Big things can come in small packages. According to Computerworld, Samsung has released the world's first 2 TB consumer SSDs:
Samsung today announced what it is calling the first multi-terabyte consumer solid-state drive (SSD), which will offer 2TB of capacity in a 2.5-in. form factor for laptops and desktops.
[...] The 850 Pro is designed for power users and client PCs that may need higher performance with up to 550MBps sequential read and 520MBps sequential write rates and up to 100,000 random I/Os per second (IOPS). The 850 EVO SSD has slightly lower performance with 540MBps and 520MBps sequential read/write rates and up to 90,000 random IOPS.
The 2TB model of the 850 Pro will retail for $999.99 and the 850 EVO will sell for $799.99.
The 1TB EVO SSD will retail for $399; the 500GB for $179; the 250GB for $99 and the 120GB for $69. The 1TB 850 Pro will retail for $499; the 512GB model for $259; the 256GB model for $144.99 and the 128GB model for $99.
[...] Samsung guarantees the 2TB 850 Pro for 10 years or 300 terabytes written (TBW), and the 2TB 850 EVO for five years or 150 TBW.
To put that in perspective, there are approximately 7 billion people on earth. One of these drives has sufficient space to keep about 285 bytes of information on every single person on the planet! Put another way, that is over 6 KB for every single person in the USA.
Related Stories
We have previously run stories about 2 TB, 4 TB, and 6 TB Solid State Drives (SSDs) and their seemingly inevitable but gradual increase in capacity over time. Samsung just announced a HUGE increase in drive capacity, leap-frogging all other storage devices out there — including spinning hard disk storage [takyon: a 6 TB 2.5" drive already leapfrogs spinning disk]!
Ars Technica is reporting that Samsung unveils 2.5-inch 16TB SSD: The world's largest hard drive. The third-generation 3D V-NAND is now up to 48 TLC layers and 256Gbit per die. From the article:
At the Flash Memory Summit in California, Samsung has unveiled what appears to be the world's largest hard drive—and somewhat surprisingly, it uses NAND flash chips rather than spinning platters. The rather boringly named PM1633a, which is being targeted at the enterprise market, manages to cram almost 16 terabytes into a 2.5-inch SSD package. By comparison, the largest conventional hard drives made by Seagate and Western Digital currently max out at 8 or 10TB.
The secret sauce behind Samsung's 16TB SSD is the company's new 256Gbit (32GB) NAND flash die; twice the capacity of 128Gbit NAND dies that were commercialised by various chip makers last year. To reach such an astonishing density, Samsung has managed to cram 48 layers of 3-bits-per-cell (TLC) 3D V-NAND into a single die. This is up from 24 layers in 2013, and then 36 layers in 2014.
Though claimed capacity is 16 TB, actual available storage is 15.36 TB (providing 640 GB of over provisioning.) The drive is 15mm high so it is geared to the enterprise market; it probably won't fit in your laptop where 9.5mm is an unofficial standard.
In case you were wondering, by some estimates this capacity is enough to store 1.5 copies of the uncompressed textual data in the print collection of the US Library of Congress (LoC).
It boggles my mind to consider such large storage capacities. Given the global population is about 8.3 billion, just one of these drives would be sufficient to store 1.8 KiB on every human being on the planet, never mind an entire rack of these drives.
What practical use is there for such capacities? What would you do with one (or more) of these? How would this fit into your "Big Data" application?
(Score: 4, Funny) by isostatic on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:06AM
GB? TB? How unrelateable is that. How many MegaLOCs can a double decker bus carry?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday July 07 2015, @12:57PM
Big enough to contain the contents of all the double-spaced typed pages it would take to equal the volume of New York's famed World Trade Center Twin Towers, or single-spaced, one of the famed World Trade Center Twin Towers.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by slash2phar on Tuesday July 07 2015, @02:29PM
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday July 07 2015, @03:58PM
> WashingMachine-FootballFields
You meant Quarterback-FootballFields I'm sure.
Using WashingMachine-FootballFields would be as absurd as feet-acres.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @03:47PM
African or European LOCs?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by isj on Tuesday July 07 2015, @06:37PM
I agree. I cannot get my heard around GB and TB.
Could the original submitter please convert the numbers into libraries-of-congress printed on coasters and tell me how many pints that would support? Or transmitted using 8mbps (8 milli-bits per second) and tell me how many fortnights that would be?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by lentilla on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:39AM
Per the linked article:
both SSD models come native with full AES 256-bit full disk encryption capability
I'm not sure I'd trust it. Am I being overly paranoid? Sure, it will prevent a casual laptop thief from trawling your files but I figure that's about as good as it gets.
