this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
391 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

73698 readers
3379 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

More 128TB SSDs are coming as almost no one noticed this launch — another SSD controller that can support up to 128TB appeared paving the way for HDD-beating capacities::Phison quietly revealed an updated X2 SSD platform at CES

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] db2@lemmy.world 136 points 1 year ago (1 children)

as almost no one noticed this launch

That's because we're having trouble just getting food. A shiny new and expensive SSD isn't even on the list at this point.

[–] greybeard@lemmy.one 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At that size they are certainly targeting enterprise and cloud servers. Cool that they are getting that big, but they probably cost as much as a house.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

4.5k would be a pretty cheap house.

[–] femboy_bird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think ur off by an order of magnitude (still ur gonna be hard pressed to find a house that cheap)

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Ok, but the disk costs 4.5k

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago

I read 128GB SSDs and thought "who cares"

impressive.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That’s cool and all, but the only reason I would want that capacity is to store stuff that I would want to store for much longer than a lifespan of an SSD. Only HDD’s have that kind of lifespan. Like a gigantic video library/archive. I guess these aren’t for me.

But if they drive down the price of high capacity, HDDs, all the better. 

[–] ANIMATEK@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not for you. It’s for enterprises, but I can drive down the prices of shit you would use. No noise, better performance, less energy; it’s a win-win.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that’s what I figured

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

HDDs typically don’t last as long as SSDs due to their mechanics failing. Data is there but it just won’t spin. I’ve yet to have an SSD actually fail. Every HDD I’ve ever owned, save one, has.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

I had one fail three weeks ago....but I been using it nonstop since 2013. Yeah, it was 128gb

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This has not been my experience at all, nor is what I know from general knowledge— that, due to rewriting, SSDs become unusable within 3-5 years, whereas the typical lifespan of an enterprise HDD is 5-7 years, perhaps longer.

In my own use, SSDs of mine seem to crap out around 5-ish years, whereas HDDs get 7+, and the $/GB ratio makes it a no-brainer, esp for video library/archive storage where it’s mostly read/write no rewrite and long-term storage with no need for very high-speed access (like for editing 4/8K).

I buy enterprise HDDs that never spin down and last forever— they use more power, but I don’t pay for that. SSDs wear out just by reading and writing and become unreadable over time.

If I were editing giant chunks of video in 8K, and needed enormously fast cache rates and transfer speeds over thunderbolt 4, obviously, I’d go with the SSDs, especially if I had a studio I was working for that could afford to replace them when they were out. But that’s not my use case.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I've had at least 8 SSDs fail in various ways personally.

[–] falkerie71@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I remember that SSDs lifespan mainly depends on how much you overwrite the drive. For 128TB, it should take you a very long time to overwrite the entire drive, let alone couple hundred or thousand times to kill the drive. I know that bit rot also happens on SSDs, but that applies to HDDs as well, and good drive maintenance practices should alleviate the issue. Though for archival purposes/cold storage, tape drives are probably better.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The lifespan of your data isn't nearly as long as the lifespan of the cells storing your data. Due to leakage of of power from the cells, and the more and more dense these cells are being packed (leading to smaller differences between what voltage maps to what binary value), SSDs have issues with bitrot. With a disk this size you would need to have data regularly checked and refreshed (rewritten) to ensure the data being stored was still correct and not corrupted.

[–] LightDelaBlue@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I care about affordable stuf not luxury .

[–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m holding out upgrading for the holographic nano dark matter drives that have infinite storage capacity and RAID data into 3 alternate universes for security.

[–] archchan@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Some high tech alien's porn stash is embedded in the fabric of our universe and that's the reason we exist.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are we the porn? Some alien's weird fetish?

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If we are, the story's gone to shit.

[–] rustyricotta@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

That's their kink.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

We are all lemon-stealing whores

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why I feel like an interdimensional cumshot all the time.

[–] KingofHearts615@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Damn, Interdimensional cumshot sounds like an obscure metal band.

[–] HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Realistically, a couple of 10TB drives would have me covered for like a decade at least. If these massive drives bring down the price of much smaller ones, I'm a happy boy.

[–] Steak@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah I have an old pc. Built it 6 or 7 years ago with a 1080 FTW2 card that is still going strong. For storage I have a wd 1tb drive and a 250gb ssd with windows on it. I've been fine for the most part since I don't watch 4k tv and only really play older games anymore.

[–] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That's some nice density you got there. While you're at it...

Can I get a 12.8TB drive 1/10th the physical size (m.2 2230) and has a steady transfer rate of 2.4GBs that costs <$200 dollhairs? Pretty please 🙏

[–] emptiestplace@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Unless you're using a NUC or similar, M.2 is the worst form factor - and consumer grade drives are all shit. If you're in the market for storage I'd recommend looking at used enterprise U.2 drives in the 0.5-1 DWPD range. Adapters (PCIe or M.2 to U.2) are super cheap.

Edit: 12.8TB is gonna be a stretch, obviously, but even Solidigm TLC drives are quite a bit better than any consumer grade drives and I've seen some of the 7TB models go for surprisingly cheap.

[–] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

I am using NUCs.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How expensive are they, $100,000 or maybe more?

[–] femboy_bird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Looks like 40k a pop

[–] D_Air1@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Still can't afford it.

[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you think the normal consumer would care? All that matters is for SSD to become as cheap or cheaper than HDDs or nothing

[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago

Capacity that high is for servers.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Its pretty cool. Number go up is exciting.

[–] squid_slime@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Bigger number better

I am coming from Incremental Social, but I agree.

[–] jenny_ball@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Given how many years its been since the first 100TB SSD released, anything short of 200TB seems kinda meh. Honestly kinda figured we'd be past the 400TB mark at this point, but I guess those sizes simply aren't that interesting from a business perspective even if just as a halo product not meant to actually sell much.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Man I has to read that 4 times before it registered. Fucking he'll shits nuts

[–] Thatuserguy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Call me when they somehow fit this on an SD card in another 10 years

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I read it as 128GB. Then I was like, ohhhhhhhh. Sweet!

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's cool and all. How many levels per cell? Can I have it in SLC? No? Ok then I'm good.