SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm

[Computurd]

They certainly aren't dead- 25nm SLC brings a lot to the game.

i feel it is indicative of their intended path that they are now releasing enterprise SSD "drives" with 25nmMLC and no mention of 25nm slc anywhere.

I consider the "PCIe based flash devices" to still be called SSDs, as most of the industry does,
but simply differentiated as PCIe SSDs; SATA SSDs; SAS SSDs; mini-PCIe-SATA SSDs; etc etc

I agree, there needs to be differentiation, as i stated above.
some of that though I was just arguing for fun playing around...
However, you know as well as i that these are clear-cut different sectors of the enterprise market. both in terms of price and the applications that they are used in. An enterprise PCIe SSD is not necessarily going to be competing with a SATA/SAS SSD. one use would probably be the PCIe for super high intensive workloads that require the utmost latency. however, that is likely going to be premium storage space in a tiered approach. They dont really compete with each other per se.

Also, Google builds many different server products for its internal usage..
you really think Google uses consumer HDD in ALL of its servers and no SSD?
Maybe when they were just starting out..

I wasnt speaking to the use of HDD over SSD. perhaps i wasnt clear in my wording. of course google uses ssd in certain farms, or even in tiered caching scenarios.

The scenario i was using as an example is this;
facts first
*SAS HDD that are enterprise class cost much more. cost per transaction is high, but the reliability is UBER (supposedly)
*SATA consumer variant HDD are much cheaper and definitely have a lower reliability curve (supposedly). however cost per transaction is extremely low. way low.

SO...what google has done is forgo using the SAS drives, with their prohibitive costs, for using SATA consumer variant drives. In their HDDs that they do use, the "buisness model" is to merely accept the slightly higher failure rate of the consumer HDD and eat that cost. The cost of replacing them is still far far below the cost of running the SAS drives, just because the cost of SAS is so high.
By using the cheaper drives and accepting the loss of drives as a buisness expense, their cost per transaction is significantly lower.
Now, google has published this information freely. it is merely a google away

the extrapolation of this point is the comparison of SLC v MLC in the enterprise space. With SLC so cost prohibitive, and MLC gaining rapidly with endurance, it is simply much much smarter to use MLC in the first place, and get it over with. Eat the cost of the reduced endurance, but in the end, you are going to come out way ahead in cost per transaction.
Also, in todays data center, effective tiered caching is going to allow you to further enhance the viability of your MLC drives.

They certainly aren't dead- 25nm SLC brings a lot to the game.

but when? and where? no time in the near future.

EDIT: in a nutshell...

Lyndonville drives will also be created out of multi-level cell NAND Flash memory chips and will most likely also be meant for the enterprise sector. This is because, while offering a boost in performance and a lower chance of errors, SLC adds a significant extra cost compared to multi-level cell chips (MLC), a price premium that, in most cases, doesn't justify the performance enhancement, even in data centers and servers.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel...s-139500.shtml