SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Samsung is about to make 4TB SSDs and mobile storage cheaper
A couple of years ago, Samsung launched its first 4TB solid state drives, which might as well not have existed given their $1,499 asking price. Today, the company announces the commencement of mass production of a more — though it's too early to know exactly how much more — affordable variant with its 4TB QLC SSDs. The knock on QLC NAND storage has traditionally been that it sacrifices speed for an increased density, however Samsung promises the same 540MBps read and 520MBps write speeds for its new SSDs as it offers on its existing SATA SSD drives.
Describing this new family of storage drives, which will also include 1TB and 2TB variants, as consumer class, Samsung will obviously aim to price them at a level where quibbles about performance will be overwhelmed by the sheer advantage of having terabytes of space. Any concerns about the reliability of these drives should also be allayed by the three-year warranty promised by Samsung. The launch of the first drives built around these new storage chips is slated for later this year.
What's the endurance of QLC NAND again?
Also at Engadget.
Related: Toshiba's 3D QLC NAND Could Reach 1000 P/E Cycles
Samsung Announces a 128 TB SSD With QLC NAND
Micron Launches First QLC NAND SSD
Western Digital Samples 96-Layer 3D QLC NAND with 1.33 Tb Per Die
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:22AM (6 children)
So, if a company warranties data, and the device fails, and then what? How is the firm supposed to compensate the buyer?
That's right. You are a moron.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday August 08 2018, @02:21PM (4 children)
I used to sell surge protecting power strips guaranteed to stop lightning to my computer repair clients.
Now, of course, no box full of wires is going to stop lightning. If a lightning-induced surge enters at one end, it's going to come out the other end, regardless of the arrangements of the "surge protecting" components within.
How did the firm compensate the buyers, then, right? By compensating for lightning-related losses up to a million dollars. So, no, the data did not magically reappear (sorry for raising your hopes), but there was (theoretically) a way to make up the value of the lost data.
That doesn't appear to be the case with these large SSDs (looks like you would just get a replacement, empty SSD). So I pointed out that it doesn't work that way.
The liar assumes that everyone else will lie; the thief assumes that everyone else steals. I guess the moron assumes that no one's smarter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @03:42PM (3 children)
You are simply raising the liability limit from the cost of the device to some arbitrary numbers. Basically you are arguing that the device should comes with an insurance. That simply raises the price for everyone when only a small minority want it and is willing to pay for it.
That "moron" comment was uncalled for, and that's my bad, but yours is a dumb idea.
(Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:09PM (2 children)
I appreciate your participation, but I don't think you are following the meaning of the thread.
Because the devices do not come with data insurance, a warranty on the device is no reassurance.
Both the author(s) of TFA and you yourself seem to have trouble grasping this.
The fix for this is not to provide insurance for the device--your interpretation, not mine, and agreed, a dumb one--but to recognize that because the devices do not come with something like data insurance (why would they?), a warranty on the device is no reassurance.
This is because a warranty on the device itself is no reassurance if you value your data but question the reliability of the device upon which you decide to store it. In contrast to what TFA/TFS says, which is the opposite. And which is wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @04:47PM
You are right; I misread your original comment. I chased up the wrong tree.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:21AM
Somewhat bizarrely, it's a hedge against a counter-quality bet that they're making.
They're implicitly betting that the drive fails and you lose your data. When it fails, you lose, as you were unwittingly gambling pro-quality. However they're explicitly betting against themselves with the smaller bet that permits you to win in the failure case.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:11AM
B: X is impossible
How the fuck is that a counter-argument?
Funnily, X is possible, so you're both logically and factually wrong. System/solution vendors can sell a "system" or a "solution", rather than just a small piece of hardware. Sure, you pay loads for them to manage it, but you get the guarantee you demanded.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves