Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Most SSDs Now Under a Dollar Per Gigabyte

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the more-bits-per-buck dept.

Data Storage 187

crookedvulture writes "SSD prices continue plummeting. In just the past quarter, street prices have fallen by double-digit percentages for most models, with some slashed by 30% or more. We've reached the point where the majority of drives cost less than a dollar per gigabyte, and that's without the special coupon codes and mail-in rebates usually attached to weekly deals. Lower-capacity drives seem more resistant to deep price cuts, making 120-256GB offerings the best values right now. It's nice to see a new class of devices go from prohibitively expensive to eminently affordable in such a relatively short amount of time."

cancel ×

187 comments

Don't let it fool you (2, Informative)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 2 years ago | (#41563651)

The reason they've come down so much in price is because of the smaller process sizes being used, requiring less silicon for the same capacity.

Of course you pay for it with reduced endurance and drive lifetime.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Re:Don't let it fool you (3, Interesting)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41563685)

Would you claim the same for processors? They use less silicon for the same speed. Just curious. I have no idea how this relates to reliability.

Re:Don't let it fool you (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41563735)

It doesn't, he's an idiot.

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41563867)

Not really. Low priced hard drives and CD/DVD burners are terribly unreliable now. Durability is not seen as a good thing in this business. I fondly remember the long gone days of expecting an appliance to last 15-20 years. I still have a perfectly functional, but very slow, 15 year old laptop and 13 year old iMac, both with their original drives. Now I am expected to be happy with anything that lasts over 5-6 years.

Re:Don't let it fool you (4, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#41563989)

The difference is in price. Even discounting inflation, that 1997 laptop likely cost you (or whoever bought it first) well over $2500 or more. Now you can get the same relative level of bleeding-edge badass for less than half the price. Hell, look at the 1980's-era machines... At the high end, those things cost you almost as much as a new compact car at the time. Nowadays, you can use one to scare the kids into eating their vegetables, but that's about it. ("Now Johnny, you either eat that effing broccoli or you'll be talking to facebook over a 9600-baud modem for a month - you hear me, boy!?" )

One other thing, though - not all new items die off in 5-6 years. Instead, we just get bored with it and move on. I have an old 1994-era dual G5 Mac that I can pull out of the closet and, in full confidence, expect it to come right up. Same story with the 2001-era Dell Inspiron 8100 I bought, then eventually gave to my mother - and she still uses the damned thing almost daily (yes the battery is pretty much dead weight by now, but it still works just fine otherwise).

Re:Don't let it fool you (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41564303)

The difference is in price.

And that's why I expect these 'low priced' SSDs to last about as long as any other chaff. And now, with almost the entire process being mechanized there's no justification for it.

Re:Don't let it fool you (1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41564393)

Stop it, you're just looking stupid now. Thing go down in price and quality can go up. Manufacturing techniques, volume, shipping. All those thing go down as production ramp up.

Re:Don't let it fool you (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 years ago | (#41564993)

Warranty on trusted brands is still 3 years. 5 years if you shop around.

Re:Don't let it fool you (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41565903)

Please tell that to Apple.

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

Improbus (1996348) | about 2 years ago | (#41564641)

You still have a POTS line?

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41565639)

I have an old 1994-era dual G5 Mac

Holy crap a time travelling Apple!

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565675)

LOL, the date seemed odd to me as well.

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

modecx (130548) | about 2 years ago | (#41566041)

I, on the other hand, have a 2004 dual 2.0 GHz G5 Power Mac which has been rendered inoperable due to circuit board creep on the mainboard. If I heat it with a hair-dryer (expanding the glass and epoxy and pushing the circuits back together) it will start, but as it cools off it crashes. Turns out it's a fairly common occurrence, and something that was resolved in later models. It was about six years old when it gave up the ghost, which is disappointing to say the least for the premium I was charged for it, and the fact that it was still useful to me.

I only keep it around because I intend to rip the guts out and mod in an ATX system. I kinda like the case.

Re:Don't let it fool you (-1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41564385)

What does that have to do with SSD technology?
Also, a modern DVD player will last for many years, and cost 20 bucks. One bought today is likely to last past the point it's even used.

"Now I am expected to be happy with anything that lasts over 5-6 years."
ah, I'm old and things are worse now, even tho' I have no evidence to back it up..whine.

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41564615)

Believe what you want. I don't care.

Re:Don't let it fool you (4, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41563925)

Yes, it absolutely does with flash memory. This is a known issue-- just google the write endurance of 25nm flash vs 34nm.

Whether or not it is a sufficient difference to worry about is another issue-- but absolutely a 1GB flash stick will last longer on 34nm process than it would on 25nm process. Of course, that also ignores that smaller processes will generally have higher capacities, which causes the endurance of a particular cell to be less important.

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41564481)

literally correct, practically it doesn't matter. we are talking many, many decades of use. 80+ years instead of 100+ years. And that assume completely filling the drive almost every 10 days, then erasing it.

Assumption Min 3000 complete write/erase cycles and intelligent software. Not really that big of an assumption any more.

Re:Don't let it fool you (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#41565139)

Completely filling the disk and deleting it is a pretty easy life for an SSD. Creating lots of small files, such as repeated compilation, can easily kill them within a year.

Of course the savings in programmer time from faster compilations easily outweigh that. But there are plenty of use cases which will kill an SSD much faster than an HDD.

Re:Don't let it fool you (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565403)

Completely filling the disk and deleting it is a pretty easy life for an SSD. Creating lots of small files, such as repeated compilation, can easily kill them within a year.

Absolute fucking hogwash. No, strike that, not hogwash, just downright utter FUD.

As someone who has used SSDs exclusively in FreeBSD servers for OS disks (that means root filesystem, swap, /usr, /var, and /tmp -- where all world rebuilds happen), I have only seen two of our drives result in 2 reallocated NAND pages: and that's over the course of 3 years, using an OS version that lacks TRIM support. The drives are Intel X25-M 80GB drives, which are MLC-based.

When it comes to SSDs, there is absolutely nothing different about creating many small files vs. creating one big file. The filesize doesn't matter; the FTL doesn't give a shit about "files": it cares about LBAs. Specifically, 10,000 4KByte files are going to have the exact same effect on the drive as one 40,000KByte file. The FTL is going to have to map just as many LBAs, although I will admit (depending on the FTL implementation) there may be less FTL map entries on the larger file (depends on of the FTL map is implemented as start/end LBA ranges or a true 1:1 LBA map).

I wish people unfamiliar with storage subsystems and storage technology would stop spreading this fucking nonsense. Those of us who are have to go to great lengths to undo the bullshit folks like you spread. There are other reasons to be "worried" about SSDs, but NAND lifetime isn't one of them. Wear levelling algorithms work extremely well with present-generation SSDs.

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#41565485)

Absolute fucking hogwash. No, strike that, not hogwash, just downright utter FUD.

I presume you're talking about your own post, because I'm quoting from actual, real-world experience with SSDs. A number of developers have posted on the web about how their SSDs dramatically improve compilation speed but die within a year.

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565687)

I've had platter drives die within a week, and compiling is hard on them as well, so I suspect the average difference is small even in that use scenario.

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 2 years ago | (#41565737)

literally correct, practically it doesn't matter. we are talking many, many decades of use. 80+ years instead of 100+ years. And that assume completely filling the drive almost every 10 days, then erasing it.

Assumption Min 3000 complete write/erase cycles and intelligent software. Not really that big of an assumption any more.

try below 1000 cycles with single MLC cells holding TENS of electrons

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41563933)

With today's materials, process shrinks results in worse flash "endurance [google.com] ", a measure of the number of times you can write/erase a cell before it goes kaputt. This loss of endurance is combatted through error-correcting codes and over-provisioning (added redundant flash) used for wear-leveling.

That said, the price drops we're seeing now are NOT mainly because of process shrinkage, and worrying about endurance is a fools errand. You simply have to buy products from trusted manufacturers who you trust to have done the necessary testing.

Flash wears out. Smaller flash wears out faster (2)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 years ago | (#41564241)

okay, unlike processors, it's already known that flash only has so many write cycles before it's worn out. Thus far, the reports I've read say that smaller process flash, especially MLC flash, wears out quicker. HOWEVER, shrinking the process so you fit 4X the cells into a given area doesn't give you cells with 1/4 the lifespan; maybe 2/3rds, maybe 1/2. That part isn't clear. Thus, a theoretical 1TB flash chip might only have 10TB worth of 'writes' to it, that 10TB is still better than a 1GB chip that has 100GB worth of writes. Wear leveling takes care of the rest.

Re:Flash wears out. Smaller flash wears out faster (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41564495)

"That part isn't clear"
no, it's pretty clear,a nd its about 20% less life time. So over 80 years.

Re:Don't let it fool you (5, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41564553)

Despite all the, errm, uninformed ladies and gentlemen responding with kneejerk reactions, smaller process sizes really do reduce the program/erase endurance of NAND flash. At 50nm, MLC was at about 10,000 cycles. 34nm took us down to about 5,000 cycles. 25nm took us down to 3,000 to 5,000 cycles, which is where we're at now. So, technically, we are reducing cost at the expense of reliability.

There are mitigating factors, however. Over the same timespan, SSD controllers have improved, substantially reducing write amplification, and capacities have increased, preventing the total *writable* lifespan of drives from decreasing.

As an example, a 60GB drive good for 10,000 cycles with a write amplification factor of 2.0 has a total theoretical write lifespan of 300 TB. On the other hand, a 120GB drive good for 3,000 cycles with a write amplification factor of 1.1 has a theoretical write lifespan of 327 TB. Despite having less than a third of the "reliability" (on a cell level), the drive can actually handle slightly MORE activity overall.

It will always be a balancing act between cost and reliability when it comes to SSDs. As compared to Single Level Cells (SLC), Multi Level Cells (MLC), used by all consumer drives, has a tenth the endurance, but half the cost (storing two bits per cell rather than one). Basically, SLCs store data by trying to differentiate between two voltage levels: high, low. MLC increases that to four states (high, medium-high, medium-low, low). The reduced endurance is because it becomes harder to differentiate the levels sooner. Triple Level Cells (TLC) is starting to show up, and this stores three bits per cell using eight states. It helps density, but once again, at the cost of endurance.

This might be a good time to point out that cell-level "reliability" has no real bearing on the reliability of the entire SSD. Reduced cycle endurance means your drive will wear out faster, but it will still take years to wear them out (if ever), and when they do, they don't lose data, they just stop being able to write. If you're having your SSDs just up and die on you out of the blue, that has nothing to do with the trend towards decreasing write endurance.

Re:Don't let it fool you (5, Interesting)

franc0ph0bic (815786) | about 2 years ago | (#41565007)

I am an engineer at an SSD company and I would like to vouch for this being a great explanation. Thank You.

Re:Don't let it fool you (2)

citizenr (871508) | about 2 years ago | (#41565763)

Reduced cycle endurance means your drive will wear out faster, but it will still take years to wear them out (if ever), and when they do, they don't lose data, they just stop being able to write. If you're having your SSDs just up and die on you out of the blue, that has nothing to do with the trend towards decreasing write endurance.

1 try using Bcache and you will be swapping SSD drives every month
2 when SSD runs out of write cycles it usually dies, there is no graceful degradation

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41565869)

If you're using a consumer SSD for enterprise tasks, you shouldn't be surprised if it wears out more quickly than normal. That's why enterprise-grade drives tend to use SLC, or binned MLC with tons of spare area. If you're talking about consumer-level caching, the same is true there; Intel has a line of SSDs designed for caching, which use a small amount (24GB) of SLC flash in order to keep the endurance high enough. While it is virtually impossible for a consumer to wear out a good quality SSD using anything remotely like normal usage patterns, it's still important to use the best tool for the job.

That said, it's impossible to wear out a decent consumer SSD in a single month. If we take the 240GB Intel 330 drives as an example (which are reported to have a lifecycle of 10k, perhaps because Intel manufactures flash and picks the best bins for themselves), wearing out the drive in a single month (ignoring spare space to compensate for not taking write amplification into account) would require that you write uninterrupted 24/7 at about one gigabyte per second. Considering the drive can't write that fast, your one month figure is likely FUD.

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41566021)

"So, technically, we are reducing cost at the expense of reliability."

So IOW cheap, fast, reliable. Pick 2.
Sounds familiar.

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41563695)

Non-sequitur

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41564283)

Of course you pay for it with reduced endurance and drive lifetime.

That's the whole thing with SSD's in general. They're less reliable than the old crappy spinning media. On top of that they're 10 times as expensive.

Sign me up! Not.

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#41564467)

They used to be (even Intel) but newer drives from reputable vendors like Intel or Samsung plus some tier 2 like Crucial M4 are very reliable these days.

Of course you can still buy crap today but you can always do that, even on the HD front.

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41564485)

Yes, but they're more reliable than the new even crappier spinning media (pretty much anything with > 500GB/platter develops unreadable sectors by sitting on a shelf for a few months).
They also have over 100 times faster access times (<0.1 ms vs >10 ms for a 7.2k).

Re:Don't let it fool you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41564989)

Yeah, and a Ferrari 458 is less reliable and way more expensive than a Toyota Corolla. Why would anyone want one?

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#41565629)

That's the whole thing with SSD's in general. They're less reliable than the old crappy spinning media.

This is wrong. SSDs are much more reliable for nearly all use cases. If a someone buys an SSD and an HHD of the same capacity and uses it in the same way, the HHD is far more likely to fail, and when it fails it is much more likely to fail unpredictably and catastrophically.

The SSD is only more likely to fail if you do massive amounts of writes. Even then it is more accurate to say it "wears out" than to say it "fails", since it will stop working at a predictable point. And when it wears out, only writes will fail, you can still read any existing data, so there is no catastrophic loss.

For 99% of users, an SSD is much more reliable than a HHD.

Re:Don't let it fool you (1)

fafaforza (248976) | about 2 years ago | (#41565901)

I just ordered one cause I got tired of my wrists going numb from my drive vibrating. That's one benefit no one mentions. And even if these things are three quarters as reliable, who isn't making backups and expecting to replace a drive anyway.

Still need a big data drive in most uses (2, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41563675)

Still need a big data drive in most uses

as 120GB-256GB is small for some uses and the cloud is slower and ISP data caps suck.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (0)

avandesande (143899) | about 2 years ago | (#41563917)

Most uses? What's that? I would suggest a minority.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41564621)

Pictures, videos, and music? I can tell you I've had to swap out drives for a LOT of customers because of those three, HD cams and camcorders are frankly dirt cheap now and when mamma is filming everything junior does? Tends to suck up some space. Ripping your CD collections to your PC is pretty old hat now, even my older customers had either already ripped their music or asked me while I had it in there to show them how to rip their music and 20 years worth of CDs? Again not easy on the space.

This is what i tell my customers when it comes to SSDs...if its gonna go in a laptop, where you have everything backed up to a USB drive and need the extra battery life and improved performance? Sure SSD works there. if its gonna go in a desktop as an OS drive while leaving the HDD for backups and data? Again not a bad use case. if its something mission critical or is gonna seriously hurt if the drive controller fries and is down for a few days while we get a replacement? then no, that isn't a smart idea.

Both style of drives have their place, and with Win 7 having superfetch as long as you have plenty of RAM the only real gains you'll see is boot. Again this is GREAT for mobile, where you are dealing with slower CPUs and spinning that drive sucks power, but desktops? Meh, its okay, for the average person with average PC usage its really not gonna make a big difference in their lives.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#41566003)

It would seem to me that the drive controller is the most robust part of the drive. The NAND flash that makes up the memory is what is delicate - particularly if it happens to use multi-bit per cell techniques. Also, for such usage, their endurance is not much to write home about - a mere 10k cycles per block, so that would tend to wear them down really quick. And the demands for Terabytes is what is likely to keep SSD acceptance pretty low - to keep those hours of videos - both the kids, as well as the movies.

big data drive is in my NAS (2)

Chirs (87576) | about 2 years ago | (#41563941)

I have a dual-drive RAID1 NAS with 2TB drives that is my main household storage. I've got a couple of 2TB external drives to back up the NAS, and one of them lives off-site.

The other devices all mostly access big files from the NAS.

Works fairly well.

Re:big data drive is in my NAS (0)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 2 years ago | (#41564389)

I wish I only needed 2TB of storage as I've got 4+ between the 4 desktops in the house. Add in the laptops and I've got close to 5TB of storage and all of it's spinning rust.

The next system I build is going to use a 30GB SSD for the OS and it will have a trio of drives and they'll likely be 2TB or larger.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#41563981)

Right now I am hardly getting by with my 2TB storage space.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (1)

The Snowman (116231) | about 2 years ago | (#41564005)

Still need a big data drive in most uses

as 120GB-256GB is small for some uses and the cloud is slower and ISP data caps suck.

