>...10x faster. That's absolutely not true. I encourage you to re-read the article. The very specific case of qd=1 random reads are 4x (less than half what you

>...10x faster. That's absolutely not true. I encourage you to re-read the article. The very specific case of qd=1 random reads are 4x (less than half what you suggest) faster, however in that scenario you probably care about latency more than speed. Also, qd=1 random reads are uncommon in disc-bound real-world scenarios. There are plenty of benchmarks which have the optane close or losing, and as benchmarks become less synthetic the gaps largely disappear. The gains are marginal where they exist, and the price is outrageous. The problem is that optane is an appealing idea which simply failed to pan out.