[Level1Techs] 256TB in a Single SSD Is Real, and It's Coming to Consumers

[-]

Cookie1990@reddit

Video Error.. But I doubt that a normal dude can buy this in the next 8 years without selling his car.

[-]

gatsu01@reddit

Dude my car is worse less than my PC that I bought 4 yrs ago... Thanks Nvidia and AI for making PC components out of reach.

[-]

TemuPacemaker@reddit

I have a Honda Fit/Jazz that cost me $600

[-]

gatsu01@reddit

A little bit of both actually. Car depreciates, PC components appreciated??? Wth Open AI screw you guys .

[-]

diemitchell@reddit

i doubt he would be able to while selling his car

[-]

Exist50@reddit

Yeah, you're looking at like $100k at current pricing, for a very rough estimate. Better be a damn nice car...

[-]

vini_2003@reddit

Pretty interesting price. A 1TB 990 Pro runs for $340 off BestBuy. This runs at $390 per TB.

Of course a business wouldn't make an SSD storage rack out of 1 TB drives, but it's priced rather competitively if it really is a nice, round $100k of course.

[-]

Exist50@reddit

To be clear, that number was just me eyeballing NAND spot prices and putting an arbitrary premium on top. Could cost less or more at retail; I don't know.

[-]

diemitchell@reddit

It is probably too low even, since a 61.44tb ssd is 37755€ rn😂

[-]

egnegn1@reddit

https://www.ebay.de/itm/406132096177 About 10k Euro.

And you can get used Enterprise drives of smaller sizes for less than 100 Euro/TB. Last month I have bought 7 SAS/NVMe used SSDs of 7.68TB for well below 100 EUR/TB with 95+% health.

[-]

diemitchell@reddit

hmmmm, looking at a price watch here, the lowest i saw from an enterprise webshop was 37k

[-]

egnegn1@reddit

You should look at Ebay and other selling platforms. All the Enterprise shops have advertised totally inflated prices. Only braindead people buy at this prices.

[-]

DutchieTalking@reddit

I understood the existing 245 tb ssd costs around $30k. So it should definitely not have to cost $30k.

[-]

Fear_ltself@reddit

I doubt they’ll even have a car to sell in 8 years

[-]

bizude@reddit

By consumers, do they mean people like Elon Musk?

Or do they mean maybe in like 10 years from now?! :D

[-]

hackenclaw@reddit

bold of you to assume 10yrs from now you can get it at reasonable price lol.

Year 2012, a typical mainstream desktop has

CPU has 4 cores, RAM were 8GB-16GB, 1-2GB GPU VRAM, 512GB to 1TB of HDD.

Year 2025,

CPU 8-12cores, RAM 16-32GB, 8-12GB GPU Vram, 512GB to 2TB SSD. (infact you will rarely see OEM pre-build put 2TB SSD)

The CPU performance itself has improved a lot per core (IPC), so total performance is easily more than 4x.
RAM capacity only doubled.
GPU vram gone up 6x-8x, Performance probably wayy more. former flagship GTX480 is slower than GTX750Ti.
Storage speed improved a lot due to SSD, but the main problem is storage capacity barely improve much. But software install size probably bloated by 7x-10x. AAA games used to be 5GB to 20GB, now it is 70GB to 200GB.

With the way it is, in 10yrs you probably see SSD size for normal consumer upped into range from 1TB to 4TB only. (8TB if you are lucky) The nand cartel is real.

[-]

strongdoctor@reddit

Just to add to this, before the price hikes, the sweet spot has been 4TB drives. After that, you pay a lot more per TB of NVMe storage.

Also, the reason games have grown in size is because the drives are faster. I think now we've sort of reached a point where to compete, companies will have to do it with largely just size.

[-]

paeschli@reddit

When I bought my 8 TB WD SN 850X for 600€ the equivalent 4 TB went for about 250€. Yeah you were paying a premium (for a slight slower drive) but it wasn't terrible either

[-]

I've had a Samsung 1TB and 2TB drive die, both with around 90 percent of their TBW life remaing. I can't imagine buying an 8TB drive. Maybe i just got unlucky with Samsung problems. Both were unreadable when they failed which was doubly bad.

[-]

paeschli@reddit

I haven't had a SSD die on me (yet) but have killed a hard drive in the past by letting it drop on the floor. Given my clumsiness, I prefer handling a SSD vs a hard drive...

[-]

DiplomatikEmunetey@reddit

I was hoping we would be at 8TB SSD being realistically affordable (\~$200) territory by now.

[-]

zhantoo@reddit

Should also include how the speed of memory hs involved in that time period.

It's rare that casual users need more than 32gb of memory. 8 is low, but for most 16 is perfectly adequate.

But the MHz has gone up a lot.

For a lot of the time, most of the components have dropped in price (and also gone up now...).

But ignoring the current massive increases, if you kept the same budget (adjusted for inflation), you would get a higher end machine when upgrading.

But 256tb is still a few days out...

[-]

paeschli@reddit

Normal office use consumes 18 GB for me. That covers the MS Office stack (Teams, OneNote, Word, a simple Excel file or two), a browser with a couple tabs open and occasionally firing up SAP to execute a transaction.

16 GB is 'fine' I guess but it's starting to feel cramped, even if you aren't a heavy user.

[-]

zhantoo@reddit

I don't know about SAP, but I have much more than this open, and don't consume 18GB.

My couble of tabs is most likely 30+ Always Outlook wirh a few emails under draft, a light+ Excels. Alwaya Teams

And don't consume all my 16GB

But neither your or I are casual / average users.

[-]

tecedu@reddit

The RAM usages depends on how much bs runs in the background, my work laptop idles at 40gb, our endpoint protection lovesss the extra ram

[-]

pesca_22@reddit

storage is improved if you remain in hd, you can easily get 8tb or even 24 (*) for the price you could get 1tb in 2012 tho.

(*) or at least you could last year, not counting today craze.

[-]

jaypizzl@reddit

Maybe... there's been more progress than you imply here, though. A CyberPower PC from 2012 ("Gamer Infiniti 8800 Pro SE") sold for $2,783 of today's dollars. It had 16gb DDR3-1600, 2 TB SATA drive, GeForce GTX 670 2GB, an i7-3930K, an 800W PSU, and a plastic-y case. Today, they sell a system for $2,699 with 32GB DDR5-6000, 2 TB WD SN3000 SSD, 5070 Ti, an Intel 285k, 850W PSU, and a nice glass case with RGB lighting all over.

The new system only has 2x memory due to our current insane price spike, but it's got lower latency and 4x the bandwidth. That's the main weak spot. That's fair, but we're in a weird point in time in that regard. The second weak spot, also due to our weird times, is that the new system's storage is the same size. Still, that SSD is probably the single most improved part of the system. It's no larger, but it's got 30x higher throughout and 6,300x higher IOPS, it's silent, and much more reliable. The 5070 Ti does 32b float 17x faster. The new CPU is 8x faster. The system uses the same sized PSU.

So the new system ought to be like 10-15x better, give or take. I think it's a bit short due to the price spike we have now, but it's not that far off.

[-]

BigIronEnjoyer69@reddit

Storage speed improved a lot due to SSD, but the main problem is storage capacity barely improve much. But software install size probably bloated by 7x-10x. AAA games used to be 5GB to 20GB, now it is 70GB to 200GB.

Meh, this is a 2025/2026 problem. 2024 had those 4tb and 8tb SSDS at the $200-$300 range.

[-]

txmail@reddit

With the way it is, in 10yrs you probably see SSD size for normal consumer upped into range from 1TB to 4TB only. (8TB if you are lucky) The nand cartel is real.

The NAND cartel is losing ground though and spinning disk will continue to rise in price (after eventually getting reset from the current cluster fuck). NAND will continue to drop eventually being less expensive than spinning disks. I would give it just five years before we cross that threshold.

[-]

Kyanche@reddit

2012 was 14 years ago. 10 years ago that PC might've had an SSD. Although probably 240-512gb.

[-]

hackenclaw@reddit

I am trying to give a benefit of the doubt by adding 4 more years. You wont get much improvement on storage capacity in 10yrs or even 14yrs.

[-]

Kyanche@reddit

I mean at the time you could get 2,4tb hard drives on the cheap I guess.

[-]

DuhPai@reddit

Or there was the briefly popular option to use a 32-64 gb SSD as a boot drive. They were available for under $100 when the 240-512 gb drives were still in the hundreds of dollars.

[-]

pythonic_dude@reddit

It's L1tech, he gets absurdly excited over tech that will be used by like 1000 people over the globe all the time.

[-]

keyboardmonkewith@reddit

Welp, they mean 30year mortgage with 8%interest.

[-]

zushiba@reddit

The only “consumers” buying computer components. Data centers. They’re consumers too.

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

Coming to "consumers".\ For extremely loose definition of "consumers".🤣\ Who needs THAT much pr0n ? Epstein class ?

[-]

Skywarper@reddit

People said the same thing in the 90s. "You'll never run out of space on that 4mb floppy disk"

[-]

NormalKey8897@reddit

People said the same thing in the 90s. "You'll never run out of space on that 4mb floppy disk"

no, people did not say that in 90s

[-]

Swoly_Deadlift@reddit

Unless we get really bad about optimizing software I doubt consumer storage demands will be in the dozens of terabytes any time soon. Video files can take up a ton of space, but it’s not likely we ever see home videos jump beyond 8K unless 180/360 degree VR videos become the standard in the future.

[-]

Tech_Itch@reddit

Did they though? I don't remember a single time in my 40+ years of computing when I went "Alright, I have enough storage space forever!"

A single DOS formated 3,5" floppy could fit 1.44MB and the first consumer HDs 20MB on average. 4MB is not an astronomical amount of space by the 90s by any stretch of the imagination.

[-]

wafflingzebra@reddit

it's different this time (but actually though)

[-]

adh1003@reddit

Ain't nothing floppy about that much pr0n.

[-]

BetterAd7552@reddit

With that much pr0n you will be endlessly fapping a floppy

[-]

Same_Mood_8543@reddit

We had multi 3.5" floppy games in the early 90s. CD ROM was the big thing back then and even that was hardly an endless storage solution.

[-]

CitizenWilderness@reddit

I remember going to my friend’s with a floppy disk thinking it was an unlimited storage method, “copying” all his games, and then realizing that I had just been copying the desktop shortcuts when I got home.

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

Yes, you are clueless now just like you were clueless then. What of it ?

[-]

banneddan1@reddit

Even better,1.44mb

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

This is "the same thing" to you? 🤣 In AI world, would it be impolite to say that your parents weren't exactly sharpest inference engines out there ?\ Shoddy weight training, shallow context or shitty model ?

[-]

emotionengine@reddit

That was just needlessly mean-spirited.

[-]

Skywarper@reddit

You seem way too pressed about this, my man. Maybe you should take some time off of the internet.

[-]

Kougar@reddit

Just one of those would make a kickass NAS, but of course you'd need redundancy so that means two...

8TB SSDs were just reaching $500 before it all went to hell, an all-flash NAS would last practically forever without any spinning rust to constantly replace every five years.

[-]

egnegn1@reddit

Just in this moment I bought 4x Toshiba PX04SRB384 3.84TB SAS eSSD for 150 Euro each. The last week's I bought 7 SAS/NVMe Enterprise drives with a capacity of 7.68TB for prices of 400 - 450 Euro and health of 95+ %.

There lot of offers in the used market. Anyone buying SSDs at advertised prices is braindead.

[-]

zzzoom@reddit

Flash doesn't last forever, you need to refresh cells after a while and each cell only lasts so many writes.

[-]

Jeep-Eep@reddit

And if you really need to recover that data, much of the time that shit's still recoverable from a dead HDD.

[-]

Kougar@reddit

Au contraire, a single 8TB Black has 4.8 petabytes of write endurance. A storage away of them would be 4.8PB multiplied by the number of drives in the array. Media storage & backup focused NAS boxes are primarily read intensive, so there you go. The real issue is running out of storage space long before you wear out drives, it makes far less sense to have an SSD array full of a ton of small capacity SSDs. Even something like the ASUSTOR Flashstor 2 only has 12 M.2 slots.

I have USB flash drives from \~30 years ago that still work, 128MB, 256MB and 1GB in size. All have taken trips through the laundry, still use them as boot drives. I've written \~40TB to 240GB drives that haven't yet reallocated blocks, friends still have working 120GB SSDs with 22TBW on them and above 96% health. I've never managed to wear out a single SSD, but I have had one SID (SSD Infant Death) after reboot, and an old OCZ Vertex with firmware issues. However surge protection, voltage regulation, and a quality PSU can go a long ways to preventing voltage spike concerns.

The write endurance this specific QLC 256TB SSD is 76.8TB which is low, but can still be workable for mostly read applications. It'd be sufficient for my use case as a media NAS given 4K videos and old music aren't going to be constantly re-written to the device, but no shortage of TLC alternatives exist too which are sufficient for any personal use. As for refreshing the cells, a NAS stays powered on & it does its own data integrity checks. Combined with SSD's internal wear leveling management that will move data around on its own this means you're not going to run into cell refresh issues or uneven wear across drives that are in an array.

[-]

YourVelourFog@reddit

Consumers being enterprise customers. They don’t mean normal folk trying to download a car.

[-]

Exist50@reddit

Usually those would not fall under "consumers" at all.

[-]

YourVelourFog@reddit

IMO the senior engineer from Kioxia works with enterprise customers all the time and those are his consumers. I don’t think any “consumer” is running a 256TB flash drive in a host-managed state which is what they’re discussing here about the drive not having 256GB of RAM since the host manages the translation layer.

[-]

Exist50@reddit

They are "customers", not "consumers".

[-]

0xe1e10d68@reddit

Yes, that's exactly why it's better to use the word _customers_ instead of consumers. Customers doesn't imply any specific group.

[-]

AkazaAkari@reddit

Bad title from OP.

Datacenter product that will only be sold to large businesses is most definitely NOT coming soon to consumers

[-]

webearwebull@reddit

Loose all your data in a single power surge using this one simple trick

[-]

SkylarR95@reddit

Would definitely buy and replace my wholes NAS with it, at the same time it would be more practical and cheaper to just upgrade everything to 8TB SSDs.

[-]

Intrepid_Lecture@reddit

Let's pretend we had mid-2025 pricing.

This is 32x the 8TB SSD I bought for $500 then.

So around 16k at that price.

And about 40k now.

I'm not buying one of these for a while. Let's circle back in a decade or two.

[-]

egnegn1@reddit

Just in this moment I bought 4x Toshiba PX04SRB384 3.84TB SAS eSSD for 150 Euro each. The last week's I bought 7 SAS/NVMe Enterprise drives with a capacity of 7.68TB for prices of 400 - 450 Euro and health of 95+ %.

There lot of offers in the used market. Anyone buying SSDs at advertised prices is braindead.

[-]

OneFinePotato@reddit

I’m still waiting for a discount to get a 1 or 2 tb

[-]

egnegn1@reddit

Just in this moment I bought 4x Toshiba PX04SRB384 3.84TB SAS eSSD for 150 Euro each. The last week's I bought 7 SAS/NVMe Enterprise drives with a capacity of 7.68TB for prices of 400 - 450 Euro and health of 95+ %.

There lot of offers in the used market. Anyone buying SSDs at advertised prices is braindead.

[-]

ritz_are_the_shitz@reddit

Call me when 16TB is back down to a grand

[-]

egnegn1@reddit

Just in this moment I bought 4x Toshiba PX04SRB384 3.84TB SAS eSSD for 150 Euro each. The last week's I bought 7 SAS/NVMe Enterprise drives with a capacity of 7.68TB for prices of 400 - 450 Euro and health of 95+ %.

There lot of offers in the used market. Anyone buying SSDs at advertised prices is braindead.

[-]

Only_Tennis5994@reddit

If an SSD fails, it fails, there is no way to retrieve data from it. For that much storage I’d much rather go with the old HDD or even tape.

[-]

LukeLC@reddit

Not necessarily. Flash storage can work around bad blocks, especially with a portion allocated for error correction. And even if you exhaust all the writes a drive can do, you can still read from it. And with 256TB, it'll take a looooooong time to exhaust write endurance.

Heck, Backblaze has found over time that SSDs are somewhat more reliable than HDDs: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-reliable-are-ssds/

[-]

InflammableAccount@reddit

I had to unsubscribe to Wendell for a while. I've already had enough AI for a lifetime and his positive coverage of the industry's move to going full ** on AI just soured me to his content.

And no, Wendell, it's not "coming to consumers." It's coming to the extremely wealthy.

[-]

HatchetHand@reddit

You know Wendell runs an IT consulting and sever maintenance business, right? The hardware he reviews is designed for AI and computer science. So, consumer grade hardware is not his area of tech journalism. He's just trying to be relatable.

[-]

InflammableAccount@reddit

A good portion of his content is relatable for homelab enthusiasts. Has been for years. It's the all-in on AI that I have a problem with.

It's the pretending that the gross over investment in AI isn't a problem for: The industry, consumers, entry level workers, and the environment that I have a problem with.

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

Why is this newsworthy ? \ Where is significance of this for anyone here ?

Even before Altmann's stunt, it's not like NAND FLASH cells were getting any cheaper. Chips were getting denser AND more expensive.

Bottleneck was never the physical size of the chip, but its price.

[-]

Exist50@reddit

it's not like NAND FLASH cells were getting any cheaper. Chips were getting denser AND more expensive.

But they were though? On average, at least, NAND was on a steady pricing decline.

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

Mostly through enshittification.

SLC -> MLC ->TLC -> QLC.

NAND FLASH density doesn't scale. It comes down to 16 nm process and that's it, more or less.

[-]

La_OccidentalOrient@reddit

I can't say I agree with that. While SLC to MLC can be considered somewhat of a downgrade, by the time of mass transition from MLC to TLC they were basically equal in terms of endurance, and late MLC was eventually surpassed in terms of pure endurance.

The real stagnation isn't in nand durability or density, that's just a issue of time. It's more the other components of the SSD that hold it back and the relegation of features like PLP to exclusively commercial products.

Even QLC at it's worse isn't that bad, we're already on PLC although no one's gotten a working product just yet.

[-]

RedGreenBlue09@reddit

My experience is the opposite of what you said. I have one SK 512 GB TLC SSD with TBW of 288 TB but it died at 40 TB written. I bought an WD SN850X and it showed the same symptoms (random freezes, disconnects) a few months after buying, like WTF? Maybe that's just unlucky but I feel like the TLC ones can just die randomly. I have an Intel 240 GB MLC that at least works for 10 years as an OS drive until I put it outside (of a PC) for a long time. I also have a Sandisk 32 GB MLC from like 2010 and it's still going strong today at 3.8 TB written.

How is QLC "isn't that bad" when it fails to beat HDDs in sustained write? Even the MLC Samsung 970 Pro can beat most if not all TLC SSDs in terms of sustained write, let alone QLC. Endurance is hard to measure but at least the expected TBW is double of a similar TLC one.

[-]

La_OccidentalOrient@reddit

On the first part of that response. Isn't that just a classic case of personal bias? The statistics both theoretical and real world don't line up with your beliefs based on personal experience. Storage products also are alot more than just nand, controller failure is much more common than nand wearing out.

QLC isn't bad in that it satisfies the common consumer's demand for the most part. If you have even a slight preference or demand for a certain spec you no longer belong in that. I don't believe that the proliferation of QLC is entirely good either but I don't deny that for most people it makes basically no difference.

The biggest thing damaging QLC is the QC, QLC is disproportionately used on budget products and like I said they usually die less of nand wearing out more of some part of the ssd breaking or reused nand.

[-]

RedGreenBlue09@reddit

Maybe I'm unlucky but thats already an example. You have nothing to back that TLC has the same endurance. Even the manufacturers themselves disagree.

"For most people it makes basically no difference" until it suddenly does for them. You can't say you've never copied a large file before. Then the drive which is marketed to be large for the same price, suddenly cripples to 30 MB/s and you're stuck a whole day waiting for it. It can also do the same to drive cloning and game downloads (if your internet is faster). The random performance is also worse, which directly affects how snappy the OS experience is.

[-]

La_OccidentalOrient@reddit

I'm not citing some sort of obscure study, the easiest way to check this is to the spec sheet for the Samsung 970 Pro and compare it to the 980 and 990 Pro.

The switch from Planar to 3D nand in manufacturing basically brought TLC back to being viable again. A few years into it TLC was the essentially the same durability as previous MLC products.

But I concede that I slightly misrepresented it when I said MLC and TLC are the same, but the difference is essentially non-existent in products you and I have access to.

I don't, I have 6 or 7 boot and storage drives and all of them are TLC. I don't use QLC and have avoided it for years now and that won't change anytime soon.

But just like the change from MLC to Planar TLC It's just another instance of the industry transitioning to a temporarily worse product until the technology matures and equalizes.

Or maybe the industry is more corrupt than I realized and is saying the manufacturing savings and that QLC SSDs are still technically faster than HDDs are the only benefits the consumer will be getting this generation. That the egg is on my face, I don't know.

[-]

RedGreenBlue09@reddit

I mean, let's take a simple example. The latest and greatest Samsung 9100 Pro 1 TB has TBW of 600, while the 970 Pro 1 TB has TBW of 1200. The sustained write speed for the 9100 Pro is 1.8 GB/s while the 970 Pro will maintain its rated write speed of 2.7 GB/s indefinitely.

The max random speed of the 9100 Pro might be much better, but that's just RAM benchmarking as things will slow down when the data spills out of cache. When that's the case, the 9100 Pro won't be that much better. This random speed is why Optane owners says their PC feels way more responsive than with any normal SSD.

I have never used 870 QVO, but the review on TechPowerUp is very concerning. My experience with TLC might be just me being unlucky, but from what the companies themselves claimed, the rated TBW of MLC is still usually double of a similar capacity TLC. You can buy Enterprise TLC for more endurance but then that's not much cheaper compared to how MLC originally was. I feel like the RAM cache inside is the only thing that got better, and the NAND itself still has similar price/perf compared to old SSDs.

[-]

La_OccidentalOrient@reddit

(In my mind at least) It's still a temporary thing. The industry still has some techniques up its sleeve that can make QLC more viable (currently reserved for industrial products), but as just an enthusiast I'm not privy to that conversation.

Or maybe they're saving that for PLC.

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

Which just shows how clueless you are. Every step has suffered MASSIVE losses in endurance and retention, which had to be patched with levels of ECC protection, which has risen to ridiculous levels already with TLC, let alone QLC.

[-]

La_OccidentalOrient@reddit

That's the traditional way it's been portrayed to consumers but it's not really representative of reality. The current transition to QLC is the only one I would say is somewhat dubious, but even then I think you're being a bit over the top.

There's still alot of progress being made, and in the end they could still go with the simple method of a larger pSLC cache or straight up full drive pSLC with QLC or PLC if they ever work it out.

No need for that sort of apocalyptic rhetoric.

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

You have detached yourself from reality, using cluelessness as your shield.

[-]

La_OccidentalOrient@reddit

I mean you're free to discuss any points I made on technical grounds, I'm only an enthusiast and am always open to filling in knowledge gaps I might have

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

You look more like not that great AI engine.

[-]

La_OccidentalOrient@reddit

I've been called ESL before but that's a first.

[-]

La_OccidentalOrient@reddit

I mean, it's computer hardware and we're on a sub about discussing computer hardware?

[-]

gumol@reddit

I work in hardware space, and cutting edge SSDs are very interesting to me.

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

You are not a customer.

[-]

gumol@reddit

I am. We spend a shitload of money on SSDs and other computer hardware.

[-]

Brian_Littlewood@reddit

If you were, you wouldn't need this stuff to keep you informed.\ Your phone number would be on Micron's speed dial. And it would be other way around - mere mortals would get to enjoy occasional leaks form your staff.

[-]

Kougar@reddit

Based off the cheapest 8TB consumer drive available as of this typing, that'd straight up cost $43,200. But the last time I looked at Kioxia SSDs after a Wendell video they were well above consumer prices.

[-]

redimkira@reddit

I don't know what's the black market for kidneys these days, but that should equate to at least a couple of them and in good shape.

[-]

BloodyLlama@reddit

If prices go back to pre LLM prices we're looking at closer to $16K, which is used car rather than new car prices.

[-]

Kougar@reddit

I'm sure they will again, just a matter of time. Prices might even crash pretty hard through the previous price floor depending how hard the AI bubble goes...

I'm less enthused at these QLC drives though, this specific 256TB drive is DWPD 0.3 only at 16KB sector size, a 4K sector sizes drops it to a DWPD of 0.075 which is too low given the cost. Even consumer grade TLC drives are a better value unless this thing goes cheap, and it won't.

[-]

tsunamionioncerial@reddit

At what point does density per device become a liability?

[-]

sliced_orange@reddit

Pretty much never. Only enterprise customers are buying these, and they aren't buying one. They're buying thousands of these to put them in to massive disk arrays which have some level of hardware and/or software redundancy to minimize/eliminate the effect of a failed drive. Not to mention that the data is also backed up multiple times.

The density of the drive is only relevant compared to the (PCIe) interface speed. You could read or write a 256TB drive in 5 hours under ideal conditions (PCIe Gen5x4). You might have a more salient argument against hard drives where a 32TB drive would take 30 hours under ideal conditions (300MB/s), but I doubt that either of those factor in unless your failures are happening at an astounding rate.

[-]

-CynicalPole-@reddit

Gonna be more expensive than gold bar of the same size, lmao

[-]

Canadian_Border_Czar@reddit

What is the life span of the drive? I feel like it would start dying well before you can evenly wear all of it down.

Maybe if its a long lifespan drive.

[-]

qtx@reddit

Like the old saying goes, for short term storage you use SSDs, for long term storage you use HDDs. Only put things on your SSD that you don't mind losing.

There's still a big issue with SSDs that it will give you zero warning your drive is about to die. One moment it works, the next it is gone, forever.

At least with HDDs you get some warning and time to make a backup and more importantly you have a good chance to recover lost media or corrupted files. With SSDs you have practically no chance to recover anything. It's just gone.

[-]

sitefall@reddit

There is not a chance in hell I would use a single 256tb drive. That is a lot of risk to bear if a drive fails. A raid config means you need at least two of them, doubling the price. Still better served by multiple smaller drives working together. This is going to be more expensive per tb as well. There is practically no downside to "not" using this unless you just really need the volume, perhaps sending 256gb of AI models to space or something.

[-]