this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
173 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

64937 readers
3950 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
173
'Writing is on the wall for spinning rust': IBM joins Pure Storage in claiming disk drives will go the way of the dodo in enterprises (www.techradar.com)
submitted 1 day ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (4 children)

No shit. All they have to do is finally grow the balls to build SSD's in the same form factor as the 3.5" drives everyone in enterprise is already using, and stuff those to the gills with flash chips.

"But that will cannibalize our artificially price inflated/capacity restricted M.2 sales if consumers get their hands on them!!!"

Yep, it sure will. I'll take ten, please.

Something like that could easily fill the oodles of existing bays that are currently filled with mechanical drives, both in the home user/small scale enthusiast side and existing rackmount stuff. But that'd be too easy.

[–] Hozerkiller@lemmy.ca -1 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I hope youre not putting m.2 drives in a server if you plan on reading the data from them at some point. Those are for consumers and there's an entirely different formfactor for enterprise storage using nvme drives.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Tell me, what would be the issue of reading data from an m.2 drive in a server?

[–] Hozerkiller@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

M.2 drives like to get hot and die. They work great until they don't.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Enterprise systems do have m.2, though admittedly its only really used as pretty disposable boot volumes.

Though they aren't used as data volumes so much, it's not due to unreliability, it's due to hot swap and power levels.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 points 1 day ago

there are plenty of enterprise u.2 and m.2 22110 on ebay

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'll shed no tears, even as a NAS owner, once we get equivalent capacity SSD without ruining the bank :P

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Considering the high prices for high density SSD chips...
Why are there no 3.5" SSDs with low density chips?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

So can someone make 3.5" SSDs then????

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They can be made any size. Most SATA SSD are just a plastic housing around a board with some chips on it. The right question is when will we have a storage technology with the durability and reliability of spinning magnetized hard drive platters. The nand flash chips used in most SSD and m.2 are much more reliable than they were initially. But for long-term retention Etc. Are still off quite a good bit from traditional hard drives. Hard drives can sit for about 10 years generally before bit rot becomes a major concern. Nand flash is only a year or two iirc.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why? We can cram 61TB into a slightly overgrown 2.5” and like half a PB per rack unit.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Because we don't have to pack it in too much. It'd be higher capacities for cheaper for consumers

Also cooling

[–] enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It’s not the packaging that costs money or limits us, it’s the chips themselves. If we crammed a 3.5” form factor full of flash storage, it would be far outside the budgets of mortals.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You could make the chips bigger, which should be cheaper to produce.

[–] enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Nope. Larger chips, lower yields in the fab, more expensive. This is why we have chiplets in our CPUs nowadays. Production cost of chips is superlinear to size.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Given that there are already 32TB 2.5” SSDs, what does a 3.5” buy you that you couldn’t get with an adapter?

[–] KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Native slotting into server drive cages. No concerns about alignment with the front or back.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

The market for customers that want to buy new disks but do not want to buy new storage/servers with EDSFF is not a particularly attractive market to target.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 21 hours ago

What kind of server? Dell's caddies have adapters, and I'm pretty sure some have screw holes on the bottom so you don't need an adapter.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They should be cheaper since theres a bunch more space to work with. You don't have to make the storage chips as small.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Chips that can't fit on a 76mm board do not exist in any market. There's been some fringe chasing of waferscale for compute, but it's a nightmare of cost and yield with zero applicable benefits for storage. You can fit more chips on a bigger board with fewer controllers, but a 3.5" form factor wouldn't have any more usable board surface area than an E1.L design, and not much more than an E3.L. There's enough height in the thickest 3.5" to combine 3 boards, but that middle board at least would be absolutely starved for airflow, unless you changed specifications around expected airflow for 3.5" devices and made it ventilated.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A better price as low density chips are cheaper.
And you can fit in more of those in a bigger space = Cheaper.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] synicalx@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

A big heat sink like they used to put on WD Raptor drives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xyguy@startrek.website 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Relevant video about the problems with high capacity ssds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2i8wZCXDF4

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

I'm not particularly interested to watch a 40 minute video, so I skinned the transcript a bit.

As my other comments show, I know there are reasons why 3.5 inch doesn't make sense in SSD context, but I didn't see anything in a skim of the transcript that seems relevant to that question. They are mostly talking about storage density rather than why not package bigger (and that industry is packaging bigger, but not anything resembling 3.5", because it doesn't make sense).

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

Fourty minutes? Yeah, no. How about an equivalent text that can be parsed in five?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I want them like my 8" floppies!

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Meanwhile Western Digital moves away from SSD production and back to HDDs for massive storage of AI and data lakes and such: https://www.techspot.com/news/107039-western-digital-exits-ssd-market-shifts-focus-hard.html

[–] Mataresian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yea but isn't that more because SanDisk is going to fully focus on that? Or what am I missing?

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

That SanDisk is it's own company now.
But I don't k ow if they are still a subsidiary or completely spun of WD.

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Hdds were a fad, I'm waiting for the return of tape drives. 500TB on a $20 cartridge and I can live with the 2 minute seek time.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

It's not a real hard disk unless you can get it to walk across the server room anyway.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Tape drives are still definitely a thing.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

If you exclude the introductory price of the drive and needing specialized software to read/write to it it's very affordable €/TB

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 20 hours ago

Tapes are still sold in pretty high densities, don't have to wait!

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

Spinning rust is a funny way of describing HDDs, but I immediately get it

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just replace then all with flash, along with bluray (or other optical storage) for archival.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 1 points 17 hours ago

Optical media is not good for archival unless you're buying discs specifically manufactured for archival purposes.

[–] _chris@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My datacenter is 80% nvme at this point. Just naturally. It's crazy.

[–] doodledup@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nvme is terrible value for storage density. There is no reason to use it except when you need the speed and low latency.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] randompasta@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago

Just like magnetic tape! Oh wait..

[–] NeuronautML@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

I doubt it. SSDs are subject to quantuum tunneling. This means if you don't power up an SSD once in 2-5 years, your data is gone. HDDs have no such qualms. So long as they still spin, there's your data and when they no longer do, you still have the heads inside.

So you have a use case that SSDs will never replace, cold data storage. I use them for my cold offsite back ups.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›