even be recorded and stored in real time.

    The ~2 TB limit is shared between all sizes of SD cards, namely microSD and the full size SD. On the last story [soylentnews.org], I calculated that SD has about 4.65x the area and 9.77x the volume of microSD. So a 2 TB SD card could definitely be created and sold today (the largest being sold right now is 1 TB from SanDisk [theverge.com]).

    In short, it's time to ditch exFAT and raise the 2 TB limit to a petabyte or an exabyte or something. It is conceivable that increasing the number of 3D NAND layers while shrinking feature size, possibly with an increase to up to 8-bits-per-cell, could allow density to increase by 500x (with only about 125x needed to be able to create a 1000 TB full-sized SD card). So something like 64 TB or 1000 TB (1 PB) for the new limit could be too low. Raise it to 64 exabytes instead.

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

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:28AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:28AM (#627053)

    In short, it's time to ditch exFAT and raise the 2 TB limit to a petabyte or an exabyte or something

    The maximum size of an exFAT volume is 128 PB.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:39AM (4 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:39AM (#627056) Journal

      Right you are. Let's see them raise it to that and see the NAND manufacturers try to increase NAND density by ~16,000x.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:39AM (3 children)

        by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:39AM (#627079) Journal

        They are going to need a faster interface first. Even using the fastest speed from TFA and your low-ball figure of 64TB it would take over a week to copy everything off a full disk. Four months for your 1PB disk.

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:32AM (2 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:32AM (#627097) Journal

          The speed is going to scale up. The more parallel nature of 3D NAND could help that. It's not going to remain the same, and it won't be as bad as hard disk speed scaling.

          SanDisk advertises a card [sandisk.com] with up to 275MB/s read, 100MB/s write.

          The maximum transfer speed in the standard is higher (312-624 MB/s):

          UHS-III

          Version 6.0, released in February 2017, added two new data rates to the standard. FD312 provides 312 MB/s while FD624 doubles that. Both are full-duplex. The physical interface and pin-layout are the same as with UHS-II, retaining backward compatibility.

          The "video speed classes" recently added to the standard are met if a minimum sequential write speed can be sustained, with 90 MB/s being the highest one (which they claim is sufficient for 8K @ 120 FPS video recording).

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)

            by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:14PM (#627199) Journal

            At 624 MB/s it will still take 28 hours to read a 64TB disk. 18 days for 1PB.

            I think they are going to need to do some sort of multiple serial buses in parallel thing, which is going to mean a whole new standard.
            Maybe something like a miniturised old fashioned parallel port, but with each pin acting as an individual high speed serial link.

            That said, I can still see a use for these cards, in that you could load your entire media/audio/book libraries on one and have everything available all the time.

            --
            If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @12:15PM (#627112)

      That's not the only reason to ditch exfat.

  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:17PM (2 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:17PM (#627304)

    What's your alternative to exFAT?

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:36PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:36PM (#627321) Journal

      I don't care. I'm sure they can either use exFAT without the artificial 2 TB limit or find another file system that works fine.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:20PM

        by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:20PM (#627423)

        No other filesystem is supported by everything in the non-free world. And unless somebody with muscle (Google, Red Hat, Canonical) picks a FOSS winner and pushes it hard, nothing ever will be.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?