Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Cheap Replacement For Hard Disks Before 2020

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the we'll-see-in-10-years-about-that dept.

Data Storage 346

siddesu writes with disappointing news to anyone who'd like to see solid-state storage dominate in the near-term future. "A new study of storage technology by the former CTO of Seagate predicts that hard disks will remain the cheapest storage technology in the next decade and probably beyond."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In other news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859551)

There is no substitute, cheap or otherwise, for a mug of frosty piss.

Do they have a crystal ball? (0, Offtopic)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859929)

Seriously why waste time and energy thinking about this? It can't be predicted. Imagine in 1947: "There is no forseable way to improve computing speed for 20 years."

Huh? (4, Interesting)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859561)

So these people can predict the future now?! Really, you never know what is going to happen for sure. Look at current HDD tech, IBM made the GMR breakthrough and BAM! Huge storage capacity in drives. What makes people think that there cannot be another such discovery with solid state or some other yet unknown tech?

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859591)

I would wager that because the memory used in solid state drives is old enough that a breakthrough at this point is more unlikely to happen, merely because it should have already.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859651)

Well, the breakthrough is PCRAM, which is almost as fast as DRAM but non-volatile and rewritable per byte, unlike Flash, which needs (relatively large) cells to be deleted. Samsung are already producing 64MB PCRAM modules, but you can expect the capacities to increase quickly.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859641)

Probably because manufacturing techniques often take at least 10 years to become mainstream. Even if someone invents something faster, smaller and more reliable than magnetic storage... you still have to conceive of a way to produce it in mass quantities to drive the price below that of established spinning disks.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859939)

you still have to conceive of a way to produce it in mass quantities to drive the price below that of established spinning disks.

Nope! Roast beef costs more than bologna, yet people chose to buy it every day. SSD drives don't need to be cheaper because they are better - silent, far less prone to shock damage, and ohhh so much faster. Morever, HDD's, though cheaper per megabyte for huge-sized drives, will be more expensive for the smaller sizes people actually need. You can get a memory stick for, what, $10? HDD's never touch that because of their complexity. Well before 2020 a 250 GB SSD will be $20, and will have ample capacity for most users, and will be cheaper than any HDD. Granted, a 50 TB HDD will still be cheaper than a 50 TB SDD, but most people won't care. About that time, HDDs will become specialty products, further crippling any remaining cost advantage.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859997)

Well before 2020 a 250 GB SSD will be $20, and will have ample capacity for most users, and will be cheaper than any HDD.

Rather like the average user will ever need more than 640k of RAM.

By 2020, 250GB will be as much of a joke for the average user as a 250MB drive would be today; 250GB will probably be just about big enough to hold one super-extra-high-definition video file.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860071)

250GB will be as much of a joke for the average user as a 250MB drive would be today

Nintendo DSi has the equivalent of a 256 MB microSD soldered onto the motherboard. It's enough to hold a few apps from the DSi Shop. If it were a joke, why would Nintendo have used it?

250GB will probably be just about big enough to hold one super-extra-high-definition video file.

For one thing, the eye has a resolution limit, so why would people need more than, say, 2560x1440 (quad 720p) in home electronics? For another, are you talking about the consumer's use (which would be streaming rather than storage if the movie industry has its way) or the movie producer's use?

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860193)

Nintendo DSi has the equivalent of a 256 MB microSD soldered onto the motherboard. It's enough to hold a few apps from the DSi Shop. If it were a joke, why would Nintendo have used it?

And that has any relevance to the general computer market because?

At the rate we're going, by 2020 Windows will probably need 500GB for a base install and the average PC game will be 1TB.

For one thing, the eye has a resolution limit, so why would people need more than, say, 2560x1440 (quad 720p) in home electronics?

In the near future you'll be able to buy a $3000 camcorder that can shoot more than 2560x1440 and burn through a gigabyte every 30 seconds or so; by 2020 you'll probably be able to shoot IMAX resolution on a $3k camcorder.

Honestly, every time I've seen someone say 'the average user will never need more than this', they've looked incredibly foolish only a few years later.

