Are SSDs Doomed? Researchers Say "Yes"

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Researchers from the University of California, San Diego have found that shrinking the size of SSD’s severely affects performance. If the manufacturing process timeline remains constant, SSD’s will phase themselves out once the flash storage architecture reaches 6.5nm.

As more capacity is squeezed into the chips, the findings show, bandwidth suffers.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure the developers will find a way to circumvent this. No different than spindle HDD's evolving the way they have over the decades for more capacity, higher transfer speeds, and smaller physical sizes.
 
"Computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps only weigh 1 1/2 tons"
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
"Computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps only weigh 1 1/2 tons"
Click to expand...

Go mobile.

A-HP-netbook-in-the-compu-001.jpg
 
Sabrewulf165 said:
"Computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps only weigh 1 1/2 tons"
Click to expand...

Ya pretty much. NAND flash is probably doomed in the long run. They are right that as you scale it down, there are problems. However, turns out it is not the only technology for this kind of thing by far. It is the only one we currently have commercially, but that means nothing for the future.

SSDs will just get newer, better, technologies and will be just fine.
 
arent everything else like that? whatever good you are at what you are doing you will eventually hit a wall, HDD do suffer from densities as well? its not the bandwidth that suffers this time its the capacity, right double quadruple the platters, now your drive needs more power to run ;)
 
i though it was more to do with the electron charge trapped in the cell degrading faster at smaller sizes or did i misunderstand.
 
What about memsistors, phase change storage or any of the other non-flash based solid state storage mechanisms? This story is taking a study on Flash as if it was the only technology for storing data other than magnetic. That's pretty short-sighted considering the whole 6.5nm fab thing is 12-15 years away.
 
All i need is a 500-600gb disc that is faster than my current one and just as reliable for a reasonable price and I'll be happy.
 
Sycraft said:
Ya pretty much. NAND flash is probably doomed in the long run. They are right that as you scale it down, there are problems. However, turns out it is not the only technology for this kind of thing by far. It is the only one we currently have commercially, but that means nothing for the future.

SSDs will just get newer, better, technologies and will be just fine.
Click to expand...

Why do they shrink the manufacturing process if it negatively affects the SSD? Is shrinking the process the only way to reduce costs?
 
People are moving away from having one really big hard drive on their computer anyways, so this doesn't seem like a big deal to me. With how good network performance capacity has gotten there's not as much need to physically store all your files on one drive.
 
SSD's have too many advantages over HDD's for this to be an issue. Plus as someone said memristor. Though speed is the biggest concern with SDD's, I'm more interested in how long they can last. Having recently gone through a number of failed drives, and manufacturers being dicks about the warranty, it maybe a good idea to put your data onto a SDD.

About two years ago my 1 TB drive failed and shortly afterwards my 500 GB failed. My sisters 1 TB from Seagate failed 3 times in a row. Finally Seagate sent us a drive that lasted for more then a week. Just the other day an old Maxtor 120 GB failed, and started making clunking noises. I got a 1 TB Samsung in my PC that makes a clunk noise when it starts up, but still works. SMART says it's fine, except for some warnings. Still got 1 year warranty left, so for now I use it as a backup drive. I don't trust the stupid thing.

If there was ever a reason to go SSD, it's cause HDD's fail too damn often. Especially now that SDD's are well established, the problems they've had should be much less. I just don't have much trust for these mechanical drives anymore. And they do slow down with age, just like SSD.
 
I've got SSD's in my home computer, laptop, work computer, and several for other people. They are an order of magnitude faster than hard drives, but they cannot hold as much data. Hybrid drives are the most likely outcome in my opinion, because I just cannot see that people like me will want to sacrifice the speed advantage.

This is investor FUD. SSD's may not be the ultimate hard drive, but they are so fast they are redefining what storage is in a computer. Some motherboards already come with SSD as cache for storage on whatever drive you install.

