Funny thing is that one of the best you can get is the Crucial (Micron) 8TB one but even that one gets more expensive. I have the feeling it will be gone completely soon.
But if you're buying a $500k GPU server putting 100TB of nvme in there for $50-100k is justifiable.
Rather silly of them to hide investor relations material behind an anonymity-hostile CDN.
PDF for those who want it. https://web.archive.org/web/20260506084407if_/https://invest...
Very cool bit of tech.
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.
How big of a deal is this part in relation to the initial upfront costs? I’m not privy to the cost of power for SSD
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.
The interface looks equiv to 4x PCIe 5.0.
> Sequential read (MB/s): 13,700
> Sequential write (MB/s): 2,700
Nowadays it feels like that this time and price region is like decades away in the future. I was hoping I can store more data in future on modern tech like SSDs and not less.
Just imagine something like 2S 9565 in at least 2U machines: with 10 server x 2U x 2 CPU you would have 8kW in the processors alone and you didn't even fill half of the 42U rack.
https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/server/epyc/9005-...
Getting rid of 30 watts of heat is trivial compared to say, 300 (I don't quite know how to read that ratio since a 2.5kW SSD seems a little high to me).
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
"U.2" does not change anything in the mechanical characteristics of a 2.5" drive, it just replaces the SATA or SAS electrical interface with a NVMe electrical interface.
You can mount a U.2 drive in any location intended for 2.5" drives, as long as its height can fit there.
However, 2.5" drives come in various heights. Many laptops and mini-PCs that accept 2.5" drives accept only some of the smaller heights and they do not accept the greater heights, like 15 mm, which are typical for enterprise SSDs and HDDs, regardless whether they have a NVMe, i.e. U.2, or a SAS interface or a SATA interface.
This new high-capacity U.2 SSD has the standard 15 mm height of the 2.5" form factor.
No need to worry about cooling when each layer in the sandwich is only a fraction of a micrometer thick!
Now, I would LOVE to see this much SLC flash on a direct to bus attachment setting.
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...
What should worry way more is DWPD which is abysmal... on the first glance. But if you punch it in the calc it still would take ages to wear it out.
SSD #1 SSD #2 SSD #3
Capacity (GB) 245000 245000 245000
Warranty (yr.) 3 3 3
DWPD 0.3 1 0.075
TBW (TB) 80482 268275 20121
TBW (PB) 80.483 268.275 20.121
PBW 80.483 268.275 20.121
GB/day 73500 245000 18375
Time period Average host-side write data rate (MB/s) needed for reaching DWPD value within specified time period
8 hr. 2552.08 8506.94 638.02
12 hr. 1701.39 5671.30 425.35
24 hr. 850.69 2835.65 212.67
1. For comparison, an HDD usually comes in around ~10 watts
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?
The same EBS GP3 used to be specified with 16K max IOPS at 16 KiB random transfers until pretty recently.
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?
I just want....I just want hard drive prices to come back down. *sniffle*
surely you don't actually think that's realistic pricing?
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".
A single speck of dust could throw off that measurement (~ 1.6 x 10^-7 grams)
They’re currently selling for $942.72 on Amazon.