Re:Huh? (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860333)

We can spend the bits on more than just resolution. Don't forget increases in frame rate (100fps+ needed for realistic fast motion), increases in color depth for more realistic dynamic range, and stereoscopy. And even if resolution on a conventional screen is bottlenecked by the human eye, dome screens need even higher resolution (or more practically, simulated dome screens using direct to eye projection). Also stereoscopy is an ugly hack that breaks when you change viewing position. A real 3D format would need a huge number of bits. This isn't even taking into account future upgrades to the human visual system, through cybernetics, gene therapy, or whatever.

Re:Huh? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860177)

Have you not noticed that the Blu-ray revolution is passing most of us by? People don't care too much about video quality, as long as they happen to have enough of it.

Re:Huh? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860271)

Have you not noticed that the Blu-ray revolution is passing most of us by?

My experience is that Blu-Ray finally seems to be taking off now that players are under $200, disks are typically only 1.5-2x the price of DVDs (sometimes even cheaper than the DVD and often cheaper than the same movie/TV show was on DVD when first released) and most people have HDTV.

And given the number of HDTV torrents Google throws at me any time I go searching for information about a movie, I strongly suspect that HD video files are much more prevalent than Blu-Ray players.

Also, more and more people are going to have to buy Blu-Ray if they want to be able to send their home movies to their relatives; I was visiting a friend a while back whose father bought a new HD camcorder and didn't understand that they wouldn't be able to burn it to DVD for their relatives to play in HD. Either they'll have to get their relatives to buy computers to plug into their TV, or a Blu-Ray player (or similar).

Re:Huh? (1)

SECProto (790283) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860229)

2020-2009 = 11 years. In 1998, my computer had a 5 gig hard drive, and a 250mb drive was as much a joke then as it is now. you are maybe mixing up 2020 and 2030?

Re:Huh? (1)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860263)

Most of the people I know are using from 20-30GB max out of a ridiculous 200-500GB storage space. Most people aren't watching movies on their computers or downloading tons of stuff they just want to get their work done & get the hell off the computer. For that 80GB is ample.

Re:Huh? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860019)

I suppose that explains the death of LTO to hard drives. Wait...

Re:Huh? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860043)

You can get a memory stick for, what, $10?

I can get USB drives and often SD cards for that price, but Memory Stick's higher royalties and lower economies of scale mean I'm not going to find cheap media in a big box store unless it's on clearance.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

StoatBringer (552938) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860273)

You severely underestimate future requirements for porn storage.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859975)

Good thing we haven't been working with solid state storage in digital cameras for 10+ years then. Or the RAID controller technology which could make them kick-ass fast. Sorry, but SSDs aren't revolutionary in that sense, they're taking two rather mainstream technologies combined with the same process improvement you see in CPU/GPU/RAM and coming to whoop ass in all performance oriented markets. I have an SSD as my primary disk and I'd say it's the biggest revolution since dual cores. Almost no matter what I do, the machine remains very responsive under heavy IO load completely unlike hard disks.

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859661)

So these people can predict the future now?!

Dude, the guy has his own Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] . I'm pretty sure that grants him all sorts of powers.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859807)

Dude, the guy has his own Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]. I'm pretty sure that grants him all sorts of powers.

It's true. It happened to Jeff Merkey. One day he was an ordinary run-of-the-mill netkook. Then he got a Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] and it turned him into a kind of superhero; Netkookman or something.

Re:Huh? (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860023)

I'm sure you could edit the wiki page and give him the ability to fly. With any luck, maybe he'll test out his newfound abilities on a tall building.

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

kenj0418 (230916) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860085)

With any luck, maybe he'll test out his newfound abilities on a tall building.

I'm assuming you mean testing it from the top of the tall building. Because if you fail while trying to 'leap tall buildings in a single bound' its much less spectacular if you were starting at the bottom.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860175)

Your mum has one, too. That doesn't mean she's in the position to predict anything. But she's quite flexible.

Look, so do I! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860207)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Coward

Wrong, because... (1)

PalmHair (1222728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859681)

... 7200 RPM should be enough for anybody.

