Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Other World Computing Building Pricey 3.5" 2TB SSD for Desktop Workstations

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,145
38,922



Later this year, Other World Computing plans to release a 3.5" SSD drive meant for tower-style PCs like the Mac Pro. The drive, called the "Mercury Viper", will allow OWC to build an SSD with capacities as large as 2TB, as well as transfer rates over 600MB/s over a SATA 3 connection.

owcssd.jpg
Currently, OWC makes 2.5" SSD's that can be installed in a laptop or desktop via a bracket, but the extra space in a 3.5" drive allow for four times the capacity as their current drives -- at a significant cost. A OWC spokesperson told Ars Technica that the drive was designed "performance and capacity, not price".
That's in stark contrast to where the rest of the market is headed, typically driving costs down and making the most of 2.5" and mSATA form factors used in notebooks and Ultrabooks. But workstation may care less about budget and more about getting work done. "We think the price will be right for the kind of user that spends $6,000 on a computer," Dahlke said. "And you can't get this kind of capacity anywhere else."
Click to expand...
Pricing and availability details are expected in March.

(Image courtesy Ars Technica/Chris Foresman)

Article Link: Other World Computing Building Pricey 3.5" 2TB SSD for Desktop Workstations
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/11/other-world-computing-building-pricey-3-5-2tb-ssd-for-desktop-workstations/
It's essentially 4x512Gb SSDs... No way this is cheaper than $2,000, I'd say even closer to $3,000
 
Towards a new storage architecture

I've currently got a 5Big Network 2 configured for RAID 6. I did this because I wanted to not have to worry about individual or even two drive failures.

But the idea of large SSD modules seems wrong-headed to me.

Building large capacity rotating drives makes sense because a rather large fraction of the cost of the device is the storage infrastructure rather than the storage medium itself.

Flash storage turns that on its head. The vast majority of the cost is the storage medium itself.

What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.

In order to make this a reality, what I think is necessary is a new, cheap, simple interface standard for flash memory modules. Groups of these modules could be grouped together behind a single SATA controller for an eSATA flash "JBOD" style enclosure, or a larger number of them could be RAIDed for a NAS.
 
The just announced Micron/Crucial M500 at £450 a TB... That's about £900 for 2TB of space, granted it's not on one SSD but what OWC are doing here is (and I use the word as heavily as possible) obscene.
 
nsayer said:
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.
Click to expand...

That would also be perfect to increase the storage capacity incrementally by buying cheaper and smaller modules and being able to replace the smaller/slowest ones later, one by one. More people would be able to afford this setup, starting with a 60GB module, then buying another 20GB later, etc.
 
Yvan256 said:
That would also be perfect to increase the storage capacity incrementally by buying cheaper and smaller modules and being able to replace the smaller/slowest ones later, one by one. More people would be able to afford this setup, starting with a 60GB module, then buying another 20GB later, etc.
Click to expand...

You mean.. RAID...
 
In somewhat related news, Crucial just announced they will release a 960GB SSD for under $600.

While most of the new lineup they announced has a 2.5" form factor, the M500 model (960GB) is said to have a "M.2" form factor, which resembles the blades found in the rMBP/MBAs.

ngff.jpg


Not sure it will be compatible, but it gives hope for large capacity blade SSD upgrades being more affordable in the foreseeable future.

Article: http://techreport.com/news/24182/micron-and-crucial-introduce-next-gen-m500-ssd
 
spoonie1972 said:
that appears to be in a standard mac pro drive tray.

so it's connecting via sata2?
Click to expand...

No, it has standard 3.5" drive mounts. Just like an Icy Dock, or any other 3.5" Plastic Case. Further, it isn't like it will ONLY work with Macs (just because it comes from OWC) and would have been silly to only make it SATA2. Making it SATA3 means it will be backwards compatible with SATA2. If apple comes out with a new Mac Pro (of some type) or if a PC user (hackintosh maybe?) wants to use one of these, they can at full SATA3 speeds.
 
nono, i mean it's screwed into a mac pro drive-tray.

if this is OWC based, shouldn't they have a PCIe stand-off so it can connect to something fast(er) like their Accelsior range?
 
I already have the 1TB Accelsior...

At $1500 for 1TB , it is not cheap but it is worth it. All I need is a PCI-e. i get speeds of over 800MB/s and I can still use my 6 additional Hard Drives in my Mac Pro... :cool:
The 2010 Mac Pro is limited to a 3G Bus Connection. Even if you plug in a 6G SSD, it will be clocked down to half...
PCI gives you full throughput...
I couldn't be happier :)
 
pgiguere1 said:
In somewhat related news, Crucial just announced they will release a 960GB SSD for under $600.

While most of the new lineup they announced has a 2.5" form factor, the M500 model (960GB) is said to have a "M.2" form factor, which resembles the blades found in the rMBP/MBAs.

Image

Not sure it will be compatible, but it gives hope for large capacity blade SSD upgrades being more affordable in the foreseeable future.

Article: http://techreport.com/news/24182/micron-and-crucial-introduce-next-gen-m500-ssd
Click to expand...

Are you sure you didn't switch the size and capacity? I recall reading that the M500 will be available in M2 variants in all BUT the 960GB variety.

----------

It actually only gives you hope that larger capacity blade style SSD's will be larger in capacity as it's a proprietary format used by Apple i.e Apple controls the tech and thus the pricing does not need to be competitive. See OWC for an example of this.
 
They already have a 960GB SSD for $1,119.00 so im assuming this will double the price at the least.

Sad that these drives are so expensive but its fun to think that in 5 years or so these will be a lot cheaper...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvan256
That would also be perfect to increase the storage capacity incrementally by buying cheaper and smaller modules and being able to replace the smaller/slowest ones later, one by one. More people would be able to afford this setup, starting with a 60GB module, then buying another 20GB later, etc.

Quote:
iRCL You mean.. RAID...

Iam not sure he does, he might be referring to something like the Acelsior PCIe SSD blades being increased in capacity which is something that OWC did advertise as being a possibility and i E-mailed them about this, the long and short of it is that is so close in price to a new PCIe card that its probably just better to buy a new one of a greater capacity (and no warranty hassles)
It would be good to be able to add another 50-100 Gb at a time as one can afford it.
 
Last edited:
I don't get them using SATA III. They should have made it a PCIe 2.0 x4 or PCIe 1.0 x8 card like some other manufacturers. So that you could get speeds greater than 1GB/s. As others do for large premium SSD.

Unlike others theirs would be Mac bootable.
 
nsayer said:
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.

In order to make this a reality, what I think is necessary is a new, cheap, simple interface standard for flash memory modules. Groups of these modules could be grouped together behind a single SATA controller for an eSATA flash "JBOD" style enclosure, or a larger number of them could be RAIDed for a NAS.
Click to expand...

Uh, isn't that module called a "hard drive"...?!
 
velocityg4 said:
I don't get them using SATA III. They should have made it a PCIe 2.0 x4 or PCIe 1.0 x8 card like some other manufacturers. So that you could get speeds greater than 1GB/s. As others do for large premium SSD.

Unlike others theirs would be Mac bootable.
Click to expand...

Because it goes into desktops with a sata III connection?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back