When pushed into the mass market in 2009, SSD makers promised that 2010 would be the year of the mainstream SSD.
Report: SSDs Rapidly Dropping in Price : Read more
Report: SSDs Rapidly Dropping in Price : Read more
- Status
sherlockwing
Honorable
- Aug 7, 2012
- 412
- 0
- 10,810
[citation][nom]L0tus[/nom]Great news! But for a few microseconds off my loading times they're still not cheap enough =[[/citation]
Actually more like 10-15 seconds, just some reviews on Techreport they compare HDD load time to SSD load time on their SSD reviews.
Actually more like 10-15 seconds, just some reviews on Techreport they compare HDD load time to SSD load time on their SSD reviews.
DRosencraft
Distinguished
- Aug 26, 2011
- 743
- 0
- 19,010
[citation][nom]ramicio[/nom]Where is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.[/citation]
There is no point in a 3.5" form factor. They can fit plenty of chips in the 2.5" size for added capacity. 3.5" on mechanical drives was primarily for accommodating larger platters for larger capacity. That's not an issue for SSDs, so to save manufacturing cost there's no need to make both 2.5" and 3.5" form factors. The server world mainly isn't switching because for them the price to make up the storage space of mechanical drives is huge. They'll have to switch eventually, and when they do they'll upgrade the racks at the same time. I would not consider this to be the biggest issue for them.
There is no point in a 3.5" form factor. They can fit plenty of chips in the 2.5" size for added capacity. 3.5" on mechanical drives was primarily for accommodating larger platters for larger capacity. That's not an issue for SSDs, so to save manufacturing cost there's no need to make both 2.5" and 3.5" form factors. The server world mainly isn't switching because for them the price to make up the storage space of mechanical drives is huge. They'll have to switch eventually, and when they do they'll upgrade the racks at the same time. I would not consider this to be the biggest issue for them.
@ramicio: Uhhhhhhhhh, so you want them to just put the drive into the chassis of a 3.5 form factor just to make it look pretty? I dont understand, what the hell are you getting at? And why do you feel the need to have a 3.5 size? I get the feeling you dont know the first thing about server management.
[citation][nom]ramicio[/nom]Where is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.[/citation]
I would guess it's because making a 3.5" SSD would be a waste of materials; if you really wanted to fill a 3.5" SSD with enough components to actually utilize that space, it might become too expensive for most consumers. Take a look at PCIE SSDs for enterprise usage and you can get an idea of how much capacity would actually be needed to utilize more space.
I would guess it's because making a 3.5" SSD would be a waste of materials; if you really wanted to fill a 3.5" SSD with enough components to actually utilize that space, it might become too expensive for most consumers. Take a look at PCIE SSDs for enterprise usage and you can get an idea of how much capacity would actually be needed to utilize more space.
igot1forya
Distinguished
- Jun 27, 2008
- 590
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]ramicio[/nom]Where is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.[/citation]
3.5" is nearly pointless in the server market - Especially for Solid State Drives. Space and power are reasons for this. If I had the choice, I'd pick 2.5" over 3.5" any day. With Rack-space at a premium, it adds up. The more volume in a server room to cool and house, the more it costs.
When it comes to SSD, space/surface area is not the issue or the limiting factor - the manufacturers limit capacity on cost, not because the 2.5" form factor is too small to fit more silicon, but because no one consumer would be able to purchase a 3TB SSD. Right now, the enterprise level SAN manufacturers (NetApp, ect) are pushing SSD's in the data center and the price - which used to be astronomical for conventional SAS drives - is frigging ridiculous. If the trend keeps going where it is (and I hope it does), then I think perhaps the demand may drive a need for more capacity beyond the form-factor.
By the way, 3.5" SSD's do exist. But you are looking into the Enterprise/Industrial space and SAS is probably all you will find.
3.5" is nearly pointless in the server market - Especially for Solid State Drives. Space and power are reasons for this. If I had the choice, I'd pick 2.5" over 3.5" any day. With Rack-space at a premium, it adds up. The more volume in a server room to cool and house, the more it costs.
When it comes to SSD, space/surface area is not the issue or the limiting factor - the manufacturers limit capacity on cost, not because the 2.5" form factor is too small to fit more silicon, but because no one consumer would be able to purchase a 3TB SSD. Right now, the enterprise level SAN manufacturers (NetApp, ect) are pushing SSD's in the data center and the price - which used to be astronomical for conventional SAS drives - is frigging ridiculous. If the trend keeps going where it is (and I hope it does), then I think perhaps the demand may drive a need for more capacity beyond the form-factor.
