SSDs Replacing HDDs Soon? Not A Chance

[sandisk]

We see SSDs replacing HDDs in the netbook space rather quickly for a number of reasons. As dmylrea points out, performance is a big factor. However, there's also size, weight and power consumption that have significant advantages over hjavascript:%20void(0);ard disk drives. SanDisk has created a website called the SSD Academy that offers consumers and professionals a lot of information on the SSD market as well as on general flash usage. Check it out at http://www.sandisk.com/ssd.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]BigBag[/nom]And what I'm trying to explain to you is that you shouldn't care why or when people create their profiles, you should worry about the quality of the articles written and the validity of the responses.[/citation]
For me the fact that a persons profile is, or not, new is a part of determining the vailidity of the response. Those of us who're returning users have earned a right to an opinion. We indicate that we might've read the stuff we're debating about. I accept the risk that some of those users are 'just long term complaininats' as those are very very few. But people who only bother do something, when it means complaining just aren't worth listening to in my opinion. This may sound rude, and could be read offensively ; but that is my opinion.

 

[randomizer]

Any LCD using a flourescent backlight doesn't have a hope of reproducing the blacks of a CRT. Why? Because it's always lighting the damn panel! A CRT simply has to "mis-fire" at points on the screen and it's black, really black, not dark grey.

I don't really miss my Trinitron, it was a piece of crap. Washed-out and streaking blue and red in the upper corners. But the lack of colour-banding was the really good thing about it.

 

[gordian]

Possibly one of the worst TH articles I've read. Sensational headline followed up with empty, meaningless speculation of what everyone knows to be an eventuality--it's not going to happen overnight. DVDs didn't overtake VHS overnight, nor did LCDs rival CRT for some time. Technology takes time. Duh. Please hire some decent writers before the site goes the way of Engadget.

 

[ragtop63]

I suppose if you're looking for a single drive to take care of your storage needs, SSD doesn't make sense right now. However, anyone who has used a computer for a while would know that you NEVER put all your eggs in 1 basket.

I think a good examination of storage technology should be based on the most logical configuration. Personally, I use a RAID0 config for my OS/Programs/Games. I consider everything on that logical drive to be expendable. I also have a local 500GB "temp" storage drive. This is used to temporarily store things I might or might not keep. Anything I want to keep I send off to my 4TB RAID5 NAS. I also burn lots of stuff to DVDs for archiving. Why keep it on a drive if you never/rarely use it?

Even computer manufacturers are recommending this type of setup. Dell gives most customers the option to use RAID for the OS and using a 2nd drive (or RAID) for storage. Then they go a step further by adding off-site backup available by default on most of their systems.

I would like to see a comparison of value/practicality based on use as an active partition as opposed to a storage partition.

 

[Guest]

I'll pass a industrial magnet over your drive , see ya your data is gone.

This technology is not able to carry fast data rate transfer for larger sizes. The maximum is 16 gb if you want to play safe otherwise watchout for the file system corruption it's not good yet ... Maybe in one year but right now it sucks.

 

[Guest]

I have to say that as a current comp geek (sorta) about to rebuild his system, my attention is HEAVILY focused on the SSD area. Newegg has numerous 64gig and more drives for a VERY reasonable price. Even as an avid gamer and a professional photographer, I don't have more then 240g worth of stuff on my main hard drive at once (when I'm done with a project I write it to a dvd/blueray or save it on an external 1.5tb hd and put it in my safe). So yes a 64, or so, gig SSD is very practical imo and if I need more (which I'm sure I will) I'll use my old HDD for storage. But the speeds of these SSD are just stupidly fast, can't wait to get mine.

 

[newriter2728]

[citation][nom]V3NOM[/nom]look. the point of SSD's is not really for enthusiasts or people looking to have 1 TB of fast hard drive... think 1 SSD has the performance of like thousadns of dollars worth of enterprise RAID hard drives! for servers, the fast access and lower power usage/heat is VERY VERY VERY CHEAP. in a few years like most things it will become mainsteam though[/citation]

Well...that't the hype, right? Replace lots of spinning disks with one or a few SSDs? Sure it sounds good, but it turns out it doesn't work.

In enterprise applications, companies like IBM (Quicksilver project) are finding out that these SSDs crank out high numbers on synthetic benchmarks, but the performance improvements in real-world applications like OLTP are much smaller, and the resulting economic impact is to make the system cost-performance ratio MUCH worse, not better.

http://www.tpc.org

Disk based online transaction processing systems use HUNDREDS of HDDs per server, and disk-based systems currently test out at about $1.50 per TPMc.

Meanwhile, the best reported result for an SSD system (anonymously leaked) was in the $18 per TPMc range -- more than 10 times as much per transaction-per-minute as HDD.

And there seem to be no prospects for improvement. This is because NAND flash actually gets slower on writes as device capacity increases.

This also explains why no manufacturer has yet PUBLISHED a TPC result using Flash SSD -- nobody at the Flash SSD hype-party wants these numbers released.

