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!

Intel SSD Roadmap Points To 2TB Drives Arriving In 2014

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

Data Storage 183

MojoKid writes "A leaked Intel roadmap for solid state storage technology suggests the company is pushing ahead with its plans to introduce new high-end drives based on cutting-edge NAND flash. It's significant for Intel to be adopting 20nm NAND in its highest-end data center products, because of the challenges smaller NAND nodes present in terms of data retention and reliability. Intel introduced 20nm NAND lower in the product stack over a year ago, but apparently has waited till now to bring 20nm to the highest end. Reportedly, next year, Intel will debut three new drive families — the SSD Pro 2500 Series (codenamed Temple Star), the DC P3500 Series (Pleasantdale) and the DC P3700 Series (Fultondale). The Temple Star family uses the M.2 and M.25 form factors, which are meant to replace the older mSATA form factor for ultrabooks and tablets. The M.2 standard allows more space on PCBs for actual NAND storage and can interface with PCIe, SATA, and USB 3.0-attached storage in the same design. The new high-end enterprise drives, meanwhile, will hit 2TB (up from 800GB), ship in 2.5" and add-in card form factors, and offer vastly improved performance. The current DC S3700 series offers 500MBps writes and 460MBps reads. The DC P3700 will increase this to 2800MBps read and 1700MBps writes. The primary difference between the DC P3500 and DC P3700 families appears to be that the P3700 family will use Intel's High Endurance Technology (HET) MLC, while the DC P3500 family sticks with traditional MLC."

cancel ×

183 comments

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

Write limits (0)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | about 8 months ago | (#45626623)

How many write limits does this have?

Re:Write limits (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626651)

English much?

Re:Write limits (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626677)

English much?

Oh, bitter irony, I stab at thee!

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626679)

Que?

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626895)

Sprechen sie Douche?

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627395)

Mitä hemmettiä?

Backtracing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627397)

You done goofed!

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626683)

How many write limits does this have?

As opposed to spinning platter disks that is usually documented for each drive. If you are designing systems where this is a critical property, read the spec.
For spinning platter disks; not documented = don't use in critical systems.

Re:Write limits (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#45627419)

Generally all platter disks have unlimited write limit. Unlike flash cells, the magnetic medium does not degrade much at all.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627469)

"do not" and "much" at the same time?

Which is it? Do they or don't they degrade?

Re:Write limits (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#45627755)

Everything degrades. Even the paint on the walls of your home degrades. But it's not something you have to take into account.

So: for all practical purposes, the magnetic medium of a mechanical hard drive platter does not degrade at all.

I'll get me coat... (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 8 months ago | (#45628781)

So: for all practical purposes, the magnetic medium of a mechanical hard drive platter does not degrade at all.

Basically, even though it degrades slightly, I can pretend that it doesn't?

This would mean that, ohhh yes, I'm degrade pretender (ooh-ooh).

Also, does it matter how many Platters the drive has?

Re:Write limits (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 8 months ago | (#45627795)

In active use, my experience has been that platters usually degrade because the heads get parked on a park ramp one too many times, snap off the head arm, and then get dragged across the surface of the disk.... Want your disks to last for decades? Park the heads infrequently or not at all.

But even in the absence of actual use, eventually, even on a hard disk, the bits are likely to get corrupted by random stray cosmic rays and possibly superparamagnetism. Of course, any real data loss is likely to take decades, if not centuries.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45628663)

My experience is that SSDs lasts way longer than spinning platter, but perhaps that is just me.

Re:Write limits (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#45627825)

Which is it? Do they or don't they degrade?

They do not degrade enough to matter during the normal lifetime of a drive, regardless of the write frequency or patterns. The bearings may wear out, but the iron oxide will not.

Re:Write limits (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about 8 months ago | (#45626807)

The computer world moves fast. You'd better keep up. Write limits, lol.

Re:Write limits (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#45627437)

Pretty much this. With modern SSDs you can go full throttle without worrying much about the disk longevity.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627527)

Erase cycles are still an important figure for enterprise drives.

Re:Write limits (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 8 months ago | (#45627555)

Not as important as the drive storing the data incorrectly because of a faulty transistor. There is device failure you never get to know about outside of a lab because error correction protocols make sure it doesn't cause data loss, and actual, perceivable device failure that could affect you and your data. These failures rates are now better than platter hard disks.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45628651)

From my readings, many entireprise systems replace the HDs about every 3-4 years. This means a current consumer grade TLC 19nm 250GB SSD would require about 600GB/day to burn it out in that much time. I can see that being an issue for a swap drive, but common, who re-writes and entire HD 2x per day?

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626815)

MLC, should be 1000.

Re:Write limits (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about 8 months ago | (#45626829)

Of course, that spread across a 2TB drive, means needing to write 2PB of data before the drive dies, so at even a fairly high usage home user's 10GB per day, that'll be 550 years before they have problems.

Why do people still think SSD write limits are an issue?

Re:Write limits (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#45626851)

mostly because they ARE still low enough to be an issue in some applications

Re:Write limits (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 8 months ago | (#45626873)

Database servers runnig 24/7? How many people need to worry about one of those?

Besides, if one SSD can replace 20 hard drives (where speed, not capacity is required), it might still be cheaper to use SSDs even if they have to be retired a bit earlier than HDDs were.

Re:Write limits (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#45626927)

any internet facing service that does huge amounts of logging or data taking, we have many such where I work

Re:Write limits (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 8 months ago | (#45627079)

For that there are SLC SSD drives.

For that matter logging is purely sequential so a hard drive should work very well in the first place.

Re:Write limits (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#45627315)

no, logs are compressed and rotated

Re:Write limits (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45627383)

But again, if you get some major performance gains and have to replace the drive in two years (as opposed to say four), why is this a big issue. One doesn't expect new tech to be perfect, just better.

Re:Write limits (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#45627401)

but we don't have "a drive", we have arrays with hundreds of drives. replacement even with magnetic is often

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626885)

Those applications are, by definition, not the standard use case. Anyone who has one of those applications will know of their high data write rate, and will know that SSDs aren't for them.

So yes, it is a reasonable question to ask why does the average person concern themselves with SSD write endurance when it almost certainly will not affect them.

Re:Write limits (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 months ago | (#45626949)

you are assuming without knowing.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627017)

It is a fair assumption to assume the new generation of a new product will not be appreciably worse than the current generation for an important performance criteria, simply because the market wouldn't accept it otherwise.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627057)

of a *mature product.

Re:Write limits (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 8 months ago | (#45627085)

I've been using my SSD (yes, an OCZ Agility 2) since March 2011 (almost 3 years now), at least half of that under XP (no TRIM support), and according to what's been written on the drive, It won't matter for another 4-5 years even if sometimes I'm pounding the hell out of it. (it's 25nm if I'm not mistaking). most conventionnal drives will give me bad sectors way before that.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627051)

TLC has only 300-400 re-write cycles. And you are not going to uniformly and continuously write on 2TB. Failure scenarios do exists, as well as actual failures.

What your post does is cheerleading, and trust me that nobody who is on the fence and has the slightest inclination to research the facts for themselves, will not be swayed by it.

Re:Write limits (2)

trparky (846769) | about 8 months ago | (#45627679)

Not according to Samsung. I've done the math on how it calculates the SMART values.

The Samsung 840 Series SSD has a total of 1000 P/E Cycles.

The SMART Wear Leveling Count value has two values; the normalized value (out of 100) and the raw value (out of 1000).

So, if the raw value is 30 it means that the cells have been erased 30 times out of the total 1000 times that the SSD can endure.

The normalized value is calculated like so
FLOOR.PRECISE((1000 - X) / 10)
With X being the raw value.

So, it would be like this

(1000-30)=970
970/10=97.0

FLOOR.PRECISE(97.0)=97 -- This is your normalized value.

Re:Write limits (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 8 months ago | (#45628665)

They're rated for 1000 cycles, but many places have been torture testing them and getting closer to 3,500 cycles.

Re:Write limits (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627123)

10GB/day... LOL

Maybe for the average user, but those who need 2TB+ generally do a LOT more than 10GB/day. For home use, I have 8.5 TB across 12 drives filled to the brim and do in excess of 500GB/month of downloads in a month (with 2am-8am and uploads not counted). That doesn't include general operation/installs/etc. I "high usage" user is considered in excess of 1TB/month by my ISP.

I'm hoping to bypass SSD entirely and go straight to something like ReRAM.

Re:Write limits (4, Informative)

Stalks (802193) | about 8 months ago | (#45627223)

10GB/day is still 300GB/month. Even with your 17GB/day usage the device is going to out-last the life of your, your children and your childrens children life.

Re:Write limits (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627557)

I see numbers like that quoted all the time but the fact remains that SSD's are currently less reliable than the old spinning media

Re:Write limits (1)

Stalks (802193) | about 8 months ago | (#45627745)

I wouldn't firmly say SSDs aren't less reliable per se, they just have a limited but measurable lifespan. Being measurable is very important when purchasing with reliability in mind, as drive death can be predicted.

When SSDs were in their infancy they were plagued by problems, but we are passed those times. Nothing is in concreate however, I am on the fence on this subject as SSDs haven't been around long enough to make any solid judgements, but I'm leaning towards the fact that SSDs will out perform spinning disks in every area eventually, even reliability.

Re:Write limits (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about 8 months ago | (#45628181)

Not true, failure rates for SSDs are an order of magnitude lower than those for HDDs (around 0.5% for SSDs vs 5% for HDDs per year)

Re:Write limits (1)

nanoflower (1077145) | about 8 months ago | (#45628505)

Is that true when you consider drives that arrive DOA or die early in their life? I could see DOA numbers being similar for SSD and HDs (anyone have statistics on this?) but it would seem like SSDs would be more likely to just keep working unlike HDs which may have an early failure.

Re:Write limits (1)

felipou (2748041) | about 8 months ago | (#45628767)

And "fact" in this case being the word of an AC.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627163)

10GB per day is a tiny amount. I probably write at least 100GB per day on my hard drives if I factor in OS and application pagefile/cache.

Re:Write limits (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 8 months ago | (#45627297)

I probably write at least 100GB per day on my hard drives if I factor in OS and application pagefile/cache.

You probably don't.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627491)

This is actually not at all hard to do in some applications. For instance, using a drive for render cache files in pro video workflows. 100 GB is less than 8 minutes of 2K DPX footage. There are apps that will routinely spit out this much data as part of background rendering processes... and then throw it all away and do it again a few minutes later because you changed something and shots need to be re-rendered.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627623)

Who the hell uses a page file anymore with ram so cheap?

Re:Write limits (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#45628059)

Then you should only be OK for 50 years. If it were 1TB/day, 5 years. Can you live with that? If you're cycling more data than that I hope you're making enough money doing it to buy a spare drive.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45628709)

The future is edram/dram with capacitors for speedy drive!

Re:Write limits (1)

ZosX (517789) | about 8 months ago | (#45627389)

They were more of an issue with small drives and swapping operating systems. Those problems were overcome pretty early on with as you point out intelligent drive controllers that don't write data in the same place. Since the latency almost non-existent in SSD, there's suddenly almost no penalty for writes across the drive. With 2TB of space to work with it will take a very, very long time. I imagine drives of this size would be used for data storage more than anything, so it depends on usage. The average home user will likely never hammer their drive like a datacenter will.

Re:Write limits (2)

kmahan (80459) | about 8 months ago | (#45626855)

High end flash add in cards (like FusionIO) typically specify the "write limit" (I think this is what you mean) in Petabytes Written (PBW). So a flash card might be guaranteed to give you a minimum of 5 petabytes written over the life of the card.

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626877)

Probably about three.

Re:Write limits (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 8 months ago | (#45628499)

How many write limits does this have?

The larger the drive, the less an issue write limits become because the writes get spread over an increasingly large area.

Granted in certain specific niche server use cases it may still be a concern, but write limits is a rapidly disappearing problem for nearly all of us.

Re:Write limits (1)

Allan Jude (3433497) | about 8 months ago | (#45628523)

The S3700 are good for '10 drive writes per day for 5 years' (3650 TB write on a 200 GB)

Re:Write limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45628629)

Current 19nm 250GB drives can handle about 700TB of writes, or about 250GB/day for 7 years. 20nm should be ever so slightly more.

$1000 each? (0)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 8 months ago | (#45626635)

Sounds good but I'll wait a few years.

Re: $1000 each? (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 8 months ago | (#45626781)

2.8 Gigabytes per second?! Good God, holy mother of.... *floored*

Re: $1000 each? (1)

the_skywise (189793) | about 8 months ago | (#45626847)

I swear I heard Doc Brown's voice when I read that...

Re: $1000 each? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 8 months ago | (#45626889)

19.4 Gb/s. Sure it's fast, but it's not absurdly fast. It's less than four or less times the maximum you get out of high-end consumer drives now, and those are bottlenecked by SATA 6Gb/s.

Re: $1000 each? (4, Informative)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 8 months ago | (#45628095)

That's why these high-end solutions are now in the form of SSD PCIe cards. Bandwidth.

Re:$1000 each? (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about 8 months ago | (#45626853)

Agreed. I'm still waiting for 500gb+ drives to drop below $0.50/gb, without a mail-in rebate. I only use laptops, so adding additional drives isn't an option.

Re:$1000 each? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626919)

They are pretty much at that price point. I picked up a 1TB SSD(Samsung Evo) for $0.52/gb with no mail-in rebate off Amazon. I know newegg has the same drive for maybe a penny more per GB this weekend.

Re:$1000 each? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 8 months ago | (#45626945)

I don't see where you're getting the $1000 figure, but I'm guessing it's for the enterprise drives (extrapolation from current ~$1000 prices for 1TB drives). If it is, it's totally a reasonable price - 2.8 gbps is massive throughput - even for a 2TB drive meant for servers instead of your desktop.

Limited uses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626711)

These won't do much good in my NAS, as I'm usually constrained by the speed of the wireless network. And with the NAS, I don't need enormous drives on my laptop. I'm not quite sure exactly where these would be used, other than in niche systems that need large amounts of local, superfast storage.

Re:Limited uses. (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 8 months ago | (#45626751)

Everyone's desktops and laptops. Most people don't have attached storage, that ruins the point of a laptop. And gamers would laugh at the idea of putting their games on network storage. The only problem is price, which will come down as time goes on.

Re: Limited uses. (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 8 months ago | (#45626805)

SQL, MS Exchange, Virtual Machines, ensuring daily backups complete in a 24 hour period (for large daily delta changes), etc. Yes, I can think of a few important applications for this.

Re: Limited uses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627301)

SQL, MS Exchange, Virtual Machines, ensuring daily backups complete in a 24 hour period (for large daily delta changes), etc. Yes, I can think of a few important applications for this.

That's missing the point. The 'N' in NAS (or SAN) is the key point. Sure SSDs are allegedly faster - my own experience is that they handle poorly when they are nearly full' compared to Spinning Disks and with cards like FusionIO they also need a significant amount of Server RAM to run efficently - for their VLFS (?) - but generally when you start to scale up, SSDs are not very flexible if we are just moving back to stuffing storage in a 'local' Server.

Virtual machines - they have to run somewhere (i.e. on a Physical Host) and if you have to stuff an SSD in each of those physical servers then it adds up considerably. If you care about Single Point of Faiure and/or flexibility you will be usnig NAS or SAN storage and while you can stiff those arrays with SSDs it really is expensive compared to very fast SATA/SAS/SCSI disks and good cacheing.

future platter drive quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45626883)

Casually, I wonder what the quality of platter drives will be for the next few years.
It seemed SSD forced HDs to just bulk storage role, but if multi TB SSD drives become common, then HDs, who can't keep up it seems, will have less margin. When that happens I imagine the HD makers would have nothing left to improve on and still make a profit. So they'll cut corners and slowly withdraw from the market.

Don't expect too much from Intel... (4, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | about 8 months ago | (#45626977)

I tried to find out for a large customer how long the current enterprise SSDs live, but Intel declined to comment. Through the grapevine I have heard of people doing complete replacements every 6 months to prevent failures in production environments, after they learned the hard way that these are not as reliable or long-lived as many people think. Especially small-write endurance seems to be pretty bad.

Re:Don't expect too much from Intel... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627349)

I've used them at a Global Top 100 website for several years with significantly less failures than any of the SAS drives they replaced.

We installed roughly 500 Intel SSDs across several different workloads, databases, webservers, etc.. In the last two years, we had 1-2 failures. For the record, when SSDs fail usually they just go readonly. When spinning rust fails you usually lose all your data. Statistically speaking, a 24-drive SAS array is going to have more frequent failures than a 4-drive SSD array, and the SSD array is going to smoke it.

The game has changed and a lot of people need to catch up. Most SAN technology is obsolete. RAID cards are obsolete (not fast enough). RAID 5 is now obsolete (rebuild times take too long with modern drives). The only reason to use hard disks is for cheap data archival purposes.

If you're not using SSDs in your database or high-IO workloads in 2013 you're wasting your time. They're no less reliable than any other type of storage and that argument has been debunked a thousand times over.

Re:Don't expect too much from Intel... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627545)

We installed roughly 500 Intel SSDs across several different workloads, databases, webservers, etc.. In the last two years, we had 1-2 failures.

:-O

Not bad at all.

Re:Don't expect too much from Intel... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 8 months ago | (#45627619)

> I've used them at a Global Top 100 website

Doesn't mean squat really. That doesn't really tell us anything about the mix of IO operations you're doing or how that compares to what the other guy is doing.

"website"? Big deal...

Are you kidding? (0)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 8 months ago | (#45627593)

Hate on Intel much? Last I checked their SSDs cost more but were at the top of the reliability list. I dislike SSDs because when they fail they do it catastrophically. I have yet to lose any data from from a failing platter drive. Those will at least give you some warning signs.

Pushing out the Cache drive (1)

EdZ (755139) | about 8 months ago | (#45627009)

Looks like the first announced 2242 M.2 drive larger than 128GB, but it's still only 180GB. It'd be really nice to be able to put a 256GB drive where a cache drive normally sits, run the OS and programs from there, and keep a spinning rust (spinning glass, now perpendicular recording is standard) drive in the 2.5" space for media storage. Though by the time 256GB 2242 drives come onto the market, 256GB will probably feel overly restrictive anyway.

My rule for SSD (-1, Troll)

ledow (319597) | about 8 months ago | (#45627011)

My rule for SSD hasn't changed since their invention.

Give me an SSD within the same power-of-ten size as a hard drive for the same cost and we'll talk.

Seriously. Give me a 1Tb SSD for the cost of the cheapest XTb hard drive and I'll buy it. But if hard drives get to 10Tb in that time, guess what happens? You then have to give me a 10Tb drive for the same price.

I thought that 1Tb SSD's would be with us already. The technology is out there, it just needs scaling up. We can buy them but they are STUPID prices, sometimes more than buying, say, 10x100Gb SSD's that ALL use the same chips and boards as the 1Tb SSD.

I was hoping for this Christmas but that's not going to happen either. If you want to wait until next year, guess what, the requirements go up again.

Stop pissing about with HDD technologies and just start selling SSD's of sensible prices en masse. Every time I hear the word "platters" now it pisses me off. I was hoping to be rid of them by now, not handing them more crutches.

Re:My rule for SSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627089)

How does Obama's dick taste? Really, I'm curious. You must know, because only a far-left ignorant fuck like you can't grasp the concept that things cost money, and better things cost more money because a) the market prices them higher and b) in this case they are certainly more expensive to manufacture.

You probably expect GM to sell you a Corvette for the price of a Cobalt, too.

Re:My rule for SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627121)

You're probably not the target customer. If all you need is a good price to store large personal files then you buy HDDs. If you want to reduce random seek time on a database used by thousands of people connected to your website, then SSDs are an option.

Re:My rule for SSD (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 8 months ago | (#45627637)

> You're probably not the target customer.

Well DUH. Delcaring that you are not MADE OF MONEY is a very legitimate sort of thing to say in this kind of discussion. Also it doesn't just apply to "mere individuals". Many if not MOST corporations probably feel the same way.

SSD solutions that are far too expensive to be relevant for most individuals or even corporations are nothing new.

Re:My rule for SSD (1)

Glasswire (302197) | about 8 months ago | (#45627871)

SSD solutions that are far too expensive to be relevant for most individuals or even corporations are nothing new.

You can get an mSATA or M2 small ~32-64GB SSD drive (which many motherboards have direct attach slots for now) for about $60. If you use that as your boot / OS system / critical-app drive and get a slow multi-TB spindle HDD drive for your bulk load-and-save storage you'll get huge improvement in your startup/shutdown times and general system operation while still having cheap mass media. Is that far too expensive?

Re:My rule for SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627921)

It's not legitimate, it's completely redundant and irrelevant to comment just to say that you can't afford something. What kind of interesting discussion can follow from that?

Re:My rule for SSD (2)

vadim_t (324782) | about 8 months ago | (#45627191)

SSDs aren't for mass storage. You're better off with hard drives or tape for that.

SSDs are for blindingly fast performance first, everything else second. Install your OS and applications on a SSD. Keep your movie and music collection on a hard drive.

Re:My rule for SSD (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#45627313)

You forgot near zero idle power draw, exceedingly low active power draw for mobile applications. For some, that is the killer feature and fast is just "nice to have".

Re:My rule for SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45628111)

I use them to hold the volumes for the VM's that I'm working on. Server 2008 boots in 10-15 seconds. Everything just runs as if it is running natively on really fast HDD's.
These aren't small VM's either. 150-200Gb and using 8-16Gb Ram.

So, CCD's are for mass storage IMHO

Re:My rule for SSD (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 8 months ago | (#45627195)

Then you'll be waiting a long time...

Even when the costs do come down, SSDs are likely to be priced at 2x HDD prices, just because they can.

The market prices superior products at higher prices, just because it can.

You might not care, and that's fine, but for those of us who do, we went all SSD awhile ago and love it.

Re:My rule for SSD (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 8 months ago | (#45627393)

Ever since my little EeePC spoiled me, I will never use spinning rust again.

Re:My rule for SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45627203)

My rule for SSD: I will never again have a non-SSD system disk, due to the significant increase in speed, and also noise reduction (and on laptop increased battery life), you get. The multi-TB storage is on a NAS.

Re:My rule for SSD (1)

Chas (5144) | about 8 months ago | (#45627459)

My rule for SSD: I will never again have a non-SSD system disk, due to the significant increase in speed, and also noise reduction (and on laptop increased battery life), you get. The multi-TB storage is on a NAS.

Damn skippy!

Re:My rule for SSD (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | about 8 months ago | (#45627461)

Given that their competition is 15k RPM drives, you'll be waiting a LONGGG time. They aren't meant to replace large capacity low IOPS drives.

Re:My rule for SSD (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#45627709)

Give me an SSD within the same power-of-ten size as a hard drive for the same cost and we'll talk.

Seriously. Give me a 1Tb SSD for the cost of the cheapest XTb hard drive and I'll buy it. But if hard drives get to 10Tb in that time, guess what happens? You then have to give me a 10Tb drive for the same price.

Keep dreaming, buddy-boy. We won't "give you" anything like that for a very long time. The main point in moving to SSDs is R/W performance. Just put an SSD (any size) as your system drive and feel the mindblowing speed difference. In a modern computer, the mechanical hard disk drive is a huge bottleneck: processes spend a lot of time spinning thumbs in "I/O wait" state.

Re:My rule for SSD (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 8 months ago | (#45628595)

My rule for SSD hasn't changed since their invention.

My rule for storage is I don't trust anyone who can't get the suffixes for bits and bytes straight.

and the mac pro will be stuck at 1TB max 256 min (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 8 months ago | (#45627143)

and the mac pro will be stuck at 1TB max 256 min for a year or more with the same price for that time as well.

Re:and the mac pro will be stuck at 1TB max 256 mi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45628469)

Sorry, I didn't get that. I read it in the subject line and then in the body and it left me wanting more. Could you repeat that once again for me please? I'd like it once on the subject line, then once on the body please. That way I get to read the beginning of your post twice, because what you have to say is just so damn important it fucking NEEDS to be read twice, dammit. So, once again, can we have you repeat yourself again, once in the subject line and again in the body, please?

Another predictable ./ perspective... (1)

Glasswire (302197) | about 8 months ago | (#45627805)

As Dr FrankNfurter says in RHPS [imdb.com] "I didn't build him for YOU!!!" It's amusing whenever new datacenter/server technology gets posted on /. that half the posts evaluate the proposed product in terms of how affordable/practical/useful it would be to them in their little client desktop or notebook. All of these Intel drives are intended for server (or at least technical workstation ) use, so they need to be evaluated by ROI they give a business doing high-throughput work. If you think they have great stats but are too expensive, maybe you are not the intended market.

Pathetic write endurance. (3, Informative)

citizenr (871508) | about 8 months ago | (#45627935)

P3500 = 374TB for 2TB model = 2 days of continuous writing and drive dies = mlc
P3700 = 50 days of continuous writing = slc

while old Samsung 830 routinely did >1PB with 256GB model.

No, you wont write 20GB per day, those are not home use drives, they go into servers and get killed by bcache.

Re:Pathetic write endurance. (1)

Allan Jude (3433497) | about 8 months ago | (#45628535)

S3500 = 140TB for 240GB model
S3700 = 3650TB for 200GB model

Before increasing capacity, what about encryption? (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 8 months ago | (#45628435)

I've upgraded a number of customer machines from HDDs to SSDs and the performance boost is profound, no doubt, and Intel is one of the best performers.

But what's kept me from upgrading my own machine is: encryption support.

The use of hardware computed compression in Intel and other Sandforce SSDs is reportedly at odds with software-based OTF (on the fly) encryption options like TrueCrypt because encrypted data is incompressible, so such benefits are lost. It will probably still be faster than an HDD, but not by nearly the same margin, so you're losing a lot of the performance you paid for.

There's also the question of MTBF because software OTF encryption needs to make a gigantic write operation to initialize an encrypted container and then makes more write ops than in non-encrypted systems.

And any files you place on the drive before setting up encryption are liable to be leaked by wear leveling mechanisms that throw and map pieces of files all over the place, so you always need to start from scratch if you want to be sure.

Some SSDs have hardware based encryption, but it's generally just so they can do a secure wipe by generating a new key. Any options available for user-managed keys are extremely rudimentary and not an acceptable solution. The best option I've heard of is the ability to use the BIOS HDD password as the key and then you're at the mercy of your motherboard and whatever leaks or insufficiencies it has (woohoo, 8 whole characters); not to mention, it really wasn't designed for this purpose.

Nope, they're just not there yet.

Re:Before increasing capacity, what about encrypti (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | about 8 months ago | (#45628655)

My work laptop uses encryption and was upgraded from an HDD to an SSD about a year ago. The performance upgrade was definitely worth it, and everyone else that got the upgrade agrees. I'm not sure which type of encryption it uses, but it is the kind where you have to type in the password before it boots or lets you do anything.

I also upgraded from an HDD to a non-encrypted SSD in one of my home computers and I would say the performance increase was about the same.

5x price differential at any time (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 8 months ago | (#45628439)

I notice that flash is currently goign for about 50 cents a GB and disk about 10 cents. Flahs has been falling faster than disk, but disk still falls too.

In the good old days (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 8 months ago | (#45628611)

Out first departmental computer in the 1970s has a ten megabyte disk for $15K. And it was the size of a washing machine.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>