Samsung announces the world's highest capacity SSD — 15TB of storage:
The 2.5-in SSD is based on a 12Gbps Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) interface for use in enterprise storage systems. The PM1633a has blazing fast performance, with random read and write speeds of up to 200,000 and 32,000 I/Os per second (IOPS), respectively. It delivers sequential read and write speeds of up to 1200MBps, the company said. A typical SATA SSD can peak at about 550MBps.
Because the PM1633a comes in a 2.5-in. form factor, IT managers can fit twice as many of the drives in a standard 19-in. 2U (3.5-in.) rack, compared to an equivalent 3.5-in. storage drive. The SSD also sets a new bar for sustainability, Samsung said. The 15.36TB PM1633a drive supports one full drive write per day, which means 15.36TB of data can be written every day on a single drive without failure over its five-year warranty.
[...] The performance of the PM1633a SSD is based on four factors: the 3D NAND (vertical NAND or V-NAND) chips; 16GB of DRAM; Samsung's proprietary controller chip; and the 12Gbps SAS interface.
Unfortunately, these drives are slated for enterprise use — you won't be able to order one for your home system. Also, though these are described as 2.5-inch drives, they are 15mm high instead of the typical 9/7/5mm you would find in your laptop.
I'm curious if there are any Soylentils who could actually make use of such a drive. What workloads do you have that could benefit from such capacity high and speed?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday March 04 2016, @04:40PM
[quote]What workloads do you have that could benefit from such capacity high and speed?[/quote]
Porn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @04:53PM
Umm, databases. Should dramatically speed up those overnight index rebuilds.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday March 04 2016, @04:57PM
Databases full of... porn?
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday March 04 2016, @05:58PM
Obviously.
What else would you consider saving to a database?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @06:08PM
Excuse me miss, I'm here to..... index your attributes..... Bow-chicka-chicka-chicka.........
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday March 04 2016, @06:25PM
DROP CLOTHING Pants;
(Score: 5, Touché) by maxwell demon on Friday March 04 2016, @07:15PM
Followed by an INSERT INTO.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @08:56PM
You'd better protect against SQL injections though, or you'll be giving tech support for the next 18 years.
(Score: 2) by goodie on Saturday March 05 2016, @01:18AM
And there I was looking for a good INSERT INTO... joke ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @09:39PM
Actually it's for porn: ENTERPRISE porn.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @04:44PM
s/t
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday March 04 2016, @04:53PM
these drives are slated for enterprise use — you won't be able to order one for your home system.
That is just flat out wrong. You'll be able to get one for your home built system if you want to - that is if you want to pay the big bucks for the drive and the SAS controller (or you could just use an adapter and run it over something else but then you'll lose out on the I/O performance as it might take a massive hit). It's the price that will hold you back and not the item in itself. I looked at the place I normally order my components from and they sold SAS controllers etc so if they get an order for one and one of these drives they'll get it for me. There used to be a solid market for SCSI devices for home usage once upon a time, not so much anymore - I still have a minor stash of SCSI cards collecting dust in boxes. With that in mind I doubt there will be much use for it for the home user. But then on the hand people find uses for things like the TITAN graphics cards even tho there is no game out there that requires one - but as with so many things it might be nice to have one (that said I would never pay for one of them - even if I was Scrooge McDuck rich - and I'm not).
With that in mind I have no workloads or data requirements that would require the speed or space involved. I have no use for 15 TB of data storage either, sure I could just download and download and never delete anything but why? The computer I'm sitting at as I type this has 2.5 TB of storage over two drives (one SSD and one SATA spinner). I'm not running out of space anytime soon. Still have about 1.5 TB of free space and quite frankly the TB that is consumed could easily just be deleted for the most part since it just seems to be data that is collecting digital dust (or the equivalent).
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday March 04 2016, @06:29PM
I have an adapter that has 12Gb/s SAS....and I could use the space (molecular biophysics calculations...)...I think I could plug in at least 6!
Not sure about the price...I'll wait until it is $1000 ;-)
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday March 04 2016, @10:27PM
Newegg has [newegg.com] a 2-port, 12 Gb/s SAS controller (the Adaptec 1000 2288300-R) for $148, and an 8-port card (LSI 9341 MegaRAID SAS 9341-8i) for $253. My home computer cost less than either of those; I'll be waiting for the SATA version of this drive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @04:54PM
This might be an decent local cache for a mail server for a small ISP. Ignore all these newfangled communiction mechanisms - mail is a petabyte thing more than ever.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anne Nonymous on Friday March 04 2016, @05:17PM
> random read and write speeds of up to 200,000 and 32,000 I/Os per second
Impressive, but I'll wait until they build one without random speeds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @05:35PM
Essentially this is amazing news for those running virtual sans, with unholy amounts of data. Think 10-20+ ESXi in VSAN, each with 16x 6TB+ SAS disks. Each one of this would be using one of these SSD's for the performance tier (all r/w), data is flushed back to disks, and read through into SSD. An SSD of that size would be amazing. The only downside is SAS instead of NVME, where NVME has massive Queue depth, and the SAS is limited by the controllers (512+ QD). These servers would also use multiple HBA Controllers, at least two per server to distribute the load. Since this is all hyper converged, you can have amazing fault tolerances. Failures to tolerate extends to multiple servers/storage systems failing, and even entire sites. Anyways that what i would use it for.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by WizardFusion on Friday March 04 2016, @05:37PM
While a lot of servers only take SFF (Small Form Factor) drives, I don't understand why they don't make SSDs in the larger format too.? Surely they could cram even more space into one of the larger ones. Or even take cheaper components and fill a larger drive with them.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 04 2016, @06:12PM
In a weird way, 2.5" is already large. They could be cramming in M.2 or a truck load of microSD cards!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Friday March 04 2016, @07:25PM
"I don't understand why they don't make SSDs in the larger format too.? Surely they could cram even more space into one of the larger ones. Or even take cheaper components and fill a larger drive with them."
Your not the only one I have thought for years why not 3.5" or hell even 5.25" to fill those useless/wasted for most slots in the case. Something in the multiple TB range drop back a few generations in the die size, screw the write speed fastest spinning disk write speed will do write endurance the same idea. I want them as a sort of storage cartridge would be ideal to be clear pop in one write what you need to archive on it pop it out for next one to go in basically is my thoughts on it although I would be adverse to internal drive idea as well for that purpose.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Friday March 04 2016, @07:30PM
not be adverse to internal, that would be what I meant to write.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday March 04 2016, @09:08PM
Is there demand for that? Laptops want small drives and that's where most of the consumer ones are going. For desktops, you're probably just going to be using the SSDs for some of your files and not your entire system. So, the extra capacity that they could cram into a physically larger drive is probably not as useful as it might be.
Personally, I shy away from SSDs just because when they do fail you can wind up with all of your data disappearing in a very short period of time with little chance of recovery as opposed to older style disks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @07:00PM
it's the most expensive too, the Samsung 850 pro. suck it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 05 2016, @12:40AM
You're the only sucker here, for buying a system filled with non-free proprietary user subjugating software, and from Sony, a company known for abusing its users, no less.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2016, @07:28PM
Also good for a large IO intensive database server - if you have workloads that are difficult to scale out (can't be parallelized easily), this can buy you some time (e.g. use the Company's $$$$$ to save your job, then by the time the limits are hit and there are no alternatives you might be working somewhere else or even retired and it's no longer your problem ;) ).
(Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday March 05 2016, @02:53AM
It's not "workloads" that benefit from high capacity; it's large amounts of data. I could definitely use four of these right now in a 4-way mirror, and fill them all up almost instantly with what i already have. Just the most critical portion of that data.
The speed is almost completely beside the point. Reliability matters. Right now, I have nineteen 3 TB hard drives making up several doubly- and triply-redundant RAID storage pools, some of them duplicative for insurance. Always in my mind is a ticking time bomb. Going to SSDs would give me better reliability and reduced early mortalities. To hell with the speed. The hard drives pools are more than fast enough already.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 05 2016, @08:26AM
bit-torrent server pleeease!
though it would also need a ~1.4 Gbit/sec connection to the wider world.
that's about 0.17 GB/sec, ~10.6 GB/min, ~640 GB/h and 15'360 GB/day!
now just to find a CPU with enough I/O (GT/sec) that doesn't need it's own power plant
to not chock on above requirments ^_^