Monday, February 19th 2018

Samsung Begins Mass-production of 30.72-terabyte PM1643 SSD

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the world leader in advanced memory technology, today announced that it has begun mass producing the industry's largest capacity Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) solid state drive (SSD) - the PM1643 - for use in next-generation enterprise storage systems. Leveraging Samsung's latest V-NAND technology with 64-layer, 3-bit 512-gigabit (Gb) chips, the 30.72 terabyte (TB) drive delivers twice the capacity and performance of the previous 15.36 TB high-capacity lineup introduced in March 2016.

This breakthrough was made possible by combining 32 of the new 1TB NAND flash packages, each comprised of 16 stacked layers of 512 Gb V-NAND chips. These super-dense 1 TB packages allow for approximately 5,700 5-gigabyte (GB), full HD movie files to be stored within a mere 2.5-inch storage device.
In addition to the doubled capacity, performance levels have risen significantly and are nearly twice that of Samsung's previous generation high-capacity SAS SSD. Based on a 12 Gb/s SAS interface, the new PM1643 drive features random read and write speeds of up to 400,000 IOPS and 50,000 IOPS, and sequential read and write speeds of up to 2,100 MB/s and 1,700 MB/s, respectively. These represent approximately four times the random read performance and three times the sequential read performance of a typical 2.5-inch SATA SSD.

"With our launch of the 30.72TB SSD, we are once again shattering the enterprise storage capacity barrier, and in the process, opening up new horizons for ultra-high capacity storage systems worldwide," said Jaesoo Han, executive vice president, Memory Sales & Marketing Team at Samsung Electronics. "Samsung will continue to move aggressively in meeting the shifting demand toward SSDs over 10TB and at the same time, accelerating adoption of our trail-blazing storage solutions in a new age of enterprise systems."

Samsung reached the new capacity and performance enhancements through several technology progressions in the design of its controller, DRAM packaging and associated software. Included in these advancements is a highly efficient controller architecture that integrates nine controllers from the previous high-capacity SSD lineup into a single package, enabling a greater amount of space within the SSD to be used for storage. The PM1643 drive also applies Through Silicon Via (TSV) technology to interconnect 8Gb DDR4 chips, creating 10 4GB TSV DRAM packages, totaling 40GB of DRAM. This marks the first time that TSV-applied DRAM has been used in an SSD.

Complementing the SSD's hardware ingenuity is enhanced software that supports metadata protection as well as data retention and recovery from sudden power failures, and an error correction code (ECC) algorithm to ensure high reliability and minimal storage maintenance. Furthermore, the SSD provides a robust endurance level of one full drive write per day (DWPD), which translates into writing 30.72TB of data every day over the five-year warranty period without failure. The PM1643 also offers a mean time between failures (MTBF) of two million hours.

Samsung started manufacturing initial quantities of the 30.72 TB SSDs in January and plans to expand the lineup later this year - with 15.36 TB, 7.68 TB, 3.84 TB, 1.92 TB, 960 GB and 800 GB versions - to further drive the growth of all-flash-arrays and accelerate the transition from hard disk drives (HDDs) to SSDs in the enterprise market. The wide range of models and much improved performance will be pivotal in meeting the growing storage needs in a host of market segments, including the government, financial services, healthcare, education, oil & gas, pharmaceutical, social media, business services, retail and communications sectors.
Add your own comment

24 Comments on Samsung Begins Mass-production of 30.72-terabyte PM1643 SSD

#1
Midland Dog
when i win the lotto ill get one and tell ya how it goes
Posted on Reply
#2
Hood
Other enterprise SSDs cost at least $1000/TB, so expect to pay over $30K for this. Still waiting for $100/TB consumer SSDs...
Posted on Reply
#3
Rictorhell
In today's news: "Samsung releases world's 1st 'consumer' 8tb 2.5 7mm ssd, priced at ONLY $5000 USD. When asked why the msrp for the groundbreaking device was so high, Samsung's representative replied, with a shrug, "Why not?".

My apologies for this made up, totally unrealistic, future scenario.
Posted on Reply
#4
Midland Dog
Do they accept kidneys lungs and testicles as valid transaction or nah
Posted on Reply
#5
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
SAS-3 means it's slow (1.5 GB/s tops). They're probably used to cache writes to larger arrays of disks.
Posted on Reply
#6
repman244
FordGT90Concept, post: 3801596, member: 60463"
SAS-3 means it's slow (1.5 GB/s tops). They're probably used to cache writes to larger arrays of disks.
Except it will be used where sequential read/write is not important. And in such case it destroys any HDD array.
Posted on Reply
#7
Xajel
And when it fails, kaboooom

you need at least 2 in RAID 0 to feel safe with such capacities...
Posted on Reply
#8
Fabio Bologna
Xajel, post: 3801598, member: 51625"
And when it fails, kaboooom