OCZ already makes MaxIOPS drives that use a larger process, 34nm instead of 25nm. This is for a different specific reason, but still related to speed. SSD's are all about speed right now, so they will not go there if it phases them out.

My point is that SSD's are not going away, and it is silly to think that they are. They will find a new niche, a solution to this problem, or something better will come around. The same has basically been said for hard drives for years, it is just that they have never had competition before. And 13 years from now? Who really looks at those projections? I will upgrade my computer 5 to 7 times before then. That's astrology economics in my opinion.
 
so let me get this straight. When the same exact thing was mentioned with hard drives being as there's a limit to how close you can get the magnetic material, they simply went with more platters. Why can't you simply have another layer of chips. Except for the notebook market is there really a reason why they're as thin as they are?
 
verteron said:
I've got SSD's in my home computer, laptop, work computer, and several for other people. They are an order of magnitude faster than hard drives, but they cannot hold as much data. Hybrid drives are the most likely outcome in my opinion, because I just cannot see that people like me will want to sacrifice the speed advantage.

This is investor FUD. SSD's may not be the ultimate hard drive, but they are so fast they are redefining what storage is in a computer. Some motherboards already come with SSD as cache for storage on whatever drive you install.

OCZ already makes MaxIOPS drives that use a larger process, 34nm instead of 25nm. This is for a different specific reason, but still related to speed. SSD's are all about speed right now, so they will not go there if it phases them out.

My point is that SSD's are not going away, and it is silly to think that they are. They will find a new niche, a solution to this problem, or something better will come around. The same has basically been said for hard drives for years, it is just that they have never had competition before. And 13 years from now? Who really looks at those projections? I will upgrade my computer 5 to 7 times before then. That's astrology economics in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Wait. So you're saying SSDs are fast?
 
Ashbringer said:
I got a 1 TB Samsung in my PC that makes a clunk noise when it starts up, but still works. SMART says it's fine, except for some warnings. Still got 1 year warranty left, so for now I use it as a backup drive. I don't trust the stupid thing.
Click to expand...

I think Google put out a study that said SMART is basically useless; manufacturers have neutered it because SMART failure -> warranty exchange before the device is fully failed. If it makes a (bad/new) clunk when it starts up, I wouldn't trust it either, but I wouldn't put backups on devices I don't trust. :)
 
FndTheRver said:
People are moving away from having one really big hard drive on their computer anyways, so this doesn't seem like a big deal to me. With how good network performance capacity has gotten there's not as much need to physically store all your files on one drive.
Click to expand...

And with media becoming more and more "Rent instead of Buy", its only going to go further the other way.

For 95% of the users on Earth, 128gb-256gb is capacity in an SSD is more than enough. Even with software bloat, that will probably be true from this point forward, as more and more iOS/Android platform types take over the desktop/laptop market. iCloud, all of that, will make mass-storage over the web, the norm for most people.. Leaving capacity requirements fairly stagnant for all but the biggest power users (or content creators).
 
^ This I agree with. I've still got a single 500GB loaded with a ton of games and still have about 40% space available. Which is why I'm looking to go with an SSD in the 256-512GB range for my next storage purchase.
 
This is the result of terrible tech journalism.

The title of the study is 'The Bleak Future of NAND Flash Memory'. From the very beginning they clarify that they're studying Flash-based SSDs. They use 'SSD' for convenience's sake in the paper (probably because FBSSD doesn't look too good) but anyone that takes more than a cursory glance at the paper knows what they're talking about.

ComputerWorld either decides to make it a flashy title or simply doesn't pay any attention, and rearranges it so that they're saying ALL SSDs have a bleak future. And ZDNet follows suit, because they're ZDNet.
 
Ashbringer said:
SSD's have too many advantages over HDD's for this to be an issue. Plus as someone said memristor. Though speed is the biggest concern with SDD's, I'm more interested in how long they can last. Having recently gone through a number of failed drives, and manufacturers being dicks about the warranty, it maybe a good idea to put your data onto a SDD.

