Samsung To Release 4TB 850 Pro At CES 2017

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Any bets on how much it will cost? The EVO version would suffice for me, although that already costs $1,499.

Samsung is planning to introduce a 4TB version of its 850 Pro SSD at the CES 2017 show in Las Vegas. If you thought that US $1,499 priced 4TB 850 EVO SSD was cool, you will be impressed to know that Samsung plans to introduce a 4TB version of its flagship 2.5-inch SATA 850 Pro SSD at CES 2017 show in Las Vegas which kicks off on January 5th. This will also be the first 4TB MLC (2-bits per cell) SSD on the market, which will bring both better performance and more reliability.
 
I'm not running a server (unless you count my glorified file server, which is ain't gonna stress an EVO drive), so don't see the point of the Pro. Besides, the EVO is currently too much. When it drops below 1300, I'll look at it, but so long as it's more than 2x the 2TB EVO, I'll just wait.
 
I'm guessing it'll debut at $1800-2100.

Probably sink to around the $1500 mark by the time the July sales hit and more brands compete for 2-4TB territory.
 
Flogger23m said:
5 years ago I thought we'd have 1TB SSDs for $80 or less. This technology is progressing slow, and games/programs/files aren't getting any smaller. :(
Click to expand...

Well I remember in 2005/6 seeing a 50" LCD TV at a tech show for £50000 so win some, lose some.
 
Have to admit that the prices do bother me somewhat. Now the industry is making excuses as to why they are increasing the prices. :( As an example, the exact same 2TB harddrive is the same cost as it was 4 years ago.
 
If you think these Prices are Exorbitant, go back and checkout how much the Original 5 MB, thru 800 MB, hard drives cost, and you'll see that this is a real bargain!

Paul
 
ManofGod said:
Have to admit that the prices do bother me somewhat. Now the industry is making excuses as to why they are increasing the prices. :( As an example, the exact same 2TB harddrive is the same cost as it was 4 years ago.
Click to expand...
2TB drives were 600-650 4 years ago? Where were you buying SSDs?
 
Hmmm....obviously these 4TB drives would be the perfect choice for a RAID 6 setup. ;)
 
ManofGod said:
Have to admit that the prices do bother me somewhat. Now the industry is making excuses as to why they are increasing the prices. :( As an example, the exact same 2TB harddrive is the same cost as it was 4 years ago.
Click to expand...
The 2TB HDD I was buying for $60 (CAN) many years ago now cost me $100 (CAN) minimum!
 
I would like to see SSD manufacturers concentrate in high capacity, but slower drives to replace spinning home NAS drives.

They dont need to push 600 MB/s speed for this market, since they are limited by the NIC's speed.
 
Well, considering the recent post on the main page that flash prices are rising due to demand outstripping supply, it probably won't be cheap.
 
grtitan said:
I would like to see SSD manufacturers concentrate in high capacity, but slower drives to replace spinning home NAS drives.

They dont need to push 600 MB/s speed for this market, since they are limited by the NIC's speed.
Click to expand...

Outside of going to QLC (which Toshiba is working on) I am not sure slower will allow for significantly cheaper large drives.
 
Last edited:
grtitan said:
I would like to see SSD manufacturers concentrate in high capacity, but slower drives to replace spinning home NAS drives.

They dont need to push 600 MB/s speed for this market, since they are limited by the NIC's speed.
Click to expand...


What benefit would SSD's bring to this market, worthy of the price and new development?

The primary benefit of SSD's is their performance, but if you don't need the performance...

All that aside,

Server in my basement has many SSD and spinning drives configured as follows.
  • Server: 2x Hexacore Xeon L5640, 192GB RAM
  • OS: Proxmox Virtual Server
  • Boot Drive / VM Datastore: 2x mirrored 512GB Samsung 850 Evo's using ZFS
  • Swap Drive: One 128GB Samsung 850 pro
  • Live TV buffer drive (Used exclusively by MythTV DVR VM): One 128GB Samsung 850 pro
  • Scheduled recordings manual Cache (Also MythTV DVR VM): One 1TB Samsung 850 EVO

    New recordings are recorded to the 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, and if it gets to full a cron:ed script moves old recordings to the slower NAS

    NAS: 12x WD Red 4TB Drives, with two mirrored 100GB Intel S3700 SSD's as ZIL/SLOG drives and two Striped 512GB Samsung 850 Pro's for read cache, configured in ZFS as follows:

    Code: 
            zfshome
          raidz2-0
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
          raidz2-1
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
        logs
          mirror-2
            Intel S3700 100GB
            Intel S3700 100GB
        cache
          Samsung 850 Pro 512GB
          Samsung 850 Pro 512GB

    It's quite the screamer, and I have plenty of storage space.