you need at least 2 in RAID 0 to feel safe with such capacities...
RAID 0 is the first thing you DON'T want with something like this in an enterprise environment :roll:
Remember RAID 0 is a stripe of data so you loose one -> you loose all ;)
It would be cool for somebody like us nerdy tech guys to see a 60+TB ssd array hitting the 4GB/s writing speed mark :rockout:
But in total reality if you plan to do something serious with it it's RAID5 or 6 which means having at least 3 or 4 of these puppies :eek:
Posted on Reply
#9
LemmingOverlord
Hood, post: 3801563, member: 110365"
Other enterprise SSDs cost at least $1000/TB, so expect to pay over $30K for this. Still waiting for $100/TB consumer SSDs...
We can only hope the DRAM deal between China and Korea expands to cover Flash memory... maybe then it'll be possible to reach that value. :(

Xajel, post: 3801598, member: 51625"
And when it fails, kaboooom

you need at least 2 in RAID 0 to feel safe with such capacities...
RAID 0. In an Enterprise. To feel safe. *facepalm*
Posted on Reply
#10
hellrazor
Xajel, post: 3801598, member: 51625"
And when it fails, kaboooom

you need at least 2 in RAID 0 to feel safe with such capacities...
Point at this man and laugh.
Posted on Reply
#11
RejZoR
I'm quite ok with 2TB SSD that I have.
Posted on Reply
#12
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
repman244, post: 3801597, member: 94396"
Except it will be used where sequential read/write is not important. And in such case it destroys any HDD array.
The further the data is from the processors, the less I/O matters and the more sequential read/write and longevity matters. Case in point: you have inactive users on the HDDs and active users on the SSDs. When someone signs in, you move their data to the SSDs for faster response times. When they log off, the data is cached to the HDDs and purged from the SSDs making room for other users. In a use case like YouTube: popular videos would be on the SSDs and unpopular videos on the HDDs. The unpopular videos aren't even cached to SSD, they're played directly from the HDDs because there's more than enough bandwidth there to handle the demand.
Posted on Reply
#13
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Nah, far too small for my pron collection. :laugh: j/k
Posted on Reply
#14
Prima.Vera
Xajel, post: 3801598, member: 51625"
And when it fails, kaboooom

you need at least 2 in RAID 0 to feel safe with such capacities...
Posted on Reply
#15
Valantar
This SSD has more DRAM than my GF's Threadripper video editing rig.

...so, it has at least $4-500 worth of RAM alone. Then there's the 32 16-high 1TB NAND packages. And the controller to handle all of this. And the yield rates of ridiculously tall TSV stacking on top of fab yields. No wonder oil&gas, pharma and the financial industry are cited as target markets, they're the only ones who could possibly afford these things.
Posted on Reply
#16
erixx
Finally I will be able to store the Internet!!! :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#17
Moofachuka
Xajel, post: 3801598, member: 51625"
And when it fails, kaboooom

you need at least 2 in RAID 0 to feel safe with such capacities...
I hope you realize what mistake you did there...
Posted on Reply
#18
Gasaraki
I'll take 3.

FordGT90Concept, post: 3801596, member: 60463"
SAS-3 means it's slow (1.5 GB/s tops). They're probably used to cache writes to larger arrays of disks.
1.5 Gigabytes per second is slow? Most current NVMe SSDs don't even have 1500MB read/write speeds.
Posted on Reply
#19
Xajel
Fabio Bologna, post: 3801600, member: 160973"
RAID 0 is the first thing you DON'T want with something like this in an enterprise environment :roll:
Remember RAID 0 is a stripe of data so you loose one -> you loose all ;)
It would be cool for somebody like us nerdy tech guys to see a 60+TB ssd array hitting the 4GB/s writing speed mark :rockout:
But in total reality if you plan to do something serious with it it's RAID5 or 6 which means having at least 3 or 4 of these puppies :eek:
Opps, sorry, I meant RAID 1, I don't know why I wrote RAID 0.. I even hate RAID 0 for home user not to speak enterprise.
Posted on Reply
#21
Knowitornot
Fabio Bologna, post: 3801600, member: 160973"
But in total reality if you plan to do something serious with it it's RAID5 or 6 which means having at least 3 or 4 of these puppies :eek:
Anyone doing anything serious with data is using ZFS. RAID doesn't protect your data in several common scenarios.
Posted on Reply
#22
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Oh good, I was just thinking about taking out a second mortgage on my house!
Posted on Reply
#23
lexluthermiester
Xajel, post: 3801706, member: 51625"
Opps, sorry, I meant RAID 1, I don't know why I wrote RAID 0.. I even hate RAID 0 for home user not to speak enterprise.
I think we all knew you meant RAID1. Still funny to read though!
Posted on Reply
#24
Disparia
Don't have anything onsite that would be suitable, but our host on the other hand will drop several into their SANs without much thought.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment