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!

Samsung's 64-GB Solid-State Drive

kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the we-don't-need-no-steenkin-RPMs dept.

Data Storage 249

Anonymous Howard writes "Just a couple of weeks ago Sandisk introduced a 32-GB solid-state drive. Now Samsung has one-upped them, unveiling a 64-GB solid-state drive. They are expecting to begin shipping in the second quarter of this year. Samsung says the device can read 64 MB/s, write 45 MB/s, and uses just 0.5 W when operating (0.1 W when idle). In comparison, an 80-GB 1.8-inch hard drive reads at 15 MB/s, writes at 7 MB/s, and consumes 1.5 W when either operating or idle. No pricing yet."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


finally, one big enough for regular use (3, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | about 7 years ago | (#18504981)

64 GB "ought to be enough for anybody"!

Seriously, though, that's enough for windows XP/Vista/etc. plus your favorite games, apps, and so on. Maybe you couldn't put whole slews of videos or images on there, but you could always get 2 of them.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (5, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | about 7 years ago | (#18505043)

You don't need that speed for all your slews of videos and images, just put them ( and all data) on a regular disc, and use this for applications only. It'll last longer that way, anyways.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (3, Informative)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | about 7 years ago | (#18505707)

Last longer? The MTBF on flash storage is about an order of magnitude greater than magnetic storage these days.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (1)

MindStalker (22827) | about 7 years ago | (#18506115)

I could be wrong, but I do believe flash turned off stuck in storage has a fairly limited lifetime, while a harddrive has a very long lifetime. Failures from day to day use, yes Flash wins, mainly because small errors can be corrected with regular use.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (4, Informative)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | about 7 years ago | (#18506253)

I could be wrong, but I do believe flash turned off stuck in storage has a fairly limited lifetime

They specify 10 years for flash memory to hold it's data, but in practice (e.g. not at the highest temperature or most extreme operating voltage) it is significantly longer. I don't know to what extent the hard drives work around bad sectors, but they probably do it for both flash drives and the traditional magnetic type.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18505067)

I would end up carrying a firewwire drive around with me for all the other stuff I have. The FW drive would drain the battery, thus defeating half the point of having a SSD in the laptop.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (2, Funny)

tritonman (998572) | about 7 years ago | (#18505113)

I would need to buy like 10 of these for my pr0n collection, no thanks!

From my vantage point (3, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | about 7 years ago | (#18505165)

Hard drive capacity growth has slowed the last years in notebooks, they just haven't been increasing in size that fast as in the early 00s. I think flash will surpass notebook harddrives in size within 2-3 years. As it is, 64GB is in the same magnitude of existing typical notebook drives now, just halfway down on the scale.

The price may or not go down enough within that time period to kick out harddrives completely - in which case we'll just see hybrid drives take over.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (1)

PingSpike (947548) | about 7 years ago | (#18505191)

I haven't ever really had any complaints about how long it takes for videos and music to load, which all sit on a little low power file server at my house. However, games and some applications are certainly a different story.

Granted, I probably don't represent your average user. But I do think your average user could benefit from a combination hard drive layout and would even notice the increase in speed!

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 7 years ago | (#18506339)

On that subject, have you checked out or seen Disktrix's Ultimate Defrag [disktrix.com]? It relocates the most recent used data to the edge of the platter to apparently lower access time. I'm not sure of any benchmarks against it, but logically it makes sense.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 7 years ago | (#18505203)

Yeah. I could see someone using more than I do, but if I install my OS and all my apps (full installs, clip-art, etc), it's probably going to be under 10GB. Add the games I'm currently running, and it'll be under 20. Add another 20GB for my music collection, and you're still well under the 64GBs listed here. I'll only break 60 GB when you add TV shows, movies, and my software archive (I have a Mac, and whenever I buy software, I make a DMG of the disc and store that for later installs, treat the disc as a backup). 64 GB flash disks would be mighty useful.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (1)

REparsed (1080793) | about 7 years ago | (#18505679)

Before these were announced I considered putting XP (lightened) on a 4GB DOM an using a standard drive for data.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (2, Interesting)

steveo777 (183629) | about 7 years ago | (#18505687)

That's actually 4GB larger than my current Notebook HDD. I'm pretty excited to see what the pricing will be.

