Intel Launches Flurry of 3D NAND-Based SSDs For Consumer and Enterprise Markets (hothardware.com)

MojoKid writes: Intel launched a handful of new SSD products today that cover a broad spectrum of applications and employ 3D NAND technology. The SSD 600p Series is offered in four capacities ranging from 128GB, to 256GB, 512GB and 1TB. The drivers are targeted at consumer desktops and notebooks and are available in the M.2 form-factor. The entry-level 128GB model offers sequential reads and writes of up to 770 MB/sec and 450 MB/sec respectively. At higher densities, the multi-channel 1TB model offers sequential reads and writes that jump to 1,800 MB/sec and 560 MB/sec respectively. The 128GB SSD 600p weighs in at $69, while the 1TB model is priced at $359, or about .36 cents per GiB. For the data center, Intel has also introduced the DC P3520 and DC S3520 Series SSDs in 2.5-inch and PCIe half-height card form-factors. Available in 450GB to 2TB capacities, the range-topping 2TB model offers random reads/writes of 1,700 MB/sec and 1,350 MB/sec respectively. Finally, Intel launched the SSD E 6000p (PCIe M.2) and SSD E 5420s Series (SATA). The former supports Core vPro processors and is targeted at point-of-sale systems and digital signage. The latter is aimed at helping customers ease the transition from HDDs to SSDs in IoT applications.

Comments

Math is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

the 1TB model is priced at $359, or about .36 cents per GiB

Really? REALLY?

Re:Math is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be roughly $0.39, anyway. If you want to be clever and use GiB instead of GB, use it correctly.

Re:Math is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah. Off by a factor of 100 *and* fucked up the TB -> GiB conversion.

1TB = 10^12 bytes
1GiB = 2^30 bytes
therefore, 1TB = approx 931.32 GiB

$359 / 931.32 GiB = approx 38.5 cents per GiB

Seriously though: who the **** uses cents per GiB? Drives have always been marketed in GB and TB.

$359 / 1000 GB = exactly 35.9 cents per GB

Re:Math is hard

[unixisc]

Uh, GiB is used for 1024, instead of 1000. So your above number would be $359/1024, which would be 35.05 cents per GB. Almost a cent difference. Miniscule at this level, but blows up once one starts talking TiB. Incidentally, the reason GiB is used is so that people distinguish b/w the scale varying by a factor of 1000 vs 1024, which blows up when you start squaring and cubing them

Re:Math is hard

[jbengt]

Drives have always been marketed in GB and TB.

No, they used to be marketed as MB, and even lower. And that was when a MB was typically understood to be 1024 KBs and a KB was known to be 1024 bytes.

Re:Math is hard

[unixisc]

SSDs are flash, so they will be 2^40, as opposed to HDDs and 10^12. Yeah, they have the SATA interface and all, but that's an external sheen put around the flash. Some of that memory may be unusable, having been reserved for firmware or other things, but the total storage remains the same.

Re:Math is hard

[unixisc]

That's why they came out w/ KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB et al. To distinguish b/w factors of 1000 and 1024. 1,000^3 is 1,000,000. 1,024^3 is 1,073,741,824. There's quite a bit of difference.

Re:Math is hard

[locofungus]

Was MB ever 1024K? (except for memory)

I didn't ever see/use a 8 inch floppy.

Early 5 1/4 floppy was 40 tracks, 18 sectors/track - 360K. That was 1024 bytes/K

Early 3 1/2 floppy was 80 tracks - 720K.

Double sided - 1.44M (we'd already started confusing multipliers)

At some point the remaining factor of 1024 got dropped - probably when we stopped thinking about heads, tracks, sectors/track. Prior to that the first 1024 was baked into the disk geometry. I don't remember enough detail of the early hard disks to recall whether a 30MB disk was 30000000 bytes or 30720000 bytes.

Re:Math is hard

[rocket rancher]

yes, really, you poseur. Math *is not* hard, but it seems the basic arithmetic operation of approximation is very hard indeed for you. dividing by a 1000 produces about the same result as dividing by 1024, and rounding up is just more of the same dark magic, I assure you. By the way, what part of "about" is confusing you?

Re:Math is hard

[FatdogHaiku]

You think that's bad, TFS went from "a flurry" to "a handful" in a heartbeat and I want to see the conversion chart on that!
Don't mind me, I read the RSS headline as "Intel Launches Furry of 3D NAND-Based SSDs..." and was disappointed when the story turned out to be something else entirely...

Re:Math is hard

[Coren22]

I believe that this:

.36 cents

is one of the issues. It is .36 dollars, or 36 cents. .36 cents is 1/3 of a single cent, which is a factor of 100 off.

Also, the mismatch in a 1TB drive (1000^5) and GiB (1024^4), which isn't what hard drive prices are EVER measured in.

Re:Math is hard

[unixisc]

Semiconductor memory, be it RAM or Flash, is bit addressable and will always be in powers of 2. 10^12 is not a power of 2. 2^40 is. In the case of NAND flash, ALE is asserted and the IO lines are cycled 5 times to get the address. NAND flash is what is used to make SSDs.

Different from magnetic media, where you have a disc divided into sectors, and the number is usually a function of Pascal's triangle, due to the way the bytes would be packed and distributed

Re:Math is hard

[unixisc]

Floppies and hard disk storage was never 1024. But with SSDs now stepping in to replace them, the story is different. SSD is made out of NAND flash, which is addressed bitwise, and so will always be a power of 2, w/ some memory set aside for things like redundancy. So stating SSD memories in terms of TB instead of TiB doesn't make much sense.

Re:Math is hard

[unixisc]

Very true. But w/ SSD's coming in, having been composed of Flash memory, which is a semiconductor memory that is bit addressed, the power of 2 makes more sense here.

Re:Math is hard

[sexconker]

1 TB = 1099511627776 bytes.

1 TiB = fuck you, go back to CS 101.

1 TB on the label of a storage device = fuck you, marketers, I know that's just over 0.909 TB.

1 Mb on any networking interface = fuck you, marketers (as usual) and retarded standards bodies (you confused baud and bit ages ago and you're too ashamed to admit your fuckup).

Jesus, editors

[Anonymous Coward]

"1TB model is priced at $359, or about .36 cents per GiB"

36% of a cent per gigabyte? Care to multiply that out for me?

Re:Jesus, editors

[GrumpySteen]

The linked article gives the same numbers, so the blame lies with the author of the article; Brandon Hill.

Re:Jesus, editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no. The linked article doesn't include the word *cents*, hence the .36 refers back to the full price unit of $, and is therefore correct. The summary is wrong.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is completely true and easily verifiable.

Speed or density?

[jez9999]

So is the main advantage of 3d NAND technology going to be access speed? I thought it was going to be able to enormously increase capacity, but with the drives coming in between 128GB and 1TB (similar sizes to existing drives), maybe I got the wrong idea.

Re:Speed or density?

[Anonymous Coward]

Planar (2D) NAND is getting smaller and smaller in order to accommodate increases in required density per module. This leads to bigger SSDs, but has a downside - smaller cells are more fragile, which decreases durability (we're down to thousands of erase cycles nowadays), and it's harder to measure multiple levels of voltages reliably.

The main advantage of 3D NAND is the ability to have big cells while still having steady increases of density per module. Durability is also back to "old levels". That's why 3D NAND SSDs can enjoy 5-10 year warranty even in the consumer space.

This leads to a 4TB SSD being quite small even for a 2.5" (http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10481/CRW_3479B.jpg)

Re:Speed or density?

[Z80a]

Piling up chips and keeping em cool is not that easy.
It's a lot easier than keeping shrinking the chips, or making the die bigger, but still not easy.
I wonder if in the future, we will have those weird chips floating in a thermal paste, with copper posts holding em in place and also serving as the communication vias.

Re:Speed or density?

[unixisc]

How exactly do they do Si in 3D? I used to do product marketing of multi-chip packages at one time - where 2 or more die are stacked within a package: that was package level integration. But within a die itself, how do they do multiple layers? Especially since MOSFETS, which look 2D on a diagram, are actually 3D when one comes to the gate, source and drain layers.

Re:Speed or density?

[Z80a]

Well, i was thinking the "3D package" they were talking about is a big stack of dies.
Because otherwise you can arguably call any chip 3D, not only due the gates being 3D as you mentioned, but also all the different layers of vias etc..

Re:Speed or density?

[Gr8Apes]

Apparently Seagate got it right. They announced a 60TB SSD a couple of weeks ago.

Re:Speed or density?

[unixisc]

Stack of dies is what I described above - multi-chip packages. The way Intel has been describing this, I got the impression that they are talking about at silicon level. You have multi-chip packages, you have POP - package on package, where 1 chip is larger and taller than the other and mounted on it, so that they share the same real estate on the board - sorta like living in a multi-storeyed building.

Re:Speed or density?

[petermgreen]

Traditionally transistors are made by doping the surface of a silion wafer. The interconnect is then built on top by laying down alternate layers of oxide and either metal or polysilicon. So while you get multiple layers of interconnect you only get one layer of transistors.

"3D" ICs aim to have not just multiple layers of interconnect but also multiple layers of transistors.

Re:Speed or density?

[AcquaCow]

Eh, keeping NAND cool isn't really an issue. NAND likes heat. It's the controllers that you have to keep cool.

Source: I just spent the last 6 years working for Fusion-io/SanDisk

Re:Speed or density?

[unixisc]

That explains this a lot better. Just that fabbing them would be a bitch!

Re:Speed or density?

[Coren22]

You talk about a 4TB SSD and then link to a picture of a 2TB SSD?

(Those modules on the board are 500GB or 512GB modules from what Google tells me)

Re:Speed or density?

[Coren22]

http://www.semi.org/en/node/38...

One layer at a time?

Re:Speed or density?

[Coren22]

http://www.semi.org/en/node/38...

They don't stack packages, the package contains an actual 3d structure of NAND that holds the data.

Re:Speed or density?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Or cheaper. We've been hearing about SSD under 30 cents a GB "real soon now" for, what, five years now? At ten cents it replaces hard drives in all small capacities. The slope still puts that many years out.

Maybe 3DXpoint will depress the NAND prices for existing fab utilization next year. Here's hoping.

Re:Speed or density?

[thegarbz]

No you got the right idea but just the wrong approach for the same reason as Intel followed the tick-tock approach to chip design. New design followed by new process.

3D NAND is a new process. Out of the box the first generation of the technology has already shown to be cheaper than the previous generation.
Now that this technology is here we can look at expanding it with new designs.

I'm getting old.

[dr.Flake]

What amazes me most, but is probably because i'm getting old is:

looking at the announcement, it seems like the SATA drive is just an obligatory part of the line-up. Its all M.2 and PCIe.

Sure, SATA is getting old quickly and starts to become the bottleneck, but the way this is going, motherboards will soon have some SATA port somewhere for the occasional DVD / old spinning drive, and M.2 for the rest. Did i just recently buy my last SATA drives to fill up my NAS? I'm not planning on buying more for the next couple of years.

Man, i remember buying my first ATA drive. And i was late to the party, it already was a stunning 20MB (imagine how many WP files were needed to fill that sucker up to the rim). And man, that thing was fast as lightning! ;-)

Re:I'm getting old.

[wbr1]

Hell I remember MFM/RLL drives. First drive I worked on a lot was the ST-225 AT. Great drive that one.

Re:I'm getting old.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh. My first thought was: SATA? In the data center? Who the fuck uses SATA in the data center? Where are the SAS versions.

Re:I'm getting old.

[swb]

I get the M.2 format's advantages, but I don't understand why they wouldn't offer the same drives in SATA packaging. It seems to me there's a hell of a lot more devices that accept SATA devices than M.2 devices.

Has anyone heard of NAS or SAN devices that now feature rows of M.2 slots instead of SATA sleds? I like the idea, I just don't see anyone making them at this point.

Re:I'm getting old.

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone heard of NAS or SAN devices that now feature rows of M.2 slots instead of SATA sleds? I like the idea, I just don't see anyone making them at this point.

QNAP announced one earlier this year, although they couldn't seem to come up with a precise use for one. "SSDs are quiet! You could use it for presentations or karaoke!" is about the best they could come up with. I'm sure some people will find reasons to need the speed of M.2 drives, but aside from that I'm not sure why SATA SSDs wouldn't suffice, it's not like there is a lot of demand for NAS boxes to be teeny.

Re:I'm getting old.

[MachineShedFred]

SATA and SAS drives will still be around for some time, specifically for the data center. There are countless 4U disk shelves with 16+ SATA or SAS ports on them out there that will outlive the drives that are currently spinning in them.

Re:I'm getting old.

[MachineShedFred]

SATA has it's uses in the data center. Think: cheap nearline storage where performance isn't the concern, but density and cost is.

Re:I'm getting old.

[Billly Gates]

But once you go SSD you do not go back.