I'm going to pick one up for my desktop. I'm thinking of around 256GB. That'll work for my primary system. My data lives on a server behind my desk with approximately 3.5 TB of hard drives. No RAID, but the data I care about is backed up and stored on multiple spinning rust platters.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (2)

corychristison (951993) | about 2 years ago | (#41564073)

I do agree, but the 120-128GB range will do the average Joe now.

Its been a while since I've used Windows but the OS only takes around 20GB. 100GB is useful for most peoples word documents, some music, movies, etc.

Its the media hoarders like myself that need the big "Media" drives.

I am personally looking ti move to an SSD. Even with my workload an amount of data in my /home partition a 128GB drive is more than enought for my OS/personal data/work data. I currently have about 1.3TB of movies, music and Televison episodes I've collected over the past 10 years or so. A lot of them purchased or gifts from friends/family on dvd/bluray that I have ripped for use on my media center somy kids don't destroy the discs. I have most of the discs still packed away. The kids ruined a few of them though.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (2)

epp_b (944299) | about 2 years ago | (#41564095)

So? Get an SSD for OS, software and frequently accessed files and an HDD for large capacity.

I've been seriously toying with the idea of buying an SSD for my laptop and installing a media bay adapter for an HDD to replace the optical drive that I almost never use.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41564105)

Depends on who "most" is. Many business users will never use up 120GB, even with Windows+WinSXS eating 20-30 of them. A lot of people just aren't very media heavy, they do email and facebook and some digicam photos but nothing to fill a disk. Just like many people that run Steam for games don't actually have very good gaming cards or high resolution monitors - just check the Steam survey. Even Intel and their IGPs have 10%+ market share. Having a cheap bulk drive is no problem though, if you're not in a single-slot laptop.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565351)

As I see it, SSDs right now are only useful as a boot/OS partition and caching; which will dramatically improve the responsiveness of the desktop/laptop. Storage data should be put on harddrives; if a laptop, use an external USB drive for mirroring important user data.

Re:Still need a big data drive in most uses (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 2 years ago | (#41564187)

Mostly for media (pictures/music/video/games/etc), where ultimate r/w performance is not an issue. A SSD for OS and general use, and a terabyte+ HD for data, is a perfect setup for many people.

On a laptop - where you don't generally have huge amounts of data - a SSD alone is a major win, for both performance and battery life.

Wake up! (-1, Offtopic)

drfishy (634081) | about 2 years ago | (#41563697)

You asked for it. That is all.

Hmmm... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41563703)

How many gigabytes do you get per Super Star Destroyer, anyway?

Some good values. Read reviews to avoid the duds. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41563725)

Newegg has sales all the time. I've picked up some great drives for a steal. Non-crap 120-128GB devices for less than 80 dollars is a shock.
The price of flash is imploding and the quality of the drives/controllers/firmware is improving quite a bit. The latest crop of devices are far better in terms of speed and reliability so don't bother getting an older model to save money. Only pick up a latest gen device. You can find them cheap too, don't worry.

The latest crop of sandforce based drives are fast and cheap and seem pretty reliable. (The new firmware really makes them shine)
Intels are still more expensive, but are generally the most reliable of the bunch.

I picked up an OCZ vertex 4 128gb for less than 80 bux and it gave my laptop a whole new life.

Re:Some good values. Read reviews to avoid the dud (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41564395)

Really at the price the drives are falling through the floor, by Black Friday or Christmas, people should be able to pick up a nice 240-360GB SSD for $100-200, might need to toss in instant and Mail in rebates too. But I've seen 240GB SSD's in the last week here in Canada hit $139 counting a MiR+instant rebate.

Re:Some good values. Read reviews to avoid the dud (1)

antdude (79039) | about 2 years ago | (#41565135)

Aren't the latest stuff buggy? I want cheaper and stability.

Misread Title (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41563749)

Did anyone else initially see "STDs"?
I'm sure most people self-corrected at the word "Dollar".
Sadly, it took me all the way to the word "Gigabyte" before I re-read.

Re:Misread Title (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41563771)

Did anyone else initially see "STDs"?

STD's really aren't on our radar, so ... no.

