SSDs have a 'bleak' future, researchers say

[Night Hawk]

SSDs have a 'bleak' future, researchers say

The performance gap between HDDs and SSDs will shrink

By Lucas Mearian
February 16, 2012 12:54 PM ET

Computerworld - SAN JOSE -- As the circuitry of NAND flash-based, solid-state drives shrinks, performance drops precipitously -- meaning the technology could be doomed, according to new research.


Speaking to about 500 attendees at the 10th Usenix Conference on File and Storage Technologies here this week, Laura Grupp, a graduate student at the University of California, San Diego, said that as NAND flash densities increase, so do issues such as read and write latency and data errors.


While the density of SSDs grows and the cost per gigabyte shrinks, "everything else about them is poised to get worse," Grupp said.

"This makes the future of SSDs cloudy: While the growing capacity of SSDs and high IOP rates will make them attractive for many applications, the reduction in performance that is necessary to increase capacity while keeping costs in check may make it difficult for SSDs to scale as a viable technology for some applications," Grupp, lead author of the study, wrote in a research paper.


Grupp, along with Steven Swanson, director of UCSD's Non-Volatile Systems Laboratory, and John Davis of Microsoft Research, tested 45 different NAND flash chips that ranged in size from 72 nanometer (nm) circuitry to today's 25nm technology. The chips came from six vendors.


The tests revealed that the program speed (write speed) for pages in a flash block suffered dramatic and predictable variations in latency. And, as the NAND flash wore out, error rates also varied widely between devices. Single-level cell (SLC) NAND held up the best in the tests, while multi-level cell (MLC), and in particular, triple-level cell (TLC) NAND, produced the worst results.

see full two page report

 

[profdlp]

Interesting read.

This assumes that everyone is just dying to get their hands on a 2TB SSD. While that would be nice, I'd rather have a 128GB SSD and all the mechanical drives needed for data storage than go back to even the best mechanical-drive-only solution.

Which would you pick from this list?

1) Super-fast small boot/program SSD plus mechanical storage.
2) Super-fast gigantic SSD for everything - including frequent data errors.
3) Dog-slow gigantic mechanical drive - and that's it.

The article does mention that it is "difficult for SSDs to scale as a viable technology for some applications". How many typical users would have a problem with that? Not many, I'd guess. My car can't take me everywhere I'd like to go, but I'm not going to sell it and ride my bike everywhere, either.

 

[lehnerus2000]

I vote ...

Which would you pick from this list?

1) Super-fast small boot/program SSD plus mechanical storage.
2) Super-fast gigantic SSD for everything - including frequent data errors.
3) Dog-slow gigantic mechanical drive - and that's it.

I vote option 1.

I suspect that the SSD manufacturers won't allow it though.

 

[profdlp]

#1 is what virtually all SSD owners are currently using, including myself.

(In case my hastily composed list of choices wasn't clear, choice #1 is made up of two or more drives, like what I have listed in "My System Specs".)

I think the point of the article must be for Enterprise-type applications where big, fast and easily configurable is ideal and a multiple-drive solution (Boot SSD + Mechanical Storage) is undesirable. For home users, run everything off C: and store everything on D: . I used to do it that way pre-SSD using a single mechanical drive with two partitions. It's just as easy to set up with two separate drives, one of each type.

 

[CreepinJesus]

1) Super-fast small boot/program SSD plus mechanical storage.
2) Super-fast gigantic SSD for everything - including frequent data errors.
3) Dog-slow gigantic mechanical drive - and that's it.

Well, if I could afford it, I'd go with #2; otherwise, #1. Currently, I guess I'm a #2 because I don't have enough data to need more than a 128GB drive, so it's all on the SSD

 

[seekermeister]

For me, it is a moot question, because until the prices of SSDs falls drastically, I shall never own one...large or small.

 

[lehnerus2000]

I should have been clearer.

For me, it is a moot question, because until the prices of SSDs falls drastically, I shall never own one...large or small.

I agree (they are totally cost ineffective).

If the SSD was inexpensive (<$1/GB) I'd consider using option 1.

 

[CB]

Option 1.
Fast to the system, no rush for the data, and cost effective.

 

[smarteyeball]

"it's not going to be viable to go past 6.5nm ... 2024 is the end."

No rush then. In the interim, I'll just enjoy the super smooth speeds that others are denying themselves

 

[mickey megabyte]

"it's not going to be viable to go past 6.5nm ... 2024 is the end."

hmm, there are a whole 12 years of technological development to go until then.

in three years time, someone will invent an ssd super-duperlizer, then in five years that will get superseded by a mega-wegalizer etc etc - probably.

would you have listened to hard drive manufacturers a dozen years ago if they had said "well, 5 gigs looks like the limit - we'll never get past that.", or ram manufacturers saying "we're never going to be able to make a 64 meg ram stick."

 

[seekermeister]

For me, it is a moot question, because until the prices of SSDs falls drastically, I shall never own one...large or small.

I agree (they are totally cost ineffective).

If the SSD was inexpensive (<$1/GB) I'd consider using option 1.

More like 50 cents/GB.

 

[Tarka Dal]

I vote #1

 

[SledgeDG]

As it looks now, the best way to go will be the Hybrid solution, you labeled #1
Which is perfectly fine.
But to be honest: if you had those "dog-slow" mechanical drives we have today, 12 years ago you would've been the speed demon and envy of the neighborhood.

IMHO an estimated 98% of all users have no need for/get no use out of ultra fast mass data shoveling. So leave the mass storage to Seagate and the likes and take advantage of the speedier Flash where it counts

-DG

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there.

Why not look at this from another angle ?

What's wrong with a Programmable FAST ROM to install the OS and basic functions like swap / page space.

This only needs to be updated say at OS install time and every so often for service pack updates. Things like security updates between Service Pack releases could easily be left on HDD and loaded into the OS on boot.

Then I think your normal HDD's will work just fine.

The main problem I find with large HDD's is that for data over 1 TB they still need MAINS power.
HDD manufacturers should perhaps be looking at reducing power requirements of HDD's so you can take your 2 or 3 TB drive with you on the road just like the self powered 1 TB drives.

Remember that for more and more people the DESKTOP workstation is just about dead (apart from "Gamers" and people needing Servers ).

For Laptops its all about minimum power requirements AND PORTABILITY.

I used an SSD because we don't have the built in FAST re-writeable ROM yet -- but I agree that the SSD does not have a long term future. - It's fine in the short term however.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Sardonicus]

I'm tempted......a Samsung 830, 64GB just went on sale for $99.99.
I too, can't get pass the price per gigabyte, ratio.
I think my money would be better spent towards replacing my 95 Watt Sandy Bridge chip
with a maximum TDP 77 Watt Ivy Bridge chip.
At least I'll save some money on the electric bill.

 

[Dave76]

For sure #1.

I have an idea, why not stop shrinking an some optimum point.
Then improve the tech in other areas, until something better shows up.

 

[HammerHead]

Numero Uno

I can stay with number one for awhile. I am with Sardonicus. I am waiting on Ivy Bridge. I have a new tower and PS setting in the basement waiting.....waiting.....waiting.

 

[Qdos]

I suspect I'd be more tempted by something like the Seagate Momentus XT Solid State Hybrid Hard Drive, combining a small SSD and larger capacity spinning platter in one unit. Performance gains are evident and the cost per gigabyte is well below pure SSD levels.

 

[Wishmaster]

Option 1 for sure.
True thats what most SSD owners are doing, but it really is the best plan IMO.


My Music an Video Collection take up the most space for storage on my PC, and neither of these collections really have a benefit on a SSD anyway.
The only way I would move them to a SSD is if I could get one large enough at the same price I can get a Mechanical drive, otherwise its a bit pointless.

 

[fseal]

This "researcher" seem to think that the memory and SSD manufacturers are what... unaware of this???

They may have been 4-5 years ago, the first batches were horrible with reliability, but today's SSDs have a metric crap ton of tricks and over commitment of ram to handle these very well known and understood problems. NO ONE knows about these problems more than the people manufacturing these drives. And as said earlier, by the time 2024 rolls around there will be completely new forms of memory and completely new ways of dealing with these issues if they even still exist by then.