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

Appletoni

Suspended
Original poster
Mar 26, 2021
443
177
I need now 16 tb with ssd speed for work.
32 tb with ssd speed would be better for work.
 
I need now 16 tb with ssd speed for work.
32 tb with ssd speed would be better for work.
Not really possible until they release ssd of that size - which is a long away off and prohibitively expensive.

You could look in to raid arrays, raid 0 or ‘striped’ as it’s known is the fastest type. you can certainly get great speeds depending on what you need.

This works with spinning disks or with ssds, so if you get an enclosure l that can handle a big enough array, then you can get close to those storage amounts using ssd’s. Will cost you a pretty penny though!

Look in to it, you should find a workable solution.
 
The largest SSD drives available that I have seen are 8TB (Samsung 870 QVO, and VectoTech Rapid) so you would need to do some type of raid array. As mentioned they are not inexpensive.
 
I don’t know any brand that makes SSD enclosures of that size. You could hovewer get something like Pegssus3 with HDDs in RAID0, that could give you reasonable performance and decent capacity.

Be prepared to spend a pretty penny though.
 
As others already mentioned, your only choice at this point is a striped RAID of SATA SSDs.

For example (a quick search):


Eight of these (2TB or 4TB)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IllinoisCorn
I need now 16 tb with ssd speed for work.
32 tb with ssd speed would be better for work.
OWC has a decently fast Thunderbolt SSD RAID that goes up to 16 TB. You can daisy chain two and with their software RAID solution get a single 32 TB drive. As mentioned, it costs quite a bit. $4379.00 for 16 TB so $8758.00 for 32 TB.


https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/owc-thunderblade
 
@jdb8167 That’s a better solution than my quick find — not quite as cheap but much smaller, a little faster, and drives already installed.
 
The largest SSD drives available that I have seen are 8TB (Samsung 870 QVO, and VectoTech Rapid) so you would need to do some type of raid array. As mentioned they are not inexpensive.

I have exactly that one. In a cradle coneccted via USB to my Mac mini. Works like charm.
But if more storage is required, I'd go for a NAS.
 
The old MacBook Pro 16-inch has 8 tb ssd. I see no reason to buy less than 8 tb. Especially because it‘s Apple.

8 TB SSDs:

Micron MTFDDAK1T9TCB-1AR1ZABYY Solid State Drive 8TB​

Samsung 870 QVO 8TB​


8 TB M.2 NVMe SSDs:

Corsair MP400 8TB M.2 NVMe PCIe x4 Gen3 SSD​

Sabrent Rocket Q 8TB M.2 NVMe PCIe​


It would be easy for Apple to sell the MacBook Pro 16-inch with 2 x Samsung 870 QVO SSDs instead of only one SSD.
Apple could also sell 3 or 6 Corsair or Sabrent M.2 NVMe SSDs.
 
What are you trying to accomplish that needs this sort of SSD size? There may be other ways to accomplish this other than a very large SSD.
 
The old MacBook Pro 16-inch has 8 tb ssd. I see no reason to buy less than 8 tb. Especially because it‘s Apple.

What? Why? What do you need that much storage for? And why would you want to spend so much money?

8 TB SSDs:

Micron MTFDDAK1T9TCB-1AR1ZABYY Solid State Drive 8TB​

Samsung 870 QVO 8TB​


8 TB M.2 NVMe SSDs:

Corsair MP400 8TB M.2 NVMe PCIe x4 Gen3 SSD​

Sabrent Rocket Q 8TB M.2 NVMe PCIe​


It would be easy for Apple to sell the MacBook Pro 16-inch with 2 x Samsung 870 QVO SSDs instead of only one SSD.
Apple could also sell 3 or 6 Corsair or Sabrent M.2 NVMe SSDs.

Apple does not use standard consumer SSDs...
 
We use 32TB SSD arrays in each of our 25 locations - connected via TB3 to our 2018 Mac Mini CTO / BTO setup as caching servers & user profile backups:

Screen Shot 2021-06-06 at 7.13.27 AM.png
 
That's bonkers. Specialized software and hardware solutions are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

For a company, that's not really that much. Employees tend to cost way more than hardware (salaries, benefits, FICA, workers' comp, etc).

If an uber-fast SSD array will help efficiency, that more than pays for itself.
 
For a company, that's not really that much. Employees tend to cost way more than hardware (salaries, benefits, FICA, workers' comp, etc).

If an uber-fast SSD array will help efficiency, that more than pays for itself.
That's true. $8,500 spent over however many years is a drop in the bucket if you're using it for business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4sallypat
That's bonkers. Specialized software and hardware solutions are $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I can see an immediate need for this, even in a portable format like the OWC, for lots of video work. In the office, also for other huge data sets, like image recognition. The speed and ease of working with such equipment pays for itself in a very short amount of time. Nothing to be seen here, move on :)
 
That's true. $8,500 spent over however many years is a drop in the bucket if you're using it for business.
Our organization spent well over $300K during the pandemic just to equip each of our sites (25) with the custom made caching Mac Mini (64GB, 6 core i7, 10Gbe), 32TB SSD storage, and a contract for an Apple engineer to write code for auto user profile backups on our DEP enrolled, MDM controlled iOS & Mac devices.

That was not much, compared to the amount we spent on each staff member (750): $700,000 for a new MBP, iPad Pro, ATV, and remote presentation display setups by a contractor.

That was a drop in the bucket as funding came from Federal CARES act...
 
Last edited:
I have exactly that one. In a cradle coneccted via USB to my Mac mini. Works like charm.
But if more storage is required, I'd go for a NAS.
I would be very difficult to get "SSD speeds" out of any NAS. The only hope would be via 10Gbps ethernet. You'd be better off with a DAS RAID setup connected via TB3 or TB4.
 
I would be very difficult to get "SSD speeds" out of any NAS. The only hope would be via 10Gbps ethernet. You'd be better off with a DAS RAID setup connected via TB3 or TB4.
Yes, exactly. If the criterium is only "more storage", then a NAS is very nice. But if you want more storage at that same speed, you're looking at a very heavy investment in your network as well. It's feasible, because all media companies have very high performance storage networks, but expect major reductions of your bank account balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Javi74
Yes, exactly. If the criterium is only "more storage", then a NAS is very nice. But if you want more storage at that same speed, you're looking at a very heavy investment in your network as well. It's feasible, because all media companies have very high performance storage networks, but expect major reductions of your bank account balance.
But then the network approach is somewhat future proof, subject to less potential risk, and is a sound investment due to easier maintenance and flexibility down the road. Matter of fact when someone comes with a "16-32TB" hot data requirement, I would first look at network solution due to the sheer volume and the associated backup needs that come with it. Prices of 10GbE network components are also getting into pro-/consumer friendly range lately.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.