The IT industry as a whole still hasn't quite internalised that servers now have dramatically worse I/O performance than the endpoints they are serving. For ex

The IT industry as a whole still hasn't quite internalised that servers now have dramatically worse I/O performance than the endpoints they are serving. For example, a project I'm working on right now is a small data warehouse (~100GB). The cloud VM it is running on provides only 5,000 IOPS with a relatively high latency (>1ms). The laptops that pull data from it all have M.2 drives with 200K IOPS, 0.05ms latency, and gigabytes per second of read bandwidth. It's dramatically faster to just zip up the DB, download it, and then manipulate it locally. This includes the download time! The cheapest cloud instance that even begins to outperform local compute is about $30K/month, and would be blown out of the water by this new Samsung drive anyway. I don't know what it would cost to exceed 15GB/s read bandwidth... but I'm guessing: "Call us". Back in the Good Old Days, PCs and laptops would have a single 5400 RPM drive with maybe 200 IOPS and servers would have a RAID at a minimum. Typically they'd have many 10K or 15K RPM drives, often with a memory or flash cache. The client-to-server performance ratio was at least 1-to-10, typically much higher. Now it's more like 10-to-1 the other way, and sometimes as bad as 1000-to-1.