Re:finally, one big enough for regular use (1)

Solra Bizna (716281) | about 7 years ago | (#18506425)

It's 44GB larger than mine...

...Oh well, at least I'm not on that old 6GB anymore. T_T


I'm lazy, yes, but that's not a bad thing (2, Interesting)

heinousjay (683506) | about 7 years ago | (#18505065)

I'm wondering, will this work as a drop-in replacement for existing hard drives? The article doesn't say, and while I can't imagine there would be a reason it wouldn't work, I really don't know. In particular, is this something that will work in Vista and not XP?

Re:I'm lazy, yes, but that's not a bad thing (3, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 7 years ago | (#18505183)

yes. a solid-state hard drive is exactly that - a normal HDD that uses a different mechanism for storing data. Usually its a pinning platter, this uses non-volatile memory chips. The interface and size are the same, so you just use it as you otherwise would.

Personally, I think 64Gb is a bit much for me, I'd stick the OS and swap files on there - which come to about 10Gb on my current XP machine.

Re:I'm lazy, yes, but that's not a bad thing (-1, Troll)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | about 7 years ago | (#18505979)

Why use a swap file? Just add more ram, the only reason you need a swap file is for memory leaks then again those come from crappy apps, upgrade them or change apps or restart them regularly.

Re:I'm lazy, yes, but that's not a bad thing (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | about 7 years ago | (#18506109)

There are many reasons why using a swap file is more practical than adding more RAM. For one thing there are inherent limitations on many systems - whether it's a limit on RAM size, a limit to the number of physical slots available, or simply a situation where the rarity of needing additional memory space doesn't justify the cost of adding extra DIMMs. Whatever the reason, "swap files are for memory leaks" is rubbish.

Re:I'm lazy, yes, but that's not a bad thing (1)

c_woolley (905087) | about 7 years ago | (#18506061)

Yep, that's pretty much what I do with my current system. I have a smaller WD Raptor drive for my OS and important applications, while my RAID drive handles storage and most other applications. Works well. Keeps my system fast and and makes securing it a lot easier when I know exactly what files belong on C:

Re:I'm lazy, yes, but that's not a bad thing (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 7 years ago | (#18506287)

Don't use swap on the flash disk. Run with a ton of RAM instead. Longer hardware life, with the added bonus of extremely quick data shuffling.

Re:I'm lazy, yes, but that's not a bad thing (3, Interesting)

faloi (738831) | about 7 years ago | (#18505233)

They're marketed as drop in replacements, currently built to notebook drive standards. The downside, as someone else mentions, is that they are flash based. While flash has gotten better recently, I'd be squeemish about having an OS that constantly writes to the drive even when nothing is (apparently) happening on it.

Re:I'm lazy, yes, but that's not a bad thing (1)

denobug (753200) | about 7 years ago | (#18506431)

Taken from the HD's picture in the article:

1.8" SSD 3.3V ATA7 UDMA66
Model #: MCCOE64G8MPR-03A

Hopefully this helps.

Performance? (3, Insightful)

26199 (577806) | about 7 years ago | (#18505073)

Can anyone find some more details on the transfer rate/seek time?

For a hard disk peak transfer rate is when reading consecutive blocks... if the solid state drive can get near peak performance for random access, it's got a huge advantage.

And is thus very cool.

Seek time? Should be 0ms (4, Insightful)

CFD339 (795926) | about 7 years ago | (#18505181)

There should be no seek time, it's solid state. There is no read write head to move, and there is no platter to spin.

