Report: SSDs will run into performance issues in future

Solid state drives are supposed to be so much better than conventional and mechanical hard drives for PCs. SSDs are supposed to be faster, less prone to failures and use less power. So far, the only real issue with SSDs has been their much higher cost compared to regular hard drives.

Now a group of researchers have posted word that the future of SSDs could be shorter than first believed. Computerworld.com reports that a new research paper claims that as the circuitry of NAND flash-based drives keeps going down, more and more performance issues come up, including latency and read and write errors.

The group, which includes a team member from Microsoft Research, tested 52 such drives from six different companies, with circuity ranging from 72nm to 25nm. The results show that latency in those drives increased as the circuity got smaller.

The research report then predicted that SSDs would have 6.5nm circuity by 2024. By then, the latency issues will have doubled and bit error rates would have tripled for those drives. The report gives the opinion that "it's not going to be viable to go past 6.5nm ... 2024 is the end."

The good news? SSDs are expected to have storage capacities as high as 16 TB by 2024. By that time, researchers believe that we will have to pick between "capacity or performance" for those kinds of storage drives.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Inside of Foxconn Apple plant revealed in new video

Next Story

Microsoft extends Windows 7 support to 2020

47 Comments

View more comments

Pink Floyd said,
wow 12 years! I bet SSD will be replaced by something else before 2024!

Because HDD's only lasted like 5 years, right ?

I remember way back when as analysts were saying that Intel and their Pentium chips weren't going to get any smaller or faster. New tech comes along, advances keep happening, the world keeps turning.

error404ts said,
I remember way back when as analysts were saying that Intel and their Pentium chips weren't going to get any smaller or faster. New tech comes along, advances keep happening, the world keeps turning.

There is a difference between the real researchers and "analysts"+"journalists".

virtorio said,
Damn, I thought 80 GB would be enough to late me until at least 2050

Well, for you 80GB might be more than enough. Just don't use a computer for anything other than email and you should be in great shape!

Raa said,
That's why I don't select SSD. I'll stick with HDDs for now!

obviously you have never experience ssds.

Never going back, at least not for my OS drive. My x2 128GB is a year and half old and is at 99%. As for storage, I need TB and have to HDD. The landscape will be significantly different in a few years much less a dozen. Look back 1 dozen years and see where we were.

Theory would suggest mirrored SSD's would fail about the same time, so perhaps swapping one out with anew and let it rebuild each year would increase reliabilty for server purposes. Sounds like SSD data recovery might be impossible.

I've been using a Kingston 128GB SSD-Now for the past year and I even defragment it despite the warnings that SSD's don't need to be defragmented. I find the device still performs better when its fully defragmented and I've never noticed any loss of performance. In fact, the performance of my SSD is way better compared to my regular drives. As a system disk it boots up faster and gets to my desktop faster. Apps launch faster and to defragment is faster.
On a side note, I used the same SSD drive to test out the Windows 8 developer preview and boot up times were <10 seconds like they said.

netsendjoe said,
I've been using a Kingston 128GB SSD-Now for the past year and I even defragment it despite the warnings that SSD's don't need to be defragmented. I find the device still performs better when its fully defragmented and I've never noticed any loss of performance. In fact, the performance of my SSD is way better compared to my regular drives. As a system disk it boots up faster and gets to my desktop faster. Apps launch faster and to defragment is faster.
On a side note, I used the same SSD drive to test out the Windows 8 developer preview and boot up times were <10 seconds like they said.

is that from a cold boot or their super hybrid sleep BS boot up times

the reason they say DON'T use defrag on an SSD is for a good reason by defraging your SSD your reusing the same nand cells over and over again shortening their life span considerably ( remember each cell only has a limited number of write cycles before it becomes inoperable) just let the SSD's drive wearing software do it's thing

I don't know why they just don't embed the SSD chips right on the motherboard. Would eliminate the need for anything faster...and you can still put another hard drive in an open bay.

texasghost said,
I don't know why they just don't embed the SSD chips right on the motherboard. Would eliminate the need for anything faster...and you can still put another hard drive in an open bay.

.... what?

texasghost said,
I don't know why they just don't embed the SSD chips right on the motherboard. Would eliminate the need for anything faster...and you can still put another hard drive in an open bay.

Let's see:

-Adds costs to motherboards
-Miniature capacity in order to be of ANY real world use
-Fragmentation of your storage (quite a few people prefer the two-partition system: a) OS + Applications b) data ( c) backup))

I personally couldn't stand having this miniature partition I'd probably never use for anything real other then my OS that would be better put on a normal SSD that's probably higher quality, capacity and exchangeable.

GS:mac

I guess were at the point where everyone knows exactly what nm means and that doesn't need to be explained anywhere in the article. Now that you've all out geeked me, someone want to explain? I'm too lazy to Google it on Bing.

jimmyfal said,
I guess were at the point where everyone knows exactly what nm means and that doesn't need to be explained anywhere in the article. Now that you've all out geeked me, someone want to explain? I'm too lazy to Google it on Bing.

It means....N-ever M-ind.

jimmyfal said,
I guess were at the point where everyone knows exactly what nm means and that doesn't need to be explained anywhere in the article. Now that you've all out geeked me, someone want to explain? I'm too lazy to Google it on Bing.

nm = nanometer = 1/1,000,000,000 meters

When talking about transistors, circuitry, etc. the number is used to describe the "minimum feature width" (roughly something like how small you can make a circuit element in the chip).

jimmyfal said,
I guess were at the point where everyone knows exactly what nm means and that doesn't need to be explained anywhere in the article. Now that you've all out geeked me, someone want to explain? I'm too lazy to Google it on Bing.

Wait, you run a computer assistance program and you don't know what "nm" stands for, you used "Google it on Bing", and you claim to be "geek from the start".

Holy **** you fail, and it is people like YOU that have ruined the computer professional economy of the 90's. Yes, everyone is a computer geek, except people that are too dumb and too lazy, that means you JimmyFail.

Haha. I have a 80GB hard disk from 2005 and it's still working as if it was new. As long as I use XP, I won't have any space issues, so if my hard disk survives another seven years, it's a beast.

Commenting is disabled on this article.