3 ms·
A 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
by baybal2 6y ago
A 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.