Re:Seek time? Should be 0ms (4, Informative)

26199 (577806) | about 7 years ago | (#18506325)

Well... that doesn't necessarily mean it's as fast at random access as it is at consecutive access.

Normal computer RAM is also faster at consecutive reads than random reads.

Re:Performance? (1)

brunascle (994197) | about 7 years ago | (#18505237)

is there even such thing as seek time with a solid state disk? there isnt really any seeking going on.

Re:Performance? (3, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | about 7 years ago | (#18505273)

They're called "wait states" and the number of them really depends on the depth of the decoding logic.

You know, those SDRAM timings that x-trememe overclockers 2 the max use to fully run 3dmarks to the xtreme maxx.

Re:Performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18505487)

> For a hard disk peak transfer rate is when reading consecutive blocks... if the solid state drive can get near peak performance for random access, it's got a huge advantage.

It should be able to, seeing as addressing a block of flash memory takes orders of magnitude less time than seeking a drive head and waiting for a sector to spin under the read head. Nanoseconds versus milliseconds.

Put pagefile somewhere else? (2, Interesting)

Pyrion (525584) | about 7 years ago | (#18505083)

It's flash-based, so am I right in assuming that mapping the pagefile to that drive will dramatically shorten its lifespan?

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (2, Informative)

crow (16139) | about 7 years ago | (#18505343)

I'm under the impression that this is solved by two factors.

First, flash parts have internal controlers that remap the flash to level out the writes. (I remember hearing about some researcher who developed a great flash file system, only to find that it didn't make any difference because of the remapping.)

Second, flash parts can handle orders of magnitude more writes now than they could a few years ago.

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (2, Insightful)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 7 years ago | (#18506145)

Second, flash parts can handle orders of magnitude more writes now than they could a few years ago.
But when it fails, how recoverable is it? Is there an industry for flash memory data recovery like there is for hard drive recovery?

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (3, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | about 7 years ago | (#18505381)

Not totally certain, but I would guess so. Depending on how big the pagefile was, perhaps the drive does some intelligent load-balancing that would keep you from frying it too quickly, but it might be better to keep another drive around for that, or loading the machine up with enough RAM to keep it from swapping often.

I used to know people who swore that, after adding RAM, the best thing you could do for speed was to add a small-but-fast SCSI hard drive and use it for nothing but your swapfile. I've never gone that route personally, because I've never thought it worth the expense, but I bet it would make for a pretty nice system. And I also suspect there have to be a lot of SCSI drives on the used market if you look.

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (2, Funny)

Pyrion (525584) | about 7 years ago | (#18505489)

Personally, I'm hoping more for being able to find a Gigabyte iRAM locally now that in a couple of days I'll have about 2GB in 512MB sticks left over after a RAM upgrade.

That's the kind of thing a pagefile should be mapped to - a ramdisk. ;)

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 years ago | (#18505609)

If your pagefile exists in RAM, then why even have a pagefile at all? Just get rid of the pagefile completely. If you have 2Gig of Ram, then you pretty much have no need for a page file for most desktop applications. Things like photo/video editing can take a lot of RAM, but if you don't do any of that, you're probably OK.

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | about 7 years ago | (#18506157)

Because some OSes behave VERY differently with and without swap space, regardless of the total amount of RAM+swap. Running linux with ~900MB of RAM and ~100MB of swap (on a ram drive) is far preferable to running with 1GB of RAM and no swap.

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18505417)

> It's flash-based, so am I right in assuming that mapping the pagefile to that drive will dramatically shorten its lifespan?

Finally, a use for all those $5 surplus 7200RPM 8GB drives!

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (4, Funny)

Pike (52876) | about 7 years ago | (#18505475)

no, but your browser will need the latest Adobe plugins in order for your operating system to boot properly.

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (1)

Maxhrk (680390) | about 7 years ago | (#18505977)

what?! WHAT? operating system to boot properly rquires adobe plugins?

Re:Put pagefile somewhere else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18506117)

I think it was the grandparent post's attempt at humor. Since it is flash-based... with flash meaning Shockwave Flash, by Macromedia, now owned by (ominous music) Adobe.

So, if you were basing your system as Flash-Based, you'd constantly need updates from Adobe just to have the OS running.

Of course, that's what I'm interpreting the joke to be. I could be off base.

What's the long-term stability? (5, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | about 7 years ago | (#18505129)

Quality hard drives are fairly reliable. They can last 10 years or more and you can usually count on them to last their warranty period - 3-5 years - and then some.

They also have error detection/correction, bad-sector remapping, and "I'm about to die" notification.

At one time, solid-state devices were good for about a thousand writes for any given memory cell, a lot fewer than HDs.

Does anyone know the reliability for these new solid-state devices over wall time, hours in use/plugged in, number of read cycles, and number of write cycles under normal operating conditions, and how those compare with a modern 1.8, 2.5, or 3.5" drive?

Re:What's the long-term stability? (2, Informative)

Timoteo47 (1080787) | about 7 years ago | (#18505501)

The SSDs from Samsung and SanDisk will last for years and have an MTBF of 2 million hours. San Disk claims there device will last at least 5 years.

Re:What's the long-term stability? (2, Informative)

MrZaius (321037) | about 7 years ago | (#18506195)

For comparison's sake, apparently some of my 250GB WD hard drives have a MTBF of only 1 million hours.

Re:What's the long-term stability? (1)

Chacham (981) | about 7 years ago | (#18505921)

"I'm about to die" notification.

Ah, the old IATD. Known to the rest of the world as Innovation Alliteration for Termination Declaration. Had they only known.

Now listen here young man (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18506259)

Don't get S.M.A.R.T. with me.

Young whippersnappers.

On Slashdot Alzheimer's means you forget who you are

Perfect for MP3 players (3, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 7 years ago | (#18505139)

This would be perfect for my iRiver H320 MP3 player, since (according to TFA) it's in the 1.8" form factor which almost every HD MP3 player uses.

Re:Perfect for MP3 players (1)

DeadChobi (740395) | about 7 years ago | (#18505581)

I'm wondering how much disk my Zen Sleek Photo can use. If I can get a 1.8" 64GB flash drive and replace the solid state drive with it then it'll have better uptime than my cellphone. All I need is a better battery and I'm golden. The question is whether or not it puts out more or less heat than the hard disk. BTW, there's probably a howto for disassembling your MP3 player somewhere that you could use. The remaining question is whether or not the firmware will support it.

Re:Perfect for MP3 players (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18506199)

Perfect drive indeed. As long as you don't mind you mp3 player costing an extra couple grand ;)

Not that I'd ever buy anything Apple makes, but they make one with a 60GB HD if you need that much space. I doubt the power saving would make a huge difference in battery life either.

Personally, my current 40GB model has enough space as it is (even to put some photos and documents on it when I travel), and the battery life is good enough that I only have to recharge it once a week or so. For 50$ more, maybe I'd get this, but it's not worth the price they'll be asking for this.

I don't get it... (5, Interesting)

bluemonq (812827) | about 7 years ago | (#18505143)

How can it be one-upping them A-DATA already annouced 128GB SSDs two months ago [engadget.com]?

Re:I don't get it... (2, Informative)

brunascle (994197) | about 7 years ago | (#18505341)

the samsung is a 1.8 inch drive and the A-DATA is a 2.5 inch.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

Klaruz (734) | about 7 years ago | (#18506099)

If you read the actual source [theinquirer.net]. Instead of the blog post you'd see they have a 64gb 1.8" IDE version too. I'm not sure if the current interface standard for 1.8" drives is IDE or S-ATA, but I'm sure they'll put the appropriate connector and interface chip on whatever they sell when they ship them.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 7 years ago | (#18506455)

It might be a speed factor. As far as I can tell, no stats were dropped on the A-Data drives besides size and format.

Smaller isn't better... (1)

Channard (693317) | about 7 years ago | (#18505209)

All this means is that we'll suddenly get smaller and smaller MP3 players. Which I'm not sure is the right direction. I'd rather have the players stay the same size and for the batteries to get bigger. I'd happily trade miniscule size for a much longer battery life.

Re:Smaller isn't better... (3, Insightful)

Pyrion (525584) | about 7 years ago | (#18505397)

It's flash-based, so I would think the energy savings from not having to constantly run a hard drive's motor would lengthen battery life just with the batteries as they are now.

Re:Smaller isn't better... (1)

eebra82 (907996) | about 7 years ago | (#18505519)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Just because manufacturers can create a GSM phone the size of a small watch doesn't mean they are doing it. Some niche products will always go beyond limits but there is a practical limitation as to how small a gadget can get, and the developers know this.

Re:Smaller isn't better... (1)

gmb61 (815164) | about 7 years ago | (#18506407)

I'm not so sure they do. Have you ever seen a MicroSD card? They're about half the size of your thumbnail. I'd be afraid to eject it from my device for fear of dropping it and never finding it again.

Usable life... (1)

Cervantes (612861) | about 7 years ago | (#18505225)

I'd love to grab one of these (even the 32MB one) and slap my OS and apps on there... but I'm concerned about what the usable life really is. I mean, sure, it's good for maybe a million write cycles (number pulled out of my ass), but really, with your OS running, the usual memory-resident programs, perhaps a nice game of warcrack going... how long is that going to last you?

Some systems I have use hard drives I bought ten years ago... really, 8GB is more than enough to hold the OS, programs, etc etc, and if it's working and I have it backed up, why should I bother buying a new one for something that doesn't need it? Will these drives hold up long enough to be used 5 years from now? How well do they degrade? Do you just notice that your available size gets smaller over time, as the flash gradually goes bad and the bits are eliminated from the FAT? Or does your system stop working one day 6 months from now because the bad bit was in your bootloader?

I'd love to get my hands on one of these, HD bottlenecks are the biggest PITA.... but I'm not going to be an early adopter. I want to hear some horror stories first.

Re:Usable life... (1)

Fizzl (209397) | about 7 years ago | (#18505641)

I'm under the impression, that solid state drives cycle through the available space somehow, so all the blocks would get approximately equal read/write cycles. So that a) it lasts as long as possible b) when it starts having bad blocks, you better replace the thing pretty fast.

Price: $200ish? (2, Interesting)

crow (16139) | about 7 years ago | (#18505243)

Based on 4GB compact flash prices at Pricewatch, I can get 32G for $107.60 or 64G for $215.20. All that's new here is packaging all that in one package, and putting a regular IDE interface on it. So at today's prices, that's about $200 per 64GB drive. Of course, by the time this hits the market, it should be lower. On the other hand, there will be a significant premium charged at first until there's enough competition to bring it down.

Re:Price: $200ish? (1)

Phroon (820247) | about 7 years ago | (#18505839)

Based on 4GB compact flash prices at Pricewatch, I can get 32G for $107.60 or 64G for $215.20.

No, you can't. The $13.45 == ($107.60/(32GB/4GB)) == ($215.20/(64GB/4GB)) 4GB CF card your looking at is out of stock. (Possibly because you mentioned it here...)
The next cheapest (in terms of $/GB) is a 4GB Pen Drive for $32.95. That leads to prices of $263.60 for 32GB, and $527.20 for 64GB. Much closer to what I'd expect for flash memory.

The only reason I checked is because I wanted a $13.45 4GB CF card.

Re:Price: $500ish? (1)

Demon-Xanth (100910) | about 7 years ago | (#18506371)

Without looking around much, I see CF cards at 1GB for $12.50, 2GB ones for $16, 4GB for $34 and 8GB for $75. Making a bit less than linear progression. But you can guess about $8/GB for wholesale. 64x8=about $500.

I would spend serious money for a laptop drive (4, Insightful)

CFD339 (795926) | about 7 years ago | (#18505275)

What would you spend if you could be a 2.5" version that was interface compatible with your laptop sata connector that was say, 100gb with comparable power and performance?

Personally, to pull the SATA drive out of my laptop and replace it with a 100gb version of this that used so much less power and was so much faster would be a no-brainer even at something like 700 or 800 dollars (US). Battery life would be radically better, noise and heat would be much lower, performance better and general usability should be outstanding.

What are the downsides? How is the duty cycle on these things? Will they last as long or develop hotspots that can't store data as well?

Re:I would spend serious money for a laptop drive (4, Funny)

zippthorne (748122) | about 7 years ago | (#18506103)

one more downside, perhaps: zero noise. How will you know the difference between a hang and simple thrashing without being able to put your ear to the chassis and listen to the disk doing what it does?

Re:I would spend serious money for a laptop drive (1)

ivan256 (17499) | about 7 years ago | (#18506357)

When my hard drive is thrashing, the access light comes on... You should look into hooking up that cable. ;)

Re:I would spend serious money for a laptop drive (1)

ambrosen (176977) | about 7 years ago | (#18506317)

Well, you can get 32GB for that price right now. Although I've only seen it sold as PATA, for reasons I do not know.

Heat and Noise? (1)

lawpoop (604919) | about 7 years ago | (#18505303)

I read the articles. I didn't see anything about heat and noise output. Can anyone fill me in? I would guess it would be minimal and none, respectively.

Re:Heat and Noise? (5, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | about 7 years ago | (#18505533)

I read the articles. I didn't see anything about heat and noise output. Can anyone fill me in? I would guess it would be minimal and none, respectively.

Well, based on an energy consumption of 0.5W and an educated guess that they probably aren't emitting much light, I'd say that the heat output is 0.5W.


I'd like one in my next iPod (1)

soft_guy (534437) | about 7 years ago | (#18505315)

I didn't RTFA, so I don't know how physically large these are, but I want one for my next iPod. It isn't a high enough capacity for a laptop HD for me, though.

Notice (-1, Offtopic)

blakmac (987934) | about 7 years ago | (#18505317)

Your Windows settings have been changed. Your system must now reboot. Do you wish to restart now?

Are you sure? Your operating system will have to be reinstalled!
*click*......NO! *click**click**click**click* CRAP!!!

Industrial PC's (3, Insightful)

timias1 (1063832) | about 7 years ago | (#18505349)

I worked with some industrial PCs back in 98, and they came equipped with solid state hard drives. They were around 120 MB, but the could load Win 98 in a few seconds. They solid state technology was important in that application, because it was highly resistant to shock and vibration. They could withstand like 80 g's of shock. Is there any reason that solid state cannot ultimately replace the current HD technology? It seems like a logic progression. Horses to Automobiles Propellers to Jets Vacuum Tubes to Transistors.

Re:Industrial PC's (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | about 7 years ago | (#18505547)

Is there any reason that solid state cannot ultimately replace the current HD technology?


For a long while I think you'll see more hybrids, and more use of a solid state drive to accelerate application loading, while platter based discs hold the mountains of "data".

Other than application loading, there isn't too much use for these on personal PCs. They'd improve the hell out of database server performance, though.

Re:Industrial PC's (2, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | about 7 years ago | (#18505663)

Of course solid state disks will replace regular hard drives. After all, the conventional disk is the only computer peripheral with moving parts.

I think that the SSD is going to compete far sooner than most people realize. Looking at the numbers, we now see that laptops are almost outselling stationary computers, so people may actually turn to SSD as soon as 2.5 inchers at 200 GB come at competitive prices. Besides, if you want lots of space for vids and mp3s, then why not get a networked server with a couple of TB of space, or at least some external drives mounted to a laptop slot-in?

Re:Industrial PC's (3, Informative)

garyok (218493) | about 7 years ago | (#18506433)

After all, the conventional disk is the only computer peripheral with moving parts.
Ummm... CDs and DVDs (not to mention the blinking-flip 1.4Mb floppy drive I still need to load RAID drivers on XP)? CPU and PSU fans? My printer? My (opti) mouse's buttons? The front door thingy on my PC case? Still lots of moving bits around in conventional PC peripherals that can wear out, 'fraid to say.

Re:Industrial PC's (1)

RiotXIX (230569) | about 7 years ago | (#18506285)

as pointed out, $$$.

But do you really need ssd in large volumes?
No os partition + apps should require more than 10GB, and that gives you about 20GB+ of temp data to play with.

For my next setup (finally building THE dream machine), I'll have a 32gb (actually would have been content with 16gb, but I guess I can rip more large wavs/mov's in one go), I'll have my main parition/documents on the flash drive, and then a big SATAII mechanical drive for storing this large, infrequently accessed files on. I'd have it no other way, even if larger flashes did exist.

I actually figured it would be a nice idea to have a seperate tiny drive for my OS/ACTUAL work, and another for media. This will be convenient for such a setup. And it will be very easy/clear to seperate the wheat from the chaff when backing up.

64Gb Available Now (1)

Obsidian Dagger (846679) | about 7 years ago | (#18505403)

BUSlink 64GB flash drive part#BDP2-64G-U2 is available now with a retail price of $4,999. I checked stock before posting and there are 5 currently in stock available for drop ship from California.

The Kanguru 64GB flash drive part#KFDM-64G is priced under $3,000 but their ETA has been pushed back again to April 1.

I work at Dell (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18505559)

I'm actually working from home doing tech support right now. I can tell you pretty firmly that I don't care what OS your running, our diag programs all work outside the OS, so while our best effort software support for linux might not be the greatest since we're generally used to dealing with windows XP. I'll give you a new HDD if your HDD dies irregardless of what OS is loaded on it. I can't believe the HP techs would be such dicks to customers on the phone but I blame their management for that. On our end we're trained pretty hardcore to satisfy the customer and even bend the rules if absolutely necessary for customer satisfaction. The idea of turning around a customer for an OS we aren't absolute experts on it isn't just stupid, it's actually fairly offensive to the customer as well. I know as a geek and even as a tech support agent, I'd be cheesed off if some guy in tech support tried to void my warranty for that.

bizuna7ch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18505603)

BSD's codEbase MAKES ME SICK JUST teeth into when

Concerns (0)

StickyWidget (741415) | about 7 years ago | (#18505739)

Normally, I'd be ridiculously happy about this sort of development. The speed increase, the reliability increase, and the lower power consumption easily make drives like this very attractive. However, as a Computer Engineer I have to wonder if our computers and operating systems can REALLY handle a drive with a 48 MByte/sec transfer rate.

Have situations with a drive this fast ever been extensively tested in a lab to determine problems that may develop in the operating system? What happens when processes that were designed and coded with a slow hard drive in mind come in contact with ridiculously fast flash drives? Hard drive latency has been a fact of life for so long, what happens when it's no longer an issue?

Sticky "JustAskingTheQuestion" Widget

Re:Concerns (0, Flamebait)

ChronoReverse (858838) | about 7 years ago | (#18506011)

Raptors can easily give you 48mb/s much less really nice drives like SAS drive. And this is before factoring in RAID.

I don't how this would've been an issue in the days of DOS, much less with modern operating systems.

RAM based HD's answered these questions (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 years ago | (#18506063)

Years ago.

Yes, there were problems. They were fixed. All good now. Faster is better. Lower watts is better. Denser is better. Now let's work on cheaper.

Re:Concerns (1)

burndive (855848) | about 7 years ago | (#18506135)

Ever hear of a RAM-based virtual disk? I use them on my Linux server for /tmp and anything else that doesn't need to persist through a reboot. They're in RAM, but the OS treats them as drives. Any Live (CD or DVD-based) distro will load the main OS onto RAM disks (if there's room) and run from there, only accessing the optical drive for large data files. It works fine.

The 1tb optical disk looks more interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18505795)

The article at the TFA's website about a 1TB removable disk looks even more interesting:

http://news.digitaltrends.com/article12559.html [digitaltrends.com]

http://www.mempile.com/ [mempile.com]

Gaming (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about 7 years ago | (#18505857)

This is definitely going to have the most application for gamers and people looking for performance PCs initially. I already know lots of gamers who go for smaller 10,000 RPM drives for their OS and applications, and have larger 7200 RPM drives for storage. This seems to be in the same ballpark in terms of size (mid-size consumer 10k RPM is 74GB), so it will just be a matter of performance vs. dollars.

Re:Gaming (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about 7 years ago | (#18506155)

I wonder if this'll end up killing off Raptor drives (10K rpm). Since it is flash if the OS could save its state to the drive before shutdown we could have instant on capability too.

E4? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18505951)

is also a miserable BSD had become Of 7he warring very own shitter, teeth into when braIn. It is the another special

The price is $496,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18506091)

I came to this price from a previous slashdot article about the million $ laptop...

The laptop comes with 128GB of solid state disk space, Blu-ray, and a detachable rare diamond that acts like a power button and a security key.

High end Laptop $2500
Blueray Drive $500
Diamond $3000
128 GB solid state mem $992000 = 496,000 for 64GB = priceless!
Or is the diamond that is priceless!

http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/03/26/197 253.shtml [slashdot.org]

Performance vs 10000RPM drive? (1)

MontyApollo (849862) | about 7 years ago | (#18506229)

What would the real world performance be like compared to a 10000 RPM drive? I think their read and write speeds are comparable to WD Raptor, but I'm supposing solid state would have quicker random access. How would this compare in terms of real world performance?

Perfect solution for database? (1)

kamelkev (114875) | about 7 years ago | (#18506309)

A couple years ago we had a drive here that was essentially ram with a hard disk backup. It was only 4 gigs and was very very expensive (I can find the brand if anyone is truly curious). We got in maybe 2-3 years ago and it was like 10 grand.

We used that drive for random things, but I always envisioned putting a database on it... of course it was too small. I'm wondering if these new flash drives might be potential alternatives for us... but I'd really need to see someone talking about how many writes these guys really can do.

If anyone has *any* information that I can look at that talks about doing a high rate of writes to a volume based on these drives I would be very interested in seeing it.

please reply if so!

Micro servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18506359)

Could these solid state drives be used as part of a functional micro-server farm? Cisco, for example, produces PoE switches with 15.4W on all the ports, GigE too. How much power would you need with one of the new low-power Xeon chips, 8GB or so of RAM, and one of these 32 or 64G SS drives? No HD, no spinning anything, just a serial port, and maybe a second GigE port, all in a little box. How many of these could you stuff into some chassis (just to hold them together) into a rack? 48 into 5 or 6RU?

Predict $630 (4, Interesting)

llZENll (545605) | about 7 years ago | (#18506449)

Hm, based on the cheapest (without rebates) memory available at $8.50/GB, figure 20% markup between the manf and retailer, thats $6.8/GB.

$435 for memory

+10% for R&D
+10% for manf (including controller, parts, etc)
-10% for manf efficency when producing 64GB/run

COST $479

+20% for geewhiz-newtoy-factor/supply shortages
+10% for retail


http://www.pricewatch.com/flash_card_memory/secure _digital_2gb.htm [pricewatch.com]

Another prediction: SSDs will offer such huge power and performance advantanges, they will sell like crazy and drop in price by a factor of 70% within 1 year from now.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account