Samsung unveils world’s largest SSD with whopping 30TB of storage

Modest but mighty: the 30TB PM1643.
Photo by Samsung
If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

Samsung has unveiled the world’s largest solid state drive — an unassuming-looking bit of kit that boasts a whopping 30.72 terabytes of storage. It’s the most storage ever crammed into the 2.5-inch form factor, and is designed for enterprise customers looking to move away from the mechanical parts of your standard disk-based hard drive.

The PM1643 is built from 32 sticks of 1TB NAND flash packages, each of which contains 16 layers of 512Gb V-NAND chips. That’s enough space to hold 5,700 HD movies or roughly 500 days of non-stop video, and offers twice the capacity of the former largest SSD — a 16 terabyte drive also released by Samsung back in March 2016. (Seagate has made a bigger 60 terabyte SSD, but that was in the more spacious 3.5-inch form factor, and was “demonstration technology” that doesn’t seem to have ever gone on sale.)

The new Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) drive offers impressive sequential read and write speeds of up to 2,100MB/s and 1,700 MB/s. That’s about three times as fast as the average SATA SSD you’d find in a consumer desktop or laptop, like Samsung’s own SSD 850 EVO. And the drive is robust too, with Samsung offering a five-year warranty that’s good for one full drive write per day.

When exactly the PM1643 will go on sale and for how much isn’t known, but Samsung says now it’s got this form factor settled it’ll expand its range of SAS SSDs later this year, with 16.36TB, 7.68TB, 3.84TB, 1.92TB, 960GB, and 800GB versions to come. As Samsung executive VP of memory sales Jaesoo Han said in a press statement, the company will “continue to move aggressively in meeting the shifting demand toward SSDs over 10TB.”

Don’t expect to see 30TB SSDs turning up in laptops or desktop PCs anytime soon of course. But new biggest-ever storage components like this are always trailblazers, and create downward pressure on prices in the consumer market. Now if only we could get a terabyte’s worth of storage in our phones.


"Now if only we could get a terabyte’s worth of storage in our phones." – Google Drive and Google Photos has gotten rid of that problem.
In fact with a good internet connection and Steam / Netflix / Hulu / YouTube TV, I really find a 2 Tb drive already way more than I usually fill up.
I know, "640K ought to be enough for anybody." famous last words, but unless you are a content creator, why would these 8Tb+ drives come to the user market?

That’s not getting rid of the problem.

Local storage is best and, always will be.

Why a person prefers to give their photos over to a company that uses them for their own gain instead of just, occasional sitting down and transferring files to a larger, again, local drive…I have no idea.

Google Photos is free and easy, you should try it. I can’t be arsed copying photos over anymore.

^ This. But some people will claim wired headphones are better than bluetooth, they will insist in buying blue-ray DVDs and claim that no Windows was better than XP. Luckily, the world has more sense than that.

Hey!!! Wired and Blu-Ray are better.

One of those things isn’t like the others — the obvious advantage of Blu-Ray, which is the same advantage as purchasing digital media, is that you own it. Thousands of popular movies and TV shows are unavailable for streaming anywhere (legally) right now, because of constantly shifting licensing deals. That’s not even considering the increasing fragmentation of the streaming space, wherein that movie or TV show you want to watch may exclusively available on any one of 20 streaming services that all require monthly fees.

some people will claim wired headphones are better than bluetooth

That "claim" is just objectively true. Not a great example to use…

Image compression. No thank you
Limited to 1080. No thank you
Site underperforms. No thank you
Lack of true security. No thank you
Dependent on a connection with the server…big time no thank you

Nothing beats local storage. You try getting off your arse and using it.

  • You can turn off compression if you have a paid Google Drive account. Storage is cheap.
  • Likewise for video at 1080p
  • Works lightning fast for me, but YMMV
  • Somewhat true, but any cloud solution has the same potential issue
  • Not true, you can sync to your hard drive.

It does a lot of other useful stuff – makes searching and organising photos very easy, much better than any existing OS file manager. Plus if you use a Pixel phone everything syncs automatically and you get unlimited storage.

Of course you may have need of more professional grade features, and it’s always prudent to maintain a local backup of photos locally. But for my needs it’s excellent.

I believe Photos on iOS will auto sync as well if you want it to. I believe I had mine set to sync when on Wifi and charging. On iOS, there is one additional step in the use process and that is after "Free Up Storage" you have to go to the iOS Photo app and empty the trash to remove the photos from the phones internal storage. Otherwise, it worked just like the Android version.

