Wednesday, December 19th 2007

Buffalo unveils a 100GB flash drive

Buffalo Unveils a 100 GB Flash Drive

Although we've seen flash SSDs that top out at 416 GB, nothing in the mainstream is really bigger than 64 GB -- but Buffalo's new SHD-UHRS series seems like it's bringing the status quo up to 100 GB. The USB 2.0 external drive uses two different types of flash memory to reach that capacity, yet it's only about the size of a business card and weighs just two ounces. Those of you somehow entranced by the case design but lacking the 952 USD for the 100 GB model needn't worry, however: Buffalo is also shipping a 32 GB version for a pretty competitive 312 USD and a 64 GB model for 665 USD.

Source: Engadget
Add your own comment

28 Comments on Buffalo unveils a 100GB flash drive

#1
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
this is nothing new kanguru has a MUCH smaller 32gb and a 64gb is listed on there web site but i cannot find the 64gb avail anywere



source
Posted on Reply
#2
Weer
I can have 32GB for only 312$.. Looks like prices are going down!
Posted on Reply
#3
Eric3988
Since when is paying that much for any kind of memory mainstream?
Posted on Reply
#4
effmaster
by: Eric3988
Since when is paying that much for any kind of memory mainstream?
Since it now costs only three figures instead of four figures:laugh::laugh::slap::slap:
Posted on Reply
#5
Steevo
Wow, more horribly slow but smaller devices. Amazing.



Gimme a 3 terrabyte drives in RAID 5 and you have more storage, more speed and redundancy. For the same price, but a bit physically bigger.
Posted on Reply
#6
effmaster
by: Steevo
Wow, more horribly slow but smaller devices. Amazing.



Gimme a 3 terrabyte drives in RAID 5 and you have more storage, more speed and redundancy. For the same price, but a bit physically bigger.
Good luck with that within the next 5-10 years:laugh::laugh:
Posted on Reply
#7
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
That's a Buffalo of a production-line SSD
Posted on Reply
#8
wazzledoozle
I'll take a magnetic disk over flash any day.
Posted on Reply
#9
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: wazzledoozle
I'll take a magnetic disk over flash any day.
Magnetic as for primary storage?

But ain't that a portable storage device? I guess SSD's best suit portable storage, notebooks included.
Posted on Reply
#10
tomkaten
by: btarunr
Magnetic as for primary storage?

But ain't that a portable storage device? I guess SSD's best suit portable storage, notebooks included.
I think the SSD is meant to replace the desktop hard drive in the long run. That's what the big fuss is all about and that's why people are happy when another "cheap" version is launched.

Still, it's got some ways to go before it can compete with the hard drive. That doesn't mean Western Digital and Seagate should rest on their laurels. If I were them, I'd invest big in flash memory R&D right about now.

TBH, I'm looking forward to the time when SSD's can successfully replace HDD's (replace as in SSD's running as fast as HDD's and costing the same), mainly because I hate having things that spin up and generate noise inside my case. Bu that's just me :)
Posted on Reply
#11
wazzledoozle
by: btarunr
Magnetic as for primary storage?

But ain't that a portable storage device? I guess SSD's best suit portable storage, notebooks included.
Magnetic is still better for portable as well IMO. Look at Mp3 players, 160gb Ipod Classic for $400 vs a 16gb touch for $400. Flash is slower, wears out, and costs a lot more. I don't think it will ever surpass magnetic storage. Maybe another tech will, probably holographic.

I just got a portable 120gb 2.5" 5400rpm drive off Newegg for $75. Flash wont reach that price level for years. And even as flash advances, so will magnetic storage. They are just starting to introduce the vertical bit drives, and there are still advances to be made in making the bits smaller.
Posted on Reply
#12
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Yeah.
With perpendicular recording being implemented I guess mag-rec will at least survive this decade

perpendicular recording even cuts mfg costs.

There used to be a time when for $25 you'd get a 32MB pen-drive. It took two years for you to get a 2 GB pendrive for that price. For the same $25 now, I guess you'll get better. The thing is, the size-standard of NAND flash banks is growing exponentially unlike magnetic drives which on an avg take 9 months to grow in size.

eg: if 1 TB is the highest a magnetic-drive can give you now, it'll be a while before that can goto 2 TB

but with flash, every now and then, either a current sized bank standard gets cheaper or it grows exponentially in size.

Companies like Samsung, Micron and Hyundai (Hynix) are going overkill in expanding their mfg capabilities and shrinking the fabrication-process of NAND flash chips. Once they manage to do that, manufacturing a highly dense highly compact NAND flash chip wafer would cost peanuts, if the manufacturer gets his fabs right.
Posted on Reply
#13
XLeration
The reason why magnetic dies in 2008/2009

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/13/battleship-mtron-the-absurdly-fast-ssd-raid-array/

This article puts 9 ssd hdd in an array showing an amazing 212x faster iops rate than a 15k seagate and a transferrate of 800MB/s which could be even faster if the controller wasn't holding the speed back.

Now these are top notch ssd-drives right now and inaffordable right now, but like flash memory is getting cheaper with the minute, these'll be mainstream in no time.

As for the durability the ssds are already holding out longer than an average HDD.

So when ssds get affordable there is no reason to hold onto HHDs except if you like the sound of spinning disks :roll: .

edit: of course it's 9ssds against 1 hdd in the benchmark, but if you put 9 hdds in raid you won't even get near the 53000 iops, you'll probably get about 1500 with an hdd raid...
Posted on Reply
#14
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Yeah but by 2009 would I be getting a SSD drive off the shelf of friendly neighbourhood computer store, 320 GB for $90 ? Unless the SSD technology competes with magnetic at a price point, I don't see that happening as soon as 2009.
Posted on Reply
#15
effmaster
by: btarunr
Yeah but by 2009 would I be getting a SSD drive off the shelf of friendly neighbourhood computer store, 320 GB for $90 ? Unless the SSD technology competes with magnetic at a price point, I don't see that happening as soon as 2009.
You never know the 64 GB models are starting to get replaced with higher end models such as this:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Im willing to bet that decently priced 250GB SSD models will be available in fall 2009 Thats 2 years away people. Plenty of time to let the economy known as competition work its way down in price.
Posted on Reply
#16
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
What I asked was that for whatever price you pay for a Winchester HDD now, (like $40 for 80 G, $65 for 250G, $110 for 500) will you have replacements for each of these capacities at this exact price-point? if not, I don't see an industry-standard change taking place that soon.
Posted on Reply
#17
Steevo
Not really price per performance valued yet.


36Gb Fijitsu SAS drives are $139 each and at that price my next build will have a RAID 0 for games and OS, and main storage of a TB for less money.






F*** Raptors and this overpriced BS.
Posted on Reply
#19
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: Steevo
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822116015




I love the idiots who don't have a flying fuck of a idea what these drives are for or are capable of and they rate the drives with a 2-3 rating. And they never bought the drives, just posted a review.
by: Steevo
Not really price per performance valued yet.


F*** Raptors and this overpriced BS.
Oh, how many SSD drives (from which you boot your OS) do you own in that case? You seem to have a God-like idea about these:rolleyes:

For what a Raptor gives you, it's more than worth it.
Posted on Reply
#20
Steevo
Well, speaking from a corporate standpoint I can say that they might have their niche on small databases in high demand. However Google for example uses standard IDE and SATA drives for the majority of their servers. And for the business I work for I built the server that started as a onboard ICHR8 RAID 0 array of two 300GB drives serving up over 1Gb of data per day with most requests at less than 256Kb and it more than keeps up with over 600 files open for everyone and requests made on a database of 9Gb combined size, plus many other files served up.


With 1.6 million of sales and 3 people, if I can save seconds by using faster drives, per transaction and fit more transactions per day in it would be worth it, however when confronted with the current speed and and capacity of magnetic drives in different RAID arrays the performance per dollar right now is SAS. Hugely fast, decent capacity's, and high reliability.


$152 per hour of average sales. Or $2.54 per minute. If we can save 15 minutes of wait time due to systems lag per day we would generate a extra $39,000.00 per year.


So do I compare performance? Every day, every minute, every second.
Posted on Reply
#21
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Exactly.

4x Raptor drives: Installs Windows XP in 9 minutes flat.

Loads a HDR Counter Strike Source map in 5 seconds compared to 12 with non-RAID

Windows Vista Home Premium boots in <17 seconds from push-button to desktop
Posted on Reply
#22
effmaster
by: btarunr
Exactly.


Windows Vista Home Premium boots in <17 seconds from push-button to desktop
Does that include putting in your password before the actual screen comes up:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Posted on Reply
#23
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: effmaster
Does that include putting in your password before the actual screen comes up:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
I'm the only user....auto login
Posted on Reply
#24
effmaster
by: btarunr
I'm the only user....auto login
Bad move for security m8:slap:

If someone were to simply turn on your computer you would be in some serious doodoo especially if they were federal agents who finally tracked the illegal graphics cards down :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Posted on Reply
#25
effmaster
by: btarunr
@Polaris: Sorry for off-topic, del if you wish.

@effmaster: My room is locked for the day. There's no way you can get in anyway. Sometimes my brother uses a spare key to compare his benchmarks with my rig. He's hardcore AMD...LGA 1207 FX74 and takes his chips where no chip has ever gone before. So that's the only guy with access to my PC. You can trust a sibling, can't you? He has to use his sis' Q6600, that's an awesome piece and we always catfight on that.
Thiefs know how to unlock doors.
But they have a harder time figuring out the passwords especially if its something lilke this:

Qu!ZWiz

ok ok lol im done going off subject here, and theres nothing wrong with letting your siblings use it, but just be careful. I have learned the hard way never to let my brother on my laptop, he saw that as a free ticket to porn where his parents would never catch him looking at it since they always check the history. Guess what he did he frickin filled my laptop with viruses. Its taken its toll on this lappy but I have managed PAINSTAKINGLY to remove most of the viruses. No harm but there is foul
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment