From the article:
now TLC, which has become the de-facto value standard for SSD-based products despite the initial outcries regarding the loss in performance and endurance.
Sounds like it was lifted from an article written several years ago. QLC has already been the de facto standard, for a while. Maybe not for products shipped by Solidigm, which is more biased towards enterprise & datacenter sales, but if we're considering the SSDs and NAND flash used in phones, chromebooks, and removable storage, then I'm sure TLC exited those markets years ago.
for anyone saying that QLC can't provide the same level of performance as previous solutions, we'd point you toward Solidigm's own D5-P5316 QLC SSD, which offers up to 800,000 random read IOPS, 7 GB/sec sequential read and 3.6 GB/sec sequential write bandwidth across a PCIe gen 4×4 NVMe interconnect throughout its 30.72 TB capacity.
Wow, that's such an
outrageous claim, I
knew it couldn't be true. So, I had a look at
StorageReview's writeup of that drive, which they characterized as "a
read-optimized SSD designed for
warm storage". Uh oh, this doesn't look good,
@Francisco Alexandre Pires .
Then, I scrolled down to their sequential write benchmarks, and we see that it basically hits a wall at about 800 MB/s.
the volume and capacity advantage for SSDs (which occupy a smaller footprint than most HDDs) may turn around choices for even cold storage applications.
Except they don't
do cold storage. And if you
did spec a SSD for cold storage, you'd lose the density & any cost advantage.