Re:Wrong, because... (1)

pantherace (165052) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860029)

Lies! ...Though 15k should be. If only because of the noise and heat! ;)

So that means that by 2015... (5, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859571)

...10 TB drives will be $10? More likely, 100TB drives will be $100 but you won't be able to get anything smaller. And they'll still crap out after a couple of years.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859735)

Pretty much. And the Seagate folks are forgetting the fixed costs in their estimates. There are a lot of fixed costs that go into manufacturing hard drives. That's the reason prices on HDs aren't dropping. Instead, capacity is increasing, giving the perception that storage is getting cheap. It isn't, though, unless you really expect to use all of that 1 TB capacity. The average computer user uses maybe 1-200 gigs. For them, the effective price of HD storage hasn't changed significantly in about five years.

The price of SSDs is going down because most of their cost can still be reduced by economies of scale. At some point---probably within a couple of years---the price of a SSD will drop to the point where you can get a 256 GB drive for $100. At that point, it doesn't matter how big the hard drive vendors make their drive capacity; they're through. Most people will buy the much more reliable SSDs over the larger HDs once the price is about the same. At that point, the tables will turn, HD manufacturing will be relegated to power users, and hard drive prices will skyrocket. I'd give them five years. At most.

Their statement reads like a press release by a company that sees the writing on the wall and is trying to keep stock prices propped up as long as they can. Just saying.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859877)

I have 12 TB of storage (6 TB currently un-powered) and I am using ~80%

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860031)

What you're saying is that HD makers need HD porn and lots and lots of torrents to remain relevant, eh?

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860111)

That is a lot of pornography.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860157)

The average consumer doesn't keep ~10TB of porn on their computers.

And doing the math. Wow, you're one sick little monkey. That's ~180 days of 24/7 full speed downloading.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859955)

In other words, the near future of home computer storage is looking bad as prices are going to significantly increase, with RAIDs of SSDs worth 200+ USD being the closest equivalent to a current 50 USD HDD. (500 GB HDD @ 50 USD vs. 2x256 GiB SSD + RAID controller @ 100 USD per SSD)

Re:So that means that by 2015... (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860003)

At some point---probably within a couple of years---the price of a SSD will drop to the point where you can get a 256 GB drive for $100. At that point, it doesn't matter how big the hard drive vendors make their drive capacity; they're through.

Agreed. It doesn't really matter if the price per TB for magnetic hard drives is much lower than for flash. The question will be, can I get enough storage in my computer without breaking the bank?

Of course it depends on what amount is "enough". Honestly, on my laptop, I'm only using 25 GB. It's not that I'm trying to keep my storage requirements down. I have 160GB to work with, I just don't store anything except my OS, a few applications, and some documents. My desktop is in about the same state, except add about 20 GB of music. I think the next time I buy a new drive (which may still be a couple years off) it will be SSD.

On the other hand, I would probably still want something very high capacity for archiving/backup, and hard drives might still be suitable there. Also, it's possible that I could be prodded into collecting movies and TV shows at 1080p like I have MP3s right now, in which cases I might want several hundred gigabytes of video storage. That might be another suitable use for hard drives. So maybe you'll see more of a tiered approach, with smaller/faster SSDs used internally to store the OS and apps, and then bigger external HD for video, backup, and archives.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860149)

So maybe you'll see more of a tiered approach, with smaller/faster SSDs used internally to store the OS and apps, and then bigger external HD for video, backup, and archives.

And some kind of filesystem that abstracts the whole mess so that you don't have to worry about which bits of data go on which disk. Your computer probably knows which files should be on the fast disk better then you do.

That said, I would imagine it would be structure in a way that *everything* gets written to the spinning disk so you can take said disk and plug it into another device. Only unlike RAID1 it would only need to mirror the SSD when the IO system is idle.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (3, Insightful)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860009)

unless you really expect to use all of that 1 TB capacity. The average computer user uses maybe 1-200 gigs. For them, the effective price of HD storage hasn't changed significantly in about five years.

I dunno. I've recently noticed that the bigger disk capacities are being advertised as "nnn DVDs", in the same way that they used to be "nnn songs". It's not a given, but ripping DVD collections (and/or storing PVR recordings long-term) might well take off as a mass-market usage. I started ripping my own DVD library recently and believe me, it eats terabytes for breakfast.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860315)

But.. why would you do this? DVD's successor is *already* mainstream, and the successor's successor is already being hinted at.

