Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Memory and Storage

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-24-2012, 12:59 AM   #1
ronbo613
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 401
Default The Future of HDD?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomcough...re-hdd-growth/
ronbo613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 02:51 AM   #2
lawlz
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 59
Default

No mention of SSD technology being far superior?
lawlz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 03:23 AM   #3
BFG10K
Lifer
 
BFG10K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawlz View Post
No mention of SSD technology being far superior?
The 'Egg has 3TB Barracudas for $150, or 5c per GB. SSDs will be very lucky to reach that metric in 5 years.
__________________
4790K | Titan | 16GB DDR3-1600 | Z97-K | 128GB Samsung 830 | 960GB Crucial M500 | 1TB VelociRaptor | X-Fi XtremeMusic | Seasonic X 560W | Fractal Arc R2 Midi | 30" HP LP3065
BFG10K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 04:17 AM   #4
biostud
Lifer
 
biostud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 12,934
Default

More and more content will be streaming and online storage. But for storage of photos and video the hdd still gives the best $/gb.
__________________
i5-750 @ 3.8Ghz | 4x2Gb | Gigabyte P55m-UD4 | Samsung EVO 500GB | 3TB HDD | Corsair AX860 | XFX 7990 | Corsair 550D | Achieva Shimian 2560x1440
Lappy: HP ProBook 6360B | i5-2410M | 256GB Crucial M4 | 4GB |
Sound: Cambridge Audio DacMagic | NAD-T750 | Dali Mentor Menuet | B&W ASW608
Camera: Nikon D5100 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 + Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 + 85mm f/1.8G | Nissin Di600 | Phone: Lumia 920
biostud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 05:13 AM   #5
Blain
Lifer
 
Blain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Indiana
Posts: 22,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronbo613 View Post
No... Thomas Coughlin makes a living writing about tech, but he isn't Nostradamus
__________________
USA...
Too many delicate hothouse flowers
Blain is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 07:20 AM   #6
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 10,150
Default

HDs will only be on a downward spiral. Only to end up in smaller segments like tapes.

I wouldnt be surprised if HD development stagnates. Or even prices going up as volume decreases.

I think I recall seeing that 80% of all shipped laptops in 2015 is expected to be with SSDs.
__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-24-2012 at 07:22 AM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 12:08 PM   #7
Jeff7181
Lifer
 
Jeff7181's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 18,121
Default

HDD's aren't going anywhere anytime soon. The argument is analogous to the argument that tape is going away. While it may be less prevalent, it's often the best way to move many TB of data off-site every day via services such as Iron Mountain rather than spending a fortune on the network connectivity required to do the same thing.

HDD vs. SSD is the same situation. For consumers who need a few hundred GB of storage now, or a few TB in the near future, SSD's will fit that segment. However, SSD just won't cut it for the enterprise. There are storage vendors on the verge of shipping 4U disk shelves loaded with 48 3.5 inch SATA drives. With 4TB drives available now, and 6TB drives possible next year you can't tell me that flash will replace spindles anytime soon. That's easily over 1 PB per 4U shelf even taking into account disks used for parity and hotspares.

Currently where I work, we're struggling to find a use for SSD for two reasons. One, a 2-3 hundred 15k SAS disk aggregate is FAST. Add a few TB of read cache and a 100 GB write cache and unless you're reading/writing the full capacity of your storage system, you'll be hard pressed to see a difference between all those spindles and cache vs. SSD. And two, with 1 shelf of SSD having only about 1.5TB of usable space we'd need 6 shelves for our largest data set. That's half a rack. To put all our other performance sensitive data sets on SSD, we'd need at least 24 more shelves of SSD. Two and a half racks just to house the disk we currently need for our working data sets with no room to grow as opposed to 1 rack of 15k SAS and an expansion slot taken up in the head for a 2 TB flash memory cache module.
__________________
"The Universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life." - Lawrence Krauss
Authorized Amsoil Dealer
Jeff7181 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 12:38 PM   #8
ronbo613
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
But for storage of photos and video the hdd still gives the best $/gb.
No way would I be able to afford SSDs to store my photos and videos. I have more than 2TB(and counting) of scanned slides and negatives, that's before digital photo files. Digital HD video at 12-14G per hour? Double that(at least) for backup. Uses up storage pretty quickly.
Cloud storage may be the future, but it is too expensive for me at this stage of the game and, pardon me for being a little paranoid, but I would prefer to not store my precious photos off site.
Depends on what you do. For average personal use, cloud storage and a single SSD in your computer is fine. For heavy duty computing, you need more.
Quote:
The 'Egg has 3TB Barracudas for $150, or 5c per GB.
I saw a WD Black 4TB hard drive at newegg today for $330. I would love to have a few of those, just can't afford it right now.
ronbo613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 12:41 PM   #9
Mr. Pedantic
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 4,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blain View Post
No... Thomas Coughlin makes a living writing about tech, but he isn't Nostradamus
That's a good thing, it means his predictions might actually mean something.
Mr. Pedantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 12:43 PM   #10
KentState
Diamond Member
 
KentState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 5,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff7181 View Post
...
Agree. We even found that the aggregate of HDD is plenty fast to fully saturate a Cisco Nexus switch with just a little bit of SSD caching and storage. At my current job, we archive a lot of documents and the need for HDD storage will remain for a long time. There is absolutely 0 benefit to SSD when access time isn't a major priority.
KentState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 01:54 PM   #11
dagamer34
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,540
Default

SSDs in consumer products (focus on speed).
Magnetic hard drives in servers (focus on storage space).
Tape drives for backup (focus on longevity).
dagamer34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 04:31 PM   #12
NikolaeVarius
Diamond Member
 
NikolaeVarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,690
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KentState View Post
Agree. We even found that the aggregate of HDD is plenty fast to fully saturate a Cisco Nexus switch with just a little bit of SSD caching and storage. At my current job, we archive a lot of documents and the need for HDD storage will remain for a long time. There is absolutely 0 benefit to SSD when access time isn't a major priority.
How about fewer points of failure due to lack of moving parts, less heat, lower power consumption.
__________________
Boom, phrasing.
NikolaeVarius is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 04:55 PM   #13
philipma1957
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Howell NJ
Posts: 1,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaeVarius View Post
How about fewer points of failure due to lack of moving parts, less heat, lower power consumption.
how much power do 6x 512gb ssds pull vs 1x 3tb hdd.


BTW I am a pro ssd user,

but if you are storing 2tb info in 6 ssds raid0 vs 2tb info in 1x 3tb hdd power and failure are not going to be much in favor of the ssd's if at all.
__________________
1)Intel i7-3770k. i5-4670
2)sapphire hd7790 , sapphire hd7970
3)samsung 4x 4gb low profile ram
4)antec ea450 seasonic 760 platinum
5)asus maximus v gene mobo asrock itx-e
6)fractal case cooler master elite 120 case.
philipma1957 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 06:02 PM   #14
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 10,150
Default

We use SSDs alot in the server space. Specially for database servers and other with high I/O. For some servers, HDs are simply not an option due to speed. But 10 HDs uses close to 100W. 10 SSDs uses...10W? Thats also 90W in 24/7 operation. And 90W that needs 30W of cooling or so.
__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 06:38 PM   #15
KentState
Diamond Member
 
KentState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 5,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaeVarius View Post
How about fewer points of failure due to lack of moving parts, less heat, lower power consumption.
More shelves, more disk, more rack space, more power, more expensive, more controllers. How many SSD's would it take at 240GB each to get to 80TB compared to 600GB-1TB disk? How much more will that run at $1000 per 240GB Intel SSD vs $600 for a SAS drive? It's a rather pointless and expensive investment at the enterprise level and provides nothing for file storage.

Secondly, who cares about failure of a disk every now and then? They are all under warranty and typically replaced by the SAN vendor before you know they actually failed. Also, if you are renting hosting space, you are given an allotment of power per rack with cooling already factored in. A fully loaded SAN running HDD will not typically be a problem.
KentState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 07:00 PM   #16
VirtualLarry
Lifer
 
VirtualLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
10 SSDs uses...10W?
I would say 20-30W, realistically, if they were all loaded at once.
__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec
VirtualLarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 07:01 PM   #17
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 10,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KentState View Post
More shelves, more disk, more rack space, more power, more expensive, more controllers. How many SSD's would it take at 240GB each to get to 80TB compared to 600GB-1TB disk? How much more will that run at $1000 per 240GB Intel SSD vs $600 for a SAS drive? It's a rather pointless and expensive investment at the enterprise level and provides nothing for file storage.

Secondly, who cares about failure of a disk every now and then? They are all under warranty and typically replaced by the SAN vendor before you know they actually failed. Also, if you are renting hosting space, you are given an allotment of power per rack with cooling already factored in. A fully loaded SAN running HDD will not typically be a problem.
You can get SSDs much larger than 240GB.

And the price difference for performance drives:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148975
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148531

HDs only got the slow large storage segment left.
__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-24-2012 at 07:06 PM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 07:14 PM   #18
KentState
Diamond Member
 
KentState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 5,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
You can get SSDs much larger than 240GB.

