Which is quite respectable, but still nevertheless a far cry from the presumable 60M+ iops the server would have using dram (if it scales linearly, which I doub

Which is quite respectable, but still nevertheless a far cry from the presumable 60M+ iops the server would have using dram (if it scales linearly, which I doubt, it would hit 70M). Also, DRAM gets quite close to those numbers with only around 2 times as many threads as dram channels, but that NVMe setup will likely need parallelism of at least 100 to reach that - maybe much more. Still, a mere factor 7 isn't a _huge_ difference. Plenty of use cases for that, especially since NAND has other advantages like cost/GB, capacity, and persistence. But it's also not like this is going to replace dram very quickly. Iops is one thing, but latency is another, and there dram is still much faster; like close to 1000 times faster.