Personally i thought 10 years was a good timeline for SSDs to catch up HDDs, but they estimated more,
Seagate: our disk drives are safe from SSDs for at least 15 years
There are so many different use cases for large HDDs, or I should say, large amounts of storage. DrLobotomy has one use case. Mine is different. I have well over 1 TB of digital photos, which I need to access "on demand." And that's before I start to scan all my slides. Those scans will clock in at about 100 MB apiece.Considering the fact that data delivery is so much faster nowadays large slow hard drives are losing their appeal. When it took a week to download something large it was smart to keep a backup of it locally. Now we can grab anything within 30 mins or less it just doesn't seem as necessary to have large slow drives.
HDD's will hold for several years at least.
Every time you add bits to a nand cell the gains increasingly get smaller, e.g. MLC doubled capacity over SLC, but the gain for TLC was halved, and then halved again for QLC.
Samsung's QVO came to market at the same price as its EVO drive.
I expect whats fuelling price drops on QLC is more that these drives often have lower rated spec's, and these allow lower quality nand to be used e.g. lower rated endurance and speed. As the cost savings from the density on QLC vs TLC will only be about 12.5%. Assuming it has yields same as TLC.
Also some have predicted its about increasing profit margins so e.g. TLC drive at specific price point, introduce QLC drive to market a bit lower so price conscious and low tech IQ people buy it. Eventually TLC volumes drop below QLC, at that point increase price of TLC and place it as a premium product and then either keep QLC at that slightly lower price point or bring it back to what TLC used to cost. We not going to suddenly see price per gig of spindles on higher bit density nand as the cost savings dont allow for it.
The rated endurance levels are all unproven at this point as well, my 850 pro died last month, the drive was rated for multiple thousands of erase cycles and 150 TBW. It died at just 45 erase cycles and 20TB writes.
My older 830s are still going but the one in my laptop which I benched has a massive performance drop from brand new, its under 50% of its rated performance. It has multiple 100s of erase cycles currently. Of course tho even with this drop its performance still comfortably beats any of my spindles, especially the 2.5 inch 5400rpm hdd it replaced.
The issue I have with hdd's right now is I think capacities are too high and I no longer like 3.5 inch devices, they seem too dated, too noisy, too big. If you have drives in a raid and one fails, if they large multi TB drives, then with current MTBF on consumer drives, you have a reasonable chance of the raid rebuild failing. For spindles I feel we need to move to a system where there is more but smaller devices, obviously this means boards having much more SATA ports. Cases also adapted to have more native 2.5inch bays vs less 3.5inch bays. I would much rather have 4 1TB drives than 1 4TB drive. Then modern OS like windows 10 should have software raid support for these devices, raid 5,6,1,10. Linux/BSD already has this covered, especially with ZFS. This all needs a new approach from industry tho, there is still no momentum to push us to 2.5 inch drives in desktops, and if anything SATA ports will be reduced in future and not increased.
I agree, but for sata to decrese a new standard needs to be implemented, sata express never took off, and u.2 while for me its great not everybody likes it or implements it, and PCIe lanes are growning but not to a point where we can go fully, so something has to replace sata III, idk maybe sata IV with a new appoach.This all needs a new approach from industry tho, there is still no momentum to push us to 2.5 inch drives in desktops, and if anything SATA ports will be reduced in future and not increased.
As I've said before the issue for storage is not price or size or speed. All those criteria have been met.
The issue that everyone has their head in the sand over is the trend of software requiring tens of thousands of performance killing micro files. This issue really needs to be addressed. Needs a radical new solution. Sure I can transfer 500GB of 4K video in minutes but copying an 8GB AppData folder can take hours.
Since SSDs are semi-conductors, pricing will probably follow the typical semi-conductor volume/yield/price curves.
I think both SSD and HDD can co-exist in the market. I'll never use an HDD for my OS or games again, but the density of HDD available combined with a sane price/GB curve as that density goes up means I'll always use them for storage and backup.
Except with the slowing of Moore's Law, "typical" curves are no longer typical. Gains are coming more from increasing bits/cell and thus lowering performance and durability.
Using current materials shrinking the node can not continue for much longer. 3D stacking is where it is now. Although that likely will run into limitations as well.
Next stop is 192 layers and I see no reason why it won't move on to thousands of layers going forward.I was talking about 3D NAND instead of 2D planar. How many layers are they now? I think at some point this adding more layers will not be feasible.
Edit: 136 layers here:
That's only looking at capacity, though... take performance, noise, and power consumption into account, and hard disks really can't compete.You can get used enterprise 4 TB HDD's for ~$40 each. SSD's can't come close to this price point yet, but everything has it's use.
What do you consider the boundary between consumer devices and business/enterprise devices? Guys here routinely talk about 8 TB and more drives. By the end of 2020, say, do you think that 8 TB SSDs will be available, and "affordable?" I'm not too sure, but I would welcome the demise of 3.5 HDDs up to 10 TB. I might even get a mid-tower case to replace my hulking Corsair 800D monster.HDD prices aren't really moving, they fluctuate per GB, meanwhile SSD prices are falling: I don't expect we'll find HDDs in most consumer devices by tge end of 2020.
Enterprise 3.5" SSD's are currently available up to 30TB in size, they are anything but affordable unfortunately.What do you consider the boundary between consumer devices and business/enterprise devices? Guys here routinely talk about 8 TB and more drives. By the end of 2020, say, do you think that 8 TB SSDs will be available, and "affordable?" I'm not too sure, but I would welcome the demise of 3.5 HDDs up to 10 TB. I might even get a mid-tower case to replace my hulking Corsair 800D monster.
I would take that "deal" with a bag of salt - used enterprise disks that were used, most likely heavily 24/7, have quite a bit of wear and tear.You can get used enterprise 4 TB HDD's for ~$40 each. SSD's can't come close to this price point yet, but everything has it's use.
I would take that "deal" with a bag of salt - used enterprise disks that were used, most likely heavily 24/7, have quite a bit of wear and tear.
As long as they are used in a RAID 1 or similar redundant array for personal use, the low cost will hopefully beat out the failures, but yikes...