I have a raid 0 SSD with samsung pros and a regular samsung pro. Besides benchmarks there is no noticable difference unless you sping up 4 VM's at the same time :-) Even then it is only a few seconds.

It is IOPS and not how many megs per second for the user. Speed in bandwidth is irrelevant as a PC needs lots and lots of read dependent on data from other reads in tiny small batches like reading hte registry, loading daemons/services, etc.

Re:I'm getting old.

[thegarbz]

looking at the announcement, it seems like the SATA drive is just an obligatory part of the line-up. Its all M.2 and PCIe.

For SSDs is this really so surprising? A common configuration at the moment is SSD for the primary drive, spinning rust for the secondary large storage. With many motherboards shipping with M.2 slots and all of them with PCIe, it would make perfect sense to not have to run cables to your primary part of your system, and only for the secondary high density storage.

This is common in my systems at home. They all have M.2 drives in them. My desktop also has a 2TB spinning rust, and my NAS has one M.2 drive and then 6 spinning rust drives.

When I first saw an SSD on a PCIe card I straight away thought, the future is here!

Re:I'm getting old.

[JesseMcDonald]

I get the M.2 format's advantages, but I don't understand why they wouldn't offer the same drives in SATA packaging.

If you need the SATA packaging to fit existing hardware you can get M.2 to SATA adapters for $8-10:
Oley Laptop SSD NGFF M.2 to 2.5" SATA 3 PC Converter Adapter Card
AD905A SATA III 3 to M.2 (NGFF) SSD 7+5 pin Connector Converter Adapter Card

Here's a higher-end dual-M.2 to SATA adapter with integrated hardware RAID for $40:
Ableconn ISAT-M2SR 2.5" 7mm SATA III to Dual M.2 SATA SSD Adapter with Hardward RAID

Has anyone heard of NAS or SAN devices that now feature rows of M.2 slots instead of SATA sleds?

They don't appear to be commonplace yet, but here's one example:
Qnap 4-Bay M.2 SSD NASbook with Built-In 4 Port LAN Switch

Re:I'm getting old.

[Coren22]

There are M.2 to SATA enclosures available now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...

But, you lose a considerable amount of speed because SATA 3.0 isn't anywhere near as fast as a direct PCIe connection used in M.2.

Re:I'm getting old.

[Coren22]

WordPerfect? Yeah, we used to use floppies to move those files around.

Re:I'm getting old.

[sexconker]

I do. 4 SSDs in RAID 10 covered that server's performance needs easily and saved a buttload of money.
We didn't buy consumer SSDs, we bought the datacenter ones with the longer warranty, extra over provisioning, higher performance, and better TBW. But they're still SATA instead of SAS.

Re:I'm getting old.

[Coren22]

Oh, and I would be more concerned about a 20MB ATA drive. My first hard drive was a 20MB, but it was MFM.

It actually looked almost exactly like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It was "full height" which took up the equivalent of 2, 5 1/4" drive bays!

Re:I'm getting old.

[sexconker]

SATA Express was dead before it arrived. M.2 killed it. I still haven't seen a single SATA Express device, though motherboards do have the ports for them.
I hope M.2 goes the fuck away. It's a laptop fucking spec and those tiny little shits overheat and throttle because of it. I hope the U.2 shit takes over so we can get high performance 2.5" SSDs with proper housings. (Of course, I'd still prefer they give us 3.5" SSDs but that battle has been lost.)

Re:I'm getting old.

[Dadoo]

Where are the SAS versions.

My guess is that Intel will never produce SAS drives. Unlike SATA, SAS is big-endian, and Intel has made it very clear, over the years, they don't approve of that.

Re:I'm getting old.

[swb]

Somehow the reliability of knockoff aftermarket adapters is less appealing than OEM SATA packaging.

Re:I'm getting old.

[JesseMcDonald]

I understand your concerns, but these adapters are basically just wiring and physical supports. There are hardly any electronics involved (perhaps a discrete voltage regulator, judging from the images). If you would be willing to trust a non-OEM SATA cable and mounting bracket then I wouldn't see any reason not to trust a non-OEM M.2 to SATA adapter.

There are some higher-end models which provide a full 2.5" enclosure for your M.2 drive for $20-30, if you want the extra peace of mind.

Re:I'm getting old.

[radarskiy]

"I don't understand why they wouldn't offer the same drives in SATA packaging"

The "packaging" is just an PCB with an edge connector, so you can't just make 1 board. (You could use an adapter I suppose.)

Re:I'm getting old.

[tlhIngan]

Sure, SATA is getting old quickly and starts to become the bottleneck,

No, SATA IS the bottleneck.

If you read specs and they all say 540MB/sec, that's the SATA3 limit. And benchmarks of practically every SATA SSD has it pegged at 540MB/sec.

Its why Apple pioneered PCIe for storage, and brought everyone a 1GB/sec SSD read and 750MB/sec write at the beginning. Nowadays a NVMe PCIe SSD can easily do 1.5GB/sec reads and 1GB/sec writes, while the top end can do 2.5GB/sec reads and 1.5GB/sec writes.

The other reason is SATA isn't really adept at SSDs - we emulate it well, but SATA was never designed for that kind of drive. And of course, the latest NVMe SSDs are bootable (NVMe is actually the interface type - while the physical layer is PCIe, NVMe is the controller interface hanging off the PCIe bus).

SATA will still be around - bulk storage is still cheaper with spinning rust.

How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?

[WolphFang]

How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?

Re:How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?

[swb]

Yeah, where IS 3D-Xpoint?

A push into the MLC market with a miracle storage technology "just around the corner" seems an odd initiative. If 3D-Xpoint is as good as they say, I would think they would want to focus on stealing the market with a unique and superior product rather than trying for slivers of an existing market.

Of course the cynic in me assumes that 3D-Xpoint is nowhere near ready and if it is, Intel just want to milk the existing NAND technology for maximum profit and dribble out the new stuff at maximum price points for both their own benefit and the benefit of OEM customers who want to keep milking stratospheric "enterprise" pricing on even MLC flash devices.

Re:How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?

[erice]

How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?

You can actually buy the NAND SSD's. Who knows when 3D-Xpoint will actually ship?

When it becomes available, 3DXpoint is expected to be faster than NAND Flash but also more expensive. To make use of that speed it needs a lower latency interface than PCIe. Unfortunately, it is not quite fast enough to comfortably mix with DRAM on the DDR bus. It remains to be seen how it will actually be connected.

Re:How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?

[godamntheman]

I believe it was leaked that 3D XPoint is initially planned to be marketed at the enthusiast consumer rather than enterprise. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Re:How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?

[ganv]

3d Xpoint is a fairly different technology. It is much faster than NAND and much cheaper than DRAM while still being non-volatile. Initially some people may use it in expensive high speed SSD configurations like Optane, but I think the real potential is in new architectures with huge non-volatile fast memory. Maybe it will replace Flash in mobile devices that currently operate without off-processor DRAM. It is possible that manufacturing becomes cheaper and it will compete with NAND Flash for non-volatile storage, but except in applications where write speed is much more valuable than total capacity, current 3D Xpoint can't compete.

Re:How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?

[cheesybagel]

Fact is Intel/Micron and Toshiba were years behind Samsung on 3D-NAND technology. The 3D Xpoint press release smelled a lot like vaporware when I heard about it. Intel and the industry has been working on PCM for decades. Remember Ovonyx? Intel announced a large investment in it around the time the *Pentium 4* came out and it was old even then... The industry has been working on PCM since the 1960s-1970s.

Intel/Micron and Toshiba are manufacturing 3D-NAND this year so there should be a price drop soon as competition heats up. As for 3D Xpoint when (if?) it does get to the market it will have much lower density than NAND. Intel supposedly is aiming for a memory with capacity/speed characteristics between DRAM and NAND Flash. Seems kind of like a niche product to me. Remember the press releases claiming MRAM would replace everything?

Re:How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?

[swb]

It's funny, but I could have sworn I read Intel actually demoing the technology at a media event, that it was already production ready and that it was beating NAND in all the significant measures, density, speed and durability.

The chatter was that it was *so* good that it was being considered as potential augmentation for RAM, allowing for huge RAM cuts in lower end devices since swapping to it would be largely indistinguishable from actual memory access on low end systems. Marginally believable as I have two SSD Skylake laptops running Win 10 with only 8 GB RAM and I've never gotten the itch to jack up RAM amounts because even generic SATA SSD makes paging transparent enough.

