Nimbus ExaDrive DC100: 100TB SSD

[CptCarbonat]

The biggest SSD yet was presented by Nimbus Data. The ExaDrive DC100 holds up to 100TB of data in a 3.5inch form factor. It is mainly for datacenter and cloud use, but I bet Linus would love to get his hands on a few of these. Also the drive is very energy efficient, as it only uses 10W in idle and 14W when under load. It has a SATA 6G interface, and thus is limited to about 500 MByte/s read and write with up to 100k IOPS. Later there is supposed to be a variant of the drive with a SAS interface. The drive is rated at 2.5 million hours Mean Time Between Failures.

 

Sources: http://nimbusdata.com/products/exadrive-platform/advantages/ https://www.anandtech.com/show/12541/unlimited-5-year-endurance-100-tb-ssd

[samcool55]

"Unlimited write guarantee" well that's no surprise it takes more than 2 days to fully write it.

[bcredeur97]

17 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

"Unlimited write guarantee" well that's no surprise it takes more than 2 days to fully write it.

*comes back in 50 years* 

Uhh can you replace mine?!

*company doesn't even exist anymore*

 

[bcredeur97]

Also terrible name, it's not even an exabyte

[hconverse02]

So now you can spend $200000 instead of just $40000 on drives  

[GoldenLag]

10 000 of these in RAID 0 would be fun..................

[samcool55]

19 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

*comes back in 50 years* 

Uhh can you replace mine?!

*company doesn't even exist anymore*

 

It's only for 5 years tho

[WereCat]

 

If only it was affordable but it's not even "affordable".

[leadeater]

46 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

"Unlimited write guarantee" well that's no surprise it takes more than 2 days to fully write it.

 

Quote

This is not particularly surprising because it is impossible to write more than 43.2 TB of data per 24 hours at 500 MB/s, which equates to 43% of the 100TB drive. For those wondering, at that speed for five years comes to ~79 PB over the 5 year warranty of the drive (assuming constant writes at top speed for five years straight). 

When the interface speed gives it the product endurance lol

[The Benjamins]

37 minutes ago, hconverse02 said:

So now you can spend $200000 instead of just $40000 on drives  

A few reasons why they would spend more.

1/6 rack space needed, meaning smaller building.

1/4 of the power, 4x cheaper to run, less power failure devices (generators, batteries), less heavy power cabling.

with the less power means less heat which means 4x less AC/cooling needs. 

 

[Juanitology]

2 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

10 000 of these in RAID 0 would be fun..................

I think that might require the entire world's supply of NAND

[AncientNerd]

4 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

A few reasons why they would spend more.

1/6 rack space needed, meaning smaller building.

1/4 of the power, 4x cheaper to run, less power failure devices (generators, batteries), less heavy power cabling.

with the less power means less heat which means 4x less AC/cooling needs. 

 

 

This is exactly why something like this will sell even at these prices, power costs are limiting data centers. This literally changes data volumes from "we can't run that w/o a new power plant" to "okay we can do that, plus some more". Which is huge for the big data providers. 

[silberdrachi]

Man i would love to swap these into my 4bay nas and have 300tb of space, but then i think about the cost of losing a single drive... Not even the monetary cost but either the cost of the time it would take to rebuild the raid or the cost of the lost data because something couldnt be restored. Something is going to have to change in data storage or im going to have to start running legit offline offsite backups once and a while to make sure i dont lose anything.

[tabun]

Imagine the existing storage servers Linus has built with these drives. ?

[AncientNerd]

54 minutes ago, tabun said:

Imagine the existing storage servers Linus has built with these drives. ?

I am more imagining what  size data storage servers Google, Amazon and Microsoft can produce with these drives... 

[tabun]

On 3/20/2018 at 2:43 PM, AncientNerd said:

I am more imagining what  size data storage servers Google, Amazon and Microsoft can produce with these drives... 

True. With power consumption and rack space being the limiting factor in datacenters these days, this drive would provide exponential storage in the same footprint at a fraction of the energy consumption. That's a double-edged sword though...all that extra storage to save more info for data mining companies to invade our privacy. ? But I digress, as you can't blame the technology for the way it's used. 

[smartwizard]

On 2018. 03. 20. at 7:20 PM, silberdrachi said:

Man i would love to swap these into my 4bay nas and have 300tb of space, but then i think about the cost of losing a single drive... Not even the monetary cost but either the cost of the time it would take to rebuild the raid or the cost of the lost data because something couldnt be restored. Something is going to have to change in data storage or im going to have to start running legit offline offsite backups once and a while to make sure i dont lose anything.

That is why you mirror data content from your NAS to another one off site where you have another four of them

[8uhbbhu8]

5 minutes ago, smartwizard said:

That is why you mirror data content from your NAS to another one off site where you have another four of them

I guess. Theoretically if you can afford a nas of these things you can afford offsite storage to back them up.

[AnonymousGuy]

17 hours ago, smartwizard said:

That is why you mirror data content from your NAS to another one off site where you have another four of them

Tape backup, because it's the lowest $/TB that you can get and when you don't care about random IOPS because you aren't ever going to use the data (in theory).

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

On 3/20/2018 at 2:15 PM, The Benjamins said:

 

 

 

Forgive me for using math, but ...

 

3264 drives in 136 enclosures = 24 drives per enclosure

  990 drives in   11 enclosures = 90 drives per enclosure

That's some seriously crooked math, especially keeping in mind that the Samsung is a thick 2.5" drive and the Nimbus is a 3.5".  Those enclosures are definitely not the same size if they can put almost 4 times as many drives in there and the drives are larger as well.

 

Also there's no way that 16kW is 78% lower than 50kW.  Last I checked, 16kW is 32% of 50kW.

[Dash Lambda]

3 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

-snip-

In fact, the perfectly packed volume of the Samsung SSDs is ~.34m³, while the Nimbus drives come to ~.3m³.

The Samsung drives will require much more mounting hardware, and I don't know how much space that'll take up, but both have a total drive volume less than half that of a 44U rack.

 

I imagine a large part of their claim is due to power -A single drive replaces 3, which means a third the heat and a third the power consumption. But then that would only account for a third reduction, not a sixth... Even in other slides they talk about an 85% reduction in space/cost/power, I really don't understand where they're getting their numbers. Maybe it's because they're designing reference high-capacity enclosures as well (Anandtech mentions that)?

 

Also, the Samsung drives have a total capacity of ~100.27PB, while the Nimbus server has ~99PB. It doesn't seem like much of a difference, but that's a whole petabyte, 500-1000 times the typical amount of storage in a desktop system.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

The Samsung drives will require much more mounting hardware, and I don't know how much space that'll take up

Not sure if they still do it, but back when I used OCZ SSDs (that'll be 2010-2012) they included a plate which allowed you to mount the 2.5" SSD in a 3.5" bay. 

 

 

With a similar mounting mechanism, one of the Samsung drives should slot right into the same space that one of the Nimbus drives uses, with more space for airflow due to the open space next to the SSD (the space over the OCZ logo in the picture above).  That means they can also put 90 Samsung drives in the enclosure, which puts me at less than 37 enclosures, not 136.

 

Given the same amount of space required per drive (which is easily doable with those 2.5" to 3.5" adapters), you need 3.3 times as much space for all the Samsungs (3264/990 = 3.29696...) compared to the Nimbus drives.  So I'm not sure how they go from six 45U racks to a single rack either.  Then again I'm no experts on racks.