Rendered at 07:32:55 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
speedgoose 1 hours ago [-]
I look forward to have my favourite hyperscaler grant me 1000 "premium" IOPS per VM on this monster.
nine_k 2 hours ago [-]
The u.2 form factor is slightly larger than a 2.5" drive. I can imagine the entire space in it taken by Flash chips. I can't imagine what cooling scheme do they employ for the chips in the middle.
MadnessASAP 2 hours ago [-]
Apparently TDP is 30 watts¹, according to the product brief. I would imagine it's a single PCB with flash chips on both sides then thermally bonded to the aluminum chassis. That should keep all chips at approximately the same temperature. On its own it could be easily air cooled, but with 24 in a 2U chassis you'll be having some decently hefty forced air over the drives.
1. For comparison, an HDD usually comes in around ~10 watts
trvz 43 minutes ago [-]
It's not just a single PCB, but a sandwich of several.
cyberax 1 hours ago [-]
Given the cost of 24 of them, you can probably buy solid silver heatsinks watercooled with tears of sysadmins.
rbanffy 1 hours ago [-]
I was going to say blood of virgins, but tears are probably better heat conductors.
rbanffy 1 hours ago [-]
The transfer rates limit how much each chip can be active at any given time, so a heat-aware writing allocator can pick the least active blocks for the next writes and distribute the heat accordingly. Even if it’s not heat-aware, the tendency will be that the writes will be distributed over as many chips as there are, and so will be the heat generated.
Now, I would LOVE to see this much SLC flash on a direct to bus attachment setting.
crote 40 minutes ago [-]
Over the past few years the main improvement in SSD capacity has been due to them stacking an ever-increasing number of NAND layers in a single chip, with state-of-the-art SSDs already having over 300 layers.
No need to worry about cooling when each layer in the sandwich is only a fraction of a micrometer thick!
walrus01 25 minutes ago [-]
the u.2 form factor indeed evolved from chassis designs that were originally 2.5" drives. It's now kind of becoming obsolete with new designs using things like E1S, E1L (exactly the correct height to be slotted into a 1U server, it's like a slightly wider M.2, but meant to be insertable and removable), and E3S and E3L.
Note that the 245TB is an E3L, the half size version of it come in smaller size.
What is this thing that all pictures of new devices need to come with this black background?
omeysalvi 2 hours ago [-]
Can someone who knows explain what is the benefit of having all that data in one ssd instead of splitting it up into hundreds of individual drives? Does the single ssd benefit is more performance or does it really tuen out to be cheaper than hundreds of individual drives?
brancz 1 hours ago [-]
It’s about density in a datacenter. With this you have 1PB in 4 drives, fitting in a 1u rack, which is just incredible. Also these drives don’t use regular SATA or SAS, they use PCIe, so these drives are also quite fast in comparison. Density has a power efficiency aspect as well both in just having fewer drives and requiring fewer servers to put drives into.
UltraSane 3 minutes ago [-]
DENSITY. Hyperscalers want to store as much data per rack and per data center as possible. They will eventually have hundreds of thousands of these drives.
petra 31 minutes ago [-]
Higher density, less power. Those are the bottlenecks in current and new data centers that are built out.
So it's not exactly about cost savings, but having the option to do more, faster.
Also, you could also get much higher bandwidth density out of this vs HDD, and this is great for AI training
baq 2 hours ago [-]
You’re actually right, it’s just that datacenters like density and will gladly split your data onto hundreds of these little amazing magical bits of technology rather than hundreds of less magical ones in the same physical volume.
lazide 1 hours ago [-]
They’ll still have hundreds of individual drives. Of these drives.
rbanffy 1 hours ago [-]
And thanks to the density, they won’t need as many racks as they used to.
cammikebrown 2 hours ago [-]
How much is it?
xbmcuser 34 minutes ago [-]
4-5x times what it would have been if not for the demand from AI. According to my rough calculation 4-8tb ssd drives were going to reach parity with hdd this year
el_snark 2 hours ago [-]
They haven't released details but I was able to find a Solidigm D5-P5336 122.88TB drive for around 40,000 USD, as a guideline. So ... more than that.
dlenski 2 hours ago [-]
Okay, so that 122TB drive costs about $330/TB.
I haven't bought a hard drive or an SSD in at least a decade (I get stuff for free, basically) but…that seems a bit high, right?
Seems like well-rated consumer-level SSDs cost around $250 for 1TB right now.
What accounts for the premium price/TB of these extremely high capacity enterprise-targeted drives?
rbanffy 53 minutes ago [-]
> What accounts for the premium price/TB of these extremely high capacity enterprise-targeted drives?
Spare capacity, mostly. That’s why they have higher endurance. If you want to double the endurance of a given drive, tell the controller to allocate twice as many spare blocks and report less capacity than you would otherwise.
In this case, you are also paying a premium for the PCIe attachment instead of SAS, and a lot for price elasticity. You see, with drives like these you slash space and energy consumption in relation to HDDs by a large number, and that allows you to pay a premium for the device, because, at the end of its lifetime, it’ll have more than covered the cost difference in saved space and energy.
jasomill 7 minutes ago [-]
Density, power efficiency, write endurance, sustained write speeds under continuous load, power-loss protection.
userbinator 1 hours ago [-]
What accounts for the premium price/TB of these extremely high capacity enterprise-targeted drives?
The word "enterprise".
1 hours ago [-]
bogometer 1 hours ago [-]
I fondly remember when i could buy a well-rated consumer-level SSD for a lot less per TB...
jasomill 2 minutes ago [-]
I paid $300 each for my last two SSDs, 4 TB Samsung 990 Pros.
They’re currently selling for $942.72 on Amazon.
ricardobeat 41 minutes ago [-]
Apparently $80k, not that terrible in comparison
mikestorrent 2 hours ago [-]
I was quoted $18K for a 3.7 TB Dell NVMe disk the other day. I'm gonna guess these drives are literally a quarter million each
UltraSane 29 seconds ago [-]
$200/TB is reasonable. $300 if it is VERY fast. That is just robbery.
cyberax 1 hours ago [-]
You're getting ripped off. NVMe SSDs are expensive, but not THAT expensive. A 4Tb drive should be around $1k even with some "enterprise" markup.
ukuina 2 hours ago [-]
If you have to ask...
0-_-0 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think he wants to buy one
baq 2 hours ago [-]
‘Contact us’
WatchDog 1 hours ago [-]
Would like to see what the internals of this look like, how many flash packages and PCBs are in that tiny chassis?
userbinator 1 hours ago [-]
QLC NAND
The datasheet shows 3GB/s sequential write, which for 245.76TB means writing the whole drive takes around 22h45m. Odd that the endurance is specified as "1.0 SDWPD", which is almost meaningless since the drive takes roughly that long to write at full speed.
At scale, 1.9 times more energy is required for an HDD deployment
...but those HDDs are going to hold data for far more than twice as long. It's especially infuriating to see such secrecy and vagueness around the real endurance/retention characteristics for SSDs as expensive as these.
On the other hand, 60TB of SLC for the same price would probably be a great deal.
crote 28 minutes ago [-]
Perhaps their usual buyers just care less about retention?
Those drives aren't going to be used for cold storage, and it is basically a guarantee that there will be checksums and some form of redundancy. Who cares whether the data is retained for 10 or for 15 years after writing when you can do a low-priority background scrub of the entire drive once a month, and when there are already mechanisms in place to account for full-drive failure?
delamon 15 minutes ago [-]
QLC retention reported to be around 1 year in unpowered state. I would assume, that drive does background refresh, though. No idea what effect it has on total drive lifetime. It is still mean that if you use it for cold storage it has to be powered.
rbanffy 1 hours ago [-]
You can trivially modulate flash endurance by tweaking the reported space - the less space you report, the more spares you have.
1. For comparison, an HDD usually comes in around ~10 watts
Now, I would LOVE to see this much SLC flash on a direct to bus attachment setting.
No need to worry about cooling when each layer in the sandwich is only a fraction of a micrometer thick!
Note that the 245TB is an E3L, the half size version of it come in smaller size.
https://americas.kioxia.com/en-ca/business/ssd/solution/edsf...
https://www.exxactcorp.com/blog/storage/edsff-e1s-e1l-e3s-e3...
https://www.simms.co.uk/tech-talk/e1s-e1l-the-new-server-for...
You don't have permission to access
"http://investors.micron.com/news-releases/news-release-detai..." on this server.
High security on this press release.
So it's not exactly about cost savings, but having the option to do more, faster.
Also, you could also get much higher bandwidth density out of this vs HDD, and this is great for AI training
I haven't bought a hard drive or an SSD in at least a decade (I get stuff for free, basically) but…that seems a bit high, right?
Seems like well-rated consumer-level SSDs cost around $250 for 1TB right now.
What accounts for the premium price/TB of these extremely high capacity enterprise-targeted drives?
Spare capacity, mostly. That’s why they have higher endurance. If you want to double the endurance of a given drive, tell the controller to allocate twice as many spare blocks and report less capacity than you would otherwise.
In this case, you are also paying a premium for the PCIe attachment instead of SAS, and a lot for price elasticity. You see, with drives like these you slash space and energy consumption in relation to HDDs by a large number, and that allows you to pay a premium for the device, because, at the end of its lifetime, it’ll have more than covered the cost difference in saved space and energy.
The word "enterprise".
They’re currently selling for $942.72 on Amazon.
The datasheet shows 3GB/s sequential write, which for 245.76TB means writing the whole drive takes around 22h45m. Odd that the endurance is specified as "1.0 SDWPD", which is almost meaningless since the drive takes roughly that long to write at full speed.
At scale, 1.9 times more energy is required for an HDD deployment
...but those HDDs are going to hold data for far more than twice as long. It's especially infuriating to see such secrecy and vagueness around the real endurance/retention characteristics for SSDs as expensive as these.
On the other hand, 60TB of SLC for the same price would probably be a great deal.
Those drives aren't going to be used for cold storage, and it is basically a guarantee that there will be checksums and some form of redundancy. Who cares whether the data is retained for 10 or for 15 years after writing when you can do a low-priority background scrub of the entire drive once a month, and when there are already mechanisms in place to account for full-drive failure?