NAND Flash Density Surpasses HDDs', But Price Is Still a Sticking Point (computerworld.com) 185
Lucas123 writes: With the introduction of 3D or stacked NAND flash memory, non-volatile memory has for the first time surpassed that of hard disk drives in density. This year, Micron revealed it had demonstrated areal densities in its laboratories of up to 2.77 terabits per square inch (Tbpsi) for its 3D NAND. That compares with the densest HDDs of about 1.3Tbpsi. While NAND flash may have surpassed hard drives in density, it doesn't mean the medium has reached price parity with HDDs — nor will it anytime soon. One roadblock to price parity is the cost of revamping existing or building new 3D NAND fabrication plant, which far exceeds that of hard drive manufacturing facilities, according to market research firm Coughlin Associates. HDD makers are also preparing to launch even denser products using technologies such as heat assisted magnetic recording.
Density is nice, but what about longevity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Have SSD's reached a point where they have a lifespan comparable to HDD's in the most extreme applications, though?
Yes.
would a current-technology SSD last as long before it ran out of write cycles in the flash memory?
Yes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that in a DVR a decent SSD should do just fine. Each NAND block is good for several thousand write cycles. If you completely overwrote the SSD every 24 hours that would give you years of service, though even a DVR rarely overwrites the entire hard drive in 24 hours.
Re:Density is nice, but what about longevity? (Score:5, Informative)
OTA channels = 19.38 Mbps (max)
2 channels = 38.76 Mbps = 4.845 MB/sec
1 Terabyte SSD = 1,000,000 MB
1,000,000 / 4.845 = 206,398 seconds, or 2.3 days
Nand flash write cycle life : 10,000
Total life 10,000 * 2.3 days = 23,000 days or 65 years
If you don't like the assumptions, feel free to make your own, but I think it's clear that write cycle life isn't going to be the limiting factor.
90% less with (cheaper) TLC NAND (Score:3)
It should be noted that while SLC flash is good for around 100,000 writes or so, TLC flash is only good for around 1,000. MLC is in in-between, about 30,000 writes. So the type of flash used in the drive very much matters.
Re: (Score:2)
TLC 3D may well be good for 20-30,000 writes. The cell size is much larger than previous-gen 2d MLC so there's more room for deterioration.
So far the ONLY SSD I've killed via excess writes was a 128Gb Samsung 840pro - it got 200TB written to it in 2 years as a ZFS L2ARC drive and gave plenty of warning that it was going to die.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you can under provision to stretch the life-time out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. That'll be ~$300. I can burn that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$240 on the lower end right now. I've been tracking them lately.
Re:Density is nice, but what about longevity? (Score:5, Informative)
The largest recording I've ever seen off of cable TV is about 8GB/hr. I know OTA broadcasts can be slightly bigger, so lets say 10GB/hr. To record that 24/7 requires about 87 TB/year.
There was a long term test of SSDs done here:
http://techreport.com/review/2... [techreport.com]
Many of the drives ended up getting close to 1 PB of writes, and the best even got over 2PB. Thats enough for you to run 2 tuners 24/7 for a decade. And note, their tests were with 250GB drives. As you increase SSD capacity, longevity increases almost linearly. If you were building a DVR, you'd probably want something like a 1TB drive.
As far as the original question of whether the SSD can outlive HDD in the most extreme application....probably at the most extreme, no. But for the vast majority of cases, including a DVR, most likely yes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You didn't read the report correctly. And I wouldn't plan on pushing anything past its rated limits for writes. That being said, "writes" are the limiting factor, just before general failure. Longevity is more than just writes, it is component failures as well.
It is important to note, that spinning drives have significant drop in reliability at about 42 months (See BackBlaze stats). And while drives can last WELL into 8 years, if you're dealing with critical data, you really don't want to push it much past
Re: (Score:2)
Backblaze's stats tally closely with experience in our (much, MUCH smaller) datacenter.