What you should be doing is trying to get as much for your second-hand DVDs as you can now, before their value drops even further, and just renting Blu-Rays on an as-needed basis. (no point in owning blu-rays, they're an interim medium to ease the adoption of HD and digital sets. I don't know what the longish term medium will be, but it won't be blu-ray.)

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860035)

The average computer user uses maybe 1-200 gigs.

Where do you pull that figure from? How much disk space are you using *right now*?

My desktop? about 600 gb in use now.
My HTPC? About 3 TB in use now.

I'd imagine the average disk space in use on a home computer is 400 to 500 gigs.

Todays $120 1.5TB drives will probably be full by the time the $120 4TB drives come out two years from now.

For them, the effective price of HD storage hasn't changed significantly in about five years.

That is an interesting way to frame it provided you dont adjust for inflation, which would make the cost lower every year. But lets just say for the sake of argument that the effective cost has not gone down. There are other things new drives offer besides space. Power consumption is less. Less heat. And most important--less noise. My new drives dont make a peep while 5 year old drives are noisy as hell.

In the end though, I think a new hard drive or SSD is always gonna cost $100 USD just like getting more memory is gonna cost about $150 or a new CPU is gonna cost $250. The performance or size will be more, but the price point will probably never change.

Hard drives - if you build it, they will come.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860163)

One word you are not: average.

At least in regards to your storage use.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860189)

Obviously :-) Most of my workstation's disk is full of virtual machine images. The HTPC, well that is obvious.

Still, I'd be curious how much *data* is on an "average" computer. But even if you got a number, my guess the standard deviation would be quite high. Probably lots in the 750gb bracket and lots in the 10gb bracket.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860253)

My guess is that the average would be near 30GB, and the standard deviation fairly low – shit tons of corporate computers out there.

My guess for home machines only would be close to 150GB at the moment, again with low standard deviation - people with VM images and lots of video files are *far* outnumbered by the masses with their mp3 collection and not much more on there.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860307)

Corporate use? Heck yeah. Probably even lower than 30gb.

Either way, I agree that for the average user, a 320gb SSD is plenty of space. By the time they graduate to a bigger drive, the 1TB ssd's will cost the same and they can move on in.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859869)

Drives can and do die prematurely, but the failure rate isn't so terribly high. Even when I get an SSD for my boot drive & applications, I'll still be using hard drives for the data for several years after that.

Re:So that means that by 2015... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860081)

10 TB USB keys will be $10.

Maybe the cheapest - but does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859593)

Once SSD storage gets large enough for a reasonable price (and it seems that this will happen soon), why should I care if I can get 10 times the capacity for the same price?

Define 'cheapest' (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859605)

If you mean 'lowest cost per GB' then you're probably right. If you mean 'lowest cost per IOPS' then you're already wrong. And if we're talking 'lowest cost for something of adequate capacity and a low power consumption for a laptop' then you're also probably wrong too. When flash drives drop below about $1/GB (and it's already close) there will be little advantage in mechanical disks for most users. It doesn't matter if the disk is bigger if you're only using 10% of the capacity, and it's slower than the alternative and uses more power.

Re:Define 'cheapest' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859689)

It doesn't matter if the disk is bigger if you're only using 10% of the capacity, and it's slower than the alternative and uses more power.

Who the HELL runs at 10% of the capacity? I have as much data as I can afford storage space to save the data in.

Granted, this isn't my grandparents' use profile, but the people who are entering college now? They've never lived in a world without the internet, and they're the ones who are going to define the future use profiles.

Re:Define 'cheapest' (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859859)

Who the HELL runs at 10% of the capacity?

Most of the non-geeks I know have under 10GB of data. They have cheap digital cameras that produce images in the 1-2MB range, so they don't take up much space, and they don't record video. Most of these people are in the 20-30 age bracket. And most of the 'Internet generation' don't bother storing stuff from the 'net. Why bother, when you can just download it again if you want it?

But will they record video later? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860093)

they don't record video.

Yet.