I'd probably use a full disk encryption layer over the top - mightn't even bother turning the disk's encryption on.
I had one computer where I used the SSD's native encryption and then subsequently attempted to move that SSD to a new computer. The new computer didn't like it at all - couldn't even wipe the disk. Had to move it back to the old computer, turn off the encryption, then move it back to the new computer and then everything was fine. Might just have been an incompetent BIOS - I hope matters have improved since.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by VLM on Tuesday July 07 2015, @11:27AM
The purpose is probably to boost block size. So changing a single bit in a file (Capitalizing something?) will result in many bits of the file changing so they use up the limited writes faster and get to sell another sooner. Most encryption algos aren't exactly perfect hash algos but "usually" "often enough" changing one bit will change a hell of a lot more than one bit downstream.
Also you have to be realistic about encryption. Its a waste of time and effort to encrypt my copy of 'ls' when its the same old copy a bazillion freebsd mirrors already distribute for amd64. I do use encfs-over-dropbox for a handful of really important things total less than a meg, but its generally unnecessary other than PHBs and checkboxes on checklists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Tuesday July 07 2015, @12:04PM
So changing a single bit in a file (Capitalizing something?) will result in many bits of the file changing so they use up the limited writes faster and get to sell another sooner.
You're being paranoid. Of course you could have hard drive manufacturers planning obsolescence into their products. It would be suicide for that company and for the brand. Because what consumers are looking for in a hard drive is - RELIABILITY. Ask OCZ how shipping cheap shitty hard drives worked out for them as a strategy?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @01:49PM
The purpose is probably to boost block size. So changing a single bit in a file (Capitalizing something?) will result in many bits of the file changing so they use up the limited writes faster and get to sell another sooner.
Please refrain from proclaiming on topics you are ignorant of. Like all disks implementing AES full-disk encryption they use CBC (chained-block-cipher) mode which breaks the data-stream up into discrete blocks sized to matched the size of the SSD's block-size. Any other configuration would absolutely kill performance - having to write multiple blocks for a single bit change.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 07 2015, @05:34PM
Please refrain from proclaiming on topics you are ignorant of.
If everyone did that there would be no comments on this site!
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday July 07 2015, @02:53PM
Encryption is already used on every modern ssd since repeated patterns are bad for data retention. It's just the master key is blank.
Also write endurance on modern ssds are a non issue. Even the worst ssd lasted many hundreds of terabytes of writes, with the longest lasting multiple petabytes
http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead [techreport.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @03:12PM
> Encryption is already used on every modern ssd since repeated patterns are bad for data retention. It's just the master key is blank.
I don't believe you. If that were true then all modern SSDs would expose that interface to the users so that they could use non-blank master keys. I don't even believe you that "repeated patterns are bad for data retention." You are encourage to provide reputable 3rd party support for your claims.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by WillR on Tuesday July 07 2015, @03:36PM
If that were true then all modern SSDs would expose that interface to the users so that they could use non-blank master keys.
Um.... No.
"Exposing this hardware feature would cost X more hours of contract dev time, so we left it hidden" is very much a thing. The things your average cheap home router can do when it isn't saddled with firmware written by the lowest bidder, working to a spec designed by marketing drones to preserve sales of high-margin "enterprise" devices would shock and appall you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @09:01PM
> "Exposing this hardware feature would cost X more hours of contract dev time, so we left it hidden" is very much a thing.
That's only plausible if you ignore the fact that full-disk encryption is a very marketable feature. Nowadays everybody wants their disks encrypted, stuff like HIPAA mandates it for healthcare businesses, regular people don't want their data falling into the wrong hands if their laptop gets stolen.
Note that you did not provide any proof of the OP's claims.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday July 07 2015, @05:57PM
Wow, a little civility goes a long way. You are encouraged to not sound like an ass when conversing with others.
Anyway...
Every mlc SSD uses some form of data randomization. Encryption is a common way to achieve that. Enjoy http://soc.yonsei.ac.kr/Abstract/International_journal/pdf/106_Data%20Randomization%20Scheme%20for%20Endurance%20Enhancement%20and%20Interference%20Mitigation%20of%20Multilevel%20Flash%20Memory%20Devices.pdf [yonsei.ac.kr]
Also, as the other reply said, adding that feature costs money to develop so not every product will have it. I use a crucial m500 which supports eDrive on my bitlocker windows laptop. eDrive is a MS implementation of changing the master key. So I get instant "encryption" times with zero performance loss.
