Do you ever see SSDs being as common as HDDs for storage in the future?

Do you ever see SSDs being as common as HDDs for storage in the future?

Other urls found in this thread:

anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data-retention
micron.com/~/media/documents/.../data-sheet/ssd/7100_m2_pcie_ssd.pdf
techreport.com/review/27436/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-two-freaking-petabytes
guru3d.com/news-story/endurance-test-of-samsung-850-pro-comes-to-an-end-after-9100tb-of-writes.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes.

No.

pretty much most laptops already have them so yeah. If people are still buying prebuilts in the future then they would probably become a selling point.

HDD will be as popular as tape drives are today in the next 15 years.

normies don't need 1TB+ single drives.

No. Nothing ever replaced punch cards as the dominant form of data storage. I see no reason that this will supersede them.

Maybe

They already are if we are talking about consumer devices.

At least flash storage in general is.

>physical data storage
>future

Hell yes.
Fabbing NANDs is getting cheaper rapidly.

can we get 3.5" SSDs with 2TB storage capacities now?
why are the desktop machines being restriced to 2.5"!

No. HDDs will almost always be cheaper per gigabyte. For consumer plebshit, yes, NAND wins, but at datacenter scale we're still a decade off at minimum from SSDs being cheap enough to totally supplant spinnydicks.

spinnydicks

:DDDDDDDDD

everyone will use chrome books with 64gb flash drives

Yes, two biggest makers HDD now had ssd lines and invert billions on it, 1TB by $100 dollars and HDD die on average consumer products.

Yes. In 2024 SSD's are approximated to surpass HDD's price/tb

>only 7 years

I'd say they're more common. SD cards, cellphones, and USB drives are everywhere.

I only have an SSD in my PC.

there's a few 2TB 2.5" models around already

samsung have a 4TB 850 evo too

I wrote my first finals paper on the prediction taking into consideration the end of More's Law with silicone.

Just put in a purchase order for an all flash SAN for $250k it's going to replace an array that had tiered storage (small ~10% flash tier, 10k sas tier and 7.2k NLSAS tier).

3.5" is worse data density than 2.5"

My DC is currently moving to all flash from hybrid.

My new SAN will go up to 4PB of flash, which is more than I could get with spinning garbage disks.

Spinning disks in DCs really only makes sense for garbage like fileshares. My isilon is pretty cool and has spinning disks, but all it's good for is storing documents and video files.

SSD only please.

SSD only since 2015

Yes. At some point they will run circles around HDDs when it comes to capacity and price. You're going to buy a 30 TB SSD just to have a place to put your porn.

what the hell is the alternative to physical storage? imaginary?

Physical storage on a remote server through an opaque interface that looks, to the user, identical to a local storage device.

"""""The cloud""""".

Christ, I hardly spend any time on Sup Forums and know shit about technology and even I know the answer to this one.

>Do you ever see SSDs being as common as HDDs for storage in the future?
They already are.

The real question is will they ever REPLACE HDDs? (Ans: Only if they can reduce their prices, which is uncertain).

Probably, after 2020. HDDs are dying and SSDs have many advantages. There will be higher density packed NAND in the future, denser than todays, allowing 4 TB+ drives for consumers. A 4 TB costs 125 € now, a 4 TB SSD 1300 €. But remember what a 80 GB disk cost in ~2000. Now 500 GB is the smallest capacity for standard desktop HDDs.

you cant just will computer storage into existence you need a device that provides storage dummy

No, they're starting to use eMMC which is even worse than HDDs.

Place i work for still uses tapes for long term storage in a mountain side.

No because average users don't need that much space and because there is a limit in technology that prevents us from getting large enough sizes for the same price.

That and price fixing. SSDs barely halved in price / TB in the past what, 5 years?

SSDs already occupy most laptops as sole-storage, with time every PC with mostly use large SSDs for everything.
HDDs will exist for "archival" for awhile since SSDs can't be used for cold-storage as they are.

>SSDs barely halved in price / TB in the past what, 5 years?
and 1TB HDDs haven't decreased at all in that time either.

>SSDs can't be used for cold-storage as they are.
Why not?

Only chinkshit uses eMMC

they need to be powered up, you can't just leave them in a drawer like a HDD.
anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data-retention

/thread

I've been running 1.2TB of SSDs thest past 3 years.
Join the past, user, and give away your HDDs to technologically impaired people.

Yes, give it 5 more years.
It still in it's awkward teenage meme phase.

VR on the other hand I still not sure.
Hopefully the exploratory stage is over soon and a set of standard will be implemented.
Like with phones, game consoles, and desktop OS's
>MS Bob. O_O

Gib money and I will

Absolutely, but 2 things need to change first:
1. They need to be cheaper than HDDs in price/gb
2. They need to have read/write lifetimes more comparable to a HDD

>2015

find me the article that says SSDs are perfectly good for long term archival that was published in the last 2 years then please.

>HDD: 3¢ per gb
>SSD: 33¢ per gb

Yeah, a 90% price decrease might take a while.

You are the one who has to prove it dumb dumb

no the burden of proof is on me to provide a source which I did, you're trying to discredit that source based on its date alone which means you need to explain that relevance.
Either explain a specific SSD improvement made to models within the last 2 years that makes its contents invalid or direct us to an article that proves the former invalid.

Yes. We'll use DNA for long-term archival storage. SSDs for everything else.

the decrease will be spurred on by demand.
people are currently only buying SSDs for performance, not capacity.
But data requirements are going up both in enterprise and consumer machines.
Meanwhile HDDs are not getting much bigger than 12TB while 50TB SSDs are already being sold.

It's not a demand thing, it's a manufacturing cost thing.
SSDs are currently going up in price because the demand for NAND has outstripped production capabilities.

>When the SSD ships from the factory, it is typically able to retain user data for up to 5 years in a powered-off state.
>Data retention is guaranteed for three months at 40oC (max), which assumes worst-case power and media wear.

In other words, the more the SSD is used, the shorter the data retention in a powered of state gets.

Source: micron.com/~/media/documents/.../data-sheet/ssd/7100_m2_pcie_ssd.pdf

i dont have a spinning disk in any computer I own or use anymore
probably never will

SSDs for actively used storage
HDDs for external backups
Everything stays safe and fast

shut the fuck up autism. you were always a pussy

Data corruption in DNA is a feature.

They already exceed HDDs in lifetime by a large margin. The only difference is that you MIGHT be able to avoid mechanical death on an HDD for longer than you'd expect whereas an SSD will die and there's no way to avoid it.

same, only thing i use HDD's for is backups

How so? HDDs work for a minimum of 5 years, and if they survive past 5 years, they often keep going for much longer.

SSDs have a limited number of write cycles before memory cells start going bad, and once they die they can't be recovered.
Currently, a cell's read/write lifespan is much more likely to be reached before a HDD fails.

The average SSD will last upwards of 10 years with moderately heavy usage.

With how much lost capacity due to dead cells by the end of that 10 years?

Troll

techreport.com/review/27436/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-two-freaking-petabytes
Few to none. You are aware SSDs have had plenty of spare cells for years now, right?

>Few to none

That article says all 3 drives tested lost about 1000, to more than 1000 sectors.

That's 4gb+ of storage loss.

t. hardware advertiser

Too bad the technology hasn't been implemented a decade to provide evidence of such claims.

Mean while I still hear about samsung drives failing (new year drives) from power failure and premature flash cell death.

You also can't argue that every SSD before 2016 is will die within 3 years or already has because of shitty quality control or cutting corners on proper multi layered cells.

I don't know anyone with a SSD that's used daily for even 5 years.

I have spinning rust discs from 2007 still in use for my htpc.
(used daily)
I gutted it from a older windows pc.

Liquid crystal

(((cloud)))

While I agree with you, it's entirely possible to extrapolate future drive failures from a set of drives tested on a period of time less than the expected lifespan.
This is basically a reverse German Tank Problem.

Oh fucking no, unless you're a datacenter this is virtually irrelevant. You have to account for the fact the test well exceeded any consumer circumstances, and enthusiasts and professionals have their own considerations that validate the use of SSDs in their own right which makes the compromise worthwhile.

They said the EVO 840 lost "several thousand" sectors.
Assuming that's 3,000 sectors, that's 12gb of space lost.

Assuming the average Joe has a 256gb SSD, that would be a loss of 1/20th of their already small storage space.
That 256gb SSD also cost just as much as a 4tb HDD.

There was a new SSD endurance test done with one of the newer SSD from Samsung, it went 9 petabytes on the 850 Pro.

>guru3d.com/news-story/endurance-test-of-samsung-850-pro-comes-to-an-end-after-9100tb-of-writes.html

On an average usage of 40GB per day on SSD, it would last >600 years.

Okay, that's pretty damn impressive.

>every SSD before 2016 will die
I have 3 that are still not even at half life left lmao. you're just a retarded poorfag.

sorry, only read half your sour grapes shitpost before responding. let me be more specific: I have 3 840 EVOs, you know the ones with the shitty issue where you have to rewrite the entire fucking drive every so often to fix the speed, that are used every day since I bought them in 2013, and they're still fine with an unnoticeable amount of storage lost if any at all.

Stay poor, stay jelly, and stay mad.

Even if you say "the cloud" that's still physical, the data is just being stored remotely.

Within 15 years spinning media will be as obsolete as reel-to-reel tape.

SSDs in end-user devices, HDDs (with varying degrees of SSD and DRAM caching) in network storage, aka "The (((Cloud)))".

If you have a NAS, the only real reason to even have a HDD in your PC is the fact that 50-100 GB game installs are becoming a thing and that 10 GbE isn't consumer level yet.

Hard disks will lose at some point. Flash has more players in the market trying to push it to be smaller and denser. Hard drives are pretty much just two and one of them is complete shit.

I already use my 1tb ssd as storage for steam games

There's no reason to make them because memory chips aren't being restricted by the small 2.5 form factor in the first place. Chips are getting denser faster than manufacturers can keep up.

12tb hdd for $150 when?

HDDs will exist for as long as enterprise needs archival storage they can trust to hold things with the power off for more than a few years.

LTO is finicky enough with a low enough $/GB benefit over HDDs that it'll never wholly take over the everything-slower-than-flash segment.

I'm still holding out hope we'll see MRAM or ReRAM based storage become mainstream. In theory both technologies can deliver performance comparable to SRAM but with the density of DRAM and the longevity of magnetic storage like tapes and hard disks.

I was hoping 3D XPoint would be like them but it turned out to be not a whole lot better than NAND flash

tapes are better than HDD's for that

Tape is a bit better than cold storage HDDs, but it's not enough better that the "exorbitant enterprise tax" make it worth it to anybody but the biggest companies that want to spring for six-to-seven figure robotic tape libraries.

HDDs are 2x-3x the cost per GB (and a lot heavier) but have much, much lower barrier to entry for archives in the PB range.

$/GB is coming down quickly. Spinning rust drive $/GB has heavily stagnated. HDD mfgs are seeing the writing on the wall. The enterprise space will probably make use of them for longer than anyone else - probably for backup purposes.

In a decade, we're going to be using a new bus interface directly with the CPU that will create a permanent memory-like structure for computing storage and processing. It's inevitable that storage and RAM are merging as their speeds get closer to each other.

MRAM, anyone?

>heh, too easy, even I know the answer to this!
>...

Give it about 3 years

Great if your a tapir who want to control and reshape history.
No one should own anything, especially not informations.
Consider it one of your democratic citizen duty to retain this data.

HDD's are not good enough to replace tape.

What will actually happen is HDD's will become completely deprecated, particularly once the manufacturers all retool to NAND or similar development. It'll then be more expensive to buy a HDD than an SSD.

And it's probably something stupid, like ramdisks.

I just ordered my first 2 SSDs. What would I know?

They're nice.

They're both 850 EVO, one is msata for my chinkpad. Now, on the other laptop I can only install one 2.5 inch disk. Should I create swap partition on SSD normally? Running with 8GB of ram.

You're just being intentionally t h i c c. TO THE END USER it's not physical storage. If I'm not buying a drive I don't care if it's stored on some magic ether or my data is being recorded manually by monks. From my perspective as a user of The Cloud TM it's not physical storage.

> always

Okay Nostradamus, I'll take your word for it. That's worked well in the past.

It's not your data either, it can vanish anytime.
In the end it's a matter of trust.