Re:But will they record video later? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860199)

Eventually, sure. But give it a couple of years and flash drives will be big enough that it won't be an issue. By the time rotating drives are 10TB and flash drives for the same price are 1TB, how many people are going to be producing more than 1TB of data?

Re:But will they record video later? (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860343)

Depends on how quickly we move away from broadcast / cable TV and into so-called IPTV. Once people start downloading entire seasons of HDTV content (4gb/hr) a 1TB drive will seem awfully small. Especially if you have people in your house who never like to delete shows when done watching them.

Speed vs Capacity (2, Informative)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859613)

Although flash memories have also become popular - with advantages such as lower power consumption, faster read access time, and better mechanical reliability than HDDs

So HDDs will still be tops in terms of capacity, but SSDs win in everything else. They're getting to the price range now that they're a viable replacement for high-end systems that don't need massive storage. I doubt I'll even have a HDD in the next system I build, SSDs provide enough capacity.

Re:Speed vs Capacity (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859747)

I'm guessing the (near) future will simply be HDD in NAS for "third party" files like MP3's and movies and SSD in PC's for OS/apps/personal files.

From what I hear, more and more people are using NAS and the scenario I describe above only seems logical when using NAS.

Re:Speed vs Capacity (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859873)

Why choose only one storage option? I think I'll mix them, one for system performance and the other for storing my multimedia files, it's not like it needs much power if it is offline most of the time.

Prediction eh (4, Insightful)

xtal (49134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859617)

The fact a major, respected, industry leader has predicted an upstart new technology will not surpass the incumbent technology is an indication it is almost certainly false.

Re:Prediction eh (3, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859663)

The fact a major, respected, industry leader has predicted an upstart new technology will not surpass the incumbent technology is an indication it is almost certainly false.

An industry leader who runs a company that has sold off all the other parts of the company over the years and now produces nothing but hard drives.

Let's be honest, he's hardly going to say "Disks are dead within 5 years. Unfortunately, we'd need to put in 6 years of R&D to catch up with everyone else in the solid state storage arena."

Re:Prediction eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859667)

That's not such a great argument.

Seagate is not a stupid company. If they know of some new technology which is going to fare than hard disks as we know today, they can certainly invest in creating products around it.

Uhh.... DUH (1)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859623)

Of course they will be cheapest, but only cheapest per/GB.

As time goes on, SSD's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems don't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the "cloud".

Sure, per GB, magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity, but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs.

Re:Uhh.... DUH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859691)

I can still remember the days when hard drives where optional, and dual-floppy drives where more than enough. And I'm only 31 yet.....

Re:Uhh.... DUH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859947)

I am only 21 and I remember that!!!

Re:Uhh.... DUH (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859805)

Of course they will be cheapest, but only cheapest per/GB.

The very definition of cheapest.

As time goes on, SSD's will be the default in desktops and laptops... mostly because these systems don't need very large drives... especially as we move more and more data to the "cloud".

You've fallen for nothing but marketing drivel. The idea that programs and data are going to be more reliable and better (including better trusted) when one or more random organisations are in charge of it is just plain laughable. This is just data/software outsourcing at it's worst, with a bit of thin client drivel thrown in topped with meaningless buzzwords 2.0.

Sure, per GB, magnetic storage will remain king when it comes to capacity, but they will only be used by those with extreme storage needs.

My main machine runs with 4 Terabytes. I have over half a TB of photos, most going back 10 years, some scanned going back before I was born. I also have multiple backups on removable drives on and off site. I prefer still photography but if I were interested in video my needs would be more "extreme". I think you'll find lots of people have needs you'd define as extreme. There's nothing extreme about it. Liberating is what it is. People who do nothing but surf the web, read email, and spend their lives on social networking sites, with the very occassional need to produce a word document for work might not need lots of storage. Other people will.

Re:Uhh.... DUH (1)

chapstercni (238462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859931)

And I hope it is RAID'ed...
I have a mere 500GB storage.. but it is mirrored.
Lots of data on one device without redundancy is scary.
Harddrives WILL crash. EVERYTHING crashes.

