News Sandisk unveils colossal new 256TB SSD with new UltraQLC flash memory — enterprise-grade SSDs for high density storage also come in 128TB

[Admin]

Sandisk introduces its UltraQLC 256TB NVMe SSDs with direct QLC NAND writes for hyperscale AI and cloud workloads.

Sandisk unveils colossal new 256TB SSD with new UltraQLC flash memory — enterprise-grade SSDs for high density storage also come in 128TB : Read more

 

[YSCCC]

For recent NAS availability it seems that they could make some money if they decide to have some QLC 8-16tb SATA 2.5" also

 

[-Fran-]

The worst thing about drives this large, is you cannot buy them in single quantities. You need to run them with backups or mirroring.

Can you imagine losing 100TB+ of data? Holy cow xD

I'm just happy with 2TB drives for now. Cheap and easy to mirror.

Regards.

 

[YSCCC]

The worst thing about drives this large, is you cannot buy them in single quantities. You need to run them with backups or mirroring.

Can you imagine losing 100TB+ of data? Holy cow xD

I'm just happy with 2TB drives for now. Cheap and easy to mirror.

Regards.

TBF, U.2 interface are for datacenters where they're more or less cost no object, speed+data density in their NAS array is what's important

 

[edzieba]

The worst thing about drives this large, is you cannot buy them in single quantities. You need to run them with backups or mirroring.

Can you imagine losing 100TB+ of data? Holy cow xD

I'm just happy with 2TB drives for now. Cheap and easy to mirror.

Regards.

Your backup does not need to be identical physical media (and it's generally preferable to be dissimilar). Depending on backup schedule requirements, you could backup your big SSD to a HDD array, or even to tape.

 

[Amdlova]

These are big drives for sure.
I want to know how many watts this drivers will burn. 150w ?

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

These are big drives for sure.
I want to know how many watts this drivers will burn. 150w ?

Pretty sure U.2 and E3.L power limits are in effect, with 25W on U.2 and 40W on E3.L. (There's potential for up to 70W on E3.L based on a quick search, but I don't know if that's sustained power or just for brief excursions.

What I really want is a 128TB version of this configured with MLC NAND, or 64TB with pSLC mode! LOL

 

[Notton]

When are we going to see cheaper 16~32TB SSDs for the consumer market?

 

[George³]

When are we going to see cheaper 16~32TB SSDs for the consumer market?

Technically, it's not a problem to do it right away. But you have to convince the manufacturers that your patience with them deliberately not shipping such devices is over. It has to be done by a lot of people, in a very convincing way that cannot be refused.

 

[abufrejoval]

These are clearly designed for high-density, low-power archival use and to be put into a very wide array with external write-back caches.

I wonder how many of their limited overwrite cycles might just be spent on maintaining their flash cell charges, since those pesky electrons like to go elsewhere.

Also I presume, they might not take kindly to being powered off for extended periods of time.

I'm pretty sure I'm personally still better served by HDDs because of cost and technical constraints, while nothing yet beats less esoteric SSDs for hot storage.

SAN vendors started using those QLC devices to come very close to SAS HDD pricing with flash, but their technology investment in front of these storage devices was also significant.

With hyperscalers this is surely another level or three, but it's not hard to see how it would pay off for them.

Another nice find, Anton, thank you!

 

[-Fran-]

TBF, U.2 interface are for datacenters where they're more or less cost no object, speed+data density in their NAS array is what's important

Not quite. There's U.2 adapters for PCIe X16. I know, because I have plenty friends that do buy U.2 drives from data centres for their NAS'es. Overkill? Perhaps. Cool? No, not really, LOL. Expensive? Yep.

They're not even hard to find and you have even M.2 to U.2 adapters as well. PCIe chaining is a magical thing.

Regards.

 

[tich77]

I would be happy with SATA SSDs in the 12-20TB range for my Synology NAS. Sure, the interface of a single drive limits bandwidth, but SHR addresses that; my current 16xx with 6x 16TB mechanical drives can cope with a 10Gb LAN connection and manage almost-wire speed transfers consistently. Replacing the HDs with SSDs would easily accomodate 10Gbe transfers, possible bi-directional, or even 2 x 10Gbe interfaces.

Of course NVMe is faster, but the largest NVMe drive I can find is 8TB and horrendously expensive. And no doubt hot. Give me a lower-cost SATA SSD, with a memory technology that can handle SATA-III speed (or close to it) and I'm a happy bunny with a RAID

I like the Synology [other brands available] form factor and low power draw; I dont want to build a tower with an EATX board to handle multiple PCIe-attached 4TB NVME drives (I would need 5 PCIe adaptors and 20 drives just to approach 80TB).

But hey, I was also hoping for a single-slot PCIe graphics card in the days of the 1070. Its taken until the 3050 for it to become reality.

In regards to backups, I agree with that best practice dictates backing-up to a different media, but what consumer media has the capacity, interface, and the right price point? As it is, I backup key data, not the entire NAS.