And yes, it's very common for potential features to be omitted due to time and cost constraints.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @09:20PM
> Wow, a little civility goes a long way. You are encouraged to not sound like an ass when conversing with others.
Whose the bigger ass, the guy makes a bullshit claim or the guy who calls them on their bullshit?
You bluntly asserted a falsehood, you've got no standing to whine about being bluntly challenged.
Actual working link to the cited paper, [etri.re.kr] thank you very much.
Cited paper says absolutely nothing about encryption at all.
> I use a crucial m500...
Me too! Twinsies!
> And yes, it's very common for potential features to be omitted due to time and cost constraints.
And as I said in response - full-disk encryption is a very marketable attribute, the marginal cost of exposing it to the BIOS using the standardized SATA command-set is tiny compared to the increased value in the marketplace making it a no-brainer. Perhaps not on the first firmware revision in the rush to market, but any update afterwards would certainly contain it. Citing another soylent post that itself contains no citations is not even close to a "reputable 3rd party support."
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday July 08 2015, @03:39PM
Easily the latter as you are perfectly capable of refuting a claim without being an ass. Sorry bro, you're being an unnecessary asshole and trying to justify your attitude by blaming my supposedly incorrect statement doesn't change that. Learn some social skills. I hope you know how to behave in public as there are more penalties for that behavior in that realm than online.
I said patterns are bad. You said I was wrong. I provided a paper to show I'm right when I said patterns are bad. Encryption is one way to break up patterns and it has other benefits too. Compression is another method. There are others, one such was outlined in the paper I linked.
And who knows why companies don't show the feature. Maybe it's product and market segmentation (enterprise drives get it but consumer drives don't). Maybe some idiot somewhere in management or accounting decided not to add it to save a few bucks. Samsung disks got firmware updates adding edrive to many ssd 1-2 years ago. More companies are coming around to it. The feature exists but often isn't given to the user. The world isn't ideal. Get over it.
(Score: 2) by hankwang on Wednesday July 08 2015, @06:59AM
"every mlc SSD uses some form of data randomization. Encryption is a common way to achieve that."
Encryption is not a common way to achieve that; it's an expensive way. The paper you cited (link provided by the helpful AC) talks of an 8-bit pseudorandom generator, presumably with a period of 255. A decent encryption (AES) will require vastly more silicon to deal with 500 MB/s throughput.
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday July 08 2015, @03:42PM
No on-die aes hardware acceleration has been common for many years now on pretty much all the major ssd controllers.
He's a link to a roundup of various ssds and their implementation status. This link is several years old. It has only improved since then.
http://vxlabs.com/2012/12/22/ssds-with-usable-built-in-hardware-based-full-disk-encryption/ [vxlabs.com]
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday July 08 2015, @08:22AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Tuesday July 07 2015, @05:52PM
Endurance being a "non issue" depends somewhat on workload and industry. Typical file server or SOHO tasks are fine. If you are running a CG compositing workstation doing Nuke comps in 4K or higher, caching several TB of images per work day can actually be very normal and you could run into 100 TB in something like a month of heavy use. SSD as cache frontend in a large (PB+) storage cluster server serving many (100's + ) heavy users can see even higher usage.
But yeah, in practice something else goes before literal flash endurance exhaustion in most workloads. The desktop machine I am writing this post on has a ~4 year old SSD that still seems to work fun. (Though its twin that was purchased at the same time gave up over a year ago, so I should probably start being pretty paranoid...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @12:49PM
These firmware-encrypted devices almost always use your computers TPM (trusted computing) chip to authenticate. I don't trust it, usually have it disabled, and use full disk encryption provided by the OS.
Yes, I know that FDE on Linux is completely insecure because of the whole unencrypted boot partition, and while I prefer OpenBSD's FDE approach, I think a similar true disk encryption method is slated for Linux 4.2.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday July 07 2015, @01:39PM
Sounds like the disk encryption worked exactly as it should. Think about that. If you are paranoid enough to enable full disk encryption, why even consider that disk be useable on a foreign machine?
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Tuesday July 07 2015, @02:30PM
I hadn't considered it like that! Given that I "unlocked" the drive with a password on the old computer, I expected it to unlock on the new computer with the same password. It hadn't occurred to me that it would be locked to the original computer.
