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!

Samsung Announces Fastest 64-GB SSD

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the want-to-see-it-again dept.

Data Storage 145

XueCast writes "The new solid-state drive from Samsung can write data at 100 MB/s and read at 120 MB/s. This handily outperforms other SSDs now on the market, which typically feature only 50-80 MB/s read/write rates. Samsung's SSD will come in two form factors, 1.8" and 2.5", and will be running on the SATA II standard. It will only consume 50% of the power of current SSDs. There is no information yet about price."

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

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264203)

first post?

SP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264209)

second post?

Re:SP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264213)

Fourth post?

Re:SP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264223)

fuck you

Re:SP! (1)

underpenguin (1094689) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264249)

Insightful indeed. I wonder how these SSDs with ridiculous speed will work as swap areas / extended memory. (?)

Re:SP! (1)

Panitz (1102427) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264515)

I think it would be cheaper, and work better if you just bought more RAM. And if it won't fit in your motherboard, then buy a new one... whatever you spend it will probably cost less than this drive. (for about 12 months anyway)

Re:SP! (1)

Peet42 (904274) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265677)

Of course, what you save by this method will be spent in the cost of keeping your motherboard powered up 24/7.

TP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264233)

Toilet Paper?

Damn speed filter... I don't want to Slow down, cowboy :(

Re:FP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264221)

You must be using one of those fancy-dancy fast SSD things this article is talkin about!

Re:FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264247)

All these off topic anonymous posts are fun... someone with mod points ought to mod up this garbage.

Re:FP! (1)

The -e**(i*pi) (1150927) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265195)

Isn't it odd how the moderation to this post would make a better post than the post it was moderating.

I/O limited distros more popular? (1, Informative)

Crankymonky (886874) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264253)

A few machines in the past have had SSD's and the manufacturer did nothing to limit the Input and output of the operating system, therefore limiting the longevity of the drive. With Asus' eeePC just launched, I'm not sure what they've done as they do use a SSD. Does anyone expect we will see a rise in both development and popularity of Linux distributions that will limit input and output access to the drives by some means? Does anyone think Microsoft would do anything to this extent within the near future? On the linux front, as far as I know, only live CDs and their frugal installs (that support saving to a save file) and maybe (probably?) Asus eeePC's OS have options to limit the input and output of a drive, by default.

Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (4, Informative)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264303)

Thanks to algorithms that spread written data across the chip, MTBF's of SSD are much higher than those of regular HDDs with similar usuage patterns.

Furthermore, A simple buffering scheme sounds likely to solve most of the problems you're talking about (Assuming it's constantly many small writes done by the OS... for say, log file keeping or file access-time updating).

Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (2, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265575)

Thanks to algorithms that spread written data across the chip, MTBF's of SSD are much higher than those of regular HDDs with similar usuage patterns.

MTBF doesn't mean [wikipedia.org] what most people think it means, and is less useful [wikipedia.org] than most people treat it.

Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (2, Interesting)

Taagehornet (984739) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266477)

Does anyone around here know of any numbers backing up the claimed high values for MTBF? I'm not unwilling to accept that the values are indeed high, but I'm looking for something closer to reality than the Wikipedia article arriving at an expected lifetime of 26,600 years.

The flash memory modules I've encountered have guaranteed a minimum of 100.000 write cycles per data memory byte before failure (NDAs prohibit me from listing the specific devices, but I suspect that this number is nothing out of the ordinary).

With a page size of 1024 bytes, a 64GB drive would hold 64 million pages. If we assume that all updates require a full page erase-write, but that a clever algorithm distributes updates evenly, this leaves us with a guaranteed life-time of 6.4 * 10^12 (6,400,000,000,000) updates before memory failures start rolling in.

That's without doubt more than sufficient for desktop usage, but let's for a moment assume that you're able to max out the drive, writing at the rated speed of 100MB/s. With a page size of 1024 bytes, that's 100.000 page updates every second, so failure will set in after 64,000,000 seconds = 2 years.

Now, assuming that you're able to feed the drive at 100MB/s is probably way off, but on the other hand your wear levelling algorithm will probably be far from perfect.

Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (1)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266559)

Your assumptions include an empty disk with one block of data having free reign of all 64 million pages. I doubt it would be that favorable in real life.

Consider that no matter how "clever" the algorithm is, after you junk up the drive with videos, pictures, a copy of WoW and Doom III, it's going to be half full, so that clever algorithm only has half the space to work with, accelerating the time to failure.

Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (1)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266693)

Well, that's assuming the algorithm is not allowed to move unrelated, already written, data around.

Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21267729)

This is the link you want [storagesearch.com] . Basically, your problem is assuming only 100k writes. 100k writes was typical for 1997; the page I linked to gives a figure of 2M writes, but I would say even that is very conservative these days.

So the link I gave gave a (conservative) number of 51 years. The point isn't that a flash drive is going to last 51 years. The point is that a modern flash drive is not going to wear out from write exhaustion. Basically flash memory today has reached a point where the number of rewrites allowed is not the limiting factor in its engineering.

Re:I/O limited distros more popular? (3, Interesting)

quitte (1098453) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264309)

distributors are definately in the process of getting io down. So is Linus himself. quote from http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/5/171 [lkml.org] : "change relatime updates to be performed once per day." It's not only the livetime of flash memory that benefits from this. also power consumption and noise goes down for hdds. and overall io performance benefits fromsuch improvements,too. About the swap: just keep it big enough so the Kernel can free the ram of some unused data, but not a lot bigger. Twice the size of the ram is nonsense these days.. if you run out of buffers and cache you don't have enough ram. if you have enough ram swap is hardly used.

Good to hear but there are other options (5, Interesting)

webplay (903555) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264265)

This drive doesn't outperform MTRON (http://www.mtron.net/english/ [mtron.net] ). They announced 120 MB/s read, 90 MB/s write drives and they are shipping 100 MB/s read, 80 MB/s write drives already. The SSD-based Fusion IO card (http://www.fusionio.com/ [fusionio.com] ) at the claimed 800 MB/s read and 600 MB/s write speed would beat both them handily. Still, it's good to see a major manufacturer up its speeds.

Re:Good to hear but there are other options (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265179)

Keep in mind that the FusionIO card is a card, not an SSD. SSD is used to refer to "solid-state drives" (where "solid-state" is slowly becoming synonymous with "flash", but that wasn't always the case...).

It's pretty clear that the FusionIO card isn't a drive, because there aren't any drive interfaces on the market today that can do 600 MB/s...

Not that I have anything against FusionIO -- on the contrary, I'd love to have one to play with -- but it's not a drive.

Define "drive". Remember the hardcard? (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265375)

Keep in mind that the FusionIO card is a card, not an SSD.
Do you remember the days before ATA, when hard disk drives each came with their own controller cards? Do you remember hardcards [wikipedia.org] , or hard disk drives that plugged straight into the ISA slot?

Re:Define "drive". Remember the hardcard? (1)

vio (95817) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265781)

I think maybe the gpp was simply trying to point out that FusionIO is not a "hard drive" by today's definition, ie. I cannot simply (easily?) substitute my current laptop drive with a FusionIO card, so they don't really "compete"...

But yes, I do remember those days... talk about dating myself :-(

Re:Define "drive". Remember the hardcard? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266139)

I think maybe the gpp was simply trying to point out that FusionIO is not a "hard drive" by today's definition, ie. I cannot simply (easily?) substitute my current laptop drive with a FusionIO card, so they don't really "compete"...
If the issue is ATX vs. laptop, then solid-state hardcards are also available in ExpressCard form factor.

Re:Define "drive". Remember the hardcard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21266357)

I vaguely remember that hardcards were called hardcards. My guess is that this is because they were cards.

Just because you can have drives on cards (or cards on drives -- anyone else remember when drive electronics were so bulky they needed daughterboards? Golly, I'm old...) doesn't mean that they're the same thing.

Re:Define "drive". Remember the hardcard? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266831)

Just because you can have drives on cards (or cards on drives -- anyone else remember when drive electronics were so bulky they needed daughterboards? Golly, I'm old...) doesn't mean that they're the same thing.
I define a "drive" as a sector-addressed data storage device. Computer operating systems seem to define a non-network "drive" the same way. The presence or absence of a data cable between the motherboard and the storage device does not matter to the operating system, nor should it matter to the computer's user.

Re:Good to hear but there are other options (0)

Heddahenrik (902008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265481)

Ehum... "drive" is a short form of "hard disk drive". An SSD can't really be a drive either because there is no disk in it. But it's an HD-replacement and so it the ioDrive, but the ioDrive has it's own controller included. My point is that if it barks like a fish, then we can call it a fish (at least as long as we're talking about barking). But we should be aware of the differences, of course.

I strongly think that the PCIe-approach is the right way to go. It's direct, simple and the fastest way.

Re:Good to hear but there are other options (2, Insightful)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265623)

so then its optical hard disk drive, floppy hard disk drive, zip hard disk drive, etc, etc?

methinks no.

Re:Good to hear but there are other options (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21266251)

I was going to say "tape hard disk drive" but you've already made my point.
GPP is blithering.

Re:Good to hear but there are other options (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265713)

So, is a RAM drive not a drive then, simply because it doesn't use SATA/IDE/etc?

I don't see how it matters at all that the FusionIO uses PCIe instead of SATA, you're still going to use it like a regular hard drive (or solid state drive, for that matter).

If the FusionIO was exactly the same except it connected via SATA instead of PCIe, would you consider it a drive then?

OUCH! (1)

LaTechTech (752269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265383)

Fusion-io is targeting a retail price of approximately $30 per Gigabyte for the ioDrive(TM).

My wallet just told me to go take a hike!

What speeds? (0, Troll)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265463)

120 Mbps? Oh, please! My IDE drive can do 60 Mbps, with moving parts, including that huge "read arm" thingy that actually has to move a few inches to read something. Here you have a piece of pure electronics, with no mechanical parts, and it can only double the transfer rate? I say it's pathetic. An SSD ought to have speeds comparable to RAM, in the Gbps range, and until one does, the rest are just useless ripoffs. But, of course, that's just my opinion.

Re:What speeds? (3, Insightful)

JoelKatz (46478) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265563)

First, you mean MBps. We're talking bytes, not bits.

Second, your hard drive can sustain 60MB/s on the fastest part of the drive. Its average is probably much less than that (due to different linear speeds on the inside and outside of the platters).

That speed drops catastrophically in many real-world scenarios. Small random reads, for example, become dominated by seek time and rotational latency and the high transfer rate doesn't help very much. Small random writes are only slightly better.

It is really not "only double". It has a real-world speed that is about twice a high-end hard drive's theoretical maximum speed.

And it should be free, too! (1)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266951)

An SSD ought to have speeds comparable to RAM, in the Gbps range, and until one does, the rest are just useless ripoffs. But, of course, that's just my opinion^H^H^H^H^H^H^H desire with no basis in what's actually technologically feasible.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Good to hear but there are other options (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265585)

Even if there is competition, it still costs more than an entire laptop just for the drive. Pretty stupid if you ask me. Btw how come if I google product search it, only PQI and Super Talent have SSD's for sale and they're 64 GB? How could they have produced one already?! Anyway, they're listed for well over $1000 so I can only imagine what Samsung wants for theirs. If you're right, I hope they realize it and drop their price to like $300 lol.

Is there a marketting-to-english babelfish? (2, Funny)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266703)

I just had to go look at the Fusion IO page and their FAQ and... well, let's just say, does anyone have an URL for marketting-bullshit-bingo to English babelfish please?

By the half of the page I had developped an extreme allergy to the word "leverage". Two sentences out of three were just saying that the lever some (supposedly awesome) proprietary technology. And more importantly, I was none the wiser. There wasn't a single sentence that even said what it _does_. What makes that technology so awesome? What's the MTBF? You know, some actual technical data.

The more I think about it, the more I doubt that it was actually a Frequently Asked Questions. More likely just something that a marketter thought up, along the lines of:

Q: Are you awesome?
A: Yes, we leverage proprietary technologies to be uber-awesome. We leverage Buzzword(TM) and Uninformative Trademark(TM) and Tech-Sounding-Word-We-Made-Up(R) to be so awesome, that you can't even imagine how awesome we are. And we'll leverage that too. Leverage. Leverage. Leverage.

Q: Does it rock?
A: Yes, we leverage proprietary technology that really really rocks. We liberate enterprises from legacy architectures, we're scalable, we put enterprise-level SANs in your palm, we solve world hunger, cure aids, and probably filled your bullshit bingo card already. That's how much we rock.

Q: Will it rock my socks off?
A: Yes, our awesome leverage proprietary sock-rocking technology. We're that awesome. And did we mention "leveraging" yet? We leverage a lot.

Not exact quotes, but let's just call it an artist's impression. I haven't heard a more content-free text since someone accidentally sold us 100% tech-illiterate merketers when we thought we wanted a technical workshop.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that their engineers probably know their shit. But that's what happens when you leave the FAQ writing to a marketer who doesn't know his arse from his elbow, and obviously think that using enough words will hide the fact that there's no information there.

And just to beat a dead horse some more, what annoys me isn't as much the use of buzzwords, but that they're used to obscure and mis-inform.

E.g., so they say it's "scalable"? How? Your typical motherboard has only one 4x PCI-Express slot, and on half of them it will be under the heatsink of any high end graphics card. So how _do_ you scale there? Throw the card away and buy a bigger one? How's that more scalable than buying a new hard drive? Even if you had more of those slots on some special motherboard, how's that more scalable than buying more hard drives? No, seriously.

E.g., the claim to replace an enterprise SAN and all the infrastructure... is omitting why that infrastructure was there in the first place. If anyone just needed more storage on their local machine, it's trivial to add more than 640 GB hard drives locally for a fraction of the cost. A hard drive, even on a card, is not a SAN replacement.

E.g., video games are hard-drive intensive? No shit? What video games were they playing there? Database Larry Rebuilds The Indexes 3D? Looks to me more like they wrote a list of every single use they could think for a computer, than actually having put some thought into it.

Etc.

Again, I'm willing to give their engineers the benefit of the doubt. I can see why such a card would be nice. Just saying that it would be nice if their good work was presented to the world by someone less blatantly clueless.

Outperforms? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264267)

This handily outperforms other SSDs now on the market,

Texas Memory Systems http://www.superssd.com/benefits.htm [superssd.com] says can saturate Fibre Channel (GBs/sec) and this one caps out at 100s of MB/s. Perhaps not quite so unequivocally outperforms as this statement makes it out to be.

How about outperforms other flash based SATA SSDs now on the market???? What is surprising is that more of the SSDs don't max out the SATA pipe.

yeah they are in different price classes but it isn't like SSDs haven't been around for long time now. Inexpensive ones that you can put into your sub $1,000 computer... perhaps that is new. Yet another sensationalized copy in a Slashdot story abstract. Oh so surprising.

Re:Outperforms? (1)

Fyzzler (1058716) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265543)

Fibre Channel is (Gb/s) not (GB/s), there is an order of magnitude difference there. Theoretical max speed on a 4 Gb/s FC card would be ~400MB/s. I seriously doubt you ever see that kind of speed on any existing FC gear.

YES (1)

shoma-san (739914) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264277)

Now my pron can be safe, fast, and consume less energy.

I fight global warming and save money on my power bill.

1 essential fact missing (4, Interesting)

polar red (215081) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264293)

In what price range are we talking ?

Re:1 essential fact missing (4, Informative)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264543)

A small google shows that current generation of 32 GB ssd cost about $599-$1500 [dvnation.com] (depending on speed)

the new version has double the capacity, do the math yourself.

Re:1 essential fact missing (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264771)

Wouldn't it cost more than double? But a lot depends on WHEN I guess.

Yes, but... (4, Funny)

amake (673443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264995)

...what does a large google show?

Re:Yes, but... (3, Funny)

The -e**(i*pi) (1150927) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265209)

lots of domain squatters

Re:1 essential fact missing (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265449)

the new version has double the capacity, do the math yourself.
If you mean to multiply by two, that's not how it works in mooremathics (yes, I just made that up). I've been paying a little attention to the development on memory sticks over 4 doublings from 512MB to 8GB now at the same price point. Every time process tech has evolved to give double capacity, it has doubled and the price stayed the same. So if the last generation cost 600-1500$ for 32GB, I predict this generation will also cost 600-1500$ for 64GB, with 32GBs for half that.

Samsung is a ram manufactuer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21266447)

I am guessing that the math that you come up with is way off. Samsung wants to kill off HDD esp. since those companies are not moving in this direction. I am guessing that samsung will LITERALLY give it away at 400-600.

DELL and Alienware offers Samsung 64GB SSD... (2, Informative)

holywarrior21c (933929) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264681)

http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=130008HEVRPI

They cost $920 when added to a Dell laptop. The 64-GB SSD is available initially on Dell's XPS M1330 ultraportable notebook Relevant Products/Services, and, later this year, on other models in the XPS line, as well as on Latitude corporate notebooks and Dell mobile workstations. For Alienware, users can choose dual 64-GB SSDs in RAID 1 or RAID 0 configuration, or a 64-GB SSD in combination with a magnetic drive for the Area-51 m9750 high-performance gaming notebook. Prices start over $1,000 for the SSD additions.
As far as price is concerned. I would rather get this. http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/21/toshibas-320gb-2-5-inch-hard-drive-a-worlds-best-for-laptops/
And if battery life really concerns you probably getting external battery from electrovaya or batterygeek may eliminate that worries.

Re:1 essential fact missing (1)

hatchet (528688) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265655)

This is essentially the same technology as in usb memory sticks. Currently, 8GB chips inside one of those cost around $60 and samsung could easily put 8 of those inside 2.5" drive + multipipeline controller for increased performance. we are then talking about $600 end-user price for 64GB drive... with currently available technology.

Flash! Ah ahhhh... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264295)

Savior of the Universe!

Vaporware (0, Troll)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264299)

This is all crap. The supposed 64 GB drives are available from sony, there is reference on dells site as well but no link to buy and no machines that carry them - other than that you can't get them anywhere. The 32 GB drives are still ~ 600 bones. While I don't mind the price, the size is just to small. MTRON says "coming soon".

Samsungs PR department needs to slow down...

Re:Vaporware (3, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264387)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2013240636+1421430848&name=64GB [newegg.com]

And bigger, 128GB:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2013240636+1421430849&name=128GB [newegg.com]

Yes, the prices are exorbitant. Just wait, patience is a virtue. At least we can actually see and purchase the current status of SSD, and at the rate they are increasing it will phase out hard disks in both capacity and price.

Re:Vaporware (0, Troll)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264495)

I was speaking strictly about Samsung, they have been very vocal about announcing "breakthroughs" and not delivering... almost worse than AMD lol.

Yeah it's good, once there are enough devices out there prices will fall.

Cheap, fast and good. (5, Interesting)

colonslashslash (762464) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264315)

Cheap, fast, good - pick two.

"write data at 100 MB/s and read at 120 MB/s."

Hey cool, that's pretty fast.

"64GB .... will only consume 50% of the power of current SSDs"

Good, good.

"There is no information yet about price."

.... Ah, shit!

Re:Cheap, fast and good. (1)

Pie-rate (1098693) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264457)

I'll take cheap and good, kthx.

Re:Cheap, fast and good. (1)

replicant108 (690832) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264485)

Cheap and fast are not good?

Re:Cheap, fast and good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264561)

I think he meant to say: cheap, fast, reliable.

Or something else more descriptive than good.

Re:Cheap, fast and good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264661)

Okay then, here's an incredibly cheap, incredibly fast data storage device:

/dev/urandom

great, isn't it?

Re:Cheap, fast and good. (2, Informative)

Laurentiu (830504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264827)

Why would you buy a SSD?

1) Power consumption
2) Battery life
3) Power. Consumption.

I'm looking right now at the data sheet of the latest Seagate SATA hard drive models, that tout a 3 Gb/s data rate (325 MB/s, if you are too lazy to divide by 8), and I haven't even started talking about RAID 0 algorithms yet. Yes, the Samsung SSD is fast - the caveat here is that it is fast when compared with other SSD's. The good news is that this is a relatively new technology, with great potential for improvement IMHO. But if you don't have a laptop and a need for 4-6 hrs/battery, don't. And even if you do, you'd be probably better off just buying a spare battery.

Kudos to Samsung for pushing the envelope a little further.

Re:Cheap, fast and good. (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265259)

I'm looking right now at the data sheet of the latest Seagate SATA hard drive models, that tout a 3 Gb/s data rate (325 MB/s, if you are too lazy to divide by 8), and I haven't even started talking about RAID 0 algorithms yet. Yes, the Samsung SSD is fast - the caveat here is that it is fast when compared with other SSD's. The good news is that this is a relatively new technology, with great potential for improvement IMHO. But if you don't have a laptop and a need for 4-6 hrs/battery, don't. And even if you do, you'd be probably better off just buying a spare battery.
LOL, you're looking at the wrong specs. 3GBit/s is the SATA2 interface speed, which by the way also has two bits error correction for every byte so divide by ten for 300MB/s maximum actual throughput. In reality even the fastest WD Raptor 10k SATA drives have a sustained read/write around 80MB/s with minimums around 60MB/s. The MTRON and these Seagate disks are already faster than non-RAID HDDs, in addition to near-instant access time, lower power, lower weight, no noise, shock resistant and in smaller form factors like 1.8" and 2.5" compared to the top-of-the-line 3.5" performance I'm comparing with. Or you can compare to a mobile HDD, but then it certainly gets severely beaten in performance. Oh and RAID0 - take the most unreliable component in the system, make it twice as big, powerhungry, noisy and errorprone...

In other words, it's more like why are you not buying SSDs:
1. Price
2. Price
3. Price

Re:Cheap, fast and good. (1)

und0 (928711) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265275)

I would add noise too, a 2.5" HD is pretty quiet, but no noiseless.

Re:Cheap, fast and good. (1)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265417)

> Seagate SATA hard drive models, that tout a 3 Gb/s data rate (325 MB/s

Name just one of Seagates drives that can do anywhere NEAR 325MB/s for more than a few milliseconds. I think you must have mis-read the datasheet or something. That simply can't be true. Maybe as burst rate for tiny files which reside entirely in the cache and have previously already been read.

Old news (4, Informative)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264353)

The announcement was in March [samsung.com] , mass production in June [samsung.com] and availability in September [samsung.com] .

I haven't seen a price yet but it's going to be at least close to a grand.

Re:Old news (1)

gentoofu (1028702) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266433)

But different product. According to your March link, that 64GB SSD can only read at 64MB/s and write at 45MB/s.

Double Dupe? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264395)

Is this what you call something that has been duped twice?

Today, plus...

Oct 28: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/28/1337207 [slashdot.org]
Oct 25: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/149202 [slashdot.org]

Re:Double Dupe? (3, Funny)

wellingtonsteve (892855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264705)

triple + dupe = trupe?

Re:Double Dupe? (3, Funny)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265779)

tripe?

Re:Double Dupe? (1)

damaki (997243) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266865)

Yak - dog food!

SSD (5, Funny)

Remnant44 (866124) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264483)

I shall make this SSD my flagship.. and I will call it the Executor.

Re:SSD (1)

flynns (639641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265347)

and suddenly, I am enlightened.

thank you.

Re:SSD (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265399)

I think it sounds like one of those diseases you really don't want to get. Like Gwyneth Paltrow.

Re:SSD (1)

Molochi (555357) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266359)

I would pay to come down with a case of Gwyneth Paltrow.

Major update (1)

zokier (1049754) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264507)

I feel that this is major win for ssd, because this is first 'consumer-class' ssd that has actually better (non-random) transfer speeds than average desktop hdd, at least what I have heard

Can't one achieve such performance & more/w RA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264597)

Fill up available USB slots with USB flash drives and use software RAID 0. With many boards having 6-8 USB slots, that should yield quite decent performance, and being flash drives, should skip RAID0's downside.

Re:Can't one achieve such performance & more/w (3, Interesting)

repvik (96666) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264895)

Yeah, like that'd help. Do you think your USB-chipset can handle much more than 500mbps concurrent traffic? Doesn't matter how many ports it has, it is unlikely to be close to S-ATA speeds seeing as the USB-chipset is on the regular (1gbps?) PCI-bus...

Re:Can't one achieve such performance & more/w (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266637)

With Very High Cpu over hard for the just the USB part then you have to add in the software raid part firewire is better.

If speed doesn't matter to you (1)

holywarrior21c (933929) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264605)

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/worlds-largest-capacity-ssd-drive-unveiled
The largest SSD up to date.

Adtron has just unveiled a 2.5-inch SSD drive, which is claimed to be the world's largest capacity at 160GB. Just one drawback, this drive will cost $80-$115 per GB. For those who haven't already seen, check out a SSD vs. HDD demonstration after the jump.

If you are like me who doesn't need power packed laptop, rather light and long lasting battery is what matters the most, SSD is something for you.

Yeah yeah (1)

edelholz (1098395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264701)

Whine as much as you want. I think they're sexy. I want one... bad.

This is how it works (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264707)

1. Get sixteen, 4 GB SDHC, Class 6 or 8 innards

2. Strap the lot in parallel, giving 64 GB

3. 6|8 MB/sec/innard x 16 innards begets 100 MB/sec

4. Profit !!

Each 4GB innard is $20 currently, so 16 by 20 is 320. Figure $10 for plumbing. 1% margin for OEM (335), 50% markup by distributor (500), and another 50% by retailer (750), and there you have it $750 for 64 GB.

Thank you !! Come again !!

Re:This is how it works (5, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264931)

Don't get the innards of the cards. Place slots on your board.
4 USB controllers, 16 readers, 1 PCI controller, support electronics. the device would cost some $30 to produce. Sell it empty, without the cards.
And provide a good supply of bulk amount of the cards.

The user can replace a faulty card without scrapping the whole device. They can add or remove cards depending on the needs. They can replace cards with bigger ones when they want more space. They can physically write-protect chosen partitions of the drive.

If you don't worry about the speed much, you can use USB hubs instead of the controllers. Then the device plugs into USB.

Re:This is how it works (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265501)

If you're talking about putting SD card readers (or similar) on the motherboard and have the ability for users to replace the cards as they wear out or need increased capacity, I think its an awesome idea.

I'd love to get a small form factor system. Using SD memory in place of hard drives is a great solution to reducing the space, noise and heat issues. Obviously, I'd like to see speed and size increases and cost decreases. But this is a natural move for the market which will happen over time anyways.

Re:This is how it works (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21267579)

So would that be something like this? http://www.zentek.com/product_sd_md816.htm [zentek.com]

I have to contact them to see how much they ask for the 16 slot model and if it supports SDHC. It's a bit large but still seems interesting.

Re:This is how it works (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265667)

1. Get sixteen, 4 GB SDHC, Class 6 or 8 innards

Are they like the cheapest CompactFlash cards with 10000 write cycles, and in general without much in the way of wear levelling? And you want to throw them all in parallel so every write is a write to every card? No, write cycles is not a problem for real SSD disks. It is a problem for cheap hacks, because 10000 cycles are plenty for say a digicam but very poor for a computer. Particularly since you'll use this for the "working files", static huge media files probably go on a different disk.

Re:This is how it works (1)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265961)

All this talk of innards is giving me a hunkering for some menudo soup. Mmmm.

Another technology catches up with windows (1)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264777)

First they require a GPU accelaration for Vista(Aero), and now you can use much faster swap file(majority use big gigabyte-size pagefile).Windows is pushing the computer technology further ahead.

Ho hum (0)

fnj (64210) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264831)

It's more vapor, guys. Send me an email when it has a price. Wake me when the price is 7X a hard disk for the same size. Instant message when it's cheaper than a same size hard disk. Yeah, right. I'll expect that in about 2525.

Re:Ho hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21265533)

Sorry, you've got your year wrong. In the year 2525 [wikipedia.org] , evil robots will have taken over the world, and they will face a formidable foe in the form of a cryogenically revived exotic dancer from the 21st century [imdb.com] .

It is unknown at this time whether the robots or the exotic dancer run on an SSD...though, her stacks of silicone may make a good drive.

Re:Ho hum (1)

thanatos_x (1086171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265755)

In reality, it's probably not going to be much over 10 years. Yes, HDDs will have greater capacity than SDDs, but the difference will likely be similar to why we don't use tape drives today. The primary drive in all non-bargin computers will probably be an SSD by 1017, and probably 2014 for all laptops*. Programs, music, documents, etc. will be stored on the SSD, HD movie content will likely mostly be stored on HDDs. Currently 300 GB is enough for almost any user if one excludes video.

*I was going to add a caveat for the ultra cheap laptops, but they still use flash memory even today, mostly for size, durability and battery life - although the capacity varies between 2-8gb...

Fastest? Not by a mile (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265219)

I think the folks at STEC [stec-inc.com] might be a bit surprised by these claims. Especially considering that their product has been shipping for months already.

Of course, they might be quite a bit less expensive than the Zeus SSDs, which are quite pricey...

For some folks, high performance is the requirement and cost is no object. Those folks get their solid-state drives from folks like STEC, Texas Memory Systems [texmemsys.com] , or (soon) Violin Scalable Memory [violin-memory.com] . I'd love to be able to afford this stuff. Buy maybe Samsung will be able to provide a fraction of their performance at a smaller fraction of the cost.

$24 times 16 == $384 (price) (1)

Rick Richardson (87058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265341)

$24 for 4GB SD card at newegg.
*16
----
$384

Upper limit on the price...

Price depends on speed... (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265485)

Is your $24 card a high speed one?

Re:Price depends on speed... (2, Informative)

JoelKatz (46478) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265601)

Speed doesn't matter. With 16 low-speed cards, you can make one really high-speed one. It just takes a smart controller.

In any event, even if they are slow, the speed limit doesn't come from the flash chips themselves. The speed limit comes from the controller.

This drive has a controller and some flash chips. The cost of the controller is, maybe, $50 tops. The question is -- how much do the flash chips cost? If you can get 4GB flash cards for $24, that means the flash chips inside there must cost at most $24. The means you can sell 64GB of flash chips for $384 without losing your shirt. This even includes the cost of a controller, packaging, and the cost to advertise, stock, and sell the product that we don't need.

There is no rational reason this drive should sell for more than $500, except that there is only limited supply. As soon as supply ramps up, the price will drop to about this value. I'd guess this will take 3 months or so.

Don't flash drives have limited life? (1, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265467)

I think you can only write to flash memory about 1000 times before it "wears out".

( Sorry, no thread on flash drives is complete without it... )

This will be frighteningly expensive. I'd go for a cheaper 16Gb version - big enough for the system partition + swap file.

We need a new spec for SSD's (-1, Troll)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265507)

The article talks about the "endurance" of the drives in mean time between failures. However, SSDs have another failure vector - there's a limit to the number of reads and writes that can be performed. That limit is not mentioned.

Re:We need a new spec for SSD's (4, Informative)

JoelKatz (46478) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265653)

There is no read limit. The write limit is about 100,000 writes (really erasures) per cell.

These devices will have wear leveling. That means that if a cell is close to running out of erase cycles, the drive will move data that has not changed in a very long time into that cell. A few cells will be kept as spares in case some cells don't last as long as they are predicted to.

If you do the math, and figure a typical use scenario as a laptop's primary drive, you get that these drives should outlast mechanical hard drives by many years. For example, a 64GB hard drive with an endurance of 100,000 writes should be able to tolerate about 5 million GB of writes before it fails due to wear.

How long it will take you to run that out depends on your average write rate. But with a reasonable rate (10MB/s) that works out to about 15 years.

Re:We need a new spec for SSD's (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266915)

Thanks for the analysis. All I was saying in my original message (that for some reason was marked as a troll?) was that info similar to what you provided should be in the specs for SSDs. The specs that are given are similar to those of regular hard drives when, as your astute analysis shows, SSDs behave quite differently.

Real SSDs used to be faster than this! (2, Interesting)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#21265811)

Maybe I've been an elitist geek for too long, but I clearly remember "real" SSDs being a heck of a lot faster than 100mb/sec. Of course, they used actual DRAM instead of flash, and they'd lose everything if your battery ran out. It was essentially a hardware Ramdisk, with the (then-tremendous) benefit that it doesn't depend on the PC's memory controller, so back when the average PC had 16mb ram, you could have a 640mb SSD that pwned everything without breaking a sweat.

A few years ago there was this bizarre Gigabyte i-Ram gadget that took four DDR dimms of any size and connected by SATA, it was relatively cheap too at ~$125 (sans Ram). If they had made a larger model, say 8 or 16gb, I'd be all over it! There's also this FusionIO company that's kind of spinning its wheels right now, in true dot-com style, but they're at least trying to bring the concept of DRAM-based storage back into the spotlight.

Even with 15k drives and RAID, there are some things that just take forever on my workstation (random access stuff). Consumer equipment is getting really fast, but the high-end has been stagnating for years. With more and more people taking advantage of quad-core processors, dabbling with audio/video editing and hi-def content, not only do we need larger capacity, but we need massively increased transfer rates to match. What good is a terabyte disk if it takes 10 hours to read/write the whole thing ? Where are my 150mb/sec transfer rates ? Why design high-speed SATA interfaces if the actual drives can't even use a third of its juice ?

These flash drives serve a purpose, yes, but I think it's safe to say their target market is less concerned about transfer rate and more about battery life and shock-resistance. For the other 98% of the world, we want more speed dammit!

Re:Real SSDs used to be faster than this! (1)

Courageous (228506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21267725)

FusionIO is not DRAM. It's Flash.

C//

Remind me again... (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#21266627)

Why do we keep getting Samsung only advertisements for flash products that are remarkably unimpressive? I'm pretty sure there is lots of ho-hum crap being released every day and that stuff obviously isn't newsworthy- why does something NAND related from Samsung suddenly become news? Its not like those densities/specifications aren't already being developed by their competitors...

Only 50% the power of old Super Star Destroyers?? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21267415)

That's quite a decrease! I betcha next time a Super Star Destroyer takes a little damage to the bridge module, it won't go immediately crashing into the surface of a Death Star!

Hopefully the firepower hasn't been proportionately decreased as well...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?