I would be perfectly fine with a PCIe 3.0 SSD if that would bring costs down significantly. 8 TB SSDs are still way too expensive despite utilizing QLC.
Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
I think the headline is a bit optimistic, saying that Samsung & sandisk should be worried. The issue with 128, 64, 32, and even 16TB SSDs is that most enterprises tend to not buy large amounts of them. NAND is so expensive that massive drives like that come with an incredibly high TCO, which businesses dislike. Not to mention the fact that, although still fast, massive SSDs tend to be highly bottlenecked by their architecture.