Re: (Score:2)
I should also comment that we see virtually no reliabiliity difference between enterprise or consumer drives from any given manufacturer. In fact the _least_ reliable drives seen in the last 6 years have been Seagate Constellations, with a 180% replacement rate over their warranty period (Yes, that does mean almost 2 replacements per originally-purchased drive).
That is a higher rate than our replacement rate for Seagate's Baracuda DM series (in desktop systems), which were all replaced whilst their DL prede
Re: (Score:2)
If you're writing that much to a HDD it'll probably shake itself to pieces before the SSD expires.
That's certainly been the experience at $orkplace when people abused nearline arrays as scratchpads.
Re:Density is nice, but what about longevity? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's work it out. A few years ago, TechReport ran an SSD endurance experiment [techreport.com] to figure out how much punishment current-gen SSDs could take before failing. Their test setup essentially involved writing random data at maximum speed for 18 months straight. The results indicated that the worst SSD in their bunch, a Intel's 335 Series, wrote about 700 TB before dying, and the best SSD, a Samsung 840 Pro SSD, went on to 2.4 PB.
Various [xfinity.com] estimates [opposingviews.com] say you can put between 60-75 hours of HD content on a 500GB drive, so, assuming the largest possible size, that works out to about 8.3 GB/hour. Since you're writing two streams, that's 16.6 GB/hour, or 145 TB per year. For the worst drive in the bunch, that's about 4.8 years of service (right at the upper end of your HDD's service life); for the best drive, it's over 16 years.
Keep in mind that these tests were all run on 250GB drives. Smaller drives have less flash to work with, and have to write over the same flash cells more often. Therefore, if you bought a 1TB drive, you can expect the lifetime to be easily 4x better (more if you're using a more recent drive, such as the Samsung 850 Pro) - 64 years of DVR recording should be more than sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you see with "enterprise" drives?
Costs comparable to that of SSDs and small drive size.
Additionally, in enterprise solutions, you should not be using singular drives. You should be using drives in conjunction with RAID or similar disk concatenation technologies.
Doing so lowers the load on individual drives and contributes to longer device lifespan.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are, but it was a direct answer to the question: "would a current-technology SSD last as long before it ran out of write cycles in the flash memory?"
I've heard of lots of SSDs die, none of which would have come close to approaching the flash write limit. But then we've had a myriad of different failure modes in standard HDDs too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and it's a fair point that most SSDs haven't been around long enough to even measure their long-term stability. SSD technology has also advanced very far in a short period of time - older generation SSDs are probably also much less mature in technology and therefore more prone to failure.
The SSD manufacturers have yet to see all the ways in which their drives can fail under real-world, long term conditions. I expect long term reliability to improve as companies develop a fuller understanding of the fai
Re: (Score:2)
The SSD manufacturers have yet to see all the ways in which their drives can fail under real-world, long term conditions.
I'm not sure I completely agree with this statement. Electronic component FMEDAs on a component level and manufacturing level can get you a pretty good indication of what is going to go wrong. Aging effects of electronic components are also well known and tested.
It's important to remember that despite SSDs being amazing and new, the technology behind them is not cutting edge theoretical research. The fundamental reliability of using silicon in memory in that form is known, and the methods used to arrange ci
Re: (Score:2)
"I've heard of lots of SSDs die, none of which would have come close to approaching the flash write limit. "
The most common failure modes here have been down to lead-free solder (seriously) and only on the low cost ones.
That said, I've seen SSD drives which lock up after 49 days uptime (anyone remember IBM deathstars?) and some which would lock up if left powered on for a week and stay dead unless put on a shelf for a couple of days (presumably until internal capacitors fully discharged). Those same drives
Re: (Score:2)
The most common failure modes here have been down to lead-free solder (seriously) and only on the low cost ones.
Not even remotely. The most common failures have been poor firmware and controllers that weren't coping combined with companies experimenting with technology and attempting to rush it first to market.
Hardware failures have been absolutely minimal, and even if they were due to lead-free solder, that's not a thing unless you're talking 5+ years of rough service. If the problem was to do with the lead then the root cause was incorrect engineering in the application of solder / heat/cool cycle during manufactur
Re: (Score:2)
I almost never use the live feeds, so I would happily trade that feature for a box the size of a VHS tape that performs better the rest of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're so disinterested in doing your own research on this, and believe SSDs still have this problem, no amount of explanation is going to convince you otherwise. I'm going to put you into the same basket as people who argue that Linux is not ready for regular users, and just ignore you. There's no point in arguing with someone who has such a rigid mindset. It's like trying to break concrete with a spoon.
Re: (Score:3)
SSD lives in an actual experiment are in this article:
http://techreport.com/review/2... [techreport.com]
The drive that did the worst failed at the 728TB written mark. These were 250 GB drives, so I would expect 1 TB drives to be able to sustain approximately four times the write volume. The means we should expect failure at about the 3.5 Petabyte mark. Two video streams should pretty much never exceed 10GB/hour. 3.5 PB/10GB =350,000 hours. That's about 40 years.
Yeah, I think SSDs are OK for DVRs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the correct answer is no.
Only if your definition of correct is incorrect.
Re: (Score:3)
Samsung Evo 840 is rated for a 28-year life span at 10GB of data write per day. That's about 100TB written. According to some tests [techreport.com], the 840 starts experiencing sector relocations (bad NAND) around 100TB; somewhere about 9 times that, it suddenly fails without warning.
If you're constantly buffering HD video at 11GB/hr, that should give you 378 days to 100TB and maybe 9 years to sudden catastrophic failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't lose drive capacity, if that happens the drive is effectively dead: you have lost your data. What grandparent meant was that after 100TB of writes, the drive starts hitting flash blocks with uncorrectable errors. About 800TB later it'll have hit so many of them, that it can't find enough usable blocks to store the disk management metadata and the data stored by the user, and gives up.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so at 100TB you'd start losing total drive capacity, right? I'll assume for the moment that the drives' controller would detect dead blocks/cells during a write operation and would perform the relocation/remapping seamlessly and not lose any data. But when it suddenly 'failed' would there be any chance of recovering anything from it? Or is it just bricked at that point?
Depends on the failure mode and the drive design. Some of the Intel drives, for example, are designed so that once they reach their rated write limit, they switch themselves into read only mode (even if they haven't yet encountered their first error) until powered down, at which point they brick themselves. Pretty stupid design IMHO (why not just leave it permanently read-only to give you an extended chance to copy off the data).
Re:Density is nice, but what about longevity? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that the problem can be easily worked around by better designing the DVRs. Put 16 GB of RAM in there and buffer to that. You only need to write it out to the hard disk when you actually want to be recording a show. 16 GB should be enough for buffering the HD streams and allowing you to rewind shows as you're watching them.
Re: (Score:3)
At the speeds a DVR would actually use to write things to the drive, modern SSDs will outlast HDDs by a pretty large margin.
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly they are pretty reliable now. http://hardware.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
I still don't trust them. What they are supposed to do is fail in read only mode but what they often do is fail altogether.
And afaik most data recovery services do not yet have the ability to process SSDs
But they are faster and great in laptops because overall they are much more resistant to damage from drops.
Re: (Score:2)
That bothers me too, but I'm starting to think that manufacturers are deliberately avoiding a read-only failure mode for security reasons: if your drive enters a permanent read-only state, how do you erase it before recycling? I imagine having used crypto from day 0 would be your only safeguard at that point, but even good crypto gets broken eventually, so how do you safeguard the data on that read-only drive in the long term? Is physical destruction the only answer?
On the other hand, maybe the total-failur
Re: (Score:2)
You could either destroy it using physical force, or they can allow the ATA Secure Erase command to still function.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much it depends a lot on the brand in my eperience with failed drives seagates tend to get bad sectors so most data is recoverable most wd drives have failed outright with no warning. That's just what I've seen ymmv.
No most data recovery companies can handle HDDs
Yes much better than a HDD in rough enviroments.
A dvr does not qualify as a rough enviroment.
Otherwise HDDs are very durable if not thrown around and are much cheaper per TB.
Re: (Score:2)
There's the economics, too (Score:2)
Then there's the value economics, too.
Endurance testing have revealed modern SSDs to be remarkably reliable -- this guy wrote 7 PB to an 850 Pro. http://packet.company/blog/ [packet.company]
But let's say the failure rate is N% higher than HDDs for a given application. But the drive itself is much faster and uses less power than a HDD. What number N is acceptable as an increased failure rate in exchange for the vastly improved performance?
In an array, the performance increase may allow the use of single parity over double
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like Seagate *DEAD!* drives....?
Most decent SSDs of sufficient size already outlast these.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ACs numbers make no sense, the length of the buffer is irrelevent, what matters is the rate at which you are writing date. 250 megabytes per second is also a crazy datarate, typical broadcast HD is more like 1 megabyte per second (8 megabits per second). Maybe a bit more if you have a cable provider who have more bandwidth than they know what to do with.
1 megabyte per second * 2 tuners = 2 megabytes per second = 7.2 gigabytes per hour ~= 170 gigabytes per day ~= 63 terrabytes per year
The shortest life d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're buffering 30(minutes)*60(seconds per minute)*250(MBps video, which is HD-quality)=450GB...That's about 6 weeks
WTF? Where do you get that figure from? Cable TV and OTA HD broadcasts are about 8 GB per hour. Even Bluray disks at their max bitrate of 40Mbps equates to only 18GB per hour. At 450GB/30 minutes, you are talking about uncompressed HD video. Almost nobody works with that, and of those that do, I doubt very many are using it to record uncompressed HD 24/7 for 6 weeks straight. If for some reason you are doing so, I can't imagine what you'd be doing (hollywood movie studio post production or something), but I
Re: (Score:2)
Flash won already (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only massive data centers will remain as users of HDDs.
Massive data centers are probably the only ones with enough money to convert HDDs to SSDs for the speed enhancements. Some of the larger capacity SSDs will probably appear first for the enterprise market.
Re: (Score:2)
Speed of the drives isn't just for Enterprise. Speed of the drives is really measured in IOPs, and just about anything meaningful can make use of the expanded IOPs available on SSDs
Your BEST spinning disk has IOPs in the range of 700-800
Your average SSD is now in the range of 100,000 IOPs
No, that is not a typo.. It is how you get boot times in seconds rather than minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your BEST spinning disk has IOPs in the range of 700-800"
Sequential IOPS. Random is lucky to achieve 130.
"Your average SSD is now in the range of 100,000 IOPs"
That's random _or_ sequential - and even if there's a write slowdown most current SSDs drop to "only" 50-75,000 IOPs
Then there's the warranty.
Consumer SSDs mostly have 3-5 year warranties with some having 10 years.
Consumer HDDs get 12-24 months at best.
Enterprise HDDs get 3-5 years but that brings the price up into SSD territory for performance which
Re: Flash won already (Score:2, Insightful)
We'll probably have dual discs for a while. My OS is on a small SSD but my music, photos, and videos are all on a separate 1 TB HDD since the speed difference doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Until SSDs are less than 50% more expensive than spinning disks, spinning disks will still have a place."
In the consumer arena the margin is 300%, but for anything below 1TB SSD has already won. The new generation of M2 PCIe 1TB devices are so cheap that they'll be the norm in less than 6 months.
On the other hand I just put 24TB of SSDs into a server for scratchpad use, partly because of the speedups but mostly because we're pretty sure that the drives will have less downtime than HDDs.
Re: (Score:3)
People with bit more specialized needs (hardcore gaming, media production, virtual machines, etc.) can probably soon acquire 1 TB SSD for a price like $200.
And you can get an 8TB Seagate Archive HDD for $223 at newegg today, if you need/want to store lots of data it's still cheaper by far. The real issue from the manufacturer's side is that nobody will pay a premium for anything. You get a SSD for all things performance and the cheapest, slowest HDD because for streaming huge media files you just have to be fast enough, they're mostly accessed linearly and even a video server for a big family only serves a handful of video streams at once. And a lot of people
Re: (Score:2)
The clock is ticking on spinning drives. HDD are still viable, but only for large backups. However, if all you look at is price, then you get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
The clock is ticking on spinning drives. HDD are still viable, but only for large backups. However, if all you look at is price, then you get what you pay for.
Sure. But apart from the personal content that you should have backed up in multiple+offsite copies for safekeeping and usually just consumes a little bit, for most people the HDD is a n'th level cache of the Internet. For many people that's even true of the SSD content, if you lose your Steam games folder or Spotify offline playlists well you can just download it again. And when it comes to digital media quantity is king, it's a lot easier to have three copies with 95% reliability than one with 99,99% beca
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is this $200 1TB SSD (Score:2)
magic unicorn land you speak off?
http://www.ncix.com/detail/sam... [ncix.com]
http://www.ncix.com/detail/kin... [ncix.com]
http://www.ncix.com/detail/san... [ncix.com]
Re: (Score:2)
magic unicorn land you speak off?
I said soon, not now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]
Not $200, but getting really close to being under 300.
$479.99 (Score:2)
Canadian.
Re: (Score:3)
I have an old iPhone 4 with 64GB storage and an old iPad 2 with 64GB storage.
So if both are backed up on my 256GB SSD MacBook Air, half of my storage is gone. Exagerating, yes. (But my iPhone indeed is full with about 59GB).
When an empty Word document is sized in the MBs and and increasing pixel x pixel sizes of cameras/photos are the norm, I would not consider 256GB lot of memory.
Now with HD movies, no idea how big they really are, but I doubt you get more than 20 on a 256GB laptop.
Re:Flash won already (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at a list of new computers, you will notice that a surprisingly large amount of PCs are already shipping with 128 GB or 256 GB SSD. That's gonna hold everything that most people need.
Well, that's a bit difficult to generalize, which is a challenge that computer manufacturer's are having a bit more difficulty addressing. 128GB is fine for a browser/office suite computer, but with the OS taking 20-30GB of that (depending on OS/version/swap file size/hibernation file size), 128GB gets pretty cramped, pretty quickly, if a moderately sized iTunes library is involved. Moreover, phone backups / picture sync for images that are 10MP and higher will eat up that 128GB fairly quickly.
256GB is abou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using just half of my 256GB SSD. (Eventually I'll format the other half and use it for something, but no hurry.)
Of course, I don't play many games, my home directory is on a HDD, and most of my media is stored on a network drive. But FWIW etc. yadda yadda.
Re: (Score:2)
Price Is Still Just One of Two Sticking Points (Score:2, Troll)
The second point is a limited number of rewrite cycles. There, FTFY.
Oh, while we are at it, SSD tend to fail spectacularly: i.e. usually when they perish you cannot extract any information at all vs. spinning platters which usually fail gradually.
P.S. If you wanna counter my first argument, fill your SSD up to 99% and then try to work with it continuously for quite some time. That 1% will get overwritten multiple times and your whole SSD will be prone to a failure. Those tests you've seen online all dea
Re:Price Is Still Just One of Two Sticking Points (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't how wear leveling algorithm work. Yes, once you hit 99%, every write does involve a rewrite somewhere, but those writes are not concentrated in the 1% free area. Instead, the drive controller is reading sections of already written disk and moving them around.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SSD tend to fail spectacularly
actually, the SSD controller usually spots when an error occurs and when it does, it puts the entire drive into read-only mode. on the other side, HDDs that suffer from motor burnout become unreadable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most newer SSDs are designed to fail gracefully. When they die, they become a read-only device. All your data is still accessible. Many USB flash drives are designed to fail the same way - if you've ever had a USB flash drive mysteriously become "write-protected", it probably died and set itself to read-only mode. Unfortunatel
Re:Price Is Still Just One of Two Sticking Points (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hint: every SSD has *at least* 6% extra space for wear leveling - 1TB drives are internally 1024TiB.
P.S. If you wanna counter my first argument, fill your SSD up to 99% and then try to work with it continuously for quite some time. That 1% will get overwritten multiple times and your whole SSD will be prone to a failure.
P.S. Bullshit
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 1
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 094 094 000 Old_age Always - 28138
177 Wear_Leveling_Count 0x0013 097 097 000 Pre-fail Always - 98
241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age Always - 9528109928
That's a
Re: (Score:2)
The second point is a limited number of rewrite cycles. There, FTFY.
Remind me to never take anything to you to get fixed. Especially if you base expert opinion on fundamental misunderstandings of technology.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I had an OCZ Vertex II that I sent back at least 3 times for replacement. It gave me such a bad impression of SSDs that I didn't get another one for a long time.
My current Samsung SSDs, however, have been running flawlessly for 3 years now.
Units (Score:4, Informative)
Misleading (Score:2)
This write up is misleading as it is comparing densities from the laboratory of one item to production densities of another item.
Please compare apples to apples. Hard drives are more dense and cheaper than solid state drives, in addition to being far cheaper: Still, and into the forseeable future.
Price Parity - Market Factors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What was 60 or 100gb will grow to 500gb or 1tb for the same few hundred $ as the basic product range.
More storage but no getting 60gb for this years very very, low price.
Re: (Score:3)
But the fact that SSD has caught up HDD quite so quickly means the writing is on the wall.
Quite what is the factor that will keep people buying HDD? At the moment, it's only capacity. With matching densities, matching capacities won't be far off. I've said for the last few years the storage companies should give up on making HDDs or at least plan that way.
You can get a 1Tb 2.5" SSD for a decent price now. And desktop ranges are easily catered for with SSDs and even being supplied by default. The max si
Re: (Score:2)
No. You cannot get a 1TB SSD for a "decent price" in any form factor.
People seem to be forgetting that this is the consumer market where people would rather "eat dirt" so long as it's a bargain. This is the same market that favored the command line over the GUI based on cost.
Based on price, a 1TB SSD is an enthusiast item only. Even that's pushing things.
Whereas multi-TB spinning rust comes in multiple form factors that truly does qualify as "decently priced".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even Capacity is going to go this year, with expected 16 TB SSD drives coming to market. The only thing Spinning drives have at this point is Price. And if price is all you care about, then go Cheap! For everything else, go SSD>
Re: (Score:2)
Even Capacity is going to go this year, with expected 16 TB SSD drives coming to market. The only thing Spinning drives have at this point is Price. And if price is all you care about, then go Cheap! For everything else, go SSD>
You really think the overall media market is ready to pay 4x the price for no additional benefit? It's one thing to pay a 10% premium for something slightly better, it's quite another to pay a 400% premium for a difference you won't notice.
Re: (Score:2)
So you already buy no-name drives instead of the big-brands?
And no-name SD Cards?
When people's data is on the line, price isn't the primary consideration.
However, for desktop use, you'll notice that manufacturer's are giving the option. For the same price as a 1Tb HD, they'll give you a 128Gb SSD. The speed is, for the majority of users (we're probably power users on here, at minimum), much more important than being able to store EVERYTHING on the hard drive. Because they probably don't even fill up a 12
Re:Stop! (Score:4, Funny)
I don't like the idea of someone trying to fix my HDD with a HAMR.
Re: (Score:2)
Use flash as your HDD.
Don't be too sure. A point will come where NOR flash densities will surpass NAND, and at that point, data integrity will NOT be an issue, since NOR doesn't have the cell issues that NAND has
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when that point is several years in the past, be sure to let me know, and if I haven't heard of a solid-state drive failure for several years, I'll consider buying some when I next need mass storage.