SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Reality of SSD Capacity: No-One Wants Over 16TB Per Drive
One of the expanding elements of the storage business is that the capacity per drive has been ever increasing. Spinning hard-disk drives are approaching 20 TB soon, while solid state storage can vary from 4TB to 16TB or even more, if you're willing to entertain an exotic implementation. Today at the Data Centre World conference in London, I was quite surprised to hear that due to managed risk, we're unlikely to see much demand for drives over 16TB.
Speaking with a few individuals at the show about expanding capacities, storage customers that need high density are starting to discuss maximum drive size requirements based on their implementation needs. One message starting to come through is that storage deployments are looking at managing risk with drive size – sure, a large capacity drive allows for high-density, but in a drive failure of a large drive means a lot of data is going to be lost.
[...] Ultimately the size of the drive and the failure rate leads to element of risks and downtime, and aside from engineering more reliant drives, the other variable for risk management is drive size. 16TB, based on the conversations I've had today, seems to be that inflection point; no-one wants to lose 16TB of data in one go, regardless of how often it is accessed, or how well a storage array has additional failover metrics.
Related: Toshiba Envisions a 100 TB QLC SSD in the "Near Future"
Samsung Announces a 128 TB SSD With QLC NAND
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 15 2019, @02:27AM (3 children)
One of the biggest data hogs is high resolution or raw video. Why would you store it on an SSD when you can store it on a cheaper/TB SSD? You don't need good random performance/IOPS when loading or copying the video, it's all sequential. Sure, you can get better sequential performance on a high-end SSD, but the perf would exceed the read speed necessary to play back the video in real time.
Applications and games will perform better with an SSD, so those should go into primary SSD storage. Photos and videos can be left on an untouched HDD for years without data loss, but SSDs only need to preserve data for 1 year when unpowered.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @02:51AM (1 child)
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2016/187/Caching-with-an-SSD [linux-magazine.com]
https://github.com/lanconnected/EnhanceIO [github.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 15 2019, @02:58AM
If you don't want to pick and choose which data should go where, maybe you want to use a hybrid hard drive (SSHD).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 15 2019, @02:54AM
Hog as in what? Size? I don't care about the size, I care about the speed.
As a developer, I care not about the load time of an application (can use one compiler process against many source files at once) and I don't produce large files, but I produce zillions of them.
I'd hate to pay thousand extra bucks for the 'special edition developer laptop' which differs from the 'consumer laptop' only by which of the SSD/HDD is used for apps and which for the workspace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford