12 ms·
The Western Digital WD Black SN850 Review: A Fast PCIe 4.0 SSD
- riku_iki 6y agoWhat special about this SSD?
- walrus01 6y agoa lot of M.2 2280 NVME SSD still being sold on the market are PCI-E 3.0. it is interesting to see its benchmarks against the samsung and other top tier competitors.
- riku_iki 6y ago> a lot of M.2 2280 NVME SSD still being sold on the market are PCI-E 3.0. That's true, but there are multiple PCI-E 4.0 available on the market for a year already, with benchmarks available too..
- walrus01 6y agobut look at the benchmarks for this drive versus the Samsung 980 Pro 1TB. both are selling at $199 from newegg right now... but the WD sn850 blows away the 980 pro in nearly every benchmark. I still have a greater degree of trust in Samsung for reliability and greatly exceeding their specified write-endurances (torture tests of MLC samsungs from 3 years ago illustrate that for a desktop workstation, you would have to REALLY abuse them to ever run into the write endurance problem).
- riku_iki 6y ago> but the WD sn850 blows away the 980 pro in nearly every benchmark. I think they have some cache tuning differences, because while WD wins in many benchmarks by 30-40%, it losses the same 30-40% on long sequential writes. I have no ssd expertise, so, can't comment why this could happen.
- cm2187 6y agoWhat I am really surprised by is the price of the enterprise ones (samsung PM1735, you can get a 3.2tb for like £600). Barely more expensive than consumers with massive performance (8GB/s read) and endurance. Not sure where is the catch.
- wtallis 6y agoThe catch is that pricing and availability for grey-market enterprise drives is wildly inconsistent, and you often don't get a manufacturer's warranty. Also, enterprise drives don't use SLC write caching, so their peak write performance is usually substantially lower than on a consumer SSD. And not that it matters much for a desktop, but enterprise drives also don't do idle power management, so they stay pretty warm even when you're not using them.
- ComputerGuru 6y agoIt’s not just endurance. I wouldn’t use anything other than an older Samsung Pro (not an 850 Pro, before they went TLC), a Samsung Z, or an Intel Optane for something like a ZFS slog or a hardware RAID write accelerator cache - they have unmatched latency for these applications which cruet came by via their technical choices and is independent of write throughout.
- Firerouge 6y agoEven with it's big performance gains, optane is still well ahead in almost every benchmark. Shame more manufacturers don't make that type of drive
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dylan604 6y agoIf the price point of the Optane is keeping consumers from embracing them, then why not look for another way to make something the consumers are willing to buy? That's kind of what WD does. They have a huge chunk of the consumer market.
- jlgaddis 6y ago> Shame more manufacturers don't make that type of drive Now that Micron has apparently called it quits, it's a shame no manufacturers make that type of drive!
- sadiq 6y agoCheck out the sequential 128k read at queue depth 16: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16505/sr-s-sn850-1000.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16505/sr-s-sn850-1000.png That's >2x higher throughput than an Optane at equivalent queue depth and (as far as I can see in the UK) at less than a tenth of the price: https://www.scan.co.uk/products/2tb-wd-black-sn850-m2-2280-pcie-40-x4-nvme-ssd-3d-nand-7000mb-s-read-5100mb-s-write https://www.scan.co.uk/products/2tb-wd-black-sn850-m2-2280-p... vs https://www.scan.co.uk/products/15tb-intel-optane-dc-p4800x-25-aic-ssd-hhhl-pcie-30-x4-nvme-2500mb-s-read-2200mb-s-write-550k-550k-i https://www.scan.co.uk/products/15tb-intel-optane-dc-p4800x-... And that's 7 GB/s from _one_ SSD. Aggregate memory bandwidth on something like the Zen3 is roughly 40 GB/s. These are also first generation PCIe 4, plenty more to come. Doesn't require a huge improvement before you end up in a position where you simply don't have the memory bandwidth or cycles to deal with more than one drive. I suspect the Optane wins most of the benchmarks because of it's outrageously good low queue depth random read performance - that's very effective for software that's not written for modern NVMe SSDs which benefit from very high queue depths. Check out the 4k random read performance from the SN850 at high queue depths: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16505/rr-s-sn850-1000.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16505/rr-s-sn850-1000.png If you can keep the queues deep, it manages to beat the throughput of the Optane. You've got to design algorithms and data structures to exploit that kind of concurrency though.
- wmf 6y agoThis is the fastest consumer (flash) SSD.
- georgeburdell 6y agoPretty impressive performance, but Optane 905P is 3 years old and still handily leads in nearly every benchmark (except power). Too bad Intel pulled out of the consumer drive segment [1], so I'm not even sure why Anandtech bothered to include those benchmarks. [1] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-kills-off-all-optane-only-ssds-for-consumers-no-replacements-planned https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-kills-off-all-optane...
- Godel_unicode 6y agoIsn't optane something like 2x-3x the price for marginal gains and worse write latency?
- wtallis 6y agoMore like 6-8x the price. I don't think I ever saw the Optane SSDs get below $1/GB, and the SN850 is $0.20/GB.
- ComputerGuru 6y agoThe 905p in 480 GB is supposed to be around $600 making it only 3x the price, but good look finding it. Intel doesn’t even MSRP it any more, although it’s still an active product.
- Dylan16807 6y ago3x the price of the 1TB model. 5x the price of the 500GB model.
- modzu 6y agono. optane is something like twice the speed of the 850 at random read. have it as a boot drive and ive been living in the future. i mean its great something like the 850 is as cheap as it is. but i can barely tell the difference between that and any sata drive. to be fair, it depends on your use case. look at real world benchmarks measured in human timescales (actual honest comparisons are rare in these reviews, because then this stuff wouldnt sell affiliate links). i cant help but feel consumer pc parts are merely for videogame consoles. the ssd and ddr speed crap, lack of ecc, etc.. building machines with this stuff is almost like a videogame itself -- my ssd scored 1,937,533 points on synthscore 3.5! (like, it saves 9.5 minutes of my life over 365 days compared to a samsung lolz)
- rubiquity 6y agoI have one of these in a new Ryzen 5000 build (that also has 3200Mhz ECC RAM! In a workstation!). The latency and throughput are impressive. What a time to be alive where SSDs are doing 5-8 GB/s with low double digit microseconds. At home the bottleneck is obviously my network, but even in a data center you’d need 100Gb networking in order for the network to not be the bottleneck. I really hope these hardware trends continue and we start to see a paradigm shift to more local processing/storage.
- Railsify 6y ago10G is quite affordable these days. I'm working on 10G LAN with 3 R430s I recently purchased on ebay.
- ComputerGuru 6y agoThis isn’t the right drive for that, though. Outside of provisioned storage for VMs, these SSDs are simply too small to have much use in a network setting.
- stordoff 6y ago> At home the bottleneck is obviously my network I've started to upgrade parts of my network to 10Gbps, and it was surprisingly affordable. My NAS and server now have a dedicated 10GB Gbps link between them (the NAS also has 4 1Gbps connections to my primary network), and it only cost about £50. Obviously it still could be a bottleneck, but it's a decent step in the right direction.
- ece 6y agoThere should be a benchmark for filling a drive 100%, then doing 4K random writes. I'm pretty sure this would kill any MLC/TLC/QLC drive at a few billion writes or less. It wouldn't kill Optane, which would probably remain performant as well, and possibly some SLC drives.
- wmf 6y agoServer/datacenter/enterprise SSDs are benchmarked that way.
- gruez 6y agoIf you're talking about performance benchmarks they got that, it's under the "Sustained IO Performance" section. If you're talking about testing to see how fast it breaks, I really don't see the point because that type of workload pretty much never happens in real life, especially for consumer SSDs.
- ece 6y agoI think people filling up drives and then making space as needed happens more often than one might think. It's probably most common on phones/tablets, but even I only do remote backups once a partition is 80% or so full, and at times I'll just delete the largest files I've managed to download. I over-provision, but for those that don't over-provision their SSDs, and run them on the fuller side, they might go through the TBW rating quicker than others who don't. This test would measure the quickest such outcome for each SSD.
- exmadscientist 6y agoA similar test has been done: https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead/ https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experi... TL;DR: SSDs are harder to kill than they might seem.
- ece 6y agoThanks for the link, it's nice to see such results from 256GB SATA drives (No drive dying before 600TBW, and the 840 PRO going up to 2.4PBW, I have a 850 PRO in a laptop myself), but it would still be interesting to see similar tests for NVMe drives.
- neogodless 6y agoI had watched some of this review[0] before, and I'm surprised this article dismisses the need for a heatsink, while the video review I've linked says > you need to make sure you're using a heatsink. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M059dQg3d5c&t=569s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M059dQg3d5c&t=569s There's a section called "Fire! (Not really)" which demonstrates the 100°C temperatures "within minutes of testing".
- wtallis 6y agoThe problem with that kind of test is the "within minutes of testing" bit. You can't keep a drive this fast 100% busy for multiple minutes in a row unless you have specifically set out to create a workload to torture the drive.
- AdrianB1 6y agoI built a computer 2 years ago to do some database cleanup. Part of the regular process is to restore a database from a compressed backup to a terabyte data file, it works fine on S750 but it always gets in thermal throttling on a Samsung Evo Plus 870, all with heatsinks and good airflow (rackmount case with many chassis fans). Restoring 1TB at 1.7GB/sec takes enough time to get into trouble and this is regular work done almost daily, not a test. I plan to build a second computer for this work, but this time with PCIe v4 SSDs; this is to expand capacity, not because I think it will have less problems or be faster overall, a throttled disk is painfully slow.
- wtallis 6y agoThat doesn't sound like thermal throttling. That sounds like you're running out of SLC cache space and writing at TLC speed, minus the overhead of the drive flushing the SLC cache in the background while you're still writing more data. The solution is to get an enterprise drive, because they don't use SLC write caching and can usually sustain somewhat better write speeds as a result (plus, they're generally rated for more write endurance).
- 6y ago
- Railsify 6y agoI just built a 16core ryzen build with 2 of these, 1 for the system drive and one for VM storage.
- mamon 6y agoWhy two separate drives, and not RAID setup?
- 867-5309 6y agoNVMe (fake) hardware RAID is not as common as SATA
- Railsify 6y agoYeah, I've had bad luck with raid consumer/prosumer gaming motherboards. I do like raid on servers, my r430 cluster has PERC 730 raid cards, never had a problem.
- AdrianB1 6y agoYou don't want a problem with a single drive to take away everything you have, like RAID0 does. The only good case for RAID0 is temp/buffer files that you don't cry if you lose.
- fomine3 6y agoAnyway non-RAIDed simple setup is also vulnerable to drive failure. So backup (and RAID1 if you need HA) is the solution, not non-RAID. RAID1 just make x2 failure rate.
- Railsify 6y agoIt's a pattern I started long ago where I have one drive to hold OS install and program files and one drive to hold data. Bottlenecks on storage IO are less common with nvme but my recent build is a workstation that runs a bunch of VMs and also serves as a DAW. I thought it better for each drive to have its own PCIe lanes. I'm also working on a 10G LAN and didn't want a bottleneck during disk IO. You could also have IO storms with so many VMs, what if windows update start while 10 VMs kick of Ubuntu auto updates while at the same time a DB starts a backup job? In that case I don't want my web browser to slow down.
- varispeed 6y agoHow are they able to predict that the drive should last 5 years without having it running for 5 years? I mean how do they know the curve of degradation of components over such time? (I have been using this drive for few months now - it is amazing - but WD seem to be new in the game and couple of years ago I had a WD drive die on me, so not so great memories)
- 55873445216111 6y agoTesting is accelerated using high temperatures according to the Arrhenius equation to determine typical wear out.
- wtallis 6y agoUnless you encounter a firmware bug that causes premature death of a drive, the wearout of a SSD is pretty predictable and is based on the volume of data written rather than time elapsed. NAND flash memory has limited write endurance, and that can be measured by testing individual dies far more quickly than testing an entire SSD to death. Based on known program/erase cycle limits for the NAND they're using, SSD manufacturers can make pretty accurate projections for how long (in TB written) the drive as a whole can survive, accounting for how that drive's controller manages the flash and what kind of write amplification can be expected from the intended workloads. The most significant limitation where manufacturers have to go out on a limb with their projections pertains to the standard requirement that a consumer SSD needs to be able to retain its data in a read-only state for a year after reaching the end of its rated write endurance. NAND manufacturers can very quickly bring flash to that level of wear, but they can't wait a year to measure retention characteristics before shipping. So they make projections based on high-temperature accelerated testing.
- 867-5309 6y agoso if you use the 500GB drive and download e.g. 1TB of torrents per day, the write endurance predicts your drive will last less than a year, on average
- 6y ago
- AussieWog93 6y agoBenchmarks aside, does PCIe 4.0 show any real-world noticeable performance gains over PCIe 3.0 (let alone SATA)?
- loeg 6y agoAny rate above ~3.8GB/s is impossible on PCIe 3.0 x4. These things clear 4-5 GB/s with large block sizes, especially on sequential reads. It's probably workload dependent whether you'll see much use out of the PCIe 4.0 (over 3.0) with these particular devices. > (let alone SATA) NVMe is (very) noticeably faster than SATA, especially for random IO, but also for sequential io patterns. Multiple queues and reduced protocol latency go a long way. SATA III throughput maxes out at 600 MB/s. In comparison, these drives do 4000-5000 MB/s.
- AdrianB1 6y agoIt mostly depends on the workload. For the typical PC, no. I have some real life cases at work where the performance difference is more than noticeable, but that is a relatively small percentage of workload.
- the8472 6y agoWorkloads aren't just about sustained bandwidth. The available bandwidth and IOPS also determine how fast a burst can be finished. OS hibernation, application startup, loading game/3D assets, system updates (unless you're on windows), autosave features, ripgrep... They all can saturate some of those limits momentarily. And those moments gets shorter if you have more bandwidth and lower latency. avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.19 0.00 1.96 1.21 0.00 96.64 Device r/s rkB/s rrqm/s %rrqm r_await rareq-sz w/s wkB/s wrqm/s %wrqm w_await wareq-sz d/s dkB/s drqm/s %drqm d_await dareq-sz f/s f_await aqu-sz %util nvme0n1 4180.00 332544.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 79.56 2518.00 1332796.00 74.00 2.85 6.89 529.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.21 81.60 it's wrapping code blocks :( you had one job.
- mleonhard 6y agoCan you get this performance under Linux?
- skinkestek 6y agoExcept for graphics, doesn't everything perform better under Linux? Honest question, this is (practically speaking) my impression after 20 years.
- mamon 6y agoPlease keep in mind that Linux is just an amateur operating system written by a college kid from Finland :) It has/had a lot of interesting bugs, like this one in the scheduler: https://www.ece.ubc.ca/~sasha/papers/eurosys16-final29.pdf https://www.ece.ubc.ca/~sasha/papers/eurosys16-final29.pdf
- wtallis 6y agoThe synthetic tests are all conducted under Linux, with fio and io_uring. It's with every other operating system that you should be wondering whether it can keep up with this kind of hardware. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/16458/2021-ssd-benchmark-suite https://www.anandtech.com/show/16458/2021-ssd-benchmark-suit... for more details. (Discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25994051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25994051 )
- mtgx 6y agoDo this review again in 3 months/a year after they inevitably change the controller to a much worse one to cut costs but still benefit from the initial reviews.
- 867-5309 6y ago>sequential reads up to 7GB/s are pushing the limits of the PCIe 4.0 x4 interface edit: corrected below
- starfallg 6y agoThe M.2 interface only supports up to four lanes of PCIe.
- 867-5309 6y agothanks for pointing this out - I was unaware
- ksec 6y agoAnd we already have roadmap for PCIe 5.0 SSD. So sometime in 2022/2023 we get DDR5, PCIe 5.0 and may be an SSD that reads up to 15GB/s. ( And still no roadmap of Affordable 10Gbps Ethernet, even 5Gbps would have been acceptable. But looks like we will only get 2.5Gbps as replacement. )
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago10Gbps will become affordable in 2023, when the last patents covering it expire. 10Gbps right now is not expensive because it's expensive to implement, it's expensive because the royalties demanded by the patent holders are absurd. They are so bad they are probably counterproductive -- if they asked for less per port, it could have maybe ended up as the default standard on every device already, resulting in more royalties overall. In any case, the last relevant patent expires iirc summer of 2023, very soon after that there will be a lot of fast, cheap NICs, and soon after that, it will just be embedded into everything.
- ksec 6y agoOh wow thank you. This is the first time I've heard about it. Edit: This? 2023-07-18 Adjusted expiration https://patents.google.com/patent/US7164692B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7164692B2/en
- hyperluz 6y agoSome database benchs at storagereview: https://www.storagereview.com/review/wd_black-sn850-nvme-pcie-4-0-ssd-review https://www.storagereview.com/review/wd_black-sn850-nvme-pci...
- lovedswain 6y agoThis article is clearly garbage, just from looking at the first graph: https://www.storagereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/StorageReview-WD-SN850-1TB-SQL-Server-TPS.png https://www.storagereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Sto... .. that DB benchmark is most certainly bottlenecked on something other than IO, the full result range (including the one laggard drive) fits in a 1.6% range edit: what where they thinking https://www.storagereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/StorageReview-WD-SN850-1TB-VDI-Monday-Login.png https://www.storagereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Sto...
- wtallis 6y agoThe really screwy Storage Review graphs are a result of a test with too few data points, Excel being "helpful" with overly complicated interpolation, and poor test setup. I have some similar graphs in my reviews, eg. [1], but to get something halfway neat and legible I have to limit how many drives are plotted at once and ensure the test stops when the drive reaches its limits. I also don't try to run this kind of test with a write workload against consumer drives, because it would require either heavily preconditioning the drives with enough writes to get SLC caching out of the picture, or using a ton of idle time to ensure each data point tested started from the same amount of cache available. On some enterprise SSD reviews where it is actually appropriate to test them with random writes for days on end, I have produced graphs like [2], which are kinda messy but could be worse. [1] https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16505/rr-rate-980pro-1000.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16505/rr-rate-980pro-1000.... [2] https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15491/rw-clat_mean-p4800x-750.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15491/rw-clat_mean-p4800x-...
- lovedswain 6y agoThere should be a name for the obscene guilt felt when shitting on something in public only for the original creator to turn up reminding you there is a human on the other side. Sorry!
- reacharavindh 6y agoI wonder if there will come a cloud provider that solely uses consumer grade compute, local storage, and internal networking, with some kick ass network connectivity and steal the cloud provider show?! Most applications that run on AWS and GCP don’t really need that premium Xeon/EPYC CPUs, enterprise-grade storage that is 10X the cost of consumer grade drives. Of course, those that do may justify the premium cost. But, the rest that just runs a few web servers behind a load balancer and non-critical services could use stuff on the cheap... Say cheaper digitalocean built upon bare metal consumer grade hardware - Ryzen CPU, consumer grade memory, this Local NVMe storage, and the onboard network card... may be I am crazy to think that’s enough. Heck such hardware may even perform better than several enterprise grade VMs provided by cloud providers.
- Jonnax 6y agoWell the consumer grade stuff generally has higher clocks so things may be faster. I think a lot of Devs have had the surprise that their laptop has higher single core performance than a server. I don't know to what extent but space is certainly a premium. For a unit of rack space you want to maximise the cores and memory. With a server grade multi socket CPU, you're also likely to pair it with at least 512gb of ram. Consumer CPUs have a much lower limit. Though Threadripper is a bit higher. There's also the availability side of things. How many CPUs can you get to populate your datacenter? Will it be easy to order 500 consumer CPUs if you're not a retailer? Intel/AMD do want to steer their enterprise customers to higher volume parts.
- reacharavindh 6y agoYes, there certainly are operational reasons to go big with non consumer-grade servers. In many cases, it is warranted. I was only imagining the lower end of infrastructure needs where a provider can get away with consumer grade hardware and achieve substantially lower costs. Say, a provider building their own racks of ITX motherboards with consumer CPUs. I’m sure there are enough Retail SKUs to be purchased in open market for small scale... I think backblaze did just that with hard drives when they were starting out
- 6y ago
- chrismorgan 6y agoMeta, web page implementation note, in the hope that someone at AnandTech will pick it up (or that anyone else can learn from it): The many-in-one diagrams let you switch between different diagrams by clicking on a label. However, the technique that has been used is inferior, making it not obvious (difficult to find), a bit more difficult for touch input, and impossible for users of accessibility tools or those not executing JavaScript. Here’s roughly how it’s implemented: <td onclick="document.getElementById('destroyer_bar').src = 'http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph16505/destroyer-power.png'">…</td> The most important problem with this is that the table cell can be clicked on, but can’t be focused. You should roughly never have a click handler on a non-focusable element, focusable meaning elements like <a href>, <button>, <details><summary> or something with a tabindex="0" attribute. (But note that just adding tabindex="0" would not be sufficient, because onclick wouldn’t be triggered on pressing the Enter key. On links and buttons it does, because onclick is a misnomer for them, firing on activation rather than mouse click.) This would be far better markup, probably paired with style adjustments to shift the table cell padding to the anchor, and making that anchor `display: block`: <td><a target="_blank" href="http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph16505/destroyer-power.png" onclick="document.getElementById('destroyer_bar').src = this.href; return false">…</a></td> That way, (a) the link works without JavaScript, opening the requested diagram in a new window; (b) with JavaScript, it behaves as previously, except that it’s now focusable, so users of screen readers can interact with it; (c) as a link, it’s more discoverable (e.g. hover and it’s obviously interactive, where with the current one, I was just guessing based on the framing that maybe it was interactive despite all the signs telling me it was just text); (d) as a link, tapping on a touch screen will work more reliably (the browser will be more inclined to interpret a tap that moved slightly as a click rather than panning). One other thing I just noted: them http: URLs should be https:.