By the way, 3.5" SSD's do exist. But you are looking into the Enterprise/Industrial space and SAS is probably all you will find.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]bavman[/nom]I want a 512gb ssd for $100. $0.20/gb isn't too much to ask in several months is it?[/citation]
I think that you'd be lucky to see them far under $300 except for lower end and/or older models in that time frame.
I think that you'd be lucky to see them far under $300 except for lower end and/or older models in that time frame.
Because 2.5" in the server world is not very mainstream. Does anyone really think I suggest that only the outside of the case would be bigger, but one would not cram more flash into it? 2.5" in racks only shine over 3.5" in number of disks density, not actual storage density in bytes.
[citation][nom]ramicidiot[/nom]@ramicio: Uhhhhhhhhh, so you want them to just put the drive into the chassis of a 3.5 form factor just to make it look pretty? I dont understand, what the hell are you getting at? And why do you feel the need to have a 3.5 size? I get the feeling you dont know the first thing about server management.[/citation]
I get the feeling that your argument is purely emotional and that you're an idiot. When did I say that one would just slap what exists now in a 3.5" form factor? Anyone would logic would grasp that I meant that they would put more flash chips in there to add to the capacity.
I get the feeling that your argument is purely emotional and that you're an idiot. When did I say that one would just slap what exists now in a 3.5" form factor? Anyone would logic would grasp that I meant that they would put more flash chips in there to add to the capacity.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]ramicio[/nom]Where is a 3.5" form factor? The server world still hasn't made 2.5" mainstream because 2.5" drives are for laptops. A 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay is just a waste of space.[/citation]
2.5" has become very mainstream in servers and as others have pointed out, a 2.5" SSD in a 3.5" chassis in a 3.5" bay would be no less of a waste of space than a 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay and a 3.5" SSD would be incredibly expensive in order to account for the many components that it'd have. Furthermore, 2.5" allows both general desktop and general laptop compatibility, so they don't need to make different form factors for different purposes.
2.5" has become very mainstream in servers and as others have pointed out, a 2.5" SSD in a 3.5" chassis in a 3.5" bay would be no less of a waste of space than a 2.5" drive in a 3.5" bay and a 3.5" SSD would be incredibly expensive in order to account for the many components that it'd have. Furthermore, 2.5" allows both general desktop and general laptop compatibility, so they don't need to make different form factors for different purposes.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]ramicio[/nom]I get the feeling that your argument is purely emotional and that you're an idiot. When did I say that one would just slap what exists now in a 3.5" form factor? Anyone would logic would grasp that I meant that they would put more flash chips in there to add to the capacity.[/citation]
Such a drive would cost thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, OCZ has such a drive:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5322/oczs-4tb-35-chiron-ssd
Such a drive would cost thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, OCZ has such a drive:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5322/oczs-4tb-35-chiron-ssd
[citation][nom]bavman[/nom]I want a 512gb ssd for $100. $0.20/gb isn't too much to ask in several months is it?[/citation]
Yes, it is too much to ask. You're expecting the market to drop in price by more than 50% in just a few months.
Check back in 2014, you're not going to see $0.20/GB for a long time.
Yes, it is too much to ask. You're expecting the market to drop in price by more than 50% in just a few months.
Check back in 2014, you're not going to see $0.20/GB for a long time.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]ramicio[/nom]Because 2.5" in the server world is not very mainstream. Does anyone really think I suggest that only the outside of the case would be bigger, but one would not cram more flash into it? 2.5" in racks only shine over 3.5" in number of disks density, not actual storage density in bytes.[/citation]
Many enterprise hard drives, especially the high RPM 10K/15K drives, are 2.5". Even those in 3.5" chassis are often actually using 2.5" disks. Servers are extensively using 2.5" drives these days because they can in fact mean higher data density and even better can mean smaller chassis for machines. For example, they're a large driving force for today's small form factor blade server market.
Many enterprise hard drives, especially the high RPM 10K/15K drives, are 2.5". Even those in 3.5" chassis are often actually using 2.5" disks. Servers are extensively using 2.5" drives these days because they can in fact mean higher data density and even better can mean smaller chassis for machines. For example, they're a large driving force for today's small form factor blade server market.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
Question Can I just upgrade my graphics card or should I be upgrading my processor as well for UE5?- Started by Tolstoy1990
- Replies: 11
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Question Where to find replacement ear pads for my headset ?- Latest: Nigel Spike
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram