Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solidigm P44 Pro Linux Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Being Hynix I'm guessing this is a single-sided 2280?
    Don't expect much and seldom disappointed.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by kiffmet View Post
      I would never ever get a QLC SSD. When used as a system drive on a rolling Linux distro that gets package updates frequently, aswell as for storing a Steam library, you can already watch a TLC drive degrade rather quickly (approx. 15% every 1,5-2 years on a 1TB drive).

      The more bits per cell are stored, the lower become throughput and IOPS, while drive degradation accelerates. TLC is right at the sweet spot striking a balance between capacity, price and performance. It's not getting any better than this, except for undemanding users who only browse the web and store photos maybe.

      For write-heavy applications (i.e. as a scratch drive for editing highres video footage), MLC (2 bits/cell) is seriously worth considering.
      That is why it boggles the mind that Intel killed all of its Optane business, not just the consumer prosumer grade stuff but the DC grade stuff too. I've seen SATA QLC drives wear out before and in my job I've seen SSDs using QLC last 3 months as a scratch device. Optane had a real niche to fill. Hopefully someone notices and invents some high wear storage device that is also lightning fast.

      Comment


      • #23
        Similar to the person who raised the MacBook point, most Chromebooks have eMMC storage even midrange $400 and $500 Chromebooks. They have a life span of 8 years of auto updates but I wonder if they will really last that long considering Google is shipping updates to the OS ever 6 weeks or so and the thing swapps to disk aggressively. I've asked the question before in the Chromeos subreddit and some people say they are only getting 2 years out of the eMMC storage on their Chromebooks.

        I remember I had a cheap as dirt netbook in 2009 as a HS graduation present from my grandpa who didn't know jack about computers and while it had 1GB of a 32bit atom it also had a user replaceable battery, RAM, and storage device! Now I can buy an infinitely more powerful Chromebook running Google's own roll of Gentoo Linux but the RAM is soldered to the MB as is the storage and the battery may or may not be user serviceable!

        In our quest for thin and light laptops we have gone a step too far in making parts not replaceable!

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
          That is why it boggles the mind that Intel killed all of its Optane business, not just the consumer prosumer grade stuff but the DC grade stuff too.
          It was getting dangerously close to the same GB/$ as battery-backed RAM (which has orders of magnitude higher endurance than even Optane, BTW). Intel was probably at a point where they had to decide whether to make major investments in future generations, or just cut their losses. Given their dismal financial performance of the past year, the choice really isn't that surprising.

          Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
          in my job I've seen SSDs using QLC last 3 months as a scratch device.
          Check the TBW rating or DWPD. Also, consider the effects of write-amplification. You can eke out more life from a drive, if you "over-provision" it. Failing that, try to keep a decent amount of free space and make sure fstrim is run regularly.

          Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
          Hopefully someone notices and invents some high wear storage device that is also lightning fast.
          You can't beat DRAM. It's an order of magnitude faster than Optane.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by coder View Post
            It was getting dangerously close to the same GB/$ as battery-backed RAM (which has orders of magnitude higher endurance than even Optane, BTW). Intel was probably at a point where they had to decide whether to make major investments in future generations, or just cut their losses. Given their dismal financial performance of the past year, the choice really isn't that surprising.
            I didn't know the situation was that bad, it makes sense now. I know I bought a 200 something GB Optane m.2 drive and it was over $1 a GB.

            Originally posted by coder View Post
            Check the TBW rating or DWPD. Also, consider the effects of write-amplification. You can eke out more life from a drive, if you "over-provision" it. Failing that, try to keep a decent amount of free space and make sure fstrim is run regularly.
            Unfortunately, I am a nobody at work and don't make purchasing decisions so they will continue to buy consumer grade SATA 3 SSDs and they will continue to wear out quickly.


            Originally posted by coder View Post
            You can't beat DRAM. It's an order of magnitude faster than Optane.
            Yeah a RAM DISK is great but it is volatile, we need high endurance high speed non-volatile storage in my opinion!

            Comment


            • #26
              I have two 1 terabyte p41 platinum disks in a vroc raid0 connected to pci 3.0 m.2 slots. This setup gives equal performance to a single drive in a pci 4.0 interface for the most part. I like these disks. I have a 2tb solidigm p41 that I picked up for 119$ on black friday that I use in a external usb 3.1 case which gives good enough performance for the few times a month I need to boot into windows.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
                Yeah a RAM DISK is great but it is volatile, we need high endurance high speed non-volatile storage in my opinion!
                That's where battery-backed DIMMs enter the picture. I think these could become a new class of storage device, as Optane leaves the scene and we enter the CXL era. My guess is that's Intel's expectation. Or, maybe they can get enough speed and performance out of pseudo-SLC NAND.

                I think some people who were using Optane DIMMs used them for in-memory databases, which you could also just do with DRAM, if you had a way to scale up capacities. CXL gives us a potential avenue for doing that.
                Last edited by coder; 29 December 2022, 09:55 AM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  That's where battery-backed DIMMs enter the picture. I think these could become a new class of storage device, as Optane leaves the scene and we enter the CXL era. My guess is that's Intel's expectation. Or, maybe they can get enough speed and performance out of pseudo-SLC NAND.

                  I think some people who were using Optane DIMMs used them for in-memory databases, which you could also just do with DRAM, if you had a way to scale up capacities. CXL gives us a potential avenue for doing that.
                  I always enjoy my discussions with you Coder, you are a civilized person in this forum. It never occured to me that we could have battery backed CXL packages of RAM that would be cool, maybe use a super capacitor if that is even possible like you see on some server oriented m.2 NVMes because Lithium Ion Batteries like on RAM backed RAID Cards like DELL's PERCs aren't the answer because they leak and wear out after about 5 years. We would need a good battery technology but yeah DRAM can be written to practically forever especially if it was true ECC RAM with error correction. Right now I think CXL is too server focused, I would like to see a high end storage solution for my laptop and I'm not sure if CXL is that. I think personally, that Intel will try to limit CXL support to its server chips like Sapphire Rapids and not Raptor Lake or its successors Meteor Lake and Arrow Lake. I don't know how much processor support matters for CXL because on one hand it is just PCI express but I could be wrong I think it has some additional circuitry that may require processor support. Please correct me if I am wrong though. I only know what I know about CXL from this site and serve the home.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
                    I always enjoy my discussions with you Coder, you are a civilized person in this forum.
                    Thanks. Not always as civilized as I might be, but I generally try.
                    😅

                    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
                    maybe use a super capacitor if that is even possible like you see on some server oriented m.2 NVMes because Lithium Ion Batteries like on RAM backed RAID Cards like DELL's PERCs aren't the answer because they leak and wear out after about 5 years.
                    Can't comment on supercapacitor vs. Li-ion, as I don't know all the tradeoffs or how much data retention you could get with a supercapacitor. However, I think you could use a supercapacitor + NAND flash, and just dump the contents of the DRAM to flash on power loss. I think I've even read about NV memory devices like that.

                    As for 5-year lifespan of Li-ion batteries, that matches the typical upper-end warranty of SSDs, no? Furthermore, to the extent this is for datacenter products, I gather 5 years would be at the longer end of the upgrade cycle?

                    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
                    Right now I think CXL is too server focused, I would like to see a high end storage solution for my laptop and I'm not sure if CXL is that.
                    AMD mentioned they're working on migrating CXL to consumer CPUs. We'll probably see it on the desktop, first.

                    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/am...-consumer-cpus

                    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
                    I don't know how much processor support matters for CXL because on one hand it is just PCI express but I could be wrong I think it has some additional circuitry that may require processor support.
                    The PHY layer for CXL is the same as PCIe (CXL 1.0 ≈ PCIe 5.0), but the protocol is different. So, you can have flexible support, at the CPU-level and even (to some extent) the board level.

                    I haven't read any coverage of AMD's CXL support, in Genoa. That would be an interesting case study (also, Intel's Sapphire Rapids, once it launches).

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Btw, according to sedutil tool OPAL 2.0 is supported:
                      sedutil-cli --scan
                      Scanning for Opal compliant disks
                      /dev/nvme0 2 SOLIDIGM SSDPFKKW020X7 001C
                      No more disks present ending scan

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X