Re:Uhh.... DUH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860295)

The cheapest per GB are DVDs at about 3.5c per GB. Hard drives are about 8.5c per GB. You might find it more liberating keeping your 1000 photos of uncle ted from every side of your house [ibras.dk] on a spindle of DVDs packed in a box behind the coal shed.

Fragmentation (2, Interesting)

Sumbius (1500703) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859629)

I for one, just like many others, prefer hard disks over solid-state because of their more predictable lifespan. Solid-state drives tend to slowly lose parts of their usable sections. Even though the good old hard disks tend to break easily, at least I can defragment them without slowly starting to damage the disk. Yep, there are 2 different kinds of solid-state drives which handle this problem differently, but I still don't think the technology is matured enough yet. Perhaps in a few years. As for the mini laptops and such, solid-state seems to be superior though. Many of the first mini laptops used solid-state, but now only very few have them. Why this direction of development?

Re:Fragmentation (4, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859677)

"more predictable lifespan"? I take it someone hasn't had a drive head crash... SSDs have wear-leveling and usually on sectors that go bad it is still readable, you just can't write to it. HDDs are more prone to cataclysmic failure compared to SSDs, a SSD usually won't break unless you manage to physically break the circuit board, compared to the fragile platters of the HDD, etc. SSDs fail nicely, HDDs do not.

Very old article (4, Insightful)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859649)

today, a typical 500 GB hard drive costs about $100

This article must be several years old. In present day, a 1TB hard drive costs about $80.

October 23rd, 2009 By Lisa Zyga

Doh!

Re:Very old article (2, Informative)

Suiggy (1544213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859723)

For a 5200rpm "green" drive, perhaps. But for 7200rpm enterprise-grade storage with RAID support, like Western Digital's RE3 and RE4 line of drives, you're still up at around $200 for a 1TB drive and $375 for a 2TB drive.

huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860123)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152102

Re:Very old article (1)

masterzora (871343) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860319)

It's about $90-$100 for a 1TB WD Caviar Black which, quite frankly, is the only terabyte drive your average home user should even look at. For those of us looking for something enterprise-grade, then, yeah, an RE3 is a bit more, but we're certainly not average.

Re:Very old article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859823)

They're going by Best Buy prices, not Newegg.

Re:Very old article (2, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859843)

But most SSDs are designed for laptops because that's where hard drives are most at risk. A 500 GB laptop drive does cost almost $100.

Re:Very old article (1)

Carra (1220410) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859911)

I wish we Europeans could buy it for that price. Closer to €100 here...

ROFLMAO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859685)

Yeah right.
Obviously this dude has his head stuck in the sand.
Cheaper alternatives to hard disks will almost certainly be at hand by 2020. Probably by 2018, and possibly as soon as 2014.

Lack of insight might be the reason why he is the _former_ CTO of Seagate.

I'm not about to trust this one... (3, Interesting)

Suiggy (1544213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859697)

I mean, both Intel and OCZ have said that once they get to tri and quad-state MLC flash technology, prices should drop considerably by 2012. I think Seagate just doesn't want to be relegated as a dying tech company.

Re:I'm not about to trust this one... (2, Interesting)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860311)

And even if it would drop down to 1/4th, it would still be 10 times as expensive as hard drives are today.

It will NEVER be cheaper to make chips than to put magnetic films on some metal / glass discs, at least if you are looking at large amounts of storage.

Its just the fact that the performance gain will enable more and more uses.
For bulk storage of Petabytes i will bet that you will go for hard drives even after 2020.

PS: Tri /quad state (is really 8 / 16 state, as MLC already has 4 states to get 2 bits) will be fragile as hell. Those 3bit/cell chips availabe today are more like 100 write cycles...

Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859701)

"Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people."

http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/pentagon-to-use-brain-dead-cyborg.html

SSDs will soon be "cheap enough" (2, Interesting)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859737)

Most of my non-server machines only use about 40-50gb of disk space, even though the hard drives have gradually grown from 20 to 40 to 120 to 500 to 1500GB over the last few years. Each time I build a system, I tend to throw in whatever drive costs about $100-125 when I order my parts. So based on my past usage model, I'd have no problem switching over to SSD if I can get say...128GB of storage for $100-125. On those occasions where I need a big chunk of permanent storage, I'll just get some sort of external hard disk that will undoubtedly continue to plummet in price.