- moonbug 6y agoyou seem fun.
- wtallis 6y agoI'll give these suggestions a try. I can't promise I'll be able to use all of them, because our site uses a disgustingly archaic CMS that's as likely to mangle markup as not (hence why I haven't even attempted to do the graphs in SVG or anything like that). The publisher's IT dept really only cares that the ads still show up in enough places, not about giving us a useful tool to work with.
- fassssst 6y agoUnfortunately it doesn’t have hardware encryption, so performance with Bitlocker turned on isn’t as great.
- jiripospisil 6y agoBe aware that hardware encryption provided by SSDs should not be trusted. I doubt the situation has gotten any better since 2018. > In theory, the security guarantees offered by hardware encryption are similar to or better than software implementations. In reality, we found that many models using hardware encryption have critical security weaknesses due to specification, design, and implementation issues. For many models, these security weaknesses allow for complete recovery of the data without knowledge of any secret (such as the password). BitLocker, the encryption software built into Microsoft Windows will rely exclusively on hardware full-disk encryption if the SSD advertises support for it. Thus, for these drives, data protected by BitLocker is also compromised. Source: Self-Encrypting Deception: Weaknesses in the Encryption of Solid State Drives (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8835339 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=883...)
- throwawaywindev 6y agoIt’s not really about trust for me, it’s an employer requirement to have Bitlocker turned on.
- jiripospisil 6y agoIt looks like Microsoft released an update on September 24, 2019 that defaults new drives to use software encryption instead (I'm guessing it uses AES-NI under the hood if available): > Changes the default setting for BitLocker when encrypting a self-encrypting hard drive. Now, the default is to use software encryption for newly encrypted drives. For existing drives, the type of encryption will not change. Source: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/september-24-2019-kb4516071-os-build-16299-1420-5648029d-8d1c-ed9e-b72c-63c6fee30bff https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/september-24-2019-...
- Haarisgrey 6y agoOf course we got people like this!. I smoke and I’ve been a smoker for years. Most of the time I am surrounded by people who do not smoke at all. Doesn’t amaze me. I have some close friends, we hangout together international;y and vacation parties but they both have never smoked weed and I am a regular smoker and this thing doesn’t affect our friendship at all. It’s not about something being legal or illegal. If a thing is facilitating you either way it is totally okay for the other person to use it. I started using it for my chronic pain and eventually ended up like this. https://www.weedmarket420.us/ https://www.weedmarket420.us/ Being a marijuana enthusiast I keep on researching for good material and here I came across 5 new researches! Have a good day!
- herf 6y agoAt 5300MB/sec, it can exhaust its lifetime write limit in 31 hours? We need to start expressing write endurance as a multiple of write speed.
- float4 6y agoOnce the cache is full the sequential write speed drops to ~1200MB/sec, so your drive should survive till day 5 at least. In all seriousness though: > We need to start expressing write endurance as a multiple of write speed I can't tell if you're joking or not, but to be safe: no, we don't need to do that because there are virtually no realistic use cases where you'd continuously override data that you just stored on your persistent storage.
- NullPrefix 6y ago>there are virtually no realistic use cases where you'd continuously override data that you just stored on your persistent storage. Rolling cache or a large number of camera feeds that you only want to keep for x duration.
- herf 6y agoI think badly-behaved apps on the desktop can do this, or constant swap could as well. Even a poorly-configured redis could do constant writes.