Viking UHC-Silo SSDs put 25 TB or 50 TB in business-friendly homes

Do you have a big pile of data that you can't bear to put on moldy old spinning platter hard drives? If you have the cash, Viking Technology's 25 TB and 50 TB Ultra-High Capacity Silo Series SSDs should fit the bill. The Silo drives are built on a large-for-an-SSD 3.5" form factor and sport dual-port SAS interfaces. If you hadn't already guessed, these drives are primarily for large businesses with even larger storage needs.

The UHC-Silo drives use planar MLC NAND to deliver 500 MB/s sequential read performance and 350 MB/s writes. Random performance rings in at 60K IOPS for reads and 10K IOPS for writes. Viking says typical power consumption is 16 W. The company rates the Silos for a single drive write per day for five years, which translates to over 45 PB for the 25 TB model and 90 PBW for the 50 TB drive.

Viking didn't provide pricing information for the drives, but the company told Anandtech that the Silo Series SSDs will be priced around $0.40 per GB. Napkin math leads to a price tag around $10,000 for the 25 TB drive and $20,000 for the 50 TB drive. Seagate's upcoming 16 TB models are the largest mechanical hard drives we have heard a manufacturer discuss out in the open, and most SSDs are far smaller than even the less capacious of these two drives. Businesses with a hankering for high-density and relatively low-latency storage could find the UHC-Silo drives just the ticket.

Comments closed
    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    I’m having trouble deciding between the 50TB variant and a Toyota Corolla.

      • hasseb64
      • 3 years ago

      HAHA!

      • Sargent Duck
      • 3 years ago

      Save just a little bit more and get a Subaru Imprezza

    • jstern
    • 3 years ago

    This is the type of product that would be very nice to win 2x of (for backup), and not have to think about storage for a very long time.

    Win in a contest, because it would be hard to spend so much money on a hard drive.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      I’d totally sell two drives worth $40,000 in that situation and spend the money on other stuff, Including (but not limited to) a 50TB online backup plan, the fastest and most generous internet connection I can buy, and several rather extravagant holidays.

    • Waco
    • 3 years ago

    Ugh.

    Low IOPs and 6 Gbps SAS yet priced like premium multiple-write-per-day drives. No thank you.

      • kmm
      • 3 years ago

      At 350 MB/s running continuously it would take 20 hours to write 25 TB so I don’t really think you’re going to write these multiple times a day regardless of the potential warranty.

        • Waco
        • 3 years ago

        Which only reinforces the “not worth the price” point I was trying to make.

    • davidbowser
    • 3 years ago

    Hallelujah!

    This is the type of stuff I have been waiting for someone to make for the last 5 years or so: gobs of storage chips with a tweaked SATA/SAS controller in a 3.5 package. This will replace near-line storage for small-mid digital media shops as soon as the prices get to $5000-$8000 since it would also be faster than HDDs.

    For price comparison, a decent 8-bay NAS is $3000 and $2000 will fill it with 8TB drives. RAID will drop you to the 50TB usable range.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      I’m just thinking that this product only makes sense if you have MULTIPLE of these things in an array, because 50TB is an awful lot of data to constrict behind a single 500MB/s interface.

      A decent NAS or SAN is going to deliver far more sequential performance than that, because it’s combining the bandwidth of multiple drives and backing it with DRAM cache on top of that.

      Likewise, if you’re after the IOPS performance of an SSD, 10K IOPS is well below par for SSD’s. We’d be looking at 30K as “entry level” performance, or possibly something that’s a hybrid, flash-fronted mechanical storage.

        • davidbowser
        • 3 years ago

        Agreed with your concept, but I think we might be talking about different storage models (and price points). I was thinking this would be a workgroup level tier replacement for nearline NAS, e.g online (workstation)-> nearline (store/share)-> offline (archive). Nearline doesn’t have serious IOPS requirements in this model because the editing is done on the workstations, so you could get by with slapping one of these into an old server or workstation as your shared storage.

          • Chrispy_
          • 3 years ago

          Okay, but the cost of ONE of these is easily double the cost of a completely brand new server along with a 3-year 4H support plan, so it wouldn’t make sense to spend this much money for an old server storage.

          I run a main office design studio with a lot of nearline storage, and athough the IOPS requirement is pretty low, that 500MB/s bottleneck would be a serious problem. I could see performance degradation with just half a dozen users working with linked Indesign files, or compiling animations from multiple clips on the NL storage.

          Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but if you want IOPS, you get PCIe SSD’s with 10x higher IOPS. If you want bandwidth and capacity you get multi-spindle arrays. If you want neither you don’t need to spend this sort of money in the first place, so to me this is a solution without a problem.

            • cygnus1
            • 3 years ago

            I think these are probably priced out of the average NL market right now, but replacing spinning rust putting these giant SSDs into a storage array with NVMe devices as cache would certainly get you both higher capacity and higher performance than an equivalent array with those spinners… price will come down. Even still, if it takes 4 or more spinners to get similar capacity and performance as 1 of these SSDs, the savings in footprint and ongoing power usage might tip the scales in favor of these SSDs with a much lower price drop than is immediately apparent.

            I think spinning rust manufacturers need to bust out some miracle capacity boosts if they want to stay competitive in the future.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            Yeah, I guess this proves that enterprise SSDs have reached 4X the storage density for 4x the cost at least. That’s pretty significant either way you look at it.

            • cygnus1
            • 3 years ago

            Yep, dual ported 6 and 8 TB spinners aren’t cheap at all…

    • cygnus1
    • 3 years ago

    So, who’s buying me a dozen of these?

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      Bill Gates will.

        • cygnus1
        • 3 years ago

        Well, he doesn’t want to die with his money or give much to his kids, so fingers crossed!!!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This