Samsung Introduces 61.44 TB BM1743 SSD with 176-Layer V-NAND

[AleksandarK]

Samsung has introduced its latest BM1743 SSD, boasting an impressive 61.44 TB of storage capacity. The BM1743 utilizes Samsung's seventh-generation 3D NAND (V-NAND) technology, featuring 176 layers of memory cells. This represents a significant leap from its predecessor, the BM1733, which debuted in 2020 with 96-layer technology and a maximum capacity of 32 TB. Performance-wise, the BM1743 doesn't disappoint. It delivers up to 1.6 million random read IOPS and 110,000 random write IOPS, with sequential read and write speeds of 7.2 GB/s and 2.0 GB/s, respectively. These figures position the drive as a highly capable solution for read-intensive workloads. Samsung claims that the new SSD offers double the sequential read and write speeds of its fifth-generation technology, with random reads quadrupling in performance. This advancement suggests that quad-level cell (QLC) SSDs are now approaching the performance levels of their triple-level cell (TLC) counterparts while offering superior storage density.

The BM1743 is available in the traditional U.2 form factor, with an E3.S variant supporting PCIe Gen 5 also in the lineup, thanks to the custom Samsung controller. Samsung has enhanced the durability and data retention capabilities of the BM1743. The new drive boasts an improved endurance rating of 0.26 drive writes per day (DWPD) throughout its warranty period, a notable increase from the BM1733's 0.18 DWPD. Additionally, the BM1743 extends its power-off data retention to three months, tripling the one-month period of its predecessor. In a hint of things to come, Samsung has suggested that a 122.88 TB model may be on the horizon, potentially doubling the capacity of the BM1743. This new offering puts Samsung in direct competition with Solidigm's D5-P5336, which has dominated the high-capacity SSD market for the past year. High-density storage solutions are becoming more important as AI and HPC tasks require and produce massive amounts of data.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[natr0n]

probably buy this on ebay in 5 years when outdated

 

[Hakker]

probably buy this on ebay in 5 years when outdated

Well the launch price of the Solidigm version was really competitive. You could have snatched up the first ones for $4000. Now they basically have doubled in price but still it was slashing high capacity SSD prices.

 

[PrEzi]

"that quad-level cell (QLC) SSDs are now approaching the performance levels of their triple-level cell (TLC) counterparts while offering superior storage density."

...and half of the lifespan of the TLCs, which is half of the lifespan of MLC, which is half of SLC...............

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

boasting an impressive 61.44 TB of storage capacity.

Thats a lot of 2160p movies

 

[Bwaze]

And in other news, some consumer lines of SSDs that came in maximum capacity of 4 TB and we're planned to come in 8 TB in next generation have been released in maximum capacity of 2 TB... And they're wondering why there's no great enthusiasm from buyers, despite offering "Moar Speed" every year?

 

[Wasteland]

And in other news, some consumer lines of SSDs that came in maximum capacity of 4 TB and we're planned to come in 8 TB in next generation have been released in maximum capacity of 2 TB... And they're wondering why there's no great enthusiasm from buyers, despite offering "Moar Speed" every year?

Yeah. The "moar speed" is also functionally irrelevant for the vast majority of consumers. It's a total mystery why people aren't slavering after new models that offer loads of extra heat for zero payoff.

 

[Bwaze]

But I guess consumer space is pretty irrelevant now, all they need is little handheld devices to consume all the AI produced content...

"Samsung Expects An Unfathomable Fifteen Times Operating Profit Increase For The Q2 2024 Quarter, As Demand For AI-Related Chips Boosts The Company’s Growth"

 

[kondamin]

Imagine if they never shut down 90% of their production capacity and just offered those 3 years ago

 

[evernessince]

"that quad-level cell (QLC) SSDs are now approaching the performance levels of their triple-level cell (TLC) counterparts while offering superior storage density."

...and half of the lifespan of the TLCs, which is half of the lifespan of MLC, which is half of SLC...............

It's actually a LOT less than half in the enterprise space.

This drive features 0.26 DWPD while most enterprise TLC drives feature anywhere from 1 DWPD to 3 DWPD.

So you are getting anywhere from 1/4 to 1/16 of the endurance. I've seen ServeAtHome try to hand-wave the endurance of these large QLC drives off because their total endurance is very high (duh they are 60TB+) but that ignores the fact that, unless you aren't using the extra capacity, your writes scale up as your data needs scale up according to the ratio of read/writes for a given workload. If you are replacing two 30.72TB drives with one 61.44 TB drive for example, assuming the same use case, your writes on the 61.44 TB drive per day would be the combined total of your daily write of both your 30.72 TB drives. These drives are intended for extremely read heavy workloads and the amount of writes you place on a drive should be heavily kept in mind when purchasing them for your home lab / place of work.

It's also wise to point out that Read Disturb is a much bigger issue on QLC. Some drives try to allieviate this issue by storing frequently accessed data in the SLC but obviously that will only benefit certain workloads and the benefit depends on the SLC size. Read Disturb requires the rewriting of a block after a certain number of reads and thus makes QLCs issues regarding endurance more problematic.

 

[ewitte]

probably buy this on ebay in 5 years when outdated

I have a gen4 7.68TB that was by far the best value drive I have. It was like $400 with 0 writes when I got it. Its much more stable with its rated speeds and has a 3 writes per day rating.

 

[ypsylon]

Samsung enterprise drives are hard pass for me as they lock firmware updates behind corporate BS.

QLC at this capacity, in this segment, is not that terrible. Same target customer as Solidigm D5-P5336. Despite all issues associated with QLC, enterprise grade NVMe has numerous tricks (extra circuitry) inside not found in consumer devices which ensure data integrity in demanding environment. Both models - even if QLC - will sell by the tonne given rapacious demand for storage in data center segment.

@ewitte
Yeap. Consumer drives sucks, when you switch to the industrial grade stuff you never going back to lousy M.2s. Owning stacks of Micron 7450 Pro/Max and they smoking.

 

[R-T-B]

"that quad-level cell (QLC) SSDs are now approaching the performance levels of their triple-level cell (TLC) counterparts while offering superior storage density."

...and half of the lifespan of the TLCs, which is half of the lifespan of MLC, which is half of SLC...............

If all other things are equal. Node size, which can be raised via more layering, is also a factor.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Looking for a cheap 8TB nvme drive for years. Still prices at the same callous level...

 

[Scrizz]

It's actually a LOT less than half in the enterprise space.

This drive features 0.26 DWPD while most enterprise TLC drives feature anywhere from 1 DWPD to 3 DWPD.

So you are getting anywhere from 1/4 to 1/16 of the endurance. I've seen ServeAtHome try to hand-wave the endurance of these large QLC drives off because their total endurance is very high (duh they are 60TB+) but that ignores the fact that, unless you aren't using the extra capacity, your writes scale up as your data needs scale up according to the ratio of read/writes for a given workload. If you are replacing two 30.72TB drives with one 61.44 TB drive for example, assuming the same use case, your writes on the 61.44 TB drive per day would be the combined total of your daily write of both your 30.72 TB drives. These drives are intended for extremely read heavy workloads and the amount of writes you place on a drive should be heavily kept in mind when purchasing them for your home lab / place of work.

It's also wise to point out that Read Disturb is a much bigger issue on QLC. Some drives try to allieviate this issue by storing frequently accessed data in the SLC but obviously that will only benefit certain workloads and the benefit depends on the SLC size. Read Disturb requires the rewriting of a block after a certain number of reads and thus makes QLCs issues regarding endurance more problematic.

These drives typically wouldn't be used in write intensive workloads. These are more write once read multiple times type of workload like CDNs, etc (background ssd data refresh is accounted for). For write intensive workloads TLC and even SLC drives still exist. It's all about using the right tool for the right job.

 

[close]

And in other news, some consumer lines of SSDs that came in maximum capacity of 4 TB and we're planned to come in 8 TB in next generation have been released in maximum capacity of 2 TB... And they're wondering why there's no great enthusiasm from buyers, despite offering "Moar Speed" every year?

Consumers are not particularly excited about things like power-off data retention of one to three months. 2-4TB of usable SSD will be better than 8+TB that will lose your data because for some reason you left the device in the drawer for a few weeks.

 

[evernessince]

These drives typically wouldn't be used in write intensive workloads. These are more write once read multiple times type of workload like CDNs, etc (background ssd data refresh is accounted for). For write intensive workloads TLC and even SLC drives still exist. It's all about using the right tool for the right job.

Oh for sure. I definitely wasn't trying to imply that these are terrible drives, I just wanted to point out that their use case is read heavy as I felt a certain popular YouTuber was glazing over their TBW figure.

It should also be noted that these higher capacity drives are really only for those who space is at an extreme premium as they typically end up being more expensive than if you just purchase more lower capacity drives. You can get four 15.36TB TLC drives for around the price and depending on what drive you snagged you'd be looking at 4x to 16x the endurance. For home lab users you'd also have to consider that anything above PCIe 3.0 is very had to get working via cable so you either have to have a server with PCIe 4.0 / 5.0 or use a carrier card (although I have yet to see a carrier card explicitly claim PCIe 5.0 support yet, only 4.0 so it's going to depend on your motherboard and how good signal quality is).

 

[Bwaze]

Consumers are not particularly excited about things like power-off data retention of one to three months. 2-4TB of usable SSD will be better than 8+TB that will lose your data because for some reason you left the device in the drawer for a few weeks.

And what drives have such poor data retention? Wasn't that ancient article then "debunked" by showing how it was showing really worst case scenario - drive at the end of life, written at low temperature, and then shown how the high storage temperature can shorten data retention? And that in more normal circumstances you quickly achieve much longer theoretical retention, also drives actually quickly got better at it, which was also confirmed by people checking years old SSD?

 

[Scrizz]

Oh for sure. I definitely wasn't trying to imply that these are terrible drives, I just wanted to point out that their use case is read heavy as I felt a certain popular YouTuber was glazing over their TBW figure.

It should also be noted that these higher capacity drives are really only for those who space is at an extreme premium as they typically end up being more expensive than if you just purchase more lower capacity drives. You can get four 15.36TB TLC drives for around the price and depending on what drive you snagged you'd be looking at 4x to 16x the endurance. For home lab users you'd also have to consider that anything above PCIe 3.0 is very had to get working via cable so you either have to have a server with PCIe 4.0 / 5.0 or use a carrier card (although I have yet to see a carrier card explicitly claim PCIe 5.0 support yet, only 4.0 so it's going to depend on your motherboard and how good signal quality is).

Generally with these higher capacity drives it's not so much about upfront cost as it is about TCO total cost of ownership. This would include things like power and cooling. In the data center with this push for AI, more and more companies want to reduce the amount of power their servers are using up. One way they can do that is by replacing hard drives with these high capacity SSDs and also for the CDNs/read heavy workloads, 1x 60TB drive is much better than 4x 16TB when it comes to power and cooling costs as well as physical space. A home lab user should educate themselves on what the target market and usage scenarios for these drives are in order to take advantage of their strengths and not try to force their weaknesses.

 

[close]

And what drives have such poor data retention? Wasn't that ancient article then "debunked" by showing how it was showing really worst case scenario - drive at the end of life, written at low temperature, and then shown how the high storage temperature can shorten data retention? And that in more normal circumstances you quickly achieve much longer theoretical retention, also drives actually quickly got better at it, which was also confirmed by people checking years old SSD?

It's literally a quote from the current article:

Additionally, the BM1743 extends its power-off data retention to three months, tripling the one-month period of its predecessor

That "maybe it can be better theoretically" might be accurate but it also means that it can be just what it says on the tin and you can't even complain, it's what you bought. People buy things with long warranties because they believe if the manufacturer trusts to give that warranty it must be good. The opposite holds true. An enterprise customer won't care about 3 months without power but a regular user would as long as they even know what to look for on the label. Because that's all that matters, you can't blame the manufacturer for things "people checked on years old SSDs".