Nimbus Data announced the price of 100TB and 50TB SSD

[cowboyAs]

English is not my mother tongue so sorry for grammar or wording mistake.

 

Summary

50TB version:$12500 USD

100TB version:$40000 USD

 

size:3.5 inch

 

speed(100TB version):

SATA version:

Random Read:500MB/s      Random Write:500MB/s

Sequential Read: 114K IOPS      Sequential Write:106K IOPS

SAS version:

Random Read:500MB/s      Random Write:260MB/s

Sequential Read: 52K IOPS      Sequential Write:26K IOPS

 

4 Controller and 1 Coprocessor

DRAM Cache capacity unpublished

 

 

Sources

https://www.xfastest.com/thread-242436-1-1.html

Sorry it's a chinese website.

[gloop]

How long till we get a Petabyte SSD server project?

[Guest]

At least with a high capacity SSD, if something goes wrong, you'll be able to get your data off more quickly than with a high capacity hard drive

[Windows7ge]

You know you're paying for density when you double the capacity but the price > triples.

[cj09beira]

this should have been nvme based, rebuilding an array with these drives would take 28H on the 50TB version assuming constant 500MB/s which wont happen 

[givingtnt]

@Den-Fi Your door stops are ready sir.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, givingtnt said:

@Den-Fi Your door stops are ready sir.

My wallet be like...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

2.3 days for the 100TB one in the best case scenario doesn't seem that great.

Yeah I mean it's better than a hard drive obviously, but I should've actually calculated it first

[AlexOak]

https://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive/pricing/ 

https://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive/specifications/

https://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive/comparison/

 

If you want the English version. 

[StDragon]

3 hours ago, gloop said:

How long till we get a Petabyte SSD server project?

The EDSFF form factor would allow for nearly 1PB of pure NVMe flash in a 1U server. Using NVMe-oF (NVMe over Fabrics), you can pool multiple servers together for even more storage.

 

How big is your wallet?

[gloop]

Just now, StDragon said:

How big is your wallet?

Considering it’s Linus he’d probably get them all for free from the sponsor. 

[StDragon]

3 minutes ago, gloop said:

Considering it’s Linus he’d probably get them all for free from the sponsor. 

Well, free to review at least. Doesn't he have a person dedicated to shipping and receiving so that all that stuff can be shipped back to the vendor?

[Eaglerino]

4 hours ago, cj09beira said:

this should have been nvme based, rebuilding an array with these drives would take 28H on the 50TB version assuming constant 500MB/s which wont happen 

that still sounds pretty fast

[TetraSky]

Obviously not for the mass consumer market, but still neat. I just want 4 ~ 8TB drives to be affordable. (Under 200$)

 

But man the price difference between 50TB and 100TB... Just like @Windows7ge said, totally paying for the higher density in a single package. And damn that's some slow AF speed for the capacity. Faster than regular hard drives for sure, but these really could've benefited from NVME.

[GOTSpectrum]

4 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Obviously not for the mass consumer market, but still neat. I just want 4 ~ 8TB drives to be affordable. (Under 200$)

 

But man the price difference between 50TB and 100TB... Just like @Windows7ge said, totally paying for the higher density in a single package. And damn that's some slow AF speed for the capacity. Faster than regular hard drives for sure, but these really could've benefited from NVME.

I think the point of these are is they are expensive drop in replacements for hard drives. So being sata/SAS makes sense. I think NVMe drives will come with similar densities in due time. 

[GDRRiley]

the 16tb NVME rules make more sense given they have good speed.

[Windows7ge]

8 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Obviously not for the mass consumer market, but still neat. I just want 4 ~ 8TB drives to be affordable. (Under 200$)

 

But man the price difference between 50TB and 100TB... Just like @Windows7ge said, totally paying for the higher density in a single package. And damn that's some slow AF speed for the capacity. Faster than regular hard drives for sure, but these really could've benefited from NVME.

