LSI Launches $11,500 SSD, Crushes Other SSDs

Status
Not open for further replies.

brando56894

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2009
94
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]house70[/nom]"while helping to reduce operational and capital expenditures"wut?...I gotta see numbers for that.[/citation]

I guess if you run the warpdrive(s) 24/7 for years, the cost of power and cooling would be significantly less than powering and cooling ~400 HDDs. In the short run it is extremely expensive but in the long run is where it would shine.

[citation][nom]ScrewySqrl[/nom]holy smokes.a hard drive as expensive as a car!for whom is this cost effective?[/citation]

Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc... essentially any mutli million or billion dollar corporation that stores craploads of data. Yes outright they cost WAY more than a typical 3TB so you would need to buy 10x more of the SSDs to equal the same capacity as a HDD but as I stated above: think about the amount of energy that it takes over the years to cool all the HDDs and to power them. once you factor that it in makes a difference.
 

JasonAkkerman

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2008
457
0
18,790
4
[citation][nom]ScrewySqrl[/nom]holy smokes.a hard drive as expensive as a car!for whom is this cost effective?[/citation]

Considering all the money you save from not having 400 HDD, RAID controllers, power consumption and cooling needs, I would think that this is cost effective to a number of industries.
 

liquidchild

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2010
250
0
18,790
2
I have issue with the name. What happens when we really do get a warp drive in our pc's that can transport us to other places. The name is already taken, now what smart asses? The ludicrous speed drive?...does not roll off the tongue very well.
 

K2N hater

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2009
617
0
18,980
0
Again, comparing orange to apples. Maybe 400 hard drives won't match its I/O performance but they store at least 1000 times as much data. Want sheer performance, go for SSD or even RAM disks. Want reliability and cheaper price per GB, go HDD.
 

mcdonamw

Distinguished
Apr 29, 2008
1
0
18,510
0
Eh... I think someone's missing the point that this is just 300 GB of storage. If you actually HAD 400 disk drives, you would also have 4 petabytes of raw storage, pending 1 TB drives, barring real world numbers/overhead.

Also this only provides local storage. Sure the speeds are awesome, but almost $12K for 300 GBs of local storage... no thanks. There's no reason this should even cost this much.
 

bison88

Distinguished
May 24, 2009
618
0
18,980
0
This is a target specific niche market. Not a lot of business have the massive requirement for that kind of IOP hardware. Right now SSD manufactures are more in this "bolster my package" with insane numbers for an equally insane price just to try and be the best in there category. This whole worship of SSD phase will end and things will get reasonable and realistic. I hope sooner than later because consumers are getting hit by SSD's trying to prove they are better than HDD's despite failing hard in the storage department and affordability arena.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS