A few years ago it was tough to find solid state drives that could hold more than a few hundred gigabytes of data. Now Samsung is introducing a new SSD that can hold up to 16 terabytes.
The 2.5 inch PM1633a drive is designed for enterprise users, and it’ll likely be super-pricey. But the technology used in this storage could trickle down to smaller, cheaper drives in the future.
Golem.de
Samsung’s drive can hold about twice as much data as the largest 2.5 inch hard drives on the market, and significantly more than most SSDs as well.
What makes that possible is Samsungs 256 gigabit, 48-layer 3D V-NAND flash die which offers twice the density of previous models.
Samsung isn’t the only company working on high-capacity solid state storage. Toshiba and SanDisk recently announced plans to offer their own 256 gigabit, 48-layer NAND flash storage chips in 2016. And Intel and Micron’s new 3D Xpoint technology could leave NAND flash in the dust. The new storage technology is said to be up to be 1,000 times faster than NAND.
via Ars Technica and Golem.de
Good news for server farms. Somewhat irrelevant for the vast majority of end users given that most people never come close to filling the 512GB drives in their laptops these days. Perhaps some new application, like virtual reality tech will need that much data available locally, but even then, gigabit fiber may obviate that need.
Either way, it’s cool to see 3D V-NAND beginning to fulfill its potential. Faster, bigger cloud storage is still a very good thing. Interesting point about the 3D Xpoint technology is that Wall Street didn’t get very excited about it (Micro shares barely budged) so investors are wary about the sort-to-mid term potential.
My 4K video projects have quickly filled up my 2TB HDD just in the last few months. And I need more speed. 16TB might be a bit much for me today, but I welcome affordable options for 2, 4, even 6TB SSDs.
I would argue that you are the exception, though. Yes, HD and 4K video will continue to eat up storage space, but I would wager that the cloud is where most of it will end up, eventually. Google Photos already allows unlimited 16 megapixel photos and 1080p videos, which is more than enough for the vast majority of users today (most people don’t even have devices capable of generating and/or viewing higher resolution media yet). Cloud based solutions are simply more convenient for most people. You don’t have to carry your media with you, you won’t run out of space at the worst possible moment, and they can be shared with anyone and/or everyone at the click of a button. Yes, bandwidth could be an issue if it doesn’t keep up with the demands of high definition images and videos, but in most parts of the western world, uploading high… Read more »
At the moment it’s not feasible to upload say a 1TB video collection. It took days for me to upload around 25GB of music, and that was with the auto matching which they’re not doing for video. Many ISPs still cripple upload speeds.
Yes obviously one day it’ll be feasible – though by that time, storing it all on an SD card or similar local storage will also be no trouble. And even though I use cloud as a backup, it doesn’t replace local storage – I want access to my data when I’m not on WiFi, especially when I’m roaming or have no connection, and even in a future world where fast cheap Internet exists everywhere, I’d still want a local backup for when the cloud service shuts down or kicks you out.
I have 1 5TB external harddrive, 2 3-TB internal hardrive, 2-125 GB SSD, 3-2TB portable hard drives, but still it seems I’m running out of space. My monthly internet plan is 300 GB and the max speed is 2.4 MBPS. There are still so much out there for me to download. I only download FLAC, or 24 bit audio, and I only download full HD movies. If Remux is available, I go with that too.
I hope this drive becomes affordable for home use sooner.
One can never really have enough space
Ever heard of hoarder?
Nice density an all, but where’s my terabyte micro SD card?