This article mentions that currently storage is done with transistors as small as 14nm. Right now the latest processors are being made with 5nm transistors and factories are being built for 2/3nm transistors. But eventually there will be a technical limit to how small they can be made.
Also there are techniques like 3d stacking that get more storage without shrinking anything by changing the way the memory is arranged.
Typical NAND technologies arrange memory cells side by side; more cells equate to a higher capacity for the drive. To make a NAND drive larger, you’d need to reduce the size of the cells, but due to Moore’s law, there’s a limit to how small the cells can get. Smaller cells are also more prone to memory leak—we won’t get into that here, but the takeaway is that smaller cells are generally less dependable.
So, how do you store more data in the same amount of physical space without shrinking the cells? Simple (even if it’s not really simple): You stack them. Intel’s 3D NAND technology, as its name implies, allows the memory cells to be stacked on top of one another. This has the obvious advantage of expanding the number of memory cells on each block of semiconducting material—called a die—without reducing the NAND drive’s dependability.
yeah from what I understand the problem with HDDs is that the fasted possible (or reasonable) transfer speed has been reached so now the more storage you pack on a disk becomes more risky because recovering data from it in case of failure could take actual days at the fastest they can go.
Yeah so even if the increase the capacity it'll take forever to fill up/empty the drives. Right now hard drives are still being used to archive things but this is major issue.
Kind of, its more hitting a barrel wall rather than floor. There's enough research being done & just-over-the-horizon tech that the trend will probably hold for next generation or two.
Moore's law is just a name though. Eventually yeah, we're going to start hitting the edges of practicality if nothing else.
Yes. For the next few years they'll be able to keep shrinking but I'm not sure if that is going to come to an end in like 5 years. Or maybe 0.5nm is possible. But that's a problem for processors more than storage because the cutting tech is used for processors and GPUs first.
in short: yeah the numbers will keep going up probably
I think the limits for hard drives are being reached but ssds are regularly improving.
https://datarecovery.com/rd/rapid-growth-storage-technologies-data-capacities-changed-theyll-keep-changing/
This article mentions that currently storage is done with transistors as small as 14nm. Right now the latest processors are being made with 5nm transistors and factories are being built for 2/3nm transistors. But eventually there will be a technical limit to how small they can be made.
Also there are techniques like 3d stacking that get more storage without shrinking anything by changing the way the memory is arranged.
yeah from what I understand the problem with HDDs is that the fasted possible (or reasonable) transfer speed has been reached so now the more storage you pack on a disk becomes more risky because recovering data from it in case of failure could take actual days at the fastest they can go.
Yeah so even if the increase the capacity it'll take forever to fill up/empty the drives. Right now hard drives are still being used to archive things but this is major issue.
deleted by creator
Kind of, its more hitting a barrel wall rather than floor. There's enough research being done & just-over-the-horizon tech that the trend will probably hold for next generation or two.
Moore's law is just a name though. Eventually yeah, we're going to start hitting the edges of practicality if nothing else.
Yes. For the next few years they'll be able to keep shrinking but I'm not sure if that is going to come to an end in like 5 years. Or maybe 0.5nm is possible. But that's a problem for processors more than storage because the cutting tech is used for processors and GPUs first.
That seems like bad wording. It's not "due to" Moore's Law. It's a physical limitation that will be the death of Moore's Law.