4 ms·

curiously this new drive stomps the optane on random writes - though the optane is still king of random reads.

• ericpauley 6y ago
  That makes sense, since the underlying storage is probably log-structured/lazy write, whereas there is no way to perform reads other than actually reading the data. So reads would probably be a harder workload to optimize for than writes.
  • gfody 6y ago
    that does make sense but still surprising that it holds up in the sustained benchmark as well - that must be a big cache and I don't see any capacitors on the pcb
    • wtallis 6y ago
      It doesn't need capacitors for the data written out to the SLC cache (storing one pit per NAND flash memory cell rather than three), which is the only cache that's actually multiple GB in size. The volatile RAM caches on consumer drives tend to be pretty small, and data is resident in them just long enough to batch together enough writes to provide good throughput.
    • vbezhenar 6y ago
      You need to write full amount of disk size to get the "real" write speed and to eliminate any kind of caching. Though it's not clear whether that would be a useful metric, most users are not going to fill their disks every day.
• ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Random write latency can be hidden behind large caches: regardless of where the data should go, it can all be put in the same fast (persisted) cache. But reads could come from anywhere and you can’t cache that. Reads were always traditionally faster than writes but large SLC and DRAM caches have turned that on its head.