And the price difference for performance drives:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148975
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148531

HDs only got the slow large storage segment left.
Your second link is broke. EMC and Netapp typically only put 120GB or 240GB SLC drives in their sans. You can easily saturate a Nexus switch running just the slow HDD so I'm not sure how they are just relegated to the "slow" segment.
KentState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 08:06 PM   #19
jolancer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 469
Default

Just my opinion...

consumer and enterprize usage compairisons have alot of differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaeVarius View Post
How about fewer points of failure due to lack of moving parts, less heat, lower power consumption.
In theory that sounds correct but from what iv heard around so far none of that actually applies yet to private consumer usage. SSDs seem to have there own set of issues and failure risks on the consumer end, and for the average user since an HDD isn't constantly reading/writing data all day like it might be in enterprize situations, the power consumption levels compared to SSDs is still moot at this point.

I dont go outa my way to find what maybe going on few years from now, but just my opinion... there maybe a phase of hybrid development after SSD catches up to HDD(price wise/bug wise/reliability/etc) similar to implementation of hybrid vehicals
jolancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 08:16 PM   #20
BFG10K
Lifer
 
BFG10K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biostud View Post
More and more content will be streaming and online storage.
Cloud still needs something to store it on. I think all that'll happen is a market shift, where some of the HDDs that used to reside in PCs will now reside in cloud data stores. But HDD use will go up because data requirements are going up.

I personally wouldn't trust cloud at all. All it takes is a connection failure at either end and suddenly your data is inaccessible. Streaming sucks too as many people have meter broadband and/or data caps. I'd much rather have a Bluray disc that I can watch whenever I please.
__________________
4790K | Titan | 16GB DDR3-1600 | Z97-K | 128GB Samsung 830 | 960GB Crucial M500 | 1TB VelociRaptor | X-Fi XtremeMusic | Seasonic X 560W | Fractal Arc R2 Midi | 30" HP LP3065
BFG10K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 08:33 PM   #21
BFG10K
Lifer
 
BFG10K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
You can get SSDs much larger than 240GB.

And the price difference for performance drives:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148975
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148531

HDs only got the slow large storage segment left.
You can get HDDs much larger than 1TB too; several vendors have enterprise rated 4TB versions.

Heck, 1TB VelociRaptors are enterprise rated, and the 'Egg has them for ~$220.
__________________
4790K | Titan | 16GB DDR3-1600 | Z97-K | 128GB Samsung 830 | 960GB Crucial M500 | 1TB VelociRaptor | X-Fi XtremeMusic | Seasonic X 560W | Fractal Arc R2 Midi | 30" HP LP3065
BFG10K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 08:50 PM   #22
ronbo613
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 401
Default

Maybe the future is neither HDD or SSD, it may be something beyond both of those technologies...
ronbo613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 09:55 PM   #23
blastingcap
Diamond Member
 
blastingcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BFG10K View Post
Cloud still needs something to store it on. I think all that'll happen is a market shift, where some of the HDDs that used to reside in PCs will now reside in cloud data stores. But HDD use will go up because data requirements are going up.

I personally wouldn't trust cloud at all. All it takes is a connection failure at either end and suddenly your data is inaccessible. Streaming sucks too as many people have meter broadband and/or data caps. I'd much rather have a Bluray disc that I can watch whenever I please.
I agree with you re: cloud. Bandwidth speeds and costs, plus security concerns, make me not want to entrust any more than I already do to the cloud--and I do entrust a lot already (kindle, gmail, gdrive for smaller docs). I draw the line at media like my personal photos/music/videos.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
We had to suffer polygonal boobs for a decade because of selfish corporate reasons.
Main: 3570K + R9 290 + 16GB 1866 + AsRock Extreme4 Z77 + Eyefinity 5760x1080 eIPS
blastingcap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 12:09 AM   #24
exdeath
Lifer
 
exdeath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,450
Default

GB/s >>>>> $/GB

A million terabytes is useless to me if I can only access it at 90 kilobytes per second and want to hang myself and avoid using my computer any time I need something.

Get with the 21st century already. Nobody accesses data at kilobytes per second anymore. WTF?

My damn wireless phone has a higher transfer than the random access transfer rate of a spinning metal plate.

Last edited by exdeath; 12-25-2012 at 12:13 AM.
exdeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 07:48 AM   #25
beginner99
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BFG10K View Post
Cloud still needs something to store it on. I think all that'll happen is a market shift, where some of the HDDs that used to reside in PCs will now reside in cloud data stores. But HDD use will go up because data requirements are going up.

I personally wouldn't trust cloud at all. All it takes is a connection failure at either end and suddenly your data is inaccessible. Streaming sucks too as many people have meter broadband and/or data caps. I'd much rather have a Bluray disc that I can watch whenever I please.
exactly. Not to mention that there just is not enough bandwidth for the cloud, not even close. Were I live download is ok but upload is just unusable. Only thing the "cloud" can be used is for backing up documents in the MB range which was possible a decade ago (email storage...) without the need for calling it "the cloud".

And yeah availability will also be a great issue...
beginner99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.