SSD still not fast enough (1)

Smartcowboy (679871) | about 2 years ago | (#41563779)

I just replaced a week ago the 250gb HD that came with my iMac Alu with a 256gb SSD. I paid about 1$/gb and I can say that my system is noticiably faster. For most of my computer usage, the file system access is still the botteneck, even with the increased speed. Also, stupid OS X needed an external utility to enable TRIM and fiddling in the command line to enable noatime. We clearly need (at least on the apple side) more support from the OS and more speed for the drive.

Re:SSD still not fast enough (0)

DECula (6113) | about 2 years ago | (#41563893)

Scotty: I'm giving her all she's got, Captain!

Re:SSD still not fast enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41563931)

Get more drives, and use raid. I am getting fantastic speeds with this!

Re:SSD still not fast enough (2)

corychristison (951993) | about 2 years ago | (#41564165)

There seem to be 3 classes for SSD.
- Consumer (what the article is referring to) - good speeds for a good price.
- Business - reliable drive w/ good speed for about double the price
- Server/Power Users (PCI-E drives) - insane performance/IO for an insane price.

Re:SSD still not fast enough (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41564427)

There's also at least 3 classes of "Consumer" drives.
1. Cheap. (usually using older gen controllers, low endurance flash, ...) the low-end stuff from dozens of manufacturers.
2. Fast. (bleeding edge controllers and firmware, sometimes with severe bugs...). OCZ is *the* name in this segment.
3. Reliable. Slower than 2, commonly using binned flash rated for more writes and extensively tested controller firmware on previous-gen controllers. Speedwise somewhere between 1 and 2. (intel and samsung mostly come to mind here).

Re:SSD still not fast enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565059)

Even the insane prices are starting to be reasonable..

I was just looking at a pci-e 4x 230gig card for $200 That's getting real cheap now. No more hd!

It's a sweet idea. the os just stays on the card. no drive. no cables. nothing to screw with.

And one really big multi tb hd for everything else. Until the cards get real cheap.
Then no more drives at all! i have 5000 tb of storage on a chip!

Re:SSD still not fast enough (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41564363)

Remember it's not read/write speed that really counts with SSD. It's IOPS [wikipedia.org] .

Re:SSD still not fast enough (1)

franc0ph0bic (815786) | about 2 years ago | (#41565033)

Most SSDs are not designed for iMac use, it is basically something that is thrown in later (excluding the ones made to be built in). You probably could get a huge performance increase by updating your firmware and/or waiting for a better firmware release.

Calculation (5, Funny)

darkpixel2k (623900) | about 2 years ago | (#41563949)

Most SSDs Now Under a Dollar Per Gigabyte

So does that mean a 1 TB drive is $1000 or $1024?

Re:Calculation (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#41564015)

1TB drives are far bigger than normal SSDs, and normally the price is more per results in extremely low and extremely high performance devices.
So I could imagine it is entirely possible that it is several times that amount.

Re:Calculation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41564081)

Whoooosh!!

Re:Calculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41564601)

1 tb drive would then be 1 k$.

Re:Calculation (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about 2 years ago | (#41565369)

Is that Ki$ or K$?

Re:Calculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565529)

Yes.

Re:Calculation (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41565669)

No, unfortunately at least on newegg there is only one such drive and it's $2,299.99

As usual there is a central range where cost per gigabyte is lowest and drives outside that range are significantly more expensive.

Completely worth the money (1)

BLToday (1777712) | about 2 years ago | (#41564079)

But your experience may vary. My first SSD was a Mushkin Chronos, terrible out of the box. BSODs all over the place, RMA'ed. Replacement Chronos has been solid and very fast. No crashes.

Meh (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#41564267)

Are those list prices?
Half a dollar on sale is where it's at right now.

Re:Meh (1)

corychristison (951993) | about 2 years ago | (#41564405)

I see you didn't bother to read the summary...

that's without the special coupon codes and mail-in rebates usually attached to weekly deals.

Re:Meh (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#41564423)

I'm watching SSDs prices because I need one so no stinkin' RTFA for me :)

What? Not at the moment (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41564533)

This story came out just in time for newegg to jack up the price on the average SSD $10-15! Even their "sales" are crap right now. I got my last Vertex 4, Intel 330, Agility 4, and Crucial M4 all for $70-85 and now they're all $95-110! But still, a good and reliable 120-128GB SSD is almost exactly the same price as a good and reliable 500GB Seagate spinning hard drive. Out of the last 10 custom builds at my shop, zero have had spinning drives as the main drive because nobody needed more than that amount of space.

Reality check (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41564539)

Consumer disk storage is 6 cents a gig. Still a factor of 16 less than flash. As long as that ratio holds there will be no overnight takeover of the storage market by flash. Instead it's a creeping progression largely driven by the mobile market, outside of which the vast majority of mass storage being sold is still rotating disks. Sure a few geeks like me have begun to swap out their noisy, slow hard disks for ssd, but that's a few geeks. The PC market, the cloud, and enterprise storage, which together completely dwarf the mobile segment in terms of capacity, will continue to prefer cheap over fast and quiet for some time to come.

Re:Reality check (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41564655)

Until Best Buy, Wal Mart, and Apple stores start selling stock machines with included SSDs they will never overtake spinning platters. Most people don't replace internal components, and even fewer build PCs from scratch, and of those that do, most will continue to buy platter drives for backups and file servers. People pay the cost premium on SSDs for the same reason people buy core i5/i7s instead of pentium and i3s, to get work (or play) done faster. When I bought my SSD a year ago, cost per GB wasn't a factor, it was the fact that my hard drive was a bottleneck, and the only way to speed up my system would be a raid 0, which multiplies failure rates, or a SSD.

And no, enterprise doesn't favor cheaper per GB over faster and quieter, they prefer the solution which provides the best return on investment. If a big company can get more work done in a shorter amount of time for less money outside of the IT cost, they're going to buy a solid state solution.

Re:Reality check (2)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#41565053)

Apple already has started to do this - the Air and the rMBP both have stock SSD drives. I would be shocked if the updated iMac that should probably arrive sometime before Christmas didn't ship with a stock SSD+HDD combo on the higher spec model too.

Re:Reality check (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 years ago | (#41565159)

"The PC market, the cloud, and enterprise storage"

You mean the invisible majority? The PC market is "flatlining", to borrow the title of quite a few Slashdot stories. In the short term the problem probably won't be the storage market shrinking but changing focus. Fewer rotary drives will be made for the home enthusiast and more for the Big Data like Google and Facebook. This could mean either more realiable but more expensive hard drives or, this is what I fear, cheaper, more TB's/$ but less reliable drives since Big Data tends to be redundantly stored unlike the files of the average media pirate.

Thanks for the sales pitch (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#41564547)

Now make them as cheap as mechanical drives, it shouldnt be as hard considering all the mechanical parts are gone and it doesnt take percision manufacturing

I would like to have a 250ish gig drive for the wifes computer, but its hard to justify loosing 10 gigs and paying 140$ more than I did for the mech drive

Re:Thanks for the sales pitch (1)

SScorpio (595836) | about 2 years ago | (#41564697)

240GB SSDs have repeatedly been down to $140-150 on Newegg for the last month. One of the best deals I saw as an Intel 330 240GB with $140 shipped, no rebate or coupon needed.

Yes they are still more expensive than an equal sized mechanical drive, but they are getting cheaper and there should be some really nice black Friday/cyber Monday deals in seven weeks. I'd be very surprised if 240GB drivers didn't get down to $99.

Re:Thanks for the sales pitch (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | about 2 years ago | (#41565011)

I guess you also live on rice and water because the occasional steak and a glass of wine provide the same caloric intake for a significant increase in price?

Re:Thanks for the sales pitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565911)

It doesn't take precision manufacturing? LOL! What do you think goes on inside a chip plant if NOT precision manufacturing?

Thailand floods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41564595)

I wonder what role the price gouging last summer had to do with encouraging this new trend.

It's not just consumer drives (4, Informative)

bertok (226922) | about 2 years ago | (#41564609)

I've been waiting for "enterprise" SSD prices to drop for ages, because even though I'm now on my fourth consumer SSD, I've only seen SSD drives in the enterprise space for three out of the last twenty customers or so! Anything esoteric you plug into a server magically becomes 10 to 50 times as expensive. Currently, that's SSD drives and GPUs. The latter has only some niche uses, but everybody could benefit from 1000x lower I/O latencies.

I recently noticed that there's a new OCZ brand [oczenterprise.com] for enterprise SSD storage. They sell drives in every form factor, and with very impressive specs. Their drives are already between the $3-$7 per GB mark and dropping. Until recently, most vendors were selling the same kind of thing for over $15 per GB, which is insane.

Competition is good! 8)

Re:It's not just consumer drives (3, Informative)

SScorpio (595836) | about 2 years ago | (#41564753)

Enterprise SSDs are actually different from consumer SSDs though. Most Enterprise SSDs generally have higher IOP counts so you can get higher random access reads off them. The $15/GB drivers you saw were also likely SLC, SLC has a single bit per cell while MLC has two bits per cell. The cheaper OCZ is very likely an MLC drive.

Re:It's not just consumer drives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41564905)

Sorry, but I'd trust intel consumer gear over OCZ "enterprise" anything any day.
Guess what, selling buggy crap and blaming the customer tends to ruin your reputation.

Yay for SSD boot drive. (4, Insightful)

eriks (31863) | about 2 years ago | (#41564715)

Just did a re-install about a month ago: 128GB adata SX900 -- which newegg now has for $15 less than I paid (always happens) -- on a 3+ year old system.

Best. Upgrade. Ever.

12 second boot instead of 45 seconds (not that I reboot much) but the big win: lag is nonexistent. Disk intensive stuff like browsing/picking through my heavy photo catalog just flies. Most of my stuff is, of course, still on spinning drives, but key apps & data, like email and photo libraries I'm working with are on the SSD. Actions that used to take several seconds (per photo) now are nearly instantaneous. Full-text searching through email is a lot faster. Sleep/Hibernate is practically instantaneous. $100 is nothing for not having to wait a few seconds (every few seconds!) when doing photo work. I make backups of critical data onto multiple spinning disks, regardless of what kind of disk I'm using, so reliability isn't a concern. I wish I took the plunge sooner.

Re:Yay for SSD boot drive. (2)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#41565161)

I think you have the right idea, and I'm sure you're not the only one; a smaller SSD boot drive with OS and apps and some data, with spinning drives for less speed-sensitive large files, with the crucial step of regular backups.

Although, SSD or not, regular backups are always a crucial thing, and not just "up to the Cloud(tm)" - a cheap, large local drive (or a pair of them that mirror their data, but not in a RAID) with a simple automated backup solution is one of the best investments any computer user can make.

Ooh, forgot to post this... (1)

epp_b (944299) | about 2 years ago | (#41564867)

I was passed on this handy list [harddrivebenchmark.net] . Sort by disk rating or rank to get the best one.

The * by the price tag (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41565073)

Means 'after mail in rebate'

And of course they are only made in 2.5 inch size, so you'll have to buy a bracket to put one in your desktop.
Actually I have a spare 5.25 in bay I would like to put one in there.so I guess I would need two brackets.

I am not sure about whether you need adapter cables for the power and data connections - I have an old HP 2450.

Re:The * by the price tag (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#41565247)

And of course they are only made in 2.5 inch size, so you'll have to buy a bracket to put one in your desktop.

My latest tower case came with mounting holes for both 3.5 and 2.5 inch disks in its drive trays. The SSD looks kind of silly in the huge tray, but it fits fine.

Re:The * by the price tag (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41565745)

You can get a single bracket that will put a couple of SSDs in a 5.25 inch bay

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816119028 [newegg.com]

2.5 inch and 3.5 inch SATA drives use the same power and data connectors as do full-sized sata optical drives. 1.8 inch drives and slimline optical drives use different connectors IIRC.

Re:The * by the price tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565849)

You'd think someone would make a 2x2.5" bracket for the 5.25" bays. There wouldn't be a *lot* of extra space, but there's enough. (Hell, you could probably stack them 2 high as well, and fit 4 of the drives into one 5.25" bay. You might need to add a cooling solution for that scenario though, I don't know.)

Anyway to tell how much life an SSD drive has left (1)

detain (687995) | about 2 years ago | (#41565973)

If at some predictable point the SSD drives become unable to write or write unreliably, is there a tool (or /proc type entry) that you can use to see how much life is in the device?

Have your read the reviwes on SSD's ? (1)

bobjr94 (1120555) | about 2 years ago | (#41566035)

When ever I get board and start looking at ssd's at newegg, seems like 1 out of 4 reviews say something like after a few months they get constant blue screens, disk errors requiring several reinstallations of their favorite os. They warranty the drive and have the problem again.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...