Trying Out Intel Optane Memory On Linux

[schmidtbag]

People keep forgetting that this is supposed to be used with high-capacity HDDs. If you've got at least 1TB of disk space, Optane starts to make a lot more sense.

[GreenByte]

What I would like to see is this used as a swap, and running RAM intensive applications with low ram space (like 8gb).

[bug77]

People keep forgetting that this is supposed to be used with high-capacity HDDs. If you've got at least 1TB of disk space, Optane starts to make a lot more sense.

That's the marketing pitch these days. I'm not buying it.
Sure, at this point there's nothing else to do with xpoint memory, but xpoint was not meant for caching.

[nils_]

Have you actually tried it with a CPU that isn't Kaby Lake? I'm pretty sure it'll work just fine, the only thing not likely to work is Intel's fancy Windows caching driver.

[schmidtbag]

That's the marketing pitch these days. I'm not buying it.
Sure, at this point there's nothing else to do with xpoint memory, but xpoint was not meant for caching.

Actually, it hasn't really been marketed that way. Oddly, Intel doesn't seem to be pushing the concept of "use large hard drives". If you have a 2TB+ HDD and a 32GB Optane, despite what you think, this objectively makes for a good value. In other words, you can spend around $130 for 2TB with the performance of a SSD, or, you can just buy a 2TB SSD for a minimum of roughly $550. The value becomes even more apparent when you go beyond 2TB. Seems like a no-brainer (in terms of value) to me...

The underwhelming write speed to Optane is irrelevant since the read speed from the HDD is bound to be slower.

[bug77]

Actually, it hasn't really been marketed that way. Oddly, Intel doesn't seem to be pushing the concept of "use large hard drives". If you have a 2TB+ HDD and a 32GB Optane, despite what you think, this objectively makes for a good value. In other words, you can spend around $130 for 2TB with the performance of a SSD, or, you can just buy a 2TB SSD for a minimum of roughly $550. The value becomes even more apparent when you go beyond 2TB. Seems like a no-brainer (in terms of value) to me...

The underwhelming write speed to Optane is irrelevant since the read speed from the HDD is bound to be slower.

1. That is the marketing pitch: "Intel® Optane™ memory is a smart, adaptable system accelerator for PCs with a 7th Gen Intel® Core™ processor. It provides uncompromising system responsiveness for large capacity storage drives, making everything you do fast, smooth and easy." straight from http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/...echnology.html
2. You're just describing a SSHD.

[schmidtbag]

1. That is the marketing pitch: "Intel® Optane™ memory is a smart, adaptable system accelerator for PCs with a 7th Gen Intel® Core™ processor. It provides uncompromising system responsiveness for large capacity storage drives, making everything you do fast, smooth and easy." straight from http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/...echnology.html
2. You're just describing a SSHD.

1. I said Intel isn't pushing that marketing strategy. Most reviews I've seen of Optane aren't utilizing it in it's intended scenario, suggesting people still don't really understand what it's good/meant for. You still haven't elaborated why you're not buying the pitch, despite the description and solid evidence that it does what it's supposed to. Sure, there are potentially better alternatives to Optane for the same price, but that's besides the point. Optane with a 2TB HDD is still a good value; not the best value, but it is a good one.
2. Not really, because SSHDs are worse than Optane in almost every way. Despite their performance being significantly worse across the board, they're not a whole lot cheaper. The relatively small cache of flash memory will result in a shorter lifespan too (I'm not sure how many write cycles XPoint offers). SSHDs are good when you can't use a separate cache drive (like a laptop), but, there are very few laptop models to choose from.

[Hohlraum]

No bcachefs test?

[Michael]

No bcachefs test?

...did you read the article?

[torsionbar28]

Umm, guys, this drive is 16gb in size. The potential performance is greatly hindered due to that. Of course 256gb of that would cost a fortune, but you cannot really compare performance of the underlying technology with such a test.

So what you're saying, is that a product that claims to improve performance, does not actually improve performance, and therefore we cannot benchmark it? Lol, what??