clinger

Samsung 2TB SSD: when?

37 posts in this topic

Hello everyone,

I just would like to know when we will have 2TB SSDs from Samsung. Some of the competition has it already, but at an impossible price.

jg2t4.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Client or enterprise?

Either way, there's not really a technical reason why we don't have huge SSDs, it's more of a cost issue and what the market wants to buy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Client or entreprise, both, really.

1TB is just too small for today needs. A 2TB+ SSD has a huge market potential.

And why, for instance, WD has not invested his profits in manufacturing his own NAND/V-NAND memory for SSD? Is it really that complicated and/or expensive? All that WD has is a hybrid, 120 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD. How a company like that could survive in the future?

When you open a 2010 Western Digital SiliconEdge Blue SSD what you see is... Samsung:

T6CDLvY.jpg

Seems that we have too little of needed competition in this market, really. And that's a HUGE maket that we are talking about.

Edited by clinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah, yes, it's billions to make a fab. I've railed against them for not doing it too, Seagate as well for that matter, and while I think it's silly for them to not be in the game, it's not a trivial decision.

SanDisk has announced a 4TB drive -

http://www.storagereview.com/sandisk_optimus_max_4tb_sas_ssd_announced_refreshes_entire_sas_ssd_offerings

Many others have 1.6TB in the enterprise space, or larger.

If you look at the client space, the volume is almost all in 120GB and 240GB capacities. Consumers and IT departments don't want to spend more. Need more storage? There's a cloud for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Client or entreprise, both, really.

1TB is just too small for today needs. A 2TB+ SSD has a huge market potential.

Too small for _what_ exactly? Certainly not many applications in the consumer market, and I doubt that there are many in the enterprise market with a pressing need for that size of SSD.

I have almost 50TB of storage on my home network and exactly 192GB of that is SSD. Frankly, that's all I need in very fast storage. The market potential for large SSDs won't be realized until they're much closer in price to storage on HDDs, which is currently many times cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To small for everything, storage is like money: no one will complain about having more! EMaRr.gif

It is really better to store anything in SSDs, from ISOs to raw images, full HD videos, torrents, etc. HDs gets hot, make noise and has a significant bigger power consumption. Cloud storage depends on monthly charges and internet links, which are and will be for a uncertain amount of time much slower than having data with you.

(Thinking of Samsung and his profits in so many markets, seems that nothing prevents them to buy AMD, for instance. That could bring some interesting synergy results.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need a NAS and accept a little noise and power consumption to get flexibility and low cost/GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flash memory is not that great for long term storage, especially if unpowered. The contents get "stale" and you end up with "data decay".

Next, with 10TB platter drives being announced, the cost per TB of storage will continue to be least expensive with rotating media.

And while it's fun to watch a 20GB movie file copy at hundreds of MB per second, it's useless for most consumers. So SSD will continue to be aimed at OS/Apps, and HDD for mass storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flash memory is not that great for long term storage, especially if unpowered. The contents get "stale" and you end up with "data decay".

Next, with 10TB platter drives being announced, the cost per TB of storage will continue to be least expensive with rotating media.

And while it's fun to watch a 20GB movie file copy at hundreds of MB per second, it's useless for most consumers. So SSD will continue to be aimed at OS/Apps, and HDD for mass storage.

I have a 240GB SSD and is enough for my working environment.

But I would like to use SSD to play games. It would be cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those saying we don't need the big SSDs: I'm looking for a 4-8 TB SSD for my laptop. Dreaming mostly of course, although as Brian mentions there's a 4TB Sandisk in the works - however that's got an SAS interface so can't quite fit it into the laptop at this stage.

Why might I want such a big SSD as a (tech) consumer? The reason is I've got about 6TB of data (files, music, movies, and what not) and want to have it all on the same fast and light weight disk. Right now I have it split across various spindles (mostly 1 and 2 TB WD portable drives), everything doubled because they tend to fail fairly regularly. SSDs are lighter, and less prone to failure.

Some people spend $50K or more on a car and use it half an hour a day, and trade it in three years later for another one after it has lost half its value. I use my laptop 8-12 hours a day, every day. So I don't care what I spend on hardware, as long as it's useful. I know 8 TB is probably not possible to fit into the 2.5" form factor right now, but 4-6 TB should be possible. If I then have to spend $5K or more on an SSD I'd happily do that. And I'm sure there's others out there with the same mindset.

Some would say this is crazy. But why does Intel make enthusiast CPU's with the highest clock speeds and premium pricing? Because there's a demand. It may not be big, but I'm sure there's similar demand for high-end SSDs for laptops. And there's no need to re-invent the wheel. The technology is all out there. It's mostly a matter of cramming the silicon into the case and attaching the price tag. I'm happy to pay for it, because it will make my data load a lot lighter. I have a two kg pile of spindles right now: heavy and fragile; I'd rather have a single SSD - plus maybe one for backup: weighing next to nothing and speeding up my data like there's no tomorrow :-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah and just noticed Intel is coming out with a 1.6 TB 2.5" form factor SSD in the S3500 range (and also a 1.2 TB one). It's not where I want it to be, but it's a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is saying there's no need for large SSDs. They're saying that as long as larger solid state devices are so much more expensive per GB than comparably sized HDDs, there will be little demand for them in the consumer market.

If you have 8TB of data to your name (most likely much of it consists of media files that are seldom accessed) then I can understand wanting to carry it all around on your laptop or tablet or on your smartphone. It's simple, it's neat. It's human nature to want it all at your fingertips. But then, what about someone else with 80TB or 800TB? You're not likely to be carrying that around in your phone for a few years ... it's going to be stored on HDD regardless.

Edited by JJ Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree JJ Johnson that there will be little demand in the consumer market. However there will be some demand - fanatics like me, similar to the people who buy the Intel enthusiast's CPUs.

And yes most of my data volume is in media files (typically movies and music videos) which I don't often access. But still like to have it available for the times when I'm discussing this or that with someone, and simply would like to access it with a few clicks. Rather than having to find a spindle, attach it and wait for it to spin up, etc. by which time it has become an effort to locate the file.

As you say, it's human nature to want it at your fingertips. And tough luck for the 80TB or 800TB folks; they will have to wait longer - but if they're fanatic enough, they could spend the money set aside for a new car on a new stack of 8TB SSD's which would then still be a lot lighter and more portable than their current SAN (or wherever they store that kind of volume of data) ;)

I'm an old fart: when I started in the IT industry in the 1980's, a 40 meg disk for our early Novell servers cost $10K (was working for a bank at the time and we had to import the things from the US for a project). We've come quite a long way since then. So I'm still hoping I'll see the day when I have a 100TB SSD in my laptop. Not sure what I'd fill it with, but then, back in 1987 I could not have imagined what to do with 1 gig of disk space, let alone 1TB...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even for the client space there's no technical barrier to 2TB SSDs or larger, it's just a question of cost. Some brands are seeing a big trend up in capacity though, in terms of their most popular sell through models. While some more value oriented brands are still at 120GB as the most popular SKU, higher-end guys we talk to are at 500GB. So it's not a stretch to expect someone to offer a 2TB next year at some point if that trend continues upward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's not what you asked for, but there are 2 TB laptop HDs on the market now in 9.5mm. They'll fit in standard laptop drive bays. Newegg has several for $120 or higher. All apparently 5400 RPM.

They're not SSDs, but you can buy them today. While waiting for the 2+TB SSDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks reader50, I was aware of that and it's tempting as it doubles the space (presently have a 1TB Samsung EVO SSD in there). However it means slowing down the laptop boot time significantly so that's the main tradeoff I guess. Another one (admittedly a lame one) is the slam factor: with the SSD, I can slam the running laptop casually onto the table when entering meeting rooms, always causing a few amusing "WTF?!" stares. With a spindle in there, despite them being equipped with gravity sensors/drop protection, I'd be scared doing the same thing ;)

And Brian, yes let's hope the increasing median size for SSD's combined with the drop in per gig cost will spur some vendors into cramming more silicon into the 2.5" cases they sell to ensure the top end of their SSD product range remains profitable enough. I'm hoping that Sandisk will add a SATA interface onto that 4TB 2.5" SAS SSD they've announced. Should be an easy thing to do for them and up the ante for everyone else..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah, they're not going to take Optimus Max to client systems any time soon, but they certainly could. I'd bet we'll have 2TB client SSDs next year though from Samsung and maybe Micron. SanDisk's client business isn't really that strong comparatively.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Samsung shows us that we already have a 1.6TB 12Gbps SAS (Serial attached SCSI) and 3.2 TB PCIe SSDs.

Edited by clinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flash memory is not that great for long term storage, especially if unpowered. The contents get "stale" and you end up with "data decay".

I missed this earlier. Last time I checked, I couldn't find a decay rate for unpowered SSDs. And to my knowledge, they aren't on a refresh strobe like DRAM. Is this for real - has a data decay lifetime been established for SSDs on the shelf?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask, though .... In mission-critical applications, are many organizations really using HDD for long term offline storage? I'm thinking tape is still king for things like corporate backups, archiving and similar applications.

Eventually, once flash memory becomes cheap enough, hard drives will vanish. There will just be very little reason for them to exist. It certainly won't be for mass storage applications. There's virtually no way that HDDs will increase in data density as quickly as flash. Indeed, with 16TB 2.5" SSDs available today, SSDs have already surpassed mechanical drives in storage density per unit volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now