Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Cheapest 1 TB SSD on Amazon: $350

Cheapest 1 TB HDD on Amazon: $40

Expecting a 10x drop in prices in 1 year is ludicrous. Even if the prices follow a pseudo Moore's law and fall by half every 18 months, you're looking at at least 5 years before they reach parity. And in the meantimg HDDs would have gotten cheaper; so expect even more time for parity.

In other words: ain't happenin' in 2016.

Great point, although we should also talk about the way storage use has shifted.

I used to have some massive programs installed, a lot of digital media and video games at one point. Now Steam / GOG / Blizzard "stores" my games when not in use. Google / Apple / Pandora / Spotify "stores" my music. Amazon or Netflix "stores" my movies.

When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all my needs (thanks to changes in internet services).

Sure, it won't be true for everyone. (Editing TIFFs for GIS anyone?) I don't run a Chromebook, but its philosophy is not completely insane for a reason...

It's like storage has differentiated into at least two separate purposes. Main system drive for consumer PCs, formerly an HDD only component, is feasibly replaced by SSDs. At the sizes needed for that, the difference in price per GB is already under a factor of two.[1]

[1] Caviar Blue 80GB @ $0.375/GB; MyDigitalSSD 64GB @ $0.578; Kingston 90GB @ $0.658/GB... https://pcpartpicker.com/parts/internal-hard-drive/#sort=a7&...

I agree to a large extent but I think 80GB is an extreme on the low end. Many modern games (especially MMOs) are 20GB+. Windows 7 alone requires a huge amount of storage. I have a 120GB partition at home (just for OS+programs, not data) and I'm constantly uninstalling steam games in order to install others. If you want a modicum of breathing room, I'd say minimum 200GB.

IIRC, Assassin Creed Unity required 50GB by itself.

If Windows takes up 30GB, you pretty much need to wipe out everything just to play Unity on 80GB. I think 256GB to 512GB is the best bet for the standard consumer.

I just got a 250GB Samsung EVO SSD. Filled it up in a matter of weeks by installing some of my favorite games from Steam. I'm looking to add a 500GB to my build, but I should have STARTED with a 500GB.

A friend of mine is looking to upgrade from a 256GB MBA to a 512GB or 1TB MBP because he needs to view medical imagery offline (the Retina display also helps). <= 128GB storage is not really adequate for people who work with photos or music. 256GB is better but many people do need more.

This seems like a big waste. Why would you put games on a SSD?

They are literally the most data intensive software you have in terms of UX. Your movies, music, documents, and even non-served databases are all browsable on low bandwidth low IOPS devices just fine with sophisticated algorithms.

Your load times for a level of Call of Duty are always reflective of how long it takes to get texture data off the disk and into vram, and that is constantly being hammered. It sometimes even causes texture popping on crappy notebook hard drives.

I have 256GB SSDs in my desktop and notebook (with intents to find a nice 1TB drive next year, since we are at the tail end of SATA3) and my Steam library on my desktop is 176GB by itself.

My OS on its own (Arch) discounting pacman provided games (0ad, doom3bfg, darkplaces, doom, etc) is around 6GB, and most of that is Qt doc, Python2 site packages, 300MB of wallpapers, and 600MB of locale.

Not only is load time reflected by the time it takes for texture data to be copied into vram, but what constitute reasonable load time is to a degree based on developer platforms and those have a tendency to use above average hardware. If in the past 10s load time was maximum, that number will now be more likely based on SSD speeds rather than HDD.

Same reason as you'd want an SSD for anything else? Fast loading times of lots of data? Also, some operating systems make having programs installed to volumes other than the boot volume hard.

Which operating systems? Windows? I haven't had that problem on Windows 7 x64, but maybe that's just me.

You are right, it is a pity that you are downvoted.

Right now, you maybe put your favorite game on the SSD, not the whole steam library - and that is what gamers often recommend themselves. FPS don't get influenced by the HDD, only loading times, and those are normally not too high. Many new games have only two loading times: loading the game and then loading the save. Afterwards, everything is streamed, and a proper HDD is fast enough for that. And that is what the people responding to your comment here miss completely.

Using a SSD is for many games a waste.

Why is it a waste?

If you have the monty and the means why wouldn't you do it?

You're comment is very 'matter if fact' and baseless.

Improved loading times and better texture loading in games where it is heavy (think Fallout 3 or Skyrim) is a great reason to wack an SSD in your system.

Skyrim and Fallout 3 are in my eyes counter-examples for using an SSD, since you basically have only the two loading times and afterwards it's streaming. Maybe if the Quicktravel takes too long on the HDD.

> If you have the monty and the means why wouldn't you do it?

Oh, sure then :) It is only a waste in the relation of price per gigabyte vs. the possible performance improvement ingame.

> You're comment is very 'matter if fact' and baseless.

See http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/12/10/hdd_vs_ssd_real_wo... if you want another source.

Are you serious?

That HardOCP article (and HarcOCP are not really known for their quality articles anyway) is testing for framerate imrpovements.

An SSD will not improve your framerate much at all (That's not what you use an SSD for).

You cited main loading times like loading a game and loading a save, which are enough reason themselves to want an SSD in there. Some games are painfully long in these areas (take any Total War game as an example) and an SSD will help.

I gave Fallout 3 and Skyrim as an example of texture loading where an SSD would matter. You claimed it didn't, as this is contrary to all avaialble information.

These games (like many open world games) stutter when new cells/areas are loaded (I'm not talking about regular texture streaming). Again, this is where SSD's will make a difference.

An SSD becomes even more useful when you start installing high-resolution texture mods to games like these. My own Skyrim installation uses nearly 4Gb of video memory when wandering around the wilderness. That would cause some pretty heavy thrashing on an HDD.

There is nothing about SSD's being used to store games that is a 'waste' if those things are important to you.

I have two SSD's in my personal machine, one 128Gb for the OS and one 500Gb for Steam and some games. They didn't cost me much, so why wouldn't I do it? There is literally no reason for me to not do this in a high-end system meant for playing games.

Other games will go on my regular HDD's because you are right at least in saying that not all games will benefit from it, but some will.

Are you serious?

That HardOCP article (and HarcOCP are not really known for their quality articles anyway) is testing for framerate imrpovements.

I don't like your tone. If texture streaming would profit much from an SSD, you would see that in the FPS.

Fallout 3 was played by me on a very old machine, of course without an SSD, and I remember no noticeable cell loading outside. The streaming of those engines is just too good. Fallout: New Vegas I played for more hours I'm comfortable admitting, heavily modded, on a better machine, same story there.

> My own Skyrim installation uses nearly 4Gb of video memory when wandering around the wilderness. That would cause some pretty heavy thrashing on an HDD.

Ingame, in the widlerness? Try it out. I doubt it. Initial loading times will be better of course, and loading times when switching locations, but not performance otherwise. You underestimate the performance of a regular HDD that is not a shitty 2.5 model cooked to death in an overheating laptop.

> They didn't cost me much, so why wouldn't I do it?

Like I said: No reason not to, if you have the SSD anyway. But normally, SSDs are a lot more expensive than a HDD, see above.

I did just say this was on my own Skyrim installation, so I already have tried it out.

Area/Cell transitions are MUCH faster on an SSD.

I'm playing through the game again currently.

You did not say that you played Skyrim first on a HDD and then on a SSD…

> Area/Cell transitions are MUCH faster on an SSD.

I think we were not talking about the same thing (anymore?). Like I wrote below, explicit area transitions - entering a city, loading a save game - will of course benefit from an SSD, a lot. That is loading though. But you also have cell transitions that are streamed – you talked about texture streaming above - when travelling on foot through the game world. If I remember the engine from my morrowind mod days correctly, that is a special case in those games with its explicit cell system, but it probably basically applies to all 3D-games that include moving through big areas, since they all have to load textures at the time they come in reach. It would be quite interesting if an SSD would have a real effect here, and to my knowledge it so far does not. It would be interesting because those transitions can stutter if the streaming system does not work properly, or if the HDD is really too slow, which is a likely cause of bad minimal fps (and depending on the benchmark, could lower average fps) or rather explicit stuttering, measured in fps or not.

I'm not saying SSDs do not help with loading stuff, I say that to my knowledge, they do not help with streaming - which are two different things.

I never felt those explicit transitions were too bothersome when I played Fallout/Oblivion/Morrowind, that together with the streaming system outdoors is why I see an SSD as not necessary for those games. But of course, if it bothers you - and maybe loading really takes longer in Skyrim? - an SSD is a good load time minimizer.

I have a 500gb SSD which cost ~200$. Sure 5 years ago I would agreed with you, but now days it's really not that expencive and in game load times feel much longer. IMO, Skyrim is load happy, sure the open world is fine, but go to town, get into your house, get out of your house get out of ton is 4 load screens in ~1Min of gameplay.

You see, that reasoning is perfectly valid, and when putting it like that I agree :) Well, kind of, 200$ still feels to expensive for me for that.

I just won't let me be told that the texture streaming outside in the open world needs that.

Oh man, all the endless loading screens when going home. A simple trip to drop some stuff off and go took four loading screens.

    You are right, it is a pity that you are downvoted.
It is a pity unconditionally. I expressed a subjective impression related to the topic at hand and asked constructively for explanation. There was simply no reason to downvote.

The downvotes and the first-generation replies to my comment show that this is not the place for a discussion about the worthiness of SSD's for games.

Because I ran out of punched cards?

I used to have roommates that were intense gamers (blew thousands of dollars on new GPUs and other desktop gaming parts per semester) and all they talked about were SSDs. SSDs are pretty big in gaming.

Why wouldn't you?

Insane load speeds

256GB is indeed the sweet spot for typical users. 512GB if you play large games.

Windows on its own is quite capable of filling up a 128GB drive with restore points, update backups, and all sort of other junk when left in the hands of a typical user for a couple of years. I recently wiped nearly 60GB of pure OS-level junk (i.e. not caused by applications) from a family member's Windows 8.1 PC.

I'm curious to see what kind of space Win10 takes up. I believe one of their focuses was stripping it down to take up less space for applications such as tablet, netbooks, et.c

Expect this to be increasingly common, now that new consoles ship their games on Blu-Rays.

I recently discovered a large portion of my windows 7 partition was due to space set aside for system restore. Then there is the swap space and hibernation image which if you have a lot of ram is enormous.

I use a chromebook with 16gb, I also have linux on it. I do fine and have had it for 2 years. :)

I've Eve-Online and StarCraft 2 installed, which use about 30GB in total. Add another 6-8GB for the OS, and you've still got about 50GB left (which I actually fill up with even more games).

IMHO, 120GB is way more than enough.

> I used to have some massive programs installed, a lot of digital media and video games at one point. Now Steam / GOG / Blizzard "stores" my games when not in use. Google / Apple / Pandora / Spotify "stores" my music. Amazon or Netflix "stores" my movies.

How sustainable is this for the average consumer with most national ISPs moving towards bandwidth caps?

I had to switch to business service because Netflix alone was blowing through the data cap - in fact it was blowing through even the data cap they had for their top tier consumer service.

> most national ISPs

Which nation are you talking about? I suppose I'd guess US but it would help if you said.

I'm still getting uncapped broadband (albeit with vague TOS provisions) in the UK. I think the rest of Europe is probably similar.

For the record - I'd like to move towards metered billing - but with a realistically low price per GB - not a punitive one based on profiting from people that don't have the knowledge to estimate their usage.

Give me 20-40 GB at a good speed for £20/month with prices scaling linearly from there and I'll be fairly happy and no-one will get burnt.

(just checked and most providers are offering uncapped at around 20Mb/s for £20/month)

I'd be curious to know why you would prefer a metered approach when, as you say, for that same price you get uncapped. It seems to me that most people, in the US anyway, would rather not have caps. I can honestly say this is the first time I've heard anybody say they would, for the same price, prefer a cap. For the record, 20Mbps for £20 is roughly similar to what our local cable monopoly offers in NC.

I absolutely prefer capped service far, far more than uncapped services. In Singapore, I can get a LTE SIM for $35, and then pay $25 for 7 days of data @14 Gigabytes, with roll over of the amounts I don't use.

In general, I get 50 megabits down/20 megabits up. And, because this is a capped service, I have a reasonably good chance of actually seeing that performance. If it was, "Uncapped" or "Unlimited" - then people would abuse the crap out of it, and all of a sudden that 50 megabits/sec down would quickly drop, making the system far, far less useful.

I've never been a fan of unlimited/uncapped services, they quickly degrade into poor experiences for everyone in a very short period of time.