    I used to have a 10Gig Fiber ethernet adapter (Brocade BR-1020) direct run to my workstation, but I was never able to get good performance out of it, and then one day it just died, so I have a quad port Intel Ethernet adapter hooked up to it which I use to distribute the load over multiple devices. it isn't perfect, but it helps.

    I can't wait for copper 10Gig ethernet to come down in price enough for me to jump in full force.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
What benefit would SSD's bring to this market, worthy of the price and new development?

The primary benefit of SSD's is their performance, but if you don't need the performance...

All that aside,

Server in my basement has many SSD and spinning drives configured as follows.
  • Server: 2x Hexacore Xeon L5640, 192GB RAM
  • OS: Proxmox Virtual Server
  • Boot Drive / VM Datastore: 2x mirrored 512GB Samsung 850 Evo's using ZFS
  • Swap Drive: One 128GB Samsung 850 pro
  • Live TV buffer drive (Used exclusively by MythTV DVR VM): One 128GB Samsung 850 pro
  • Scheduled recordings manual Cache (Also MythTV DVR VM): One 1TB Samsung 850 EVO

    New recordings are recorded to the 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, and if it gets to full a cron:ed script moves old recordings to the slower NAS

    NAS: 12x WD Red 4TB Drives, with two mirrored 100GB Intel S3700 SSD's as ZIL/SLOG drives and two Striped 512GB Samsung 850 Pro's for read cache, configured in ZFS as follows:

    Code: 
            zfshome
          raidz2-0
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
          raidz2-1
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
            WD Red 4TB
        logs
          mirror-2
            Intel S3700 100GB
            Intel S3700 100GB
        cache
          Samsung 850 Pro 512GB
          Samsung 850 Pro 512GB

    It's quite the screamer, and I have plenty of storage space.

    I used to have a 10Gig Fiber ethernet adapter (Brocade BR-1020) direct run to my workstation, but I was never able to get good performance out of it, and then one day it just died, so I have a quad port Intel Ethernet adapter hooked up to it which I use to distribute the load over multiple devices. it isn't perfect, but it helps.

    I can't wait for copper 10Gig ethernet to come down in price enough for me to jump in full force.
Click to expand...

My main interest in using SSD instead of spinning drives is reliability and access times.

Again, just my interest in moving away from spinning drives.

I have a 8 TB NAS, with nothing extraordinary, but I'm kind of tired of the lack of reliability from those drives.

Already replaced each one of them twice, using both brands (WD and Seagate).

Edit: wording.
 
Last edited:
Cool, But I'll just continue buying spindles except 1-2 SSD's at a reasonable price, since I plan on having money at some point in my life. Anything over 200$ for one hard disk and you seriously have to ask yourself if you're not reaching the point of diminishing returns.
 
At home I have paid about $140 for the last 6 hard drives I purchased. 4 of these being 4TB and the other 2 being 5TB. At work I just purchased 10 x 6TB HGST drives at ~$245 each.

SSDs I paid $500 for my 1TB 850 Pro and $185 for my 960 GB Sandisk Ultra II.
 
Last edited:
grtitan said:
My main interest in using SSD instead of spinning drives is reliability and access times.

Again, just my interest in moving away from spinning drives.

I have a 8 TB NAS, with nothing extraordinary, but I'm kind of tired of the lack of reliability from those drives.

Already replaced them twice each one, using both brands (WD and Seagate).
Click to expand...


Well, in swapping mechanical drives for SSD's you are just trading one form of reliability for another.

Mechanical hard drives fail randomly. Some last forever, some start having issues after only a couple of years.

With SSD's on the other hand, (unless it's an OCZ design which is also prone to random failure :p ) you have a time to wear out based on write cycles.

So what, you say. Most of my data on my SSD is write once, then I store it for a very long time. Write cycles shouldn't matter then, right?

Well, no. Because of how flash NAND works this isn't the case. When you write a bit to a cell, that cell is charged with a voltage. The firmware measures that voltage when it decides if that bit is a 1 or a 0.

This is fairly simple with SLC drives as there are only two states. Voltage or no voltage. With MLC there are four states. No voltage, low voltage, mid voltage, high voltage. With TLC 16 states.

The problem is this. The flash cells are not perfect, so over time the voltage drops. If it drops enough it can start corrupting data by making states indistinguishable from eachother. Given the same type of NAND (planar vs 3D) MLC drives are more sensitive to this than SLC drives. TLC drives are the most sensitive.

So what happens is, the firmware monitors the voltage levels of every cell, and when a cell decays to a certain preset point where it is getting too close to a lower state, the firmware reads the data in the cell, and rewrites it, using up a write cycle even if you are just storing static data.

This happens more than you would think. Storing static data on an SSD long term uses more write cycles than one would expect, especially on TLC drives.

This is why SSD makers recommend against leaving SSD's unpowered for extended periods of time, as after a while without the firmware powered on to monitor the states of the cells, you could have data corruption due to the cells decaying to much and not being rewritten by the firmware.

As far as hard drive reliability goes, it's an issue, but that's why we use redundancy.

I've had 12 4TB WD Reds in my server untouched running 24/7 since ~May 2014.

I had my first drive errors only a couple of weeks ago, when the read errors started creeping up on one of them.

I RMA'd the drive under its 3 year warranty, and swapped it out with the replacement and rebuilt the array and continued operating as normal...

Not sure what I am going to do once I get out of warranty, if I am going to buy like drives and replace them, or if I am going to add larger drives one by one...
 
drescherjm said:
Maybe in the 2030s.
Click to expand...

Nah, more like 2021. 1TB SSDs already go for ~$200 each on sale pretty regularly. Within 36months expect to see 4TB SSDs at sub-$300. Within 60 months expect to see 8TB SSDs at sub-$200.
 
ManofGod said:
Not me, the same 2TB hard drive I bought for $80 4 years ago is still $80 today.
Click to expand...
That is because 4 years ago is after the price hikes. That drive was $50 shortly before you paid $80.
Mass flooding and destruction of HDD plants in late 2011 caused a global shortage. 6 years later we are no where near those prices. I suspect there is some artificial reasons why the price has come not down. The same will hit SSD's when they reach a certain level. It has also happened to RAM in the past.
 
funkydmunky said:
That is because 4 years ago is after the price hikes. That drive was $50 shortly before you paid $80.
Mass flooding and destruction of HDD plants in late 2011 caused a global shortage. 6 years later we are no where near those prices. I suspect there is some artificial reasons why the price has come not down. The same will hit SSD's when they reach a certain level. It has also happened to RAM in the past.
Click to expand...


It's because the hard drive market was in an absolute free fall before the flood. SSD's weren't quite the culprit yet, but the great recession was - in part - because businesses were just keeping their existing machines rather than spending money.

In other words supply and manufacturing capacity far outstriped demand, resulting in the bottom falling out of the market
It wasn't sustainable. If the flood hadn't come along and helped the situation one or more of the manufacturers would have been forced to close up shop or sell themselves (and the latter happened to some anyway since then)

After the flood continued growth in SSD's for client applications have kept hard drive demand down below where it previously was.

One could argue that the flood saved the hard drive industry. It allowed them to use insurance funds to rebuild their destroyed manufacturing lines with much more appropriate capacity for market realities.

So, don't think of it as "those damned hard drive manufacturers manipulating the market to screw us over". Think of it as the old prices being unsustainable and the flood pretty much bailing out the industry.
 
funkydmunky said:
That is because 4 years ago is after the price hikes. That drive was $50 shortly before you paid $80.
Mass flooding and destruction of HDD plants in late 2011 caused a global shortage. 6 years later we are no where near those prices. I suspect there is some artificial reasons why the price has come not down. The same will hit SSD's when they reach a certain level. It has also happened to RAM in the past.
Click to expand...
Don't forget $80 today is worth less than $80 4 years ago. There's about a 10% discount in there just due to the devaluation of the dollar.
 
tazeat said:
Don't forget $80 today is worth less than $80 4 years ago. There's about a 10% discount in there just due to the devaluation of the dollar.
Click to expand...
Right. And how would that explain decades of HDD getting larger while older sizes got cheaper. I'm paying %50 more for the same drive 5 years later.
Imagine paying %50 more then what an exact same CPU cost from 5 years ago!
 
ManofGod said:
I am sure you know what I mean. Why be such a smartass? ;)
Click to expand...
I was dead serious. I think the regular price on a 2GB Samsung is 1-200 less than it was a year ago (though there were times it was blown out slightly less than the current normal price). Are they dropping in price as quickly as I'd like? No, but as I recall, 2-3 years ago, a 1TB drive was roughly 500 (normal price, sale prices were less) today I think they're half that and barely more than I paid for a 240GB Samsung drive a few years ago.
 
Why? Current 1TB drives are 1 platter and are just as fast (if not faster) than the 2 platter drives they replaced.

Or are you assuming that they would have to go to SMR to achieve 2TB in 1 platter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top