Seagate launches 60TB SSD, world's highest capacity solid state drive

The high failure rate on SSDs as I understand it has to do with degradation due to WRITES, not READS (electromechanical disk drives have completely different failure characteristics). Using SSDs for fast-access, mostly read-only, archiving works very well. Beyond that, smart folks have been using RAID (redundant array of inexpensive disks) configurations since the 1980s. My home backup for the last few years is 20TB in a 5-drive RAID 6 configuration that can have any two drives die without data loss... and yes, I also have remote backups of most important stuff. Why? Because I do cluster supercomputing, and I've seen literally hundreds of disk drives die... and I also have data on tapes and other obsolete media that I can no longer read.

@BigOne

So you've never heard of RAID or other forms of redundancy?

whoever can afford 60tb ssd can afford to set them up in raid.

Drive failures are not new. As performance and capacity increases, so do the rates of error, mechanical fatigue and subsequently, failure. I have several 18 year old 8gb WD drives(I HIGHLY doubt your 40 gb drive is 20 years old... they simply did not exist) that are still kickin around, functional... But I also have a pile of those same 8gb WD drives that were sent to the firing range(literally) due to failure after only a year or 2 of use.

I worked as desktop support at that time, so I actually have a pretty good feel for the rates of failure. They have not significantly increased, not NEARLY to the levels your example seems to imply.

Data has ALWAYS needed to be backed up. The reason we see it as more of a problem now is the simple fact that more people value electronic data compared to 20 years ago. Everything has shifted to electronic mediums, and the general public are more sensitive to data loss that was once only a concern for corporations or computer geeks.

There is never enough storage. The camera I've been working toward in my research would generate ~1TB/s of raw image data... and that's just one camera.

Just out of curiosity, why are you bashing LHC's modernity? Something I missed?

Seems like the endurance will be fine for the average non-commercial user. From the article, "All of the drives surpassed their official endurance specifications by writing hundreds of terabytes without issue." Most died only after approaching a Peta-byte of writes, one even made it past 2PB.

Durability and reliability are irrelevant.

With RAID and wear reporting these will be replaced long before they fail.

They easily meet their write guarantee.

They're light years faster than a spinning drive.

How many new 1/8 thick laptops have spinning drives?

Welcome to the future.

I agree we will never see a 60TB spinning drive.

Of course we'll see 60TB spinning drives. These two media will coexist for years to come.

60 TB spinning drives.
Yeah.
Right.
They're already filling them with helium to get 8 or 10TB.
What are they gonna do, put hydrogen in them?
We'll call them Hindenburgs.

Yeah I remember having paid the sum of $400 for a 15k PCMCIA card.

...and a blazing Hayes 1200 baud modem.

Penniless Mr Hayes.

Ended up as a bartender I believe.

And you had 1200?

I only had 300!

And a 110 baud TTY.

(No respect for baudot)

;-)

Oh yeah, I paid 1000 dollars (not a misprint) for a 10 MB hard drive. And it had value then.

I still have two 8 inch IBM floppy disks of 80KB capacity.

.... and I still remember the first computer I used was a Nixdorf computer with two removable 13MB hard disk. At that time, 13MB was "huge".

I can top all of you! I used 8 inch floppy disks with 64 kB capacity to store data from a $100k NMR spectrometer. This was much more advanced than walking back and forth to the computer center carrying a box of computer (cardboard) cards.

I didn't see that DPR had a .uk

My bad!

:-)

But me things it should have said "Seagate says the drive" vs "Seagate say the driver"