Re:SSDs will soon be "cheap enough" (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859953)

On those occasions where I need a big chunk of permanent storage, I'll just get some sort of external hard disk that will undoubtedly continue to plummet in price.

This is why I love eSATA :D

Here's a Radical Idea: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29859755)

The guy's absolutely right on this and there's nothing really to argue about.

Get both (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859819)

Duh. New desktop PCs and full scale laptops should have 2 disks in them. An SSD, with the C: drive partition with the OS and Program Files folders. Nearly all software will install itself to the SSD by default that way. Also the swap partition should go here.

"My Documents\Downloads" and the default download directories should go to the mechanical hard disk. The slightly complex part is that users should know to store small files to the SSD and big ones to the hard disk, unless the big files are something that needs to be accessed quickly (like a large pdf document).

OS support would be the best way : a smart OS could 'cache' files to the SSD or automatically remove files from the SSD when it's getting full. The typical user isn't going to properly manage a divide like this.

Re:Get both (1)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859935)

ZFS is supposed to do this (on solaris), and you're right, the best way to take advanate of this would be smart system software; on the other hand, simply creating two folders: Large_Files and Small_Files and doing the management yourself shouldn't be that bad... anyway, I think this is probably the not-so-distant future of storage; "smart storage" where often accessed files or files where fast read/write speeds are the most critical should be on an SSD while other files, are stored to conventional spinning platter drives.

Re:Get both (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860117)

No, it wouldn't be that bad doing it yourself. Personally, my future machines will have enough SSD storage to hold absolutely everything BUT video files, audio files, and pictures. That would be one intelligent way to decide what files to move to the mechanical disk : for the most part, any sort of video file or audio file can be safely put on a hard drive without losing performance. In both cases, the computer reads the file in a predictable, sequential manner when playing back that kind of file, and even high definition video files don't consume that much hard disk 'bandwidth' per second when playing.

Windows Vista/Windows 7 already support a folder remapping technology where files can appear to be in one folder when they are actually secretly being stored elsewhere.

The most trouble free way I can think of would be to have, by default, the SSD be the only "visible drive". As the user uses the machine, when the machine is idle or when there is a lot of spare disk resources, the OS would move files to the mechanical hard drive. It would move stuff that has metadata indicating it's a video or audio file, installation and restore files in the Windows directory (and many, MANY other useless windows folder files that never get accessed). Depending on free space available to the SSD, it would move a lot more stuff as needed.

Re:Get both (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860109)

OS support would be the best way : a smart OS could 'cache' files to the SSD or automatically remove files from the SSD when it's getting full

Bingo. The file system would basically abstract out the fact there is a really slow but huge drive and a fast but relatively small drive. You'd have a "C:" drive and the file system would hide the fact that it would be using the SSD as basically a 300+ GB cache for your 4TB disk. Only unlike your RAM, it doesn't have to worry about what happens when it loses power as the SSD doesn't lose its contents. This means it might never have to write things out to a spinning platter.

I predict... (1)

ProfMobius (1313701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859847)

I predict that when the cheapest SDD will be around the same price as HDD, people will switch to SDD whatever the capacity is.

I also predict the death of internet porn at the same time.

Depends on size (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859941)

Everyone knows that hard drives will continue to get bigger and bigger, and smaller drives will drop off the market and the "entry" price will remain around the same. But if you don't *NEED* such huge drives, then SSDD works just fine. My Netbook can attest to that. Sure- I can't store ALL my music and ALL my video and ALL my pictures, but I don't need to on that type of device. Linux seems to work just fine on SSDD, saves a bit of battery, seems a bit faster overall, and it is impervious to jarring and magnetism, and is smaller and lighter. And that is just 40GB (16 fast, 32 "normal"). I can't imagine that in the next few years that Flash won't continue to get faster, cheaper, and more dense- especially as more and more portable devices create an ever-increasing demand.

Futurama (1)

Haxx (314221) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859995)

    There has always been and will always be a 22% chance that 90% of the time, 45% of the people will only be correct 62% of the time when attempting to predict the future to 100% accuracy. Henceforth and seemingly only a partially untrue tautology.

Hybrid I/O well before before 2020 (3, Interesting)

Saeger (456549) | more than 4 years ago | (#29859999)

Nobody with a clue has been arguing that SSD's would be cheaper per gigabyte than ye olde spinning-platter HDDs any time soon.

What we're seeing now, and will see much more of, is the hybrid approach of combining a small-ish (80GB) SSD for the most-accessed OS & Apps, with a monsterously huge and relatively slow (array of) HDDs for bulk data archival and backup.

With HDD I/O still the single biggest bottleneck today, it makes sense to start transitioning to SSDs, but it doesn't have to be all at once. The premium for SSDs -- ~$2.50/GB SSD vs ~$0.10/GB HDD -- isn't that much, but it will probably pay for most to wait another year not just for prices to fall more, but for all SSDs to finally support TRIM, and have efficient firmware that competes with indilinx and intel's. SATA3 will also be welcome as current SSDs have already hit the SATA2 xfer limit.

(Oh, and please don't eat the "ZOMG SSDs have limited write-cycles!" FUD. In the vast majority of normal usage patterns, you'll never ever get close to hitting it, and even you did, the failure mode still allows you to READ your data off if you had no backup, as opposed to a HDD crash.)

Re:Hybrid I/O well before before 2020 (1)

Shadyman (939863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860049)

"With HDD I/O still the single biggest bottleneck today"

I still say it's PEBCAK.. I can't type those 0s and 1s nearly fast enough.

Re:Hybrid I/O well before before 2020 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860061)

you cant store a SSD in a safety deposit box like we do with regular drive backups, because the charge fades away in a few years. dealbreaker right there

Damn! Stop all work!!! (3, Funny)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860283)

dealbreaker right there

Holy shit! Anonymous Coward says current generation SSD's might not be able to be used for long-term backup! Clearly this means there is absolutely no use for Solid State Disks whatsoever!

The game is over gentleman. Time to shut down production and throw in the towel.

Thanks for saving our ass. Anybody reading this should know that Anonymous Coward is a smart cookie--he was also responsible for warning about the transition from perfectly sound MFM interface to the bloated, evil IDE interface. Whatever advice he gives regarding these untested, unsound Solid State Disks should be wisely heeded.

Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860025)

I think that now we hit the TB point getting HDD with more space will be less and less of a concern. How much data does the normal user have and need space for? They will need to start the migration to SSD for speed than storage space. The short term answer for balancing the cost will be a hybrid of the two drives using the HDD for space and the SSD for speed.

HDD in 2020 = Tape drives in 1995? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860135)

Aren't tape drives still the least expensive per byte backup solution? (Or weren't they at least 10-15 years ago, well into the HDD era?) Just because something has the greatest cost per capacity doesn't mean it will still be the primary technology in use if something else is faster plus adequate in capacity for most purposes.

First` poOst (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860139)

Save Linux from a overly morbid and 8ecruitment, but join in especially

And? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860179)

This just means that licensing costs are too high, and we have to wait till the patents run out.

Tagged Slavegate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860185)

I wonder why there won't be any cheap replacements for hard disk drives until 2020? Could it be the fact Slavegate, the one making the claim, has and is actively trying to hinder the progress of all solid state based storage? Personally, I thing Slavegate is doing this as a measure so they can continue to influence their sheep to buy Slavegate HDDs every year to replace a drive that had experienced a head crash.

"http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/15/1632232"

To each his own. (1)

Erikderzweite (1146485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860201)

HDDs are still much better for data storage -- it's a mature technology which is quite reliable and won't be replaced any time soon.

However, SSDs are already replacing HDDs on netbooks, notebooks will follow: lower power consumption, less noise, immunity to bumps and shake make SSDs so attractive in that segment.

SSDs use on desktops is somewhat limited -- they are much better as a system disk because of fast IO times, but most users won't really care about that extra speedup.
Vendors might offer dual-disk configuration though where the OS is on SSD and user data -- on HDD. But that is rather something for power users, not for Joe the Plummers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?