> And, because this is a capped service, I have a reasonably good chance of actually seeing that performance. If it was, "Uncapped" or "Unlimited" - then people would abuse the crap out of it, and all of a sudden that 50 megabits/sec down would quickly drop, making the system far, far less useful.

Using the service I have paid for is not abusing it, anymore than watching too much cable TV or making too many local calls is abuse of those services. If it causes degradation for other users, that's the fault of the ISP that has over-overprovisioned us. And the top ISPs all have profits in the billion dollar range, so it's not like they're hurting for money and just can't fix the infrastructure. Caps are just a way to squeeze out higher profits by reducing the necessity of upgrading infrastructure.

That said, not once have I ever seen my speeds drop below what they're rated to be.

So - let's take those one at a time, because they are interesting.

"Watching too much cable TV" - Cable TV is a broadcast Medium, and watching it, like listening to broadcast radio, has no marginal cost or impact. You can leave your TV off for an entire month, or tuned to a channel for 24x7x365 - zero difference in cost to the provider, or impact to other people on the service.

"Making too many local calls" - More than one person has been required to purchase a business line when they overused their local calling privileges. Indeed, on some CO to CO trunks, if enough people (ab)used their local calling privileges, the entire exchange would be blocked and nobody could call in/out. Unlike the case of internet connectivity, there is no graceful fallback - once the trunk reaches capacity, it's dead for anyone else. (Lumby, BC to Vernon, BC - used to happen all the time - 48 people could bring down a town of 1800). That's why those types of deployments require some type of per minute charges to avoid that scenario.

"If it causes degradation for other users, that's the fault of the ISP that has over-overprovisioned us" - We totally agree here. Any ISP selling unlimited service, and not clearly explaining how many gigabytes "Unlimited" equals, is doing everyone a disservice.

"Caps are just a way to squeeze out higher profits by reducing the necessity of upgrading infrastructure." - We disagree here. ISPs should provide Caps to their customers, and clearly communicate what they are - and then compete to provide higher caps while ensuring they maintain the line rate they've committed to their customers.

For example, if I've purchased a 1 Gigabit connection, the ISP darn well better invest in their infrastructure to make sure that none of their ports are blocking. Comcast utterly failed to do that with Netflix recently, and I find that annoying beyond belief. At the same time though, I don't expect Comcast to provision enough capacity to support all of their customers at 1 Gigabit (or whatever a high speed connection is) at the same time - that's cost prohibitive - particularly as it will rarely be happening.

On the Big I internet, this is solved by what's called 95th percentile billing. This is probably too confusing for the average user, so something simpler like, "You get a 1 Gigabit connection for $75/month, with a 10 Terabyte/month Limit during Peak hours, and Unlimited Terabyte limit in Off peak hours, $20/addition Terabyte in Peak, and we make sure that none of our upstream ports our blocked on any of our peering routers" is exactly what I'd be looking for.

> That's why those types of deployments require some type of per minute charges to avoid that scenario.

It sounds like those deployments required infrastructure upgrades, not more creative billing to stop people from utilizing it.

> We disagree here. ISPs should provide Caps to their customers, and clearly communicate what they are - and then compete to provide higher caps while ensuring they maintain the line rate they've committed to their customers.

Even this isn't the reality. It's rare for landline Internet to be advertised with the actual data caps in effect. In my case, the data cap is defined nowhere except the Acceptable Use Policy (a long document that nobody is going to read) and in a My Usage part of your account (which you obviously won't see until you're already hooked up.)

At the same time, who are they going to be competing with? How many people are going to lay down fiber side-by-side with someone else's fiber? What incentive is for them to compete based on the data cap instead of following current practices which ae basically "100 MBPS BLAZING FAST SUPER-SPEED INTERNET!!!"*

(fine print)

* Limited to 200GB/month. Users going over this limit will be automatically upgraded to the next highest tier after three offenses.

I'm not sure why you disagree with the statement "caps are just a way to squeeze out higher profits by reducing the necessity of upgrading the infrastructure." You're basically making the argument that yes, caps do have that effect, but are put in place as a necessary network management strategy, despite the fact that most of these networks worked quite well before data caps and don't work any better with them. While some or most of them are continuing to invest in upgrading infrastructure, most of them are also rolling around in billions of dollars of profit that they aren't investing...because there is no real market incentive to do what you're saying they "should" do.

> "You get a 1 Gigabit connection for $75/month, with a 10 Terabyte/month Limit during Peak hours, and Unlimited Terabyte limit in Off peak hours,

What a world that would be. In reality data caps are usually 300GB in networks that can obviously support much more than this. I could blow through my former data cap in 12 hours. Heck even in your scenario, I would only be able to use my rated 1 gigabits for 2-3 hours at max utilization. It seems misleading to advertise Internet as 1 gbps if you can actually only get 1 gbps for 3/720 (0.4%) hours of the month.

EDIT: I misread that as 1 TB instead of 10TB, but I don't think 4% of the month is much better.

I think to some degree we agree. Caps are put in place to both ensure a profit to the carrier, as well as ensure availability to the users. If the Carrier did not need to make a profit, they could upgrade their infrastructure to be totally non blocking. Alternatively, if the Carrier needed to make a profit, but was okay providing degraded service, they could avoid upgrading infrastructure.

But, if they want to do both - Profit + good service, then caps are needed.

The competition, btw, is definitely fiber (See what happens to Comcast Service when a fiber competitor comes to town - it gets much better) and wireless (I haven't used a wireline carrier in singapore for 2+ months. All LTE, all the time.)

Regarding my limits - the nice things about Tier-1 ISPs (which Comcast is) - is that they don't pay for data use, as they engage in what is called "Settlement Free Peering" - what they do pay for is (roughly) Trenches + Vaults + Data Center Real Estate + Power + cooling + security + Chassis + Fiber + Interconnect Ports + Line-Cards. These are all a function of peak usage, not total usage. So - outside of peak-usage, which has reliable patterns of behavior, there is no costs to the ISP, or fellow users of the same resources, to your usage. Peak Usage may be as few as 4 hours/day, or 120 hours/month * 1 gigabit = 54 Terabytes. In a month, 1 gigabit could theoretically draw 324 Terabytes, so - that's 270 Terabytes off Peak + 10 Terabytes on Peak allowance = 280 Terabytes/month.

By doing just a bit of scheduling, you don't have to pay any extra, the ISPs network isn't overloaded, and you have a reasonable allowance of data to work with.

