What storage form factor due you think will decrease in usage the most over the next 5 years?

[cbn]

What storage form factor due you think will decrease in usage the most over the next 5 years?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Decrease will be 3.5" mainly. I dont see 2.5 or m.2 going anywhere fast.

 

[Indus]

I think 2.5 is the most likely to stay viable provided they get big in capacity upto 4TB and up for $100.

M.2 is fine but not really my preferred medium for boot disks.

The 3.5" rotary disks have to go.. the only thing holding them back are they're cheap currently.

 

[Billy Tallis]

The 2.5" form factor will be the one to decline the most relative to other form factors. 2.5" hard drives will be all but extinct 5 years from now, because they have no place in the datacenter and are being replaced by SSDs in the client market. 2.5" SSDs in the datacenter will start to be replaced by EDSFF and NF1 due to the higher density and better cooling. 2.5" SSDs in the client market will be declining as more laptop designs give up on providing for a 2.5" hard drive option and switch to M.2 SATA or PCIe. In the desktop space, 2.5" SATA will be declining in favor of NVMe drives, and 2.5" U.2 isn't going to catch on in the consumer space.

3.5" hard drives will decline a bit in the client space as desktops in general decline and move more toward solid state storage, but 3.5" drives will still be important in the datacenter (and the relatively minuscule consumer NAS market).

M.2 will see further uptake in the consumer market that more than offsets the decline of M.2 in the datacenter as it gets replaced by EDSFF or NF1.

 

[IntelUser2000]

2.5" inch HDDs will decline faster than 3.5" because the former is in laptops. SSDs are already over 50% of the sold drives in laptops because of this. However, HDDs are still the king for desktops.

3.5" will continue to exist because client desktop market is all about low cost for vast majority of the sold systems and while there might be a gradual marketshare loss, the absolute $/GB advantage HDDs have over SSDs won't disappear as the latter runs into further issues with shrinks and vertical stacking. 10 year projection says HDDs should continue to have 10x advantage in density per dollar. Not only HDDs are a mere fraction of the cost per GB over SSDs, they are better for long term storage. A 2TB HDD costs same as the 256GB SSD. With 256GB you'll easily run into capacity issues because Windows and applications get quickly bloated.

2.5 inch SSDs will also get replaced by M.2. SSDs are premium devices and both are expensive anyway. The market tends to lean towards either extremes. M.2 offers potentially better performance, and takes much less space.

 

[nosirrahx]

Huge capacity 3.5 inch drives in servers seem to just keep getting larger, don't seem to be going anywhere.

M.2 is the way to go in anything that needs to be small and capacities are starting to get reasonable, price will come down on them eventually.

If prices come down on huge capacity 2.5 inch SSDs they will become super popular for just about any desktop user that wants to simplify down to a single drive.


I guess with the added benefit of M.2 needing 0 cables it should start replacing 2.5 inch in theory.

If we reach a point where a 4TB NVMe M.2 drive and a 4TB SATA M.2 drive are the same price, there really is no need for 2.5 inch at all, at least for consumers.

 

[dlerious]

2.5" inch HDDs will decline faster than 3.5" because the former is in laptops. SSDs are already over 50% of the sold drives in laptops because of this. However, HDDs are still the king for desktops.

3.5" will continue to exist because client desktop market is all about low cost for vast majority of the sold systems and while there might be a gradual marketshare loss, the absolute $/GB advantage HDDs have over SSDs won't disappear as the latter runs into further issues with shrinks and vertical stacking. 10 year projection says HDDs should continue to have 10x advantage in density per dollar. Not only HDDs are a mere fraction of the cost per GB over SSDs, they are better for long term storage. A 2TB HDD costs same as the 256GB SSD. With 256GB you'll easily run into capacity issues because Windows and applications get quickly bloated.

2.5 inch SSDs will also get replaced by M.2. SSDs are premium devices and both are expensive anyway. The market tends to lean towards either extremes. M.2 offers potentially better performance, and takes much less space.

That's about where I'm at. I still use HDD in my desktops - it's really hard to beat the cost and capacity for storage drives. SSD are used more than Nvme mainly due to cost, although if I have a workload that can take advantage of the faster speeds, I'll opt for Nvme.

 

[HutchinsonJC]

The 2.5" form factor will be the one to decline the most relative to other form factors. 2.5" hard drives will be all but extinct 5 years from now, because they have no place in the datacenter and are being replaced by SSDs in the client market.

SSDs are 2.5" form factor

2.5" inch HDDs will decline faster than 3.5" because the former is in laptops. SSDs are already over 50% of the sold drives in laptops because of this.

SSDs are 2.5" form factor

 

[Not So Mild]

I agree with most here that 2.5" drives will be the first to go. 3.5" drives have a very huge presence in datacenters and servers in general and I don't see them getting replaced anytime soon. They are mainly used where price/capacity is the only factor considered and there is no way that 2.5" or m.2 can compete with them any time soon (more than likely ever).

As far as what's next, it's hard to say. I'd say that m.2 will disappear next, but not in the next 5 years. m.2 will be around until the next form factor is out, and even then I don't know. m.2 is so nice for not having cables connected, super small form factor that doesn't leave much of a presence at all, and the ability to have insanely high speeds (for today's standards). The only things that it needs improved upon is price and heat.

3.5" is probably also going to be here a while. It has a dominant place in datacenters, and datacenters aren't going away any time soon. Unless for some odd reason we need better performance in the majority of our datacenters, they might switch over to 2.5" ssds, but I don't see that transition happening.

 

[IntelUser2000]

SSDs are 2.5" form factor

SSDs are 2.5" form factor

Can you repeat that one more time?

2.5" inch HDDs will decline faster than 3.5" because the former is in laptops. SSDs are already over 50% of the sold drives in laptops because of this.

Yes, I know HDDs stand for Hard Disk Drive, and you can argue that NAND SSDs are HDDs too, but its a generally accepted HDDs mean drives with very fast spinning platters.

 

[cbn]

Results so far:

1. M.2 the most, followed by 2.5" and then 3.5"
   1 vote(s)
   10.0%
2. M.2 the most, followed by 3,5" and then 2.5"
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
3. 2.5" the most. followed by M.2 and then 3.5"
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
4. 2.5" the most, followed by 3.5" and then M.2
   2 vote(s)
   20.0%
5. 3.5" the most, followed by M.2 and then 2.5"
   1 vote(s)
   10.0%
6. 3.5" the most, followed by 2.5" and then M.2
   6 vote(s)
   60.0%

Interesting that only 20% (via poll options #1 and #5) think that 2.5" won't decrease more than M.2.

I voted M.2 would decrease more than 2.5" (via poll option #1) because I think NVDIMM-P (and SO-NVDIMM-P) will have a strong effect replacing/reducing M.2 but not 2.5".

(So (in many cases) a laptop that once had DDR4 SO-DIMMs and M.2 moves to (SO-)NVDIMM-P and a laptop that once had DDR4 SO-DIMMs, M.2 and 2.5" moves to (SO-)NVDIMM-P and 2.5")

P.S. Final specifications for NVDIMM-P are supposed to be released sometime in the next ~2 months.

 

[Billy Tallis]

NVDIMMs won't be showing up in the consumer market for at least a few years, and won't have any significant impact within the 5-year window we're talking about. NVDIMMs will be replacing high-end enterprise NVMe SSDs, not the SATA and low-end NVMe SSDs that make up the bulk of M.2 volume.

 

[HutchinsonJC]

Can you repeat that one more time?

Sure,

SSDs are 2.5" form factor

OP's Question:
What storage form factor due you think will decrease in usage the most over the next 5 years?

 

[Billy Tallis]

Sure,

SSDs are 2.5" form factor

OP's Question:
What storage form factor due you think will decrease in usage the most over the next 5 years?

Repeating it doesn't make it less wrong. "SSD" and "2.5" form factor" are in no way synonymous. There are plenty of SSDs in form factors other than 2.5", and plenty of 2.5" storage devices that aren't SSDs.

If you have something to contribute to this discussion, please endeavor to make your future posts more coherent.

 

[HutchinsonJC]

I agree that SSD doesn't automatically mean 2.5", but there's this relationship between the two that just seems bonkers to me to try to act like it doesn't exist.

Plus, the 2.5" form factor is pretty universal for laptops, and being able to put either an HDD or an SSD there, doesn't seem like a concept that's going out the window any time soon.

 

[BSim500]

Just Internal or External as well? Given how 99% of consumer backup solutions consists of millions of 1-4TB 2.5" portable HDD's being sold each year, I don't see 2.5" backup drives popularity dying out at all just because you don't have one on the inside of the PC's case as a boot drive... Same with 3.5" drives, what do people think 99% of the Internet is hosted on (or what goes inside home NAS's, security surveillance, etc)?

Perhaps a better question - how long until we see 8-10TB SSD's for $300-$350 that don't have mediocre rock-bottom durability sub 500 P/E cycles of QLC that's highly unsuited to server / regular write loads, because that's when we can start arguing about "the death of HDD's" and it actually be more than a few geeks talking up a recent consumer SSD purchase used as a boot-drive purchase then falsely extrapolating "low user requirement" usage onto servers, data-centres, cold storage, etc.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Perhaps a better question - how long until we see 8-10TB SSD's for $300-$350 that don't have mediocre rock-bottom durability sub 500 P/E cycles of QLC that's highly unsuited to server / regular write loads,

Server not so much, but for consumers QLC should work fine, especially at 8-10TB capacities.

1TB Intel 660p SSD is rated at 200TBW, plenty for most people, heck even for most enthusiasts. A 512GB 760p is only at 288TBW. It's not a make-or-break difference. At 10TB, the same SSD is going to be rated at 2PBW. Not to mention improved controllers can increase effective write cycle rating, and as production ramps up, better yield QLC cells are going to achieve more write cycles too.

I don't see anyone complaining about TLC when just a few years ago it was the death knell for SSDs. There are enterprise TLC drives out there and not rated for read-only either.

I voted M.2 would decrease more than 2.5" (via poll option #1) because I think NVDIMM-P (and SO-NVDIMM-P) will have a strong effect replacing/reducing M.2 but not 2.5".

The thing about M.2 is that its in its own category, and is less likely to get displaced. NVDIMM already has a competitor in regular DRAM slots and increased complexity in supporting both will make it more of a niche market. NVDIMMs that properly take advantage of the DIMM slot will be high cost and will be really only for the high end for quite a while.

3.5" is probably also going to be here a while.

The 3.5" also has a big presence in desktops.

 

[cbn]

Don't forget that NVDIMM-P also has DRAM on it.....so it is not a pure Non-volatile DIMM:

(Also thinking ahead to DDR5, I'd imagine there will plenty of room on a DIMM or SO-DIMM if only 8GB (or even 16GB) of DRAM is used per stick. In fact, Doesn't it seem like the extra PCB real estate available for non-volatile memory (at typical consumer PC DRAM levels*) is one reason why NVDIMM-P is being developed?)

*8GB to 16GB DRAM

 

[IntelUser2000]

Don't forget that NVDIMM-P also has DRAM on it.....so it is not a pure Non-volatile DIMM:

Being a DIMM will always result in being a highest cost option. Whether you go the route of Optane DIMMs where it'll need a separate DRAM DIMM to work with Optane DIMMs, or NVDIMM-P having DRAM chips in the same DIMM.

Say if you want to replace or upgrade your storage, and one system is using NVMe storage, and the other is using NVDIMM storage. The NVDIMM option means you are needing to use extra(or spare) DIMM slots, and NVDIMM-P means you are paying for the cost of DRAM and NV memory. That's why I think NVMe will continue to be a medium of choice for storage.

I don't see 2.5" backup drives popularity dying out at all just because you don't have one on the inside of the PC's case as a boot drive...

You are right. All formats will likely continue to exist. Heck, even Tape drives are still used today. They are also known as good for long term storage. The decline then, is probably best described in terms of % share, as the volume may yet be stable into the future.

Western Digital had an interesting slide where they say as you get closer to DRAM's endurance in write cycles and in performance, not only price per bit increases but persistence decreases. Micron also had a slide where they said 3D XPoint devices that perform very close to DRAM and has endurance much closer to it has persistence close to DRAM(so, pretty short) as well. The 3D XPoint device that's in the middle ground in performance and endurance also has persistence closer to NAND than DRAM.

Even Intel says through Optane AMA that NAND or HDDs may be better for storing static data. It's an fascinating trade-off, where you can't get everything you want in one solution.

 

[dlerious]

I'd like to see something like affordable holographic storage though I haven't heard much about it in a few years.

 

[cbn]

Some additional competition for M.2:

1. BGA SSDs. These are smaller than even M.2 2242 and are available in either NVMe or SATA.

2. UFS 3.0

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I agree that SSD doesn't automatically mean 2.5", but there's this relationship between the two that just seems bonkers to me to try to act like it doesn't exist.

Plus, the 2.5" form factor is pretty universal for laptops, and being able to put either an HDD or an SSD there, doesn't seem like a concept that's going out the window any time soon.

Congratulations; you've discovered time travel! Please tell the other people in 2016 tha^^ +++NO CARRIER+++

(But seriously - most Ultrabooks already dropped the 2.5" bay. m.2 devices have price parity w/ 2.5" SATA SSDs now, so if budget-conscious consumers stop accepting HDD performance as "good enough", m.2 will complete the takeover.)

 

[HutchinsonJC]

Nope, no time travel discovery.

I just have people who want full size laptops for travel. I've got one right now that I have to buy a new battery for.

Budget-conscious consumers are often consumers with next to no technical expertise. They buy it because it's cheap and it works.

 

[cbn]

(But seriously - most Ultrabooks already dropped the 2.5" bay. m.2 devices have price parity w/ 2.5" SATA SSDs now, so if budget-conscious consumers stop accepting HDD performance as "good enough", m.2 will complete the takeover.)

Actually I think it is eMMC that is a stronger competitor to 2.5" HDD in budget laptops. (Reason: eMMC is faster than 2.5" HDD and cheaper than M.2 SATA).

The biggest advantage M.2 SATA has over eMMC 5.1 (which maxes out at 256GB) is higher capacity......but when used at higher capacity (480GB to 512GB) it is no longer a budget part anymore being >2x expensive compared to 500GB 2.5" HDD.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100011693 8000 4814 601193224 600414919&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&ActiveSearchResult=True&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100167524 600003490 4814 8000&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE&page=1

P.S. Assuming 480GB to 512GB M.2 SATA SSDs drop in price over the next 5 years.....it will still have to compete with UFS. In fact, UFS 3.0 is already at 512GB for 2019.

 

[cbn]

Say if you want to replace or upgrade your storage, and one system is using NVMe storage, and the other is using NVDIMM storage. The NVDIMM option means you are needing to use extra(or spare) DIMM slots, and NVDIMM-P means you are paying for the cost of DRAM and NV memory. That's why I think NVMe will continue to be a medium of choice for storage.

If using a PC with (SO-) NVDIMM-P vs. a PC with (SO-) DIMM (ie, DRAM-only) + M.2 NVMe.............both systems would require the removal of existing storage and replacement with higher capacity storage.

So I don't think in that respect there is advantage using NVMe + (SO-) DIMM (ie, DRAM-only) vs. (SO-) DIMM-P.

In fact, I even wonder if (SO-) NVDIMM-P could even promote more bits per cell Optane to be used compared to Optane on NVMe. (reason: It could be that future generation TLC/QLC Optane on DIMM has lower latency than future generation MLC (or even SLC) Optane on NVMe. This multi-bit per cell Optane allocation on DIMM coming after whatever SLC Optane on the DIMM is needed for System memory). So if this happens then actually (SO-) NVDIMM-P could be a more economical way to deploy future generation Optane than NVMe*.

*up to a certain point.