4 ms·
Interesting comment from Anandtech [0] > Keep in mind that consumer NVMe SSDs that boast throughput of 2GB/s or more generally do not reach their peak at low q
by 2bluesc 10y ago
Interesting comment from Anandtech [0]
> Keep in mind that consumer NVMe SSDs that boast throughput of 2GB/s or more generally do not reach their peak at low queue depth. Optane is supposed to be able to drive 1200MB/s read throughput at low queue depth (not sure why they listed QD4), so there is potential for some performance improvement here. Most consumer workloads never get out of low queue depth territory, so this could have some small real world benefit. Write throughput, however, is critically low.
> More importantly, these Optane drive are gear more towards lowering latency than transferring large files. Where HDDs access the data on the order of 10s of mS and SSDs access data on the order of 1mS (give or take), Optane should be able to access data on the order of 1s - 10s of uS. Where Optane will be useful is high numbers of small file accesses (DLLs, library files, etc.).
> That all said, I'd just as soon leave all the extra complications, compatibility issues, and inconsistencies on the table and get that 2 GB/s sdd that you mentioned until Intel figures out how to make these more compatible and easier to use without requiring a "golden setup". I don't want to buy a new W10, Kaby Lake, 200 series based system just to use one of these. My current W7/W10/Ubuntu, Skylake, 100 series system should work just fine for a good while yet.
[0] http://www.anandtech.com/comments/11227/intel-launches-optane-memory-m2-cache-ssds-for-client-market/537799 http://www.anandtech.com/comments/11227/intel-launches-optan...
- ascheidecker 10y agoAnother factor is that these consumer Optane products only have 1 or 2 chips to multiplex operations across. Their enterprise product, the SSD DC P4800X uses 28 of the same 16GB chips and can read or write at ~2GB/s which is competitive with NVMe SSDs.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- runeks 10y agoAs far as I know, SSDs are closer to 0.1 ms latency (~10,000 random read IOPS at zero queue depth). That's still an improvement of more than an order of magnitude, though (0.009 ms according to the article).
- valarauca1 10y ago100micro-seconds on writes. Reads are as low as 20micro-seconds [1] This is using an Samsung 860pro, so a generation behind the current generation. [1] https://www.cs.utah.edu/~manua/pubs/systor15.pdf https://www.cs.utah.edu/~manua/pubs/systor15.pdf
- zeusk 10y agoThere was never a 860 pro, we had 850 pro (2.5" SATA) and then 950 and 960 pro which are m.2 only afaik (and nvme)
- sliken 10y agoDunno, I find 1.2-1.6GB/sec on my samsung s950 all the time. The benchmarks I've seen do not show any noticeable difference between SATA and NVMe. Sure geeks like the idea of a lower head protocol, but truth is the protocol is not the bottlneck. Seems like Optane is a solution looking for a problem to fix. Normal M2 SATA's do fine: # dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=131072 1953586+1 records in 1953586+1 records out 256060514304 bytes (256 GB, 238 GiB) copied, 159.18 s, 1.6 GB/s (cold cache on a machine with 16GB ram).
- eyeinthepyramid 10y agoYou're looking at throughput numbers, but Optane appears to be solving a iop / latency problem.
- wtallis 10y agoYou're not getting 1.6 GB/s out of a SATA drive that's communicating over a 600MB/s link. I think you may be confused about which products are using SATA vs PCIe.