  • You can turn off compression if you have a paid Google Drive account. Storage is cheap.
    - There you go, so it is NOT free? Is it cheap? Well, if you consider 100 bucks for your mobile bill cheap, yes. 100GB for 24€ a year is not really cheap. Thats the equivalent of a 128GB USB Stick, given the USB Stick will also be faster. But we could argue that is okayish. 100GB will get you nowhere if you make movies or photos on a regular basis and at 10TB we are talking 1200€ a year. I recently built a Synology DS918+ with 4×4TB (12TB net capacity) and it was 890€. That thing will last 5 years easily and cost a lot less.
    Another point to consider is that one you encrypt your files you will need paid storage because pictures will no longer be identified as such.
  • Likewise for video at 1080p
    - again, not cheap
  • Works lightning fast for me, but YMMV
    - does not. Once you go rural cloud storage is not good. I have been to way too many locations where there was 0 data coverage, even here in Europe. Issue is that ppl like you tend to generalize because you might live in a well covered are or in a big city, once you leave that behind things change, believe me.
  • Somewhat true, but any cloud solution has the same potential issue
    - Thats why cloud solutions are per se no optimal solution. They are a compromise, you give up security for a benefit of access. However, if you have a small local storage you are forced to do so because you have barely any choice.
    And here again comes encryption. Do I use cloud storage to backup my photos? Hell yes, but never would I use it without encryption. Cloud storage is nice for offsite backups of your local NAS / SAN, but thats about it. I encrypt the hell out of it so that even if anyone would get to those files they can´t do a thing with them.
  • Not true, you can sync to your hard drive.
    - Yeh, but then what would be the benefit? As long as you use cloud storage as encrypted offsite backups I am with you, however, that also only works if you have the capacity (connection wise) to do so. I moved from London with my 130mbit internet connection to a German town in the middle of nowhere (beautiful though) and suddenly I was confronted with an 8mbit connection. Did you ever try to sync 100GB worth of photos with anything below 30mbit? Believe me…´s a nightmare (that lasts 2 days).

I think it´s fine if ppl use cloud storage as long as they are true about the benefits and risk that come with them. The generalization that happens in these forums are not beneficial because they hide these. Local storage is always king as long as you have some kind of backups, and these backups might aswell be in a cloud (if you use encryption). Security is not something that you should care about because of yourself but also because of others that you might have taken pictures from. Imagine you took pictures of friends in inappropriate situations – who is liable for anything happening to these pictures? You are. If anything goes wrong and these find their way to the internet it will be you how is held liable and you should care about that.

You are also citing the same reasons that MP3s will never take off and we all know what happened there.

He didn’t say it wouldn’t take off, just that it’s stupid.

MP3s aren’t dumb, but paying for a subscription service that doesn’t let you keep your music at the end sure is. One of these days, those services will die off and people will lose hundreds or thousands of dollars in songs.

No they won’t, they’ll lose access to those songs, they won’t "lose the songs", since they never "had" them in the first place. There’s nothing dumb about paying a nominal fee for access to practically every song ever recorded.

I’m surprised you’re willing to sit on your arse and talk to us over the internet.

Get a Pixel and your videos are store at 4K or whatever you record or pay for Drive and you can back up full resolution photos, local is better but with the limited storage in our phones, constantly switching from one to another and photos and videos being larger than before, Google Photos is the next best option.

Question: Does it depend on whether the photos are taken and uploaded on a pixel or not? I mean, if I had 2 phones, could I just buy a Pixel, access Photos once and have unlimited storage with all my devices? Because then this would a pretty "cheap" solution to get unlimited (photo and video) storage?

Am I the only one that knows that you get unlimited uncompressed photo storage included with Amazon Prime? I have over 30,000 18 megapixel images in both .jpg and .cr2 (raw) stored there. I can access them from any device. Having said that, they’re all backed up twice to physical storage as well.

as long as these videos and files are unencrypted. Everything that goes to the cloud should be encrypted.

Nah I have it set so it doesn’t compress my photos. Being able to scroll back, and search through my photos from any computer is fantastic.

And as for security, how many times have Google Photos accounts been hacked Vs iCloud accounts

lol free? you think that google are paying the wages of the all people who develop the service and that they pay the cost of storage and bandwidth just because they want to help you out? wow they sure do sound generous!

It’s free if I don’t have to pay for it. As in, with money.

They only use your data for advertising anyway. It’s not like someone is sitting at Google HQ looking at all your photos.

Haha, you think Google Photos is "free", do you? You think they, a private profit-oriented company, gift you "free storage" for no reason? The price you pay is no privacy. Google makes 99.5% of their money with your data. If you’re fine with that, ok. But don’t pretend it’s "free".
I pay $2 per month on iCloud for 2TB storage. $2 for me is a good price to know my photos aren’t used for commercial purposes.

Free as in you don’t have to pay for it.

Sharing my data doesn’t bother me, it’s not like there’s people on the other end spying on you it’s literally a computer program that serves adverts.

transferring files to a larger, again, local drive

What’s larger than unlimited storage?

View All Comments
Back to top ↑