Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Unveils V-NAND High Performance SSDs, Fast NVMe Card At 5.5GB Per Second
MojoKid writes: Sometimes it's the enterprise sector that gets dibs on the coolest technology, and so it goes with a trio of TCO-optimized, high-performance solid state drives from Samsung that were just announced, all three of which are based on three-dimensional (3D) Vertical NAND (V-NAND) flash memory technology. The fastest of bunch can read data at up to 5,500 megabytes per second. That's the rated sequential read speed of Samsung's PM1725, a half-height, half-length (HHHL) PCIe card-type NVMe SSD. Other rated specs include a random read speed of up to 1,000,000 IOPS, random write performance of up to 120,000 IOPS, and sequential writes topping out at 1,800MB/s. The PM1725 comes in just two beastly storage capacities, 3.2TB and 6.4TB, the latter of which is rated to handle five drive writes per day (32TB) for five years. Samsung also introduced two other 3D V-NAND products, the PM1633 and PM953. The PM1633 is a 2.5-inch 12Gb/s SAS SSD that will be offered in 480GB, 960GB, 1.92TB, and 3.84TB capacities. As for the PM953, it's an update to the SM951 and is available in M.2 and 2.5-inch form factors at capacities up to 1.92TB.
Even I have my limits.
save a 5GB file in under 3 seconds
Read speeds are up to 5.5GBps. Write speeds are up to 1.8GBps.
Your fast reads are impressive too, but you failed the comprehension benchmark.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
It writes at 1.8 GB/s, so the math is correct. The English is bad because they mentioned the read speed in between two mentions of the write speed.
(Mind you, HH still failed on editing, but at least the numbers are right)
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Symmetric read/write at 5.5GB/s would be better, but as it is, it would still be quite an upgrade from my current RAID0 array. I'm only getting ~700-800MB/s sequential with four 10krpm SAS drives right now. Of course one of these SSDs will probably cost 5-10x more than a set of those spinning drives. So price/performance really isn't that great of a deal.
Knowledge Brings Fear
http://avnetexpress.avnet.com/...
$306. I don't know if that is wholesale or what.
save a 5GB file in under 3 seconds
1.8GB/s x 3s = 5.4GB
Read speeds are up to 5.5GBps. Write speeds are up to 1.8GBps.
Your fast reads are impressive too, but you failed the comprehension benchmark.
fucking dumb much?
"His name was James Damore."
> 6.4TB, the latter of which is rated to handle five drive writes per day (32TB) for five years
~10K write cycles. This sounds rather good.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
They don't have to spend months testing it, maybe a couple of days tops. Remember they test with all wareleveling off, a single bit fails extremely quickly (100k writes).
Slapping together a bare bones system costs a lot less than buying enterprise storage. I've done that recently, and spent about $1200, like you said. I bought a use raid card on eBay because the card cost almost $1200 new. Then you get a proper chassis with reliable, hotswappable cooling for all those drives running 24/7, redundant power supplies, a backplane, etc. About the only way you're going to get enterprise grade raid for $1200 is to buy used, which I often do.
Are they talking about real, JEDEC standard gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes) or those silly new IEC "gigabytes" (1,000,000,000 bytes)?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I remember just ten years ago RAM, yeah RAM, was slower than these drives. Time flies!
Note he stated speeds in GBps instead of GB/s, which are different by a little over an order of magnitude.
Now you are confusing GBps with Gbps.
"His name was James Damore."