Sooo...if Flash SSD economics don't even make sense in the most disk intensive application on earth (OLTP), where DO they make sense? Nowhere, I'm afraid...except for ruggedized applications.

In about five years we may have Phase Change Memory -- I'd expect that Flash will remain in small niches until then.

Gotta laugh...Intel reports that the X25-M on Sysmark 2007 is 16% faster than HDD. Then you go look at what they tested against and find out it's a three-year old 5,400 RPM Toshiba drive that's 1/3rd as fast as the newest SATA3 7,200 RPM disks!!!!

Wow!!! X25-M SSD is SIXTEEN whole percentage points faster than an old, slow 5400rpm disk you can buy on the internet today for $41.

IBM research just published a paper called "Overview of candidate device technologies for storage-class memory" and guess what? Flash ain't it...

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/524/burr.html

I think we need to forget about Flash SSD and set our sights on PRAM. There's just not enough performance improvement in Flash SSD to justify paying even two or three times as much per GByte, much less 10x more...

 

[adam0310]

Yes there are always those that will resist new technology - those that said Windows XP would never replace Windows 98, that DVD's wouldn't replace VHS and that mobile phones (cell phones to you Yanks) would never replace a pager. There is a critical mass point in public acceptance marketing and SSD's are no exception. Once that point is reached it will be all-over-red-rover for mechanical drives. You'll still find on EBay of course. Any technology that is faster, smaller, lighter and less power hungry (SSD's have all the ticks) will by simple evolution of the fittest be successful. Maybe we should keep a copy of this article and refer back to it - I give mech drives 12 to 18 months max.

 

[cletus_slackjawd]

newriter2728 just posted a comment that is worth researching and commenting on.

To me SSDs represent
GOOD: power consumption/noise/heat
BAD: cost/capacity

I think conventional wisdom is that can never have too much storage. I have emulation software, music, video, and games that take well over a terrabyte. And then there is room for new downloads, betas, games, O/S, backup space.

SSD's won't make sense for me until they are at least 500GB at less than US $200.00.

 

[jjomaa22]

The guy wrote this article couldn't count to three if i spotted him on 1 and 2

When it comes to RETARTED ways of saying this, your the F**king Champion!!!

 

[jjomaa22]

Oh n by the way they are actually releasing a 1TB hard drive this year

World's First 1 TB 2.5" SSD from PureSilicon Is the Dream Drive
By Dan Nosowitz, 3:45 PM on Sat Jan 10 2009, 34,933 views
pureSilicon has created what seems to be the first 1 TB, 2.5" SSD. One terabyte, dudes. 2 and a half inches. Wrap your brain around that.

The drive, named the Nitro (because it's as fast as nitrogen? Is nitrogen fast?), is the first to hit the impressive barrier of this size and capacity, achieved through an ultra-thin enclosure and some innovative data storage architecture. Four of these drives can fit in the same space as one 3.5" drive, and pureSilicon claims its speed "approaches" the SATA II max of 300 MB/s. Unfortunately, it's targeted at servers and other large dull users like the military, rather than a sweet new consumer laptop. But now that the bar is lifted yet again, we're that much further along our quest for the One True Drive. The Nitro should be released sometime this year for an undisclosed price. [pureSilicon via MSNBC]

 

[Guest]

Until you zap it with static or get a surge that fries your glorified EPROM. Lets see ya take the platters out of that and recover data. Also id hazard a guess since its not mechanical, its prone to more memory address errors...since thats all it is..extra memory addresses..

 

[Guest]

There is a severe gap in the reasoning presented in this article. End-user purposes for SSD technology is not relevant in terms of technological supremacy; The greater issue pertains to the rate at which SSD is developing compared to Hard Drives.

During March of 1984 Percom/Tandon sold a 20MB Hard Drive for $2399.
In April of 2004 Western Digital sold a 250GB Hard Drive for $249.

In 2000 IBM sold an 8MB USB ThumbDrive for $249.
Today, Transcend sells a 64GB ThumbDrive for $100.

Flash technology has managed to progress more than twice the rate as Hard Drives, while maintaining smaller physical dimensions and weight.

It won't take long for SSD's to overtake HDD's, this tipping point will occur at the moment when USB flash offers higher capacity than HDD's.

This will not take more than 10 years. It will most likely take only 5 years or so. By 2020 companies will not even manufacture Hard Drives - with a few exceptions in poorer countries.

 

[Guest]

I was recently asked to recommend a laptop for my Mom. She really just wants to surf the web, email, do Excel and Word docs. She doesn't even care about storing photos, much less full-length films. I think she's a fairly common laptop buyer. I think SSD would make sense for her. Think Netbook+bigger screen.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Another 1TB SSD now;
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/OCZ-Z-Drive-RAID,7181.html

So really, how long before the demise of the HDD with the whole 'size issue' becoming a moot point.

I bet it's looking alot closer for many, probably even for the author now too.

 

[Master Exon]

I use to use a 320GB as a network storage for videos, music, game patches, etc. I bought a 640GB drive to replace it and almost filled it up instantly! Now I have a 1TB drive coming in pretty soon. I waited for 500GB platters.