Or it was the next fast tier in enterprise storage, which, IMHO, has to be dreading the rise of cheap 3D-NAND largely obsoleting their tiering sales pitches and forcing primary flash storage down in price. I'm sometimes of the opinion that the latest hyperconverged trends have nothing to do with platform vendors aiming at SAN vendors but hardware vendors looking to boost profits by overselling compute by repackaging it as hybrid compute + storage.

I think the other oft-mentioned thing was that 3D Xpoint was actually going to debut in some kind of ultrabook design in Q1 or Q2 of 2017, so it wasn't necessarily going to be a technology dribbled out at high margins to enterprise markets before reaching pro-/consumer levels -- ie, someone had decided that it was all-around good enough that they could just gut the existing NAND market at once. Maybe that's just led to wishful thinking on my part, the idea that there really was a next big thing available universally and able disrupt the entire storage market.

Pedantry fail

[Anonymous Coward]

the 1TB model is priced at $359, or about .36 cents per GiB

Look, I've got nothing against being pedantic with "GiB" = 2^30 bytes, and I can divide by 1000 on my own, but if you're going there at least get it right.

1TB is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes and is only 931.323 GiB, so the cost per GiB is 39 cents to 2 significant digits. Note that's nowhere near .36 cents, which is less than half a cent. I presume OP meant "$0.36" or "36 cents".

Re:Pedantry fail

[ThatsMyNick]

OP subscribes to the obscure branch of mathematics called Verizon Math. By Verizon Math, OP's calculation checks out, I double checked.

Complete pricing wanted

[drinkypoo]

So, how much am I going to pay for a 512GB M.2? And does it have 4 lanes?

From a fab standpoint...

[unixisc]

...what does this mean? Does it imply that they'll have an easier time keeping their fabs at 100% utilization, regardless of how the market for their CPUs and other stuff is doing? By flooding the market w/ so many SSDs?

Re:From a fab standpoint...

[unixisc]

Given how expensive these fabs are and how quickly Intel will want to write them down so that they make money on whatever they sell out of those fabs, close to 100% at least initially, would be good

Re:From a fab standpoint...

[cheesybagel]

Flash typically uses different manufacturing processes than the logic processes used for CPUs. So it's not like you can switch a fab from manufacturing CPUs to manufacturing memory like that.

Stuck at 550 megs

[Billly Gates]

The limitation of SATA is the bandwidth. NVMe can go to 2 gigs so you won't see much difference on consumer pcs. But it would be a nice relief as I pay for hte premium prices of the samsung pros in my rig.

Re:Stuck at 550 megs

[sexconker]

NVMe scales. The high end devices today use 4 lanes of PCIe 3.0. There's nothing preventing someone from using (and benefiting from) 16 (or more) lanes of PCIe 4.0 the day that shit is ready to go.

Re: Question

[Coren22]

Can you please point out two comments that have been deleted by Slashdot?

As far as I know, there has only ever been a single comment in the whole history of Slashdot, and that was deleted due to a court order because of copyright infringement of the Church of Scientology's IP.

Re: Question

[sexconker]

Dozens of posts have been deleted in the last few years.

The difference isn't that big

[Solandri]

It's important to understand that while we benchmark storage in MB/s, those units are actually the inverse of how we perceive their speed - wait time. Wait time would be sec/GB. To see what the consequences of this are, imagine loading up a game involves reading 1 GB of data, and for simplicity imagine you can read that 1 GB at max speed.

33 MB/s = 30 sec - old IDE HDD
66 MB/s = 15 sec - newer IDE HDD
125 MB/s = 8 sec - SATA HDD
250 MB/s = 4 sec - SATA2 SSD
500 MB/s = 2 sec - SATA3 SSD
1000 MB/s = 1 sec - early PCIe SSDs
2000 MB/s = 0.5 sec - newer PCIe SSDs

Notice how every time MB/s doubles, wait time is only cut in half. This means perceive speed increases are the inverse of MB/s, and thus not linear in terms of MB/s. The difference between SATA and SATA3 (125 MB/s and 500 MB/s) is "only" 375 MB/s. While the difference between SATA3 and newer PCIe drives is a whopping 1500 MB/s. But that doesn't mean that upgrading from SATA3 to a newer PCIe SSD will feel 4x faster than upgrading from a HDD to a SATA3 SSD felt.

The reduction in wait time going from the SATA HDD to a SATA3 SSD was 8 sec vs 2 sec - a 6 sec reduction. But the reduction in wait time going from SATA3 to newer PCIe is only 2 sec vs 0.5 sec - a 1.5 sec reduction. So upgrading from a SATA3 SSD to a newer PCIe SSD will only give you 1/4 the perceived speed increase you got when you upgraded from a HDD to a SSD. Not 4x. Compared to a SATA HDD, a SATA3 SSD gives you 80% the wait time reduction of the newest PCIe SSDs (6 sec vs 7.5 sec).

In other words, for the typical amounts of data we need to read off of storage, SATA3 SSDs have already given us most of the speed benefit we can expect by making our storage media faster. (The same problem plagues cars and using MPG to measure fuel efficiency. MPG is actually the inverse of fuel efficiency. It's the metric you want to use if you have a fixed amount of fuel and need to know how far you can travel, like if you're in a boat. The vast majority of people's driving is the other way around - they need to travel a fixed distance, and want to do it using as little fuel as possible - which is GPM. So the biggest fuel savings actually comes from making fuel hogs like tractor trailers, buses, and SUVs more efficient, not from econoboxes like the Prius. Despite how big 50 MPG sounds, going from 25 MPG to 50 MPG actually only represents half the fuel saved of going from 12.5 MPG to 25 MPG.. The rest of the world measures fuel efficiency in liters per 100 km for this reason - equivalent to GPM.)

Re:Does this mean I can 3D print these at home?

[Coren22]

Sure, they are 3d printed. You could even do it at home...if you moved into a $5 billion fab.

We do have flying cars, they are commonly called airplanes or helicopters.
We had supersonic passenger transport, it was found to be uneconomical, and after a crash the whole program was scrapped.

Re: Question

[Coren22]

I was only aware of the Scientology post, what other posts were deleted?

Also, I believe that the AC was mischaracterizing a -1 mod as deleting the post and censorship, which is a very common complaint, that is also entirely wrong.

Re: Question

[sexconker]

I obviously can't link you to them, but a lot of political troll posts, and a lot of posts shitting on the Slashdot Beta UI back when Dice was trying to ram that down our throats.

I believe posts related to certain Slashdot interviews were deleted as well. Other times the article with the questions would be buried/hidden when the article with the answers was posted. This was an attempt to hide the fact that the questions the interviewee answered weren't actually asked by Slashdotters. The "Ask This Guy Questions" articles were completely pointless as questions were almost never chosen from those articles. The "interviews" were completely fake - both sides written by the interviewee and their PR goons. Some Slashdotters had a mini revolt about this (not on the scale of the Beta revolt) and had posts deleted.

It got so bad that one of the interviews never even happened because they didn't want the negative exposure. The "Ask..." and "... Responds" articles for some time were filled with "FUCK YOU FUCK SLASHDOT FUCK CENSORSHIP FUCK SLASHVERTISING" etc.

Lately , some of mine (which weren't trolling) were either deleted or otherwise eaten by Slashdot. For the two times I noticed it I couldn't think of any reason why they'd be censored, so it could simply be a case of Slashdot fucking up. This happened around the time of the latest sale to whomever the fuck owns it now.

Re: Question

[Coren22]

Trump only appears racist because the media likes to portray him that way. Me not being able to find out WTF you are talking about with a jewish accountant does not make me a bad Googler however, as apparently it isn't being widely reported on.

If you really think that Trump is a racist for wanting to build a wall, I have news for you, Hillary wants one too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Question

[Coren22]

I wasn't aware of those issues, thank you for the heads up.

The Brianna Wu interview had me rolling. She is a bigger troll than any of the Slashdot trolls. Every question was a complete suck up question to get her to talk about how awesome she is. It was awful, the ask side challenged her to actually answer for all the terrible things she has done, but not a single one of those questions apparently even made it to her inbox.

https://interviews.slashdot.or...
https://interviews.slashdot.or...

It sure made my faith in the interview posts disappear, but I never would have expected the amount of post deleting you bring up. Some of those don't even make sense. If people don't like Beta, they don't like it. Deleting the posts won't suddenly make more people like the crappy interface.

Re:Coren22's delusions dismantled (again)

[Coren22]

So, where do they suggest that a 200k+ entry hosts file will be faster than the same thing loaded into DNS? In fact, did you even read those answers?

DNS' shortcomings are far outshined by the shortcomings of your solution. Are you going to add all the entries needed for an AD environment to the hosts file just to TRY and make a computer respond as quickly to local queries? You seem to not