Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday March 14 2019, @11:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the a-bit-of-an-overstatement? dept.

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


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This discussion has been archived.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 DannyB on Friday March 15 2019, @03:23PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 15 2019, @03:23PM (#814807) Journal

    Desktops should have 1+ TB SSD and big HDD only as secondary and/or external storage.

    My corporate masters replace developer workstations every three years. I'm due for upgrade this summer. Six years ago, the standard config:
    * fast core i7
    * 32 GB RAM
    * fast HDD approx 500 GB
    * SSD 128 GB

    Then three years ago config improved:
    * bigger HDD
    * SSD increased to 256 GB

    So I wonder what the config will be this year?

    But the IT department has this habit of configuring things so that Windows and the Apps (eg "Drive C") is the SSD.

    Short answer: No!
    Long answer: Nooooooooo!

    Maybe that config is okay for marketing, sales and management. But give me the SSD completely empty.

    Please make Drive C be the spinning rust. Leave the SSD empty. I don't care if Windows takes 30 seconds longer to boot. That's not what I do all day. I can efficiently use that limited SSD (especially when it was only 128 GB!) to make things faster that matter to me all day long! Like a database. Or where my source code is stored so that a search across all code is very fast. Or Virtual Box drives. And other things. Believe me, I can make good use of the SSD drive empty. The performance of Windows and apps from the HDD is perfectly fine and in fact quite good. Especially with 32 GB of RAM and a nice processor.

    Now at home, I've never owned a Windows PC ever. My system is 1TB SSD + 128 GB SSD, and 32 GB RAM, fastest AMD before liquid cooling is required. I didn't put it together, I have a friend who does 'hardware stuff'. I've been quite happy with it.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2