There are times when having a disk locked forever to its original host could be useful. On the other hand, I like knowing that if a computer dies I can at least read the data off the disk on another machine.
These Samsung drives in the parent article - would they only be accessible to the computer that originally locked them? So (for instance), if the CPU fries, the data on the disk is effectively gone?
If you are paranoid enough to enable full disk encryption
I strongly believe all computers should have full disk encryption - even if it has a blank passphrase. We store too much of our identity that letting people resurface from a dumpster-dive with a digital treasure trove is too much of a risky proposition. Even with a blank passphrase, trashing the contents of your disk is as simple as deleting the key and only takes a few seconds.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 07 2015, @03:04PM
Not having the data be readable on another machine doesn't preclude the ability to wipe and start from scratch, I wouldn't think.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday July 07 2015, @03:14PM
I would almost consider that a feature. Then again, if your computer craps out, then how would you ever recover? Then again ... backups.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday July 08 2015, @08:25AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Funny) by Nerdfest on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:45AM
One of these drives has sufficient space to keep about 285 bytes of information on every single person on the planet! Put another way, that is over 6 KB for every single person in the USA.
Is this a new drive space measurement created for drives marketed for the NSA?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:57AM
Yo dude I heard you're on a list of people who like to talk about the NSA. You must be horrified because the list just isn't exclusive enough for an elitist like you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @12:42PM
The fuck does that even mean?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khakipuce on Tuesday July 07 2015, @12:08PM
Telling us how much data goes on a Terabyte or two seems a bit pointless. It would be more interesting to know how the through-put compares to hard-disks and other SSDs
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @10:49AM
I just love it when Capitalist Pigs try to manipulate me into Producing money out of pockets to pay for their Shit!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday July 07 2015, @11:29AM
the 2TB 850 EVO for five years or 150 TBW
So 150 / 2 = only 75 times? I'm hoping for a typo here?
Knowing how marketing math works I'm guessing the real engineering stat is more like 10 TBW and that means I'm not sure what I'd do with this device if I got it. Something that can only be written maybe 5 times can't be used for database, mythtv backend media storage, swap space, build box, ... what could I use it for?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday July 07 2015, @11:46AM
I hear is solid-state so it should work wonders as a nutcracka.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Tuesday July 07 2015, @12:19PM
Your SMART tools will sometimes tell you exactly how many blocks/bytes have been written to your hard drives.
In normal use (i.e. not 24/7 server), you'll be lucky to get close to 75 ENTIRE REWRITES of every byte on the drive in more than 10 years of use (which is effectively a drive's lifetime when you consider how capacity grows and PC's get upgraded).
Seriously.
Consider even office/school use. Chances are such a drive will not hit 150Tb written to it in its lifetime ever, even for the busiest of users.
Honestly, investigate if your current drives have this facility to report on such things. Or load up one of the utilities that will track it for you over a typical month. Multiply it out.
Everyone does LOTS AND LOTS of reading from a drive. Writing? Not so much. I could re-install every game from my Steam account (over 1000) on this drive every week for ten years quite easily.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07 2015, @01:46PM
It really depends on your usage as you point out.
My wife and I have identical laptops with 1TB SSDs in them. She is at about 4-5TB for her drive. I am nearly 15. That is after 1 years use. I also deal in ISOs and virtual machines. She doesnt.
I am more interested in what Intel, Toshiba, and Micron are up to and the parts they are already sampling (10TB squeee, I mean cool). Samsung is just trying to get ahead of them.
(Score: 5, Funny) by mmlj4 on Tuesday July 07 2015, @12:31PM
6KB ought to be enough for anybody.
Need a Linux consultant [joeykelly.net] in New Orleans?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday July 08 2015, @01:03AM
Thanks, came here for this ;)
(Score: 1) by citizenr on Tuesday July 07 2015, @04:05PM
Do they slow down after a month as previous drives? or are they patched to overwrite themselves every month eating precious endurance? :(
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday July 07 2015, @05:31PM
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2551781/samsung-850-pro-ssd-corrupted-firmware-fix-read.html [tomshardware.com]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/samsung_850_pro_ssds_getting_borked_firmware/ [theregister.co.uk]
I don't have the latest but I'm assuming it's fixed.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by citizenr on Tuesday July 07 2015, @06:15PM
the fix is rewriting (in the background) data stored for longer than X days
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2015, @09:27AM
Never mind that pioneers often have arrows in their backs.