News Intel Reveals Optane SSD P1600X: Entry-Level Boot & Caching SSDs

escksu

Respectable
Aug 8, 2019
431
146
1,860
0
Hmm, I am not sure if its really worth it. Although 6DPWD seems incredible, the drive is just 118GB. 6 drive writes = 708GB a day. 5yrs = 1.3TB

higher capacity enterprise drivers (eg. Kingston DC1500) is rated for 1DPWD. A 960GB one is rated for 960GB a day, 1.75TB for 5yrs.

A 960GB drive can cache way more data than 118GB one. The drive cost ~USD485. Even if the 118GB Xpoint cost USD85, I don't think 400 makes a big difference to a server.
 

JWNoctis

Upstanding
Jun 9, 2021
298
59
270
4
So they are rated for some 635/1290TBW. Similar numbers to typical consumer SSD of 1TB/2TB, or enterprise ones half that size or less, but impressive for their capacity.

Latency is...still two orders of magnitude greater than that of DRAM. Though most of that is probably the interface.

Still an imperfect solution for a problem that you'd have to squint to find right now. They'd better not get too expensive.
 

PCWarrior

Distinguished
May 20, 2013
154
42
18,620
3
Hmm, I am not sure if its really worth it. Although 6DPWD seems incredible, the drive is just 118GB. 6 drive writes = 708GB a day. 5yrs = 1.3TB
You got your units mixed up buddy. True for the 118GB drive, 6 drive writes per day is 708GB per day. But 5 years is 1825 days so 1825x708GB=1,292,100GB≈1300TB≈1.3PB. That is 1.3 Peta bytes not Terra bytes. For reference the 1TB 980 Pro (which is TLC despite the name Pro) has endurance of 600TB and the 2TB 980Pro has 1200TB.

A 960GB drive can cache way more data than 118GB one. The drive cost ~USD485. Even if the 118GB Xpoint cost USD85, I don't think 400 makes a big difference to a server.
What you are suggesting is not really caching. You are essentially suggesting using the HDD (or the slower SSD) + the fast SSD al for storage. For caching there is not much point using a larger drive than 64GB and that was and the reason Intel's RST for years was topping out at 64GB as the optimum capacity for caching. Probably they managed to extent that to 128GB but in any case if you have a larger a capacity drive to use as cache you will essentially be using that drive for storage not for caching for the bigger drive you want to cache for. Also if cost is not an issue you can just buy more (in number) fast SSDs. You have to think big though. If we talk about a data centre with tens of 1000s of drives 400 dollars per drive difference becomes several millions of dollars difference.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
For caching there is not much point using a larger drive than 64GB
Depends on what you are caching and why. If you occasionally run simulations or other workloads that have a huge memory footprint and isn't particularly performance-critical because you just need to be able to complete it, I could imagine spending $90 on a caching SSD for your system that can handle everything else you need to do with 32GB of DDR4 being a far more attractive option than getting 128+GB of DDR4 and a quad-channel platform that supports it if necessary.

I can also imagine those drives being an attractive option for people with drive endurance anxiety. With one of those, most normal people will never need to worry about boot+swap+hibernation+browser state saves+etc. wearing it down by any meaningful amount through the system's useful life. My 500GB 860 EVO got the bulk of its 3% wear in less than a year from browser state saves.
 

Kamen Rider Blade

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2013
283
114
18,860
0
So how much do they cost, and where do I get it?

I want that ultra low latency @ QD1 & QD2 along with consistent latency across the range of (How full is the drive) & RAND IOP performance.

My OS drive doesn't need to be a linear performance monster, I can get another SSD for that purpose.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY