Meanwhile I'm still dreaming about any consumer and affordable 32TB or even 16TB portable SSD. Innovation and market for consumers are going backwards.
Funny thing is that one of the best you can get is the Crucial (Micron) 8TB one but even that one gets more expensive. I have the feeling it will be gone completely soon.
speedgoosetoday at 6:12 AM
I look forward to have my favourite hyperscaler grant me 1000 "premium" IOPS per VM on this monster.
That is pretty awful write performance. Does anyone know more about this? I assume all of these hyperdense SSDs suffer from the same drawback. Also, I heard that the E3.L interface can support up to 16x lanes, but there are no practical commerical products at this point.
nine_ktoday at 5:08 AM
The u.2 form factor is slightly larger than a 2.5" drive. I can imagine the entire space in it taken by Flash chips. I can't imagine what cooling scheme do they employ for the chips in the middle.
Spooky23today at 10:47 AM
The press release is missing the key specification — how many Libraries of Congress fit on this thing?
0x000xca0xfetoday at 11:08 AM
God damn. I know somebody that became a multi-millionaire from web hosting in the 2000s and his entire data center back then could have been replaced with just one of these SSDs.
Aboutplantstoday at 10:21 AM
“For AI workloads: The 245TB Micron 6600 ION provided up to 84 times better energy efficiency”
How big of a deal is this part in relation to the initial upfront costs? I’m not privy to the cost of power for SSD
Want, but then need two for reduncancy... then a spare for recovery... why not 3 raid or zfs... imagine the resilver time on this. It's hit the limit of data surety surely.
zekriocatoday at 6:14 AM
What is this thing that all pictures of new devices need to come with this black background?
cammikebrowntoday at 5:11 AM
How much is it?
cadamsdotcomtoday at 9:10 AM
The word AI can be safely deleted wherever it occurs in this press release.
Very cool bit of tech.
userbinatortoday at 6:03 AM
QLC NAND
The datasheet shows 3GB/s sequential write, which for 245.76TB means writing the whole drive takes around 22h45m. Odd that the endurance is specified as "1.0 SDWPD", which is almost meaningless since the drive takes roughly that long to write at full speed.
At scale, 1.9 times more energy is required for an HDD deployment
...but those HDDs are going to hold data for far more than twice as long. It's especially infuriating to see such secrecy and vagueness around the real endurance/retention characteristics for SSDs as expensive as these.
On the other hand, 60TB of SLC for the same price would probably be a great deal.
omeysalvitoday at 5:57 AM
Can someone who knows explain what is the benefit of having all that data in one ssd instead of splitting it up into hundreds of individual drives? Does the single ssd benefit is more performance or does it really tuen out to be cheaper than hundreds of individual drives?