I would buy 2x 50TB SSDs and RAID0 them. Almost double the performance and just not keep anything on it that's irreplaceable. Save myself $15,000.

 

But going about it in a serious fashion in the enterprise there would be reason to pay for that extra density. Rack space is expensive, not to mention the ever growing demand for more storage. If data centers can pack more storage into the same number of U's that would pay for itself in no time. It makes the extra $15,000 for the right to double the density within the same profile worth it to them.

[SansVarnic]

@cowboyAs your topic does not follow the guidelines. Please add personal input to prevent the topic from being moved or locked.

Quote

When creating a thread in the News subforum, please make sure your post meets the following criteria:

• Your thread must include some original input to tell the reader why it is relevant to them, and what your personal opinion on the topic is. This needs to be MORE than just a quick, single comment to meet the posting guidelines.
• Your thread must include a link to at least one reputable source. Most of the time, this should be a respected news site.
• Your thread should also include quotes from the cited source(s). While you shouldn't just copy the entire article, your quote should give the reader a summary of the article in a way that gives the key details, but also leaves room for them to read the full article on the linked website. Please use quote tags to show that you have copied this content from another site.
• The title of your thread must be relevant to the topic and should give a reader a good idea of the contents of the thread. Copying the title of the source is permitted but absolutely not required. It should be to the point and not be done in such a way as to mislead a reader, such as clickbait, etc.
• If your article is about a product or some form of media, images are always appreciated, although they are not required.

Failure to comply may result in your thread being locked or removed without warning.

 

[BachChain]

7 hours ago, itswillum said:

At least with a high capacity SSD, if something goes wrong, you'll be able to get your data off more quickly than with a high capacity hard drive

Three problems with that

Sequential performance for hdds and these ssds are going to be almost identical

These are significantly larger than any existing hdd, so it will take significantly longer to read off all of the data

Ssds tend to fail catastrophically with little to no warning, so you probably wouldn't even get the opportunity.

[Trik'Stari]

7 hours ago, gloop said:

How long till we get a Petabyte SSD server project?

Forget that.

 

@LinusTech Exabyte project when?

[leadeater]

Why on earth is the SAS version slower? SAS has higher bandwidth and is also capable of bidirectional I/O which SATA is not, so confusing. Every other SAS SSD in the past has always had high IOPs and throughput on the spec sheet compared to the SATA counterpart. Maybe the earth is flat???

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, BachChain said:

Ssds tend to fail catastrophically with little to no warning, so you probably wouldn't even get the opportunity.

Enterprise SSDs and storage systems monitor amount of data written and cell erase cycles which will then warn you to replace if it it's nearly end of service life. Thing is these SSDs have WAY higher endurance so realistically for most not a problem. Failures of the drive controllers is the same rate as HDDs as that just general electronics faults that are impossible to avoid.

 

Either way you don't have 1 of these so they are expendable/consumable as far as it goes in terms of device failure, you'll never be copying the data off them for something like that.

[GDRRiley]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Why on earth is the SAS version slower? SAS has higher bandwidth and is also capable of bidirectional I/O which SATA is not, so confusing. Every other SAS SSD in the past has always had high IOPs and throughput on the spec sheet compared to the SATA counterpart. Maybe the earth is flat???

Did they mess up and flip them? 

[leadeater]

 

Server/SSDs are 3 years old and the 240GB ones are Read Intensive (low endurance) used for the OS and the 1.9TB are Mixed Use (medium endurance) used for application on the server (backup server Index Cache).

 

There are also 4 NVMe's in that server but I'd have to view this information another way and I can't be bothered, they are also Mixed Use so assume similar.

 

Server will be in the bin before even those crappier ones hit 75%.

 

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

Did they mess up and flip them? 

Possibly, the IOPs numbers match other typical SATA and SAS SSDs of that type if you flip them and there was another 3.5" archive focused SSD a year or so ago which has very similar specs to these (if you flip them). But maybe it's done on purpose, doesn't make any sense.