3 ms·
Do you mean the logarithmic scale? yeah I did notice that, but I definitely did overlook the p99 2x performance difference, thanks for drawing my attention to t
by hardwaresofton 5y ago
Do you mean the logarithmic scale? yeah I did notice that, but I definitely did overlook the p99 2x performance difference, thanks for drawing my attention to that.
Internally I think I just had a mostly wrong intuition on how much of a technology shift NVMe was compared to SATA -- it's a bit hard to tell if we're approaching theoretical limits or if SATA was just very good for it's time.
As a side note I wish this post didn't try to fit so much in one graph, but I can easily imagine someone complaining about the exact opposite so that's neither here nor there I guess. Separation by color and shade/intensity of color rather than the line patterns might have helped. Or maybe just completely separate charts for some of the dimensions... not sure.
- pdimitar 5y agoI don't have scientific benchmarks but I did observe noticeable performance differences in data ingestion workflows between a machine with a SATA 3 drive and a machine with a NVMe drive (and it was a mid-range one, with 2200/1700 MB/s speeds). But the gains are only coming if you properly setup the machine, e.g. a NVMe drive can't make much use of its high concurrency stats if you don't have a strong multicore CPU with a newer motherboard that allows for more traffic.