Flash Memory Still Not Causing The Death Of Hard Drives
from the working-together dept
Every once in a while, a crop of stories pops up on the question of whether flash memory can make hard drives obsolete, or at least take a big bit out of its share of the data storage market. One of the most vocal opponents of this idea has been the CEO of hard drive maker Seagate, Bill Watkins, who, for rather obvious reasons, would like to convince people that the whole idea is hogwash. For some time, he's been repeating the line that as long as hard drives maintain a cost advantage over flash, the market for them will remain steady. What this means in practice is that devices with (relatively) small storage needs, like iPods, will increasingly use flash, while hard drives will still be used for things that require a lot of storage, like HD video, because at that level the cost of flash is prohibitive. Now once again, a number of analysts are chiming in on this issue, prognosticating on the the fate of the two technologies. While there seems to be some temporary price weakness in the hard drive market, it looks like the story pretty much remains the same, as both technologies have their role. In a recent interview, the Seagate CEO even spoke about how the two technologies could complement each other, such as hard drives with some flash built into them for faster data transfer. Although both technologies should stick around for awhile, this hybrid approach makes a lot of sense for a company like Seagate, and it's a sign that the company realizes its in the business of data storage, not just in the business of hard drives.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WRONG
They are in the business of selling rotating magentic disk drives. Adding flash mem to a drive and allowing windows to make an even bigger, even slower page file is nothing more than an incentive to sell more rotating magnetic disk platters.
Want all the advantages of a hybrid drive wiht none of the extra costs? Get rid of your page file, and let the memory stay in RAM, where its actually fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WRONG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WRONG
Yes, there are benefits to adding a non-volatile ram subsystem to a PC. There are no benefits to adding that ram to the hdd.
As for your remarks... You already can save power by hibernating, but there is no point to it. Hybrid drives won' be improving that experience either.
You already can save power by "sleeping" aka: standby. Keeping the RAM refreshed takes very little power, and my laptops can go over two weeks in standby.
Too large to store in RAM?? you've got to be kidding me...
Perhaps you are confusing your susceptability to marketing as my inability to comprehend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WRONG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WRONG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WRONG
Maybe they can get one for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about just a new type of drive.
see this article -
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/1832222&from=rss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about just a new type of drive.
right now this is what I want in my laptop. two of them even since my system supports two easy.
http://www.adtron.com/products/A25fb-SerialATAFlashDisk.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hybrid drives avaiable soon
http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/07/samsungs-hybrid-hard-drive-hhd-released-to-oems/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget hybrid- 64GB pure flash available this year
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/1832222&from=rss
64GB flash-based hard drive. That's already bigger than what comes on many laptops. I imagine it will mighty expensive, but it will only get cheaper over time and I imagine there are more than a few who will want one of these in their high-end laptop.
I just wonder if they've managed to solve the problem of a limited (relatively small) number of write operations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forget hybrid- 64GB pure flash available this
http://www.bitmicro.com/press_resources_flash_ssd.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The article is correct...
Reality often takes time to catch up with technological possiblities. But once it does.. hard drive manufacturers will change or disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flash is already killing the death of hard drives
sure, it might take a while to get the capacity up to that of rotating magnetic platters, but it is getting there, and in the microstorage market, flash already caused the demise of rotating magentic disks.
The seagate dude is right, as long as magnetic disks are cheaper there will be a market for them. One that is on a steady decline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flash is already causing the death of hard dri
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cache as cache can
I don't understand the point of putting any kind of cache memory on the hard drive itself. Doesn't matter how fast it is, it's still on the wrong side of the peripheral interface (PATA, SATA, SCSI, whatever), so it will always be limited by the speed of that. Whereas using main RAM for caching means that you can access the cache at full main RAM speeds.
This is what a modern system like Linux does: it uses main RAM for caching at the filesystem level. This way, disk drivers don't have to worry about caching--all they have to think about is moving blocks of data back and forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember Kodak
Digital cameras would never match the quality of film.
I can't imagine in 2017 using any storage device with moving parts.
Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember Kodak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people will ask the question of what we would all do with such vast quantities of data, but they are forgetting how much data capacity has grown over the last decade. Even five years ago, most people werre still using floppies, and a 100GB HDD was big. Nowadays, a 500GB HDD is not unreasonable, and over 7-800GB is not unheard of. All the higher resolution videos, 3d games of vstly higher quality, and so forth are all trends we can hope to see continue. After all, who could afford to fill 80GB of theier HDD with music five-ten years ago.
The only problem I see with the continued growth of data capacity and internet speeds is that the content of the Internet will re-balance to a much higher quantity of smut and pirated content like in the early days, before so much web traffic was around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]