Of course, if they start selling 1 Gigabit Service, that's a lot of switch ports/chassis/routers/interconnects/etc/etc... they are going to have to upgrade to handle the new peaks.

I think they're talking about home internet connections, as in fibre or ADSL broadband.

I have an uncapped service (Virgin Media) in the UK which I wouldn't trade for anything. So much so that if I were to move house their service availability would be a factor to consider.

I get 152Mbps down/15Mbps up and I have never dropped below that level but more than a few Mbps for a short time.

Because at the moment s/he is bearing the cost of abusive users.

I suppose my preference would be that providers simply build the capacity required to support the advertised bandwidth at 100% utilization. This is similar to what Google Fiber does. They don't care if you use 20GB or 20TB in a month from what I've heard. That sounds optimal in my mind. Underestimating usage and failure to anticipate demand are real issues that major ISPs have to deal with over the long run (off the top of my head AT&T's network problems after the first iPhone was released). I've always viewed these caps as short-term fixes until they figure how to increase their network capacity to support increased use.

> Because at the moment s/he is bearing the cost of abusive users.

There is nothing abusive about using that which you paid for. If you sell me a 100mpbs pipe, I should be able to use that pipe 24/7.

Of course, the reality is that it would be expensive to make sure everyone could use their 100mbps pipe 24/7, so ISPs sensibly over-provision to save money.

But ISPs miscalculating their provisioning requirements (or as it appears in most cases, simply grubbing for money), is not the end-users fault and not the end-users problem and it does not mean that they are doing anything abusive.

Metered service at reasonable prices would probably actually be better for a lot of consumers, but most people aren't _comfortable_ with metered services.

Move to Romania. We have uncapped 1Gbps for 15$/month

Man, I'm in the UK and there would be no way I would like this arrangement. Im on Virgin Media fibre (152Mbps for £34 per month) right now and I would never go back to an Open-Reach infrastructure service.

Here in Australia, where data caps have been the norm for, oh, forever, it's pretty sustainable (for now). Music streaming is notionally the same cost as reading an image-heavy website: negligible, in the scheme of things. Video streaming is again not that bad, because I can only watch so many videos... they take real time to consume. YMMV depending on your chosen resolution.

Games are the main problem. When one of those 60GB bastards comes out, that's nearly one third of my monthly bandwidth, so I have to think carefully about scheduling it. But I regularly re-install 4-8GB from the cloud because it's a marginal impact compared to the entertainment it will bring.

Yeah, when GTA V came out, I waiting until 'off-peak' to use the 100G of data there, rather than waste my daytime allocation. Rarely would we hit our max usage though... thanks to appalling internet speeds. :)

> Video streaming is again not that bad, because I can only watch so many videos... they take real time to consume. YMMV depending on your chosen resolution.

I use Netflix as a replacement for OTA and cable TV. So my girlfriend, who likes to watch a lot of TV, has used 221GB 7 days into the billing cycle.

Are they moving towards bandwidth caps? Comcast in the SF Bay Area has claimed a "suspended" 250GB cap for years and years. I get the impression that we're moving away from bandwidth caps.

Data caps on Comcast service are coming back. They started with Nashville and Tucson in 2012. The program's now expanded to Huntsville and Mobile, AL; Augusta and Savannah, Georgia; Central Kentucky; Maine; Jackson, Mississippi; Knoxville and Memphis, Tennessee and Charleston, South Carolina; and Fresno, California. They're testing two different plans: a 300GB cap with overage charges ($10 per 50GB) and flex-data plans ($5 discount for a 5GB monthly cap, and $1 per GB over the 5GB).

Add Atlanta, GA metro area to your list. They've had me on a 300GB cap for the past year. I've only gone over it once (burning one of three overage allowances) because we stream most of the TV and movies we watch, and I do a lot of OS testing, downloading ISOs and packages on a daily basis.

I really don't get a data cap of 300GB for today's culture of "stream everything". I can see something like a 1TB cap to knock out the heavy torrenters, but 300GB/month is 10GB/day. A decent sized family will bust through that easily (Dad watching a 3GB movie, Mom streaming 1GB of Pandora throughout the day, Daughter downloading 7GB of new Xbox/PS4 game content, Son binging half a season of a Netflix show at 5GB).

I could imagine, at some point if ISPs became militant about caps and municipal broadband and Google Fiber weren't making inroads fast enough, Netflix creating appliances similar to their OpenConnect appliance [+] for users, but with the content encrypted with a key tied to your user account. Netflix would then cache the majority of the content you consume locally.

[+] https://openconnect.netflix.com/hardware/

> When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all my needs (thanks to changes in internet services).

You seem like a very atypical use case. You can't be playing any of the modern AAA games, for example.

Or have Creative Suite installed.

Or any modern sample library (which can get to 80GB for a single piano).

Or any video editing projects and/or templates.

Just some examples of professional stuff (for graphic designers, musicians/producers and videographers) that take huge space.

There's no reason to put a sample library on an SSD.

Actually there are tons of reasons.

You don't want to bring around extra drives and cables when you perform.

You don't want vibrations, bad handling etc while performing / touring etc, to crap your HDD.

You get much much faster random reads, which is what playing large sample libraries is all about.

There would be for me if the price of SSD's come down enough. With my 2011 MBP and RME Babyface taxing the computer a bit too much with USB 2.0 context switching, my 120gig of samples streamed from disk would help while running this all at 96K.

Truthfully, I never considered this use case. Are you saying the computer is taxed because the USB controller is saturated?

I put all my sample libraries on SSDs to cut down on project load times. It helps immensely.

how is not playing AAA games atypical?

GTA V made more money that most successful movies. Gaming is not an obscure niche, and AAAs are the blockbuster movies of the genre.

Only 5% of GTA V sales were for PC, the rest were on consoles

Recently "The Witcher 3" sold 4M copies in a short amount of time whereas 1.3M are attributed to PC sales [1].

Even Indie games like Cities: Skylines which is PC/Mac only recently sold more than 1M copies in a short amount of time. [2]

I don't really play much but i follow PC Gaming and it has been on the rise for years. Free to play MOBA games like League of Legends have over 8M concurrent players in peak hours with 27M people playing at least game per day. That is more than the viewership of even the most popular TV series, every day of the week.

[1] http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-witcher-3-out-of-its-4-mil... [2] http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/14/8414099/cities-skylines-hit...

However, it's _nothing_ compared to the installed base of PCs. That's probably on the order of 2 billion. Most people don't use their computers to play AAA games, and likely not games at all (Steam only has 125m active users, say).

Perhaps the fact that the PC port was 2 years late compared to console releases should be taken into account.

The majority of computer users don't play modern AAA games. Steam claims 125 million active users (active defined we know not how, but probably generously). Some of them will be people like me; the only Steam games I currently have installed are Papers Please and FTL. It's estimated that there are ~2bn PCs in use worldwide.

Keep in mind that SSD performance tends to degrade as the drive approaches full utilization - even if the actual internal capacity includes margin, you're probably best off avoiding approaching the available capacity. Heck, for the 250GB SSD I put in my primary laptop this past spring I intentionally formatted it to ~80% of the available capacity - that gives me plenty of space (~100GB free after all software & data) but even if I end up with things chewing that capacity I should keep good performance due to the available space for the drive's own data shuffling.

Perhaps 8.1 and Windows 10 are better about what they save, but going with anything less than 128 for Windows + apps + data seems risky to me.

Does the SSD actually use this unformatted space? I know that SSDs from the factory have a lower available space than their nominal space, to account for the eventual dimishing quanitty of functional floating gate transistors (ie 240GB is made available in a 256GB drive), and that OSes usually recommend keeping about 10% of the formatted drive free (for paging iirc). Didn't know that about unformatted space.

All clean pages (from overprovisioning, unformatted space, and trimmed space) should be treated the same by SSDs. In particular, Intel documents that leaving unformatted space will increase performance on their SSDs.

I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that on SSDs the wear leveling is done over the entire flash capacity. the details of where data is stored are an abstraction layer on top of that unlike on a spinning metal hard disk where specific regions of the drive are allocated to particular partitions

Wear leveling is done in the layer that translates between LBAs and actual physical chip numbers and addresses. Drive partitions are well above all of that in the abstraction stack, and partition tables are totally beyond the scope of a drive's concern (even for spinning rust drives). These days it is even common for a drive to have two different partition tables in two different formats with different partitions listed. Bootloaders and operating systems are the only things that should care about partitions.

This is also true for hard drives. Fragmentation and filesystem layout make performance of a 95% full partition on an HDD much slower than a 50% full partition.

Defragmentation and cleanup on traditional hard drives take longer when they're full for different reasons including the increased amount of data being managed and in many cases empty space being further away from the data being moved which will slow down moving of data to clear and consolidate free space. On a solid state drive the bigger issue is that there is a minimum size block of data that can be written in one operation. Having empty space available means that the drive can write data into that empty space without having to do garbage collection first.

I got myself a cheap Acer with 32 gigs of eMMC storage. I removed Windows 8, its restore partition (that took 10 gigs all by itself) and installed Ubuntu. It's not as fast as the "serious" laptop, but it's light, silent, has decent battery life and I won't be devastated if a truck rolls over my backpack. I mean, if I don't have it on my back, that is.

For Python/Django/Twisted development in a couple LXD containers, it's the just right amount of computing power at an incredibly low price.

eMMC is not the same as SSD, in general it is slower and less reliable (and it's one of the reason the laptop is cheap).

I agree with the sentiment, though, carrying around a lightweight laptop without having to worry about theft/accidental damage is priceless.

It's not SSD, but it's flash memory nevertheless, so, the same price predictions valid for SSDs apply to it.

And yes. Carrying a worry-free laptop is priceless.

No Star Citizen for you (it's estimated to be 100GB in size - and yes, you want to store it on SSD because the load times are quite high even with SSD).

I still prefer to have stuff locally when I can. My Macbook currently has a 120 GB SSD, and I'd love to replace it with a TB.

I think you should have put "my games" and "my music".

Let's look at the sweet spots, because that's really what many people will buy:

  Best $/GB HDD on pricewatch.com: $0.024/GB for 2TB at $48.95
  Best $/GB SSD on pricewatch.com: $0.387/GB for 240GB at $92.95
That's a 16x price increase, not 10x.

That's not the best Price/GB ratio for an SSD. And unlike the SSD, the HDD on Pricewatch is a generic white label drive.

For example, this 240GB OCZ ARC 100 is $70 ($0.292/GB) after promo code and mail-in rebate:


Or not counting mail-in rebates, this 480GB PNY CS111 is $152 ($0.317/GB):


Found via PCPartPicker: https://pcpartpicker.com/parts/internal-hard-drive/

I wonder if those sell simply because of their positions in the market. Is the average consumer knowledgeable to know whether they need 240 GB, 2 TB, or 6 TB? Or do they simply compare prices and sizes and choose whatever they think is the best value? A 2 TB drive might just be another example of the 2nd cheapest wine trick?

There are 3 reasons people need to buy a new computer- too slow, ran out of HD space, or too slow and ran out of HD space. It was true 10 years ago and even more true now. Backup your 32GB phone a few times and you're wondering where all the space went.

It's more like insurance. You buy as much as you can afford. That's why it's painful to by a new MacBook Pro these days. 1TB is very expensive compared to the 1TB I could afford 5 years ago.

> It's more like insurance. You buy as much as you can afford.

Somewhat OT, but I have to say something about that. With insurance you are almost always better off buying as little as you can afford. The more risk you can afford to take on yourself, the better a deal you get on your insurance. This is why a company like Hertz doesn't buy insurance at all for their fleet: they can spread the risk across all their cars, so they self-insure.

In fact, there are some cases where the "better" insurance is always a worse deal. I've seen this in several employer medical insurance plans where there are two or three different levels of PPO plans with varying deductibles and premiums.

The last couple of Blue Shield plans I looked at were like this. There would be two PPOs with the same doctor network and such, so you could simply compare on the numbers. The more expensive plan offered lower copays and deductibles, but unless you have a large number of prescriptions and doctor visits, you'd never make up the difference - with the more expensive plan you'd be paying more every month regardless.

And in any case, the number you really care about on medical insurance - which seemingly few people pay attention to - is the annual out of pocket max. That's your worst case scenario cost-wise. If you hit the out of pocket max, everything is covered after that.

In the plans I looked at, both the cheapest and most expensive plans had the same out of pocket max. So in almost every case, people who sign up for the more expensive plan are simply spending more money for the same coverage.

Yeah, 240SSD for <$100 is great! while I cant stand the case and build quality of my System 76 machine - the guts are the best bang for the buck.

The fact that it can take two internal drives (both SSD) is awesome - so having dual 240GB drives allows for plenty of space.

I have a 1TB external that I glacerize my other stuff to.

Also, get a Flickr account which can host your 1TB of pics for free (money for nothin')... and you wont consume space on your local box with pics.

> Also, get a Flickr account which can host your 1TB of pics for free (money for nothin')... and you wont consume space on your local box with pics.

Just make sure you understand the privacy repercussions of hosting your data on Flickr.

Just realize that to transfer 1TB of data at typical ISP speeds will take many days.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. In Australia this is so important to consider.

Are there any things to know about settings images to 'private' on Flickr?

Photos have lat/lon/timestamp in EXIF. You're uploading a track log to them.

Even though location is embedded in EXIF, you can disable geolocation feature in Flickr's privacy setting, so that it won't be in the photo that is displayed on flickr. But yes, it does keep EXIF info in its database. For those who are paranoid, either run exiftool or imagemagick to strip off all EXIF before uploading.

If Flickr (or their publicly traded overlords Yahoo) decide arbitrarily for whatever reason one day you violated their TOS with an errant nipple or whatever, kiss a decade of professional archives goodbye.

No thanks. My photos live in four places, and two of them are owned by me.

No problem with nipples - Flickr allows full nudity as long as you mark them correctly for search purposes. Nobody said you should keep the only copy of everything you have on Flickr.


Safe - Content suitable for a global, public audience.

Moderate - If you're not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience, but you don't think that it needs to be restricted.

Restricted - This is content you probably wouldn't show to your mother, and definitely shouldn't be seen by kids.

Guide - Bare breasts and bottoms are "moderate," but full frontal nudity is "restricted."

You can also try throwing them in an imgur album. Not sure if there is a data limit per account, but I don't think there is. I have several dozen GB of photo on there already.

Problem with imgur is that it compresses the image too much, and the degradation is noticeable. I don't recommend imgur for archival purpose.

I've had a paid imgur account since the day they announced them. In addition to the compression, mass upload and album mgmt is very clunky at best. I stopped attempting to archive many images there years ago...

I should give it a test again though to see if it is better.

Theres a setting somewhere not to compress large images when you upload them. Is it still compressing?

> And in the meantimg HDDs would have gotten cheaper

Don't be sure about that. Remember that the Thai floods setback HDD prices and made them more expensive for years; they still haven't returned to the pre-flood trendline last I checked. With SSDs dropping, that might deter much more investment into HDDs (and with less demand from HDDs in the first place, there will be fewer of the economies of scale & learning curves that drove previous HDD price decreases - and vice versa for SSDs!).

backblaze (who uses desktop hdds) says they paid $0.044/gb in sept 2011: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/farming-hard-drives-2-years-a...

Today on newegg it's about $0.03/gb.

That statement neither disputes nor supports the statement you made it in reply to. The statement you were replying to was referring to the trend line. That is to say it was referring to the line representing the rate at which the price was changing, not the price itself. You would need significantly more than two data points to make an argument for or against that assertion. As you would need enough enough points to show what the trend was both before the flood and currently.

I only point this out because I assume you misunderstood what was said about the trend line, if you had another purpose for pointing this out which I am missing I would be interested in knowing it.

re-reading it, I agree with you. I missed the word "trendline" when I read it the first time.

I'm not able to find an up to date enough trendline to agree or disagree with his statement.

> they still haven't returned to the pre-flood trendline last I checked.

They have. I remember buying 2TB drives a year before (2010). I paid about $200 each. Last year (2014), I bought 4TB drives for $130 each. That's about 3x improvement over 4 years, right?

Appled to oranges. In 2010, you overpaid by more than 100%: http://slickdeals.net/expired/2495085-79-99-seagate-barracud...

Apples to oranges. Can't compare the seagate junk to a quality WD or Hitachi that's far more likely to still be spinning _today._

The prices may not be falling at the same rate as they were before the floods, though.

That's likely the case, since a lot of industry consolidation has happened since (5 to 3).


Why would prices follow Moore's law rather than the laws of supply and demand? If all of a sudden there is an immense supply of drives whose performance and capacity themselves don't follow Moore's law then prices certainly wouldn't either.

If suppliers can deliver hard drives that follow some cube version of Moore's law (temporarily, long term everything seems to S-Curve IMHO), then prices will fall dramatically, even in a time frame less than 5 years.

Are spinnies horse drawn carriages, and Solid States the start of different, new, less mechanically restricted jet age? I think we all know that answer to that question -- maaaybe ;)

The author commented that they've seen a 50% drop in price over the last 8 months (from 20x HDD to 10x HDD), so it's not outside the realms of probability with the increased yields of 3D NAND.

I doubt the 50% figure.

Just as a test: I looked at the price history for a random 256GB SSD (from Crucial). The highest price in the last year? $115. The current price? $99. Not nearly a 50% drop.

Link: http://camelcamelcamel.com/Crucial-MX100-2-5-Inch-Internal-C...

Now you are just cherry picking to prove a point. In a similar tone checkout the huge drop in prices for the Kingston Digital 240GB SSDNow[1]. It has dropped from about $400 to a mind blowing $78!!

I have been tracking the prices of HDD's for a while now. Although I do agree that HDDs are currently substantially cheaper than SSDs, HDDs have had much less drop in price or increase in capacity compared to the pre flood era. The bigger problem facing HDDs now is that almost all major manufactures are bought up by WD and Seagate and this is starting to show the ill effects of a duopoly. So it remains in their best interest to keep the prices high [2].

[1] http://camelcamelcamel.com/Kingston-Digital-SSDNow-SV300S37A...

[2] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2194549/western-dig...

"The bigger problem facing HDDs now is that almost all major manufactures are bought up by WD and Seagate and this is starting to show the ill effects of a duopoly. So it remains in their best interest to keep the prices high [2]."

It's not in the HDD manufacturers best interest to keep prices inflated, considering price is one of the 2 big competitive edge HDDs have over SSDs.

What happened during the floods was that WD[0] got lucky - data consumption remained high as ever, and SSDs simply weren't cheap enough at that point to fill the void that the floods left behind.

[0] And to a greater extent, Seagate. From what I remembered their facilities weren't directly affected by the flood, but their supply chains were disrupted.

Is it not superseded by this item?


The price is about the same, as is the performance, but are they still making the MX100? If not, I think the pricing information for it will not be very informative.

I have been (unscientifically) tracking the prices of consumer level SSDs that are on sale for a few years now, there isn't any massive drop: http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2015/may/ssdgraph....

A logarithmic scale would give a better image of the situation.

While I suspect your original comment is closer to the truth than the article's (as far as price parity goes), picking a single data point doesn't make the point. It's rare for a drive to suddenly drop in price so significantly without manufacturing changes (thusly a new version of the drive). So while you're unlikely to see the same exact drive for 50% less after a year it's entirely plausible to see a different model, similar or more capacity, drop in price.

In late 2013 I bought an 840 Pro 256GB for around $190. Today, I'd be looking at a 512GB 850 Pro for $140, probably $120 on a good sale (like when I bought the 840 Pro).

Its about 40% in a little over a year and a half. Significant, at least. Its at the point where you cannot recommend to anyone to use a mechanical hard drive as an OS volume anymore, at least, at any price.

Samsung 512GB 850 Pro is $260 on Amazon[0], not $140. Am I missing something?

[0] http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-512GB-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-7KE...

The prices at the high end have been imploding faster than at the low end.

Cheapest new 250 GB HDD on NewEgg: $34.95

Cheapest new 256 GB SSD on NewEgg: $82.99

It's more interesting to me to compare cost/GB on the most frequently shipped or bought capacity for each media. At 250GB, the SSD is at close to (or maybe just ahead of) the most common size. 250GB HDDs are basically close to EOL which I imagine can skew the 'sweet spot' price up or down depending on the situation. Under that definition, SSD sweet spots are probably 128 or 256GB, and HDD is probably 1TB or 2TB?

The cheapest 250GB HDD isn't really a good measure - twice the capacity is what, $3-4 more?

But is the 250 GB HDD still in production? I'm guessing that's a fire sale price. I don't think drives still in production ever go below $50.

Data! http://www.jcmit.com/flash2015.htm

You can see there's about a 10x difference between the two on the logarithmic scale chart. The trend is slightly faster for SSD, but a quick straightedge-on-monitor projection suggests the intercept is closer to 2015, if ever.

Is that a typo? Did you mean "2025" (i.e. 10 years out?) - I looked at the graph, and that's what it looked like to me based on historical projections.

The author, Jim O'Reilly, is not basing his article on historical analysis, but on an understanding of the impact of 3D NAND + his communication with the major flash providers - some of whom are committing to 8 TB and 16 TB SSD drives in the next 18 months. That, in conjunction with massively more efficient utilization of existing Fabs (both by dropping back a few process generations to increase Yield, plus stacking the NANDs in the Z direction) is going to create a huge disruption in the next 18 months.

Now - the question up for debate - does this disruption result in lower prices, does it result in large and expensive drives, or are the Fabs supply constrained such that they will be able to serve new markets, but not have sufficient capacity to drive down prices on high volume?

Regardless - 2015/2016 are going to be huge years for SSD storage.

It is a typo; my 10key isn't as good as I imagine it is, clearly =( I meant 2018.

Prices get weird on Amazon. Maybe newegg would yield a better comparison. Also maybe that HDD and that SSD aren't the same level of quality?

It's essentially accurate.

For example on Newegg a vanilla 7200 HD from Western Digital, at 1tb, will run you $50. The lowest cost 1tb SSD will run in the mid $300s. A solid 7x difference.

In less than two years we'll see consumer retail 1tb SSDs for $150 to $200. What's actually going to happen, more than a violent price plunge pushing 1tb down to $50, is capacity will soar while prices fall more reasonably than the article indicates. So you'll be buying 5tb SSDs for $300 in three or four years. The difference is the friction the SSD makers will insert into the market, when it comes to falling prices; ie the difference between what they could sell them at, and what they actually will sell them at. The race will be to higher capacities first, then as capacity saturation nears, the bottom will fall out of lower SSD storage tiers on pricing.

Are there technical limits to hard drive capacity?

Is there a point at which they simply cannot get cheaper?

Yes and no?

Those new "shingled" Hard Drives are 8TB and pretty cheap. However, the hard drives have severe reductions in speed and are really only for archival purposes. IIRC, there's a path for 10TB, 16TB and beyond if you're willing to put up with the weaknesses of shingled hard drives.

Granted, SSDs are moving from MLC(2-bits per cell) to TLC (3-bits per cell) which reduce speed significantly without actually selling any "more" hardware. So both sides are "cheating" extra capacity out of the same hardware.

If you want to keep the same high-quality specs that the 4tb hard drives have (speed, reliability, etc. etc.), I don't think there's a valid upgrade path at the moment. There's some research to push the capacities beyond that while retaining the speed of current hard drives, but they're not ready for commercial use yet.

But the same is true for SSDs. 16nm MLC Flash might turn to 10nm or 8nm as process technology improves... but that's maybe a 2x to 4x improvment in capacity. TLC gives another 50% boost.

HAMR may also manifest at some point soon and push HDD densities way up while getting rid of the problems associated with SMR. HAMR will likely be expensive just like Helium is but it will certainly unlock a lot of super high density materials when it comes about (which may be in the next several years).

With the tech we're talking about, there are definitely limits per inch. They'll be able to fit a petabyte in a 2.5" SSD drive case before the SSD sunsets, at a cost of $300. At that time, your 100tb SSD might be $50 to $75.

After SSD, what technology will take us to 100pb drives at $300? Is that even possible, while keeping the small size of the drive? No idea. It's going to require some amazing breakthroughs.

DNA storage[1]? It will be very interesting to watch computers become more "organic" over time. DNA for storage, processors that are correct "most of the time", deeper and more broad neural networks, etc.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_digital_data_storage

Ah zeno's paradox. When the SSD matches the HDD price, in 28.5 months, the HDD will have moved, and so on and so on. Although at some point they'll probably just make many many fewer HDDs so the price will stop moving much.

For any storage experts, will HDD still be preferable for long-term cold storage or are those even currently an unacceptable solution? Seems like cold storage might end up being more important over time. I guess AWS Glacier is <$1 per TB per month which is pretty cheap and can presumably even fall over time. I have no idea what the reliability of these services is though.

if im not mistaken, amazon glacier is $10 per TB per month at 0.01 per GB per month stated price. please correct me if something has changed!

Ah you're right.

Perhaps this is too simplistic, but I think it should be cheaper to build solid-state chip than mechanical device.

But this also reminds me LCD / CRT wars. LCDs were promised to be cheaper, but it took years to amortize the setup costs, but we got there eventually.

> Although at some point they'll probably just make many many fewer HDDs so the price will stop moving much

At this point prices will go up again.

The gap narrows exponentially with each order of magnitude drop in price. Under 256 gigs you'd be hard-pressed to need a hdd over a ssd.

Even if you factor in the performance difference, the cost still doesn't quite work out. On average, I don't think they are ~9x faster (more like 5x). Sure, SSDs max out disk interface speed and effectively have no seek time, but there are few workloads that are heavy on 4k random I/O (like booting and copying small files).

Really? For myself and everyone else I've talked to, using an SSD was by far the largest upgrade they've applied to their home computer for many years.

As a desktop user tasks like booting and copying small files make a hell of a difference for the perceived speed of a system, because they feel like they should be fast. This is where SSDs shine. On the other hand, most tasks that involve sequential I/O with bigger files are expected to take some time. Have you ever tried unzipping eclipse on different systems?

Who besides Apple is 'forcing' users to use SSD? Even most of so called 'Ultrabooks' use HDD in order to become cheaper.

If almost no one understands the performance and reliability difference a SSD can give, and almost no one 'enforces' users to buy SSD, how is this technology become cheaper in a so fast rate?

Fabrication improvements.

I bought a $50 1TB HDD from Newegg for my gaming desktop (which I of course do not use for gaming) about 6 months ago. I've looked again and they're the same price. It appears SSDs are still hundreds of dollars for the same capacity. I won't be buying an SSD until they're under $100/Tb.

Yup, pretty much. The only bit of news is that SSDs can achieve hard drive densities with 3D NAND, but like the early calls for the demise of all lighting other than LED. That was 10 years ago, its getting closer now. I'm putting in LED can lights in my living room for example. So at some point ...

To your LED point, I'm unaware of anyone not putting LED if cost of electricity or labor is of any importance.

Consumers may not have gotten the message yet, but anyone running the numbers is going LED or nothing at all (small exceptions for grow operations or theater lightening).

LED fixtures are worth it, LED edison base bulbs (replacement bulbs) are not.

So new installations get LED, but old ones are not retrofitted.

Citation? I've seen math that all LED bulbs provide a better return in saved energy costs over the S&P500.

Better return compared to incandescent, but a worse return compared to CFL.

Comparing to incandescent is quite disingenuous. The bulbs just cost too much today, and the heat problems (i.e. much lower lifetime) are not fully solved, they work in some fixtures and not in others.

Cree LEDs have a 20 year lifetime, and a 10-year limited warranty.

They cost a lot though, which was my original point, that they are not financially worth it (yet).

I don't know -- I just picked up a screw in LED bulb from Walmart for just over a couple bucks, about the same price as CFL. And I was surprised at how bright it was. Just wondering how long the electronics in it will last.

Those cheap LEDs have a CRI of around 80, you can get a CFL with that low of a CRI for under a dollar.

The LED has no advantages over the CFL, just extra cost, with no benefit.

LEDs turn on instantly, CFLs take a moment and get slower as time goes by. If I break a CFL I'm potentially exposing myself and my child to mercury vapor, not so with LED. Those are both benefits I appreciate.

CFL's turn on instantly unless they are in freezing weather. If yours don't then get better ones - walmart has really good ones.

The mercury vapor in CFLs is not very dangerous, it's elemental mercury which is not especially toxic, you need continuous exposure over a long time for it to cause any problems. One CFL is not going to do anything bad. How many CFLs do you break anyway? I've never broken a hot one, only a cold one that fell of the shelf, and cold ones don't release any mercury at all.

Buying an LED is an easier sell these days since the price has gone down, and the brightness has gone up, but I hope you did not avoid CFLs before now - that would have been very shortsighted.

I just had some LED bulbs burn out ~9 months after purchase.

Any potential cost savings just became really hard to recoup. I'm what, 6-10 years out now to save a $30 or so?

Cheap incadecent gives great quality light. Expensive LEDs give good quality light. Cheap LEDs ruin sleep patterns. Race to the bottom (and a lack of consumer awareness or ability tonbuy high quality bulbs) means LEDs are going to end up causing quite a negative impact for a non-trivial number of people.

FWIW my HOA put in shiet blueish LEDs everywhere outside. The entire complex now looks like a zombified wasteland. Evidence that I need to attend more meetings.

When you factor in depreciation, 1TB of HDD is conservatively worth half of what 1TB of SSD is worth.

And judging from the reliability figures I'm hearing, it's more like a 1/10 multiplier and SSDs already outpace HDDs in value.

Exactly. And how long until it achieves parity in the cloud hosting world. Hard drives and memory are so expensive you can buy they outright every other month it seems like.

I'd bet it's something more like a 5x increase in capacity for a 50% reduction in cost over the next year.

Doesn't sound as crazy when you think about it in that way.

My need for SSD is rather modest. I have an SSD big enough for the OS and things I use often, and a huge spinning secondary drive for things I rarely access.

That's a good pattern, one I use too. But that's not what the article was about - it was making the case that SSD would soon reach similar capacities as spinning HDs, and at similar prices. I'm skeptical too.

I believe we are already at the point where SSDs are large enough and cheap enough for the majority of use cases. It's only going to get better. There has always seemed to be a price floor for hard disks, where making them smaller doesn't make them any cheaper, and I'm wondering if the floor won't be lower for SSD.

I use spinning disks for archival backups. It's been reported that SSDs aren't reliable for that. Hard disks also are questionable for long term storage, which means I rotate them often, but still.

Anecdotally, USB sticks I throw in a drawer tend to go bad after a few years.

I'd still love to replace all the spinning disks with SSDs, though. Faster, smaller, less power, less fragile, silent, what's not to like? Hope the longevity issue gets better.

for an HP 3PAR Enterprise storage 2TB 7.2k SAS NL: list price 2.300€, discounted about 850€ 1.95TB SSD: list price 12k€

(sources: HP partner quote for the SAS disk, quick textchat with friend in HP for SSD)

Quick search says the Cheapest 1 TB SSD on Amazon: $99


Expecting 60% drop is not that crazy.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact