3 ms·
TLC is a decent spot, which is why it's still being produced. QLC is less so, since its endurance is only ~300 cycles. there's plenty of tension in the storag
by markhahn 3y ago
TLC is a decent spot, which is why it's still being produced.
QLC is less so, since its endurance is only ~300 cycles. there's plenty of tension in the storage industry about this, with vendors saying "don't worry be happy", and purchasers saying "wait, what read:write ratio are you assuming, and how much dedupe?"
PLC (probably <100 cycles) is very dubious, IMO, simply because it would only be suitable for very cold data - and at that point you're competing with magnetic media (which has been scaling quite nicely).
- dist-epoch 3y agoI have hard drives which I only write to once - long term archive. I will gladly change them fro QLC/PLC storage if price is reasonable. There is a market for any cycle count, it just needs to be reliable and respect the spec.
- markhahn 3y agothat's the tape market I mentioned. agreed, tape doesn't fit the personal market, but it totally dominates anywhere that has scale. the question is: what counts as reliable? if PLC is good for 50 erasures, are you really comfortable with that? it's going to cost more than half of QLC, I assure you... the interesting thing about flash is that people want to use the speed. which means they put in places that have a high content-mutation rate. if it's just personal stuff - mostly cold, little mutation - that's fine but not the main market.
- dist-epoch 3y agoThere is a market for high speed read only data - S3 serving, and all kinds of mostly read database scenarios (OLAP). You can have tiered storage, data is first consolidated/updated on TLC drives, and as it ages is moved to PLC storage. RocksDB already supports something like this.
- fomine3 3y ago2D TLC wasn't quite decent, but 3D TLC is decent. I think some bad reputation about TLC is come from 2D TLC.