About two years ago my 1 TB drive failed and shortly afterwards my 500 GB failed. My sisters 1 TB from Seagate failed 3 times in a row. Finally Seagate sent us a drive that lasted for more then a week. Just the other day an old Maxtor 120 GB failed, and started making clunking noises. I got a 1 TB Samsung in my PC that makes a clunk noise when it starts up, but still works. SMART says it's fine, except for some warnings. Still got 1 year warranty left, so for now I use it as a backup drive. I don't trust the stupid thing.

If there was ever a reason to go SSD, it's cause HDD's fail too damn often. Especially now that SDD's are well established, the problems they've had should be much less. I just don't have much trust for these mechanical drives anymore. And they do slow down with age, just like SSD.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it is because Seagate and Maxtor make trashy drives. Samsung is better, but since I have been using WD, I have not had a single drive fail. For that matter, i haven't had a hard drive in my computer fail since before 2006.

The trick is to make sure they stay nice and cool.

A lot of drives that come in OEM computers have issues because they don't keep the drives and other components cool. Their theory is that as long as they stay within "operating temps" there shouldn't be a problem.
 
verteron said:
My point is that SSD's are not going away, and it is silly to think that they are. They will find a new niche, a solution to this problem, or something better will come around. The same has basically been said for hard drives for years, it is just that they have never had competition before. And 13 years from now? Who really looks at those projections? I will upgrade my computer 5 to 7 times before then. That's astrology economics in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Memristors will probably be the new thing 13 years from now. Granted the article has major flaws like not accounting for new ways to write, some that even exist today, but if density doesn't limit their appeal, the fact that most manufactures keep lowering the write endurance to lower the price. Granted no one has done anything yet that will cause a major problem, but all it takes is one to give the whole industry a bad name. Almost every die shrink everyone has shaved a few thousand writes off, and it's gotta stop at some point.
 
TheBluePill said:
And with media becoming more and more "Rent instead of Buy", its only going to go further the other way.

For 95% of the users on Earth, 128gb-256gb is capacity in an SSD is more than enough. Even with software bloat, that will probably be true from this point forward, as more and more iOS/Android platform types take over the desktop/laptop market. iCloud, all of that, will make mass-storage over the web, the norm for most people.. Leaving capacity requirements fairly stagnant for all but the biggest power users (or content creators).
Click to expand...

Agreed, good points TheBluePill. Still sad that enthusiasts don´t make out 95% of the users on this planet. Think of where we would be in terms of hardware, in terms of real time 3D for games, sigh, if that was the case. I know it can´t be that way of course.

Regarding the article´s doom and gloom. Other technologies will take over eventually, if a solution is not found before we hit a wall.
 
sfsuphysics said:
so let me get this straight. When the same exact thing was mentioned with hard drives being as there's a limit to how close you can get the magnetic material, they simply went with more platters. Why can't you simply have another layer of chips. Except for the notebook market is there really a reason why they're as thin as they are?
Click to expand...

They do layer them, but the problem comes from if a chip happens to be bad or isn't soldered correctly as they can't just replace that bad chip they have to toss the entire assembly. This is why the preferred method has been to shrink the chip, to lessen the potential waste.
 
technically, we are all doomed as well.

knowing the eventual demise of the SSD, doesn't really phase me
 
TheBluePill said:
iCloud, all of that, will make mass-storage over the web, the norm for most people.. Leaving capacity requirements fairly stagnant for all but the biggest power users (or content creators).
Click to expand...

Factor in slow upload speeds/bandwidth caps and cloud snooping thanks to the patriot act into that equation, its not happening anytime soon.
 
Ryokurin said:
They do layer them, but the problem comes from if a chip happens to be bad or isn't soldered correctly as they can't just replace that bad chip they have to toss the entire assembly. This is why the preferred method has been to shrink the chip, to lessen the potential waste.
Click to expand...

Granted I have no clue how they're stacked, but seems like you make a circuit board with chips, test it, then stack multiple numbers of those circuit boards all connected, essentially multiple SSDs inside of a single case you'll get get what you need. Or go more horizontal, why does it have to be a 2.5" architecture? why not a 3.5" like a normal HD? or why not a fatty like a 5.25" after all how many DVD/BR drives do you need?

I get it, making things tiny is big, but if it's going to fit inside of a computer case what's the big deal?
 
toast0 said:
I think Google put out a study that said SMART is basically useless; manufacturers have neutered it because SMART failure -> warranty exchange before the device is fully failed. If it makes a (bad/new) clunk when it starts up, I wouldn't trust it either, but I wouldn't put backups on devices I don't trust. :)
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how I can ask them to replace the drive when their own software even says there's nothing wrong? Their SeaTools shows no problems. BTW the clunk noise has always been there, so I have no idea if this is how it should sound or just about to fail. I use it as a backup drive cause I rarely need to use that drive. I figure I'll give them a call and see what they say.

The real problem I'm scared is cause the drive SMART says "Calibration Retry Count data 1". Which I have no idea what this means.

cyclone3d said:
Or maybe it is because Seagate and Maxtor make trashy drives. Samsung is better, but since I have been using WD, I have not had a single drive fail. For that matter, i haven't had a hard drive in my computer fail since before 2006.

The trick is to make sure they stay nice and cool.

A lot of drives that come in OEM computers have issues because they don't keep the drives and other components cool. Their theory is that as long as they stay within "operating temps" there shouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...
I have two 320 GB Western Digital drives that for 4 years now. Those suckers still work just fine. I also have a 120mm fan on all my drives, so they never reach past 30C.

The Maxtor drive was old, like 6-7 years, and I never cooled it. That thing gets hot, like frying pan hot. All the other drives I mentioned were at least cooled with a fan. I even went through the trouble to use cheap thermal past on the sides of the drive, so the case can disperse the heat a little. The cheap stuff that comes with heat sinks that you know is garbage.

Few things I've learned about hard drives is that.

#1 Western Digital all the way. Seagate sucks balls. I would never buy a Seagate product ever again. Though honestly it's a model to model basis as to which drive to own. Newegg ratings and reviews help a lot with this.

#2 Cooling is very much important. Whatever is keeping those western digital drives going in my PC must be the cooling, as I've never given a crap about cooling drives before.
 
Like others said, memristors will be the dominant storage type in a few years. Expect to see products using that tech I believe next year or in 2014, but it will be mainly used by enterprise. At any rate, it will be a storage/memory paradigm. IIRC, it can store 1Pb/cc (~128TB), and it's supposed to offer speeds similar to DRAM, but things might have changed since then.
 
What I find pretty funny is that the article makes the fundamental flaw of thinking they would just keep increasing the size of the module it self. 32MB is still 32MB. It doesn't matter what size the process that built it is. It's just smaller. I don't believe there is any reason for a reduction of bandwidth.:confused:
 
God I wish there was an edit sometimes. The article basically says, because they can't make a reliable memory module with 6.5nm process right now.. We never will be able too.. LOL WUT?
 
I call bullshit.

Even if this were true the parallel nature of the setup inside an SSD pretty much would cancel that out. For lack of a better analogy SSDs are essentially like a RAID0 of several banks of NAND all inside a nifty little plastic or metal shell. Even if this 'study' were true and as the process shrinks the chips get slower you would be able to have more and more 'stripes' in that RAID. (Again, I'm using the term for lack of a better one - I just woke up, lol)
 
FndTheRver said:
People are moving away from having one really big hard drive on their computer anyways, so this doesn't seem like a big deal to me. With how good network performance capacity has gotten there's not as much need to physically store all your files on one drive.
Click to expand...
Although networking and all that stuff is better, it's still the best way to have them stored on the drive, due to either safety and privacy concerns. You wont bring your documents, papers and things you have at home to someone's else house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top