• Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    More density means less longevity, less write cycles before the blocks wear out, also decreases the time before Nand leakage can end up corrupting the data. Doesn’t seem like a good thing to me.

    Oh yeah, also more storage space causes complacency with developers who will terribly optimize their games because they don’t have to worry about games not fitting on people’s disks. Think 100GB games is bad it’ll get much worse when they got more free space at their disposal, and worse, the perception that their customers have tons of free space as well.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 hour ago

      For the first part, as long as it isn’t too bad and it gets detected, and has methods for mitigating damage from losses, that’s fine. If you get a lot more capacity but lose some over time, you still have more capacity.

      For the latter, yeah it does but do they even care now? Personally, I don’t play any games that large really anyway, so it doesn’t effect me. Let them lose you as a customer too if that’s an issue and they surpass how much you’ll put up with.

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Not yet, unless the higher capacity comes at a much lower price. HDDs are fine for the price currently

    • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      nar. HDDs don’t require power to maintain their state. So that’s an advantage they’ll always have over SSDs, which means there will be use-cases where HDDs are the better choice.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        SSDs can reliably hold charge states for years, and there are storage media that are more reliable than HDD.

        HDD’s would still find a niche, probably, as a balanced option, but said niche will likely get smaller and smaller over many years.

        • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          It will probably be a choice of quieter, faster, expensive vs loud, high capacity, pretty cheap.

          Unless we start with 3.5" SSDs (pls), HDDs will always be storage kings.
          Imagine 3.5" SSDs with 3-4 layer sandwiched PCBs…And inexpensive NAND…

          • Allero@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 minutes ago

            Why is 3.5" preferable? You can always use a 2.5" to 3.5" adapter, and even 2.5" casing is mostly empty anyway

            • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              12 minutes ago

              More volume for more NAND-PCBs

              and even 2.5" casing is mostly empty anyway

              Does this count for the higher capacity drives (e.g. >2TB)? Preferably TLC?

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          HDDs will probably always be useful for media storage, where quick access time isn’t required and it isn’t being used constantly. They should die for PCs though.

  • Professorozone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Excellent, I needed more space for cookies, malware and games that suddenly require 500GB of free space. I’ll have that thing full in no time.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        49 minutes ago

        A 3.5" cartridge slot with a hard drive reader in it sounds kinda awesome, not gonna lie.

      • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Not at all. The price of storage has plummeted so much that most video games comfortably use ~100GB for large games and don’t care because even SSD storage is extremely cheap.

        If you don’t believe me, here’s a post on Reddit that shows it off pretty well.

        • linearchaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          I’m not exactly sure what that chart is using for data sources. Historically every couple of years I’ve bought whatever goes on sale for around $200 and added it to my unraid.

          I was able to pick up exos 14s a couple of years ago. And they’re still not back down to $200.

          • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            41 minutes ago

            It looks like it depends on the drive size but also I think the pandemic has leveled this out in recent years. Some additional data I found by BackBlaze shows a bit more of the story though they have changed their drive sizes which leads to a more interesting graph.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 hours ago

          There’s two ways to take that statement. The price of a hard drive will remain the same, or the price per memory unit will remain the same. Price per hard drive remains largely the same. Price per unit of memory drops.

          The only exception here is SSDs are slowly dropping in price to meet magnetic disk drives.

          • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            49 minutes ago

            Interpreted the other way, I don’t think that makes sense because on the whole storage has always gotten cheaper with time. Hard drives may cost the same, but they’re larger capacity so really this would only work as an argument if hard drive storage space stayed the same and prices remained the same for consumers but went down for manufacturers.

            Also there’s a lot of competition in the space similar to other chips so I don’t see how a company making NAND or platters can afford to sit on their hands like that. The whole point of drive innovation right now is to drive the price per GB down for B2B sales. And that usually translates well to consumer sales too.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              28 minutes ago

              That’s business logic. Consumer logic is that when things get cheaper they should actually be cheaper.

              • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 minutes ago

                They do get cheaper but the cheaper ones don’t get made because they aren’t worth anything anymore. Like sure you can get a 500GB HDD which used to be a moderately priced option and is now basically trash or free. The prices go down, but the key is that consumers no longer want the old thing either.

        • lorty@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Honestly, nowadays a 100Gb game is small. Games are easily 200+ for the AAA section.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I’m optimistic. I’m making numbers out of my butt because I literally can’t remember.

      But I think My 20GB SSD from 2010 was about $100. I used to dualboot.

      Today, I can get a 512GB SSD for $50.

      • lemmyingly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Same SSDs are about 40% more expensive today than they were this time last year.

      • rainynight65@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 hours ago

        SSDs were relatively new in 2010, and priced accordingly. Now it’s just about increasing sizes and (hopefully) reliability. I just don’t think that all of a sudden we’ll have huge cheap SSDs - people are used to a certain price point and manufacturers will take advantage of that.

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’m sure we will get some “random” fire at some factory to drive prices up again.

    • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Technically the Pro Max already starts at 256 GB (starting with the 15 series iirc). But they simply removed the 128 GB option from the price stack.

    • ravhall@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      13 hours ago

      What do you need 256gb for? You don’t seriously store photos and videos on your phone… as the only place?

      • undefined@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah, I don’t get this. I still haven’t used more than ~115GB in years that I’ve been on iPhone. All my photos are in RAW (since supported) and I’ve got a huge lossless (or better) music library.

        Granted I don’t have 100% of everything on my phone all the time, but even my iCloud storage is pretty low.

        • ravhall@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 minutes ago

          I guess since I have Apple Music I don’t have very much on my phone at any one time.

          Most of my heavy usage are my Virtual Machines. But really, those don’t all have to be on at once. Am I really using windows that often?

      • ryper@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        12 hours ago

        My 100GB music library leaves less space than I’d like on a 128GB phone.

        • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          that’s what expandable storage (i.e. sd card) is for.

          oh your phone does not know what that is?

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          You really listen to that much music that often? I assume that’s compressed as well, because I don’t think there’s a point to high-bitrate media when you’re going to play it through phone speakers or Bluetooth.

          Personally I just use plain old FM radio in my car, a couple dozen songs on my workout playlist for the gym, and YouTube streams for work.

        • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          that’s what expandable storage (i.e. sd card) is for.

          oh your phone does not know what that is?

        • ravhall@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Fuck yeah! I NAS swap with a friend. I have my house NAS which syncs to my other one at his place and he does the same. (4 total)

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        250GB tops or it will be bs.
        GTA5 already had about 90-110GB of raw gamedata. I think right now it’s 150GB.

      • Blaster M@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Except it would take 3 literal months to download it (stupid home internet with a 1.25TB data cap)

        • RobotZap10000@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Goodness, do you live in Australia or something? Are there any better options, or can you not afford them? My spoiled and priveleged self has trouble comprehending a data cap on my internet plan.

        • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          And if you go to the store and buy it in person, it’ll be a empty cd case with a serial key to download.

          • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            or with a CD that installs a downloader, that is actually a background service always starting with the OS, and a few other bloatware to not waste CD space

            except that almost nobody has a CD drive anymore. so it must be a pendrive instead that was forced to read-only access

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Ah shit. That would suck. Personally I could start the download and have the game the next day. Which is roughly what it took to torrent a 4 GiB game back in the day if there weren’t enough seeds.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    That’s likely the point where spinning platters die in the marketplace.

    Right now, spinning platters are around $12/tb. SSDs are around $75. Exact numbers fluctuate with features and market changes, but those are the ballpark. Cut in half, SSDs will be $38/tb, and then $19 in the next halving. Spinning platters aren’t likely to see the same level of reduction in that time period; they’re a mature technology.

    I think once they reach double the price per tb, we’ll see a major collapse of the hard drive market. My thinking is that there’s a lot of four drive RAID 10 systems out there. With SSDs, those can be two drive RAID 1, and will still be faster. With half the drives, they can be twice the price and work out the same.

    • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Spinning platters are already dead in many ways because even though they’ve increased in capacity, they haven’t meanigfully changed read/write speeds in decades, which makes moving the ever increasing data a huge pain.

      • Longpork3@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Most hardrives live in servers, as part of storage volumes where IO can be optimised well beyond the capability of a single disk.

        For the boot disk on my workstation I am absolutely using an SSD, but for the hundreds of terabytes of largely static data that I need to keep archived? Spinning disks all the way. Not only to SSDs need to match on price, but they also have a long way to come in terms of longevity.

      • MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        This is it. Yes, spinning HDDs may be cheaper, but replacing mine with an SSD made my PC faster and quieter, especially on boot.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Not really relevant, but I just moved 150ish GB between SSDs in a few minutes, less than 5 for sure. As a teenager such an operation (moving 3 games between drives) would have taken an hour. As a kid I’d be furiously changing floppy drives all day.

        I just thought that was an interesting thought.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’m really scared of them cramming more and more bits in the same cell. Every time they double that number it’s got to be cutting the write longevity in half. Unless they’ve got some other thing they can do to increase that.

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        TLC or bust for me.
        I’d only consider QLC for low write high read situations like a NAS that serves as media storage.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    32 level “PLC” cells, OMG. How about staying at levels with some durability.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      It’s looking like 2029 will be the turning point. Right now, we are on the verge of having 16tb m.2s on the market, and by 2029 SSDs will be around $10-15/TB like HDDs are now.

      In 2029, if semiconductor trends continue, it is likely that we will have 16TB SSDs for ~$200 and 32TB SSDs for ~$500; Cheaper than the $320 we’re paying for 20TB HDDs right now.

      https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ssds/16tb-m2-ssds-will-soon-grace-the-market

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hard_disk_drives#/media/File:Historical_cost_of_computer_memory_and_storage.svg

      The HDD industry doesn’t seem like it will improve at the same rate. It is likely that the SSD market will have better $/TB than the HDD market in 2029, unless hard drives make some massive breakthrough before then. The survival of the HDD industry past the next 5 years is basically riding on Seagate’s ability to successfully release HAMR technology.

      • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        While I fully agree with the SSD side, you seem to ignore that HDDs are also getting cheaper per TB (always have, and usually quite noticeably). Also the reliability of large to huge SSDs remains to be seen as well. Obviously a breakthrough in HDD technology would have an influence as well, as you mentioned.

        I’m not saying SSDs aren’t here to take over, they surely will eventually (preferably sooner), but I think it’ll be a few more years until we got actual price parity per TB. Even when ignoring other aspects like reliability.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        You can’t really reliably use consumer SSDs in a server/NAS situation though, unless you more prepared to replace them every 12-24 months and suffer poor read/write speeds under load

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      You would replace your NAS drives with SSDs?

      Im not super experienced with NAS and only started home networking like three years ago. but I read SSDs would die quicker than traditional disks.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I’m not sure although it’s mostly used for media storage so there aren’t a lot of write operations. Having said that I do have solid state M2 drives in there for caching with no issues so far.