3 ms·
That drop came with a drop in performance too... Most of the 80－100 $/TB disks use QLC which is painfully slow (slower than a spinning hard drive) when you out
by jabbany 6y ago
That drop came with a drop in performance too...
Most of the 80－100 $/TB disks use QLC which is painfully slow (slower than a spinning hard drive) when you outrun the SLC cache... Had to experience this during a drive migration with dd.
- tw04 6y ago*on sustained writes. They will absolutely trash a spinning drive on reads.
- dannyw 6y agoIf you wanna resize a partition, or anything else that essentially rewrites the whole disk... have fun.
- tlamponi 6y agoI mean yes, but isn't that something quite rare? At least I never feel the need to do it, the closet I came to something like that was when I switched from a 240 GiB SSD to a 1 TiB one and just mirrored the old disk to the new one with dd, increased the partition and run a resize2fs. While that required ~30 Minutes it was a once in a decade thing for me.
- baybal2 6y agoA QLC with 40+ TB will still be quite snappy without cache. While cacheless TLC gets parity with MLC at around 8 TB. So, yes QLC flash needs really big drives to get enough of aggregate write performance. Below that, there is not much rationale to use it evlconomically vs TLC.
- jabbany 6y agoQLC is also much lower endurance, so at those sizes there's also the question of how much over-provisioning needs to happen to enable acceptable endurance, while still being cheap enough to out compete the alternatives.