Discussion Forums > Technology

Stacking 64GB-2TB Micro-SDXC for ultra compact storage drive.

<< < (2/3) > >>

tomoya-kun:
I'm guessing it would be slower as well as those cards are generally slower than SSDs

kureshii:
Actual vs max performance
That article is misleading. SDXC transfer bandwidth under SD 3.0 is rated at 832 Mbps max. 2.4 Gbps (~300MB/s) is the stated maximum under SD 4.0 spec. What you actually get out of your SD card is likely to be much lower than that. considering that SD 2.0 defines transfer speeds up to 200× (30MB/s) yet we get much lower speeds than that with most SD cards, I doubt we’ll see that increased interface bandwidth put to much use. Likewise, that 2TB is stated maximum capacity; it doesnt mean we’ll see 2TB SDXC cards at launch! (good luck on expecting 3D-fabbed or <10nm NAND flash in the consumer market within the next year) The 32GB limit of SDHC was an artificially imposed limit anyway, and one can find non-compliant SD cards with more storage than that; the sector addressing used in SDHC allows addressing up to 2TB of storage after all.

Multi-SD SATA devices in the market
Using multiple SD cards as SSDs is not a new idea. I make no comments on the prices of those devices, but keep in mind that a storage controller which can give you speeds commensurate with a proper SSD is going to cost you as well.

Capacity, longevity and performance
NAND prices aren't going to plummet just because consumers expect them to, although going by industry forecasts we can expect a steady drop. 2TB of NAND flash is not going to be as cheap as you expect. Your average 32GB SDHC runs for about $1/GB, and we’re talking about a Class 6 device, not even anywhere near SSD performance if you throw 4 of them in an enclosure with a JBOD/RAID controller.

What kind of performance difference are we talking? Below are some benchmark charts tested over USB 2.0. (I was lazy to dig into my desktop for a SATA connection, and besides this gives you an idea of what each can achieve over the same interface. Note that in practical use, one would typically see no more than 35MB/s with removable storage over a USB 2.0 interface.)

SD Card (Sandisk 2GB ExtremeIII, pretty good by SD card standards)





SSD (OCZ 30GB Core V2 — Note that this is an old, shitty SSD without TRIM and does not represent typical performance of reviewed SSDs)



(click to show/hide)HDD (1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11)


The lower latency of the SSD is noteworthy. At the time of writing, a 32GB ExtremeIII SD Card costs ~$75, an Intel 40GB X25-V (which does much better than the Core V2 and has TRIM) goes for ~$90, and a 1TB 2.5" hard drive can be had for $100 or less (all US prices). The potential price of a stacked SD storage device does not seem very compelling for the form factor it is going to occupy or the performance it will display.

Add to this the fact that a good SSD comes with firmware that can lower write amplification by optimising write operations and doing wear-levelling, thus increasing the longevity of the drive. Unless this SD-stacking device also has such firmware (i.e. most likely with a pricey controller), you might see those 5,000–10,000 write cycles quickly eaten away on one or more SD devices, instead of being evenly spread out.

Even if we assume similar write amplification on both devices, SD products typically use 3-bit-per-cell MLC technology, which though cheaper and denser (storage-wise) than 2-bit-per-cell MLC, also has lower performance and longevity. That is how we manage to cram 32GB into microSD form factor. Keep that in mind when you note the size of the NAND packages on SSDs. In any case, 3-bit-per-cell MLC is typically used for cheaper and smaller storage products such as USB flash drives, SD cards, CF cards and other similar flash storage devices, where one does not expect heavy, frequent or large writes. Cramming many such devices into a heavier-use storage device without wear-levelling and write-amplification-optimising algorithms is just asking for trouble.

What such a device might look like
My prediction: By the time someone comes up with a “stacked micro-SDXC ultra-compact storage drive”, it’s going to look a lot like this:



… Guess what that is?

Mistgun_Zero:
Kureshii, you outdid yourself on this one, anyway no I don't know what that is and would like to know.

kureshii:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4606/samsung-announces-pm830-its-first-6gbps-ssd-with-up-to-512gb-capacities

Just a PCB shot of yet another SSD. Which are essentially high-performance NAND flash storage devices, very similar to the idea of a “stacked Micro-SDXC ultra compact storage drive”. If you want them any more compact, they come in 1.8" form factor as well, and for even more compact form factors, SATA-IO just announced the µSATA standard, which allows OEMs to embed the storage device directly in a BGA package. This is meant for embedded products, and you can’t really go much more compact than that. I guess this would be the ultra-compact SSD you’re looking for, except it won’t be easily removable from the device it’s soldered onto.

As for cheap, lower-performance 1TB SSDs … might as well just buy a platter-based HDD instead. NAND flash isn't likely to beat them for price/GB within the next year or so (if we’re talking about consumer devices).

AnimeJanai:
I'd rather wait for DRAM to keep dropping.  I've always wanted a DRAM drive.  Upon bootup or shutdown, the data in the DRAM is copied to/from either a hard drive or flash memory for longterm storage.  To cover for power dropout, a tantalum capacitor supplies enough power to save data.   A DRAM drive would be the fastest and have no worries about wearing out any flash cells.  It can also be used for tasks that have a lot of churning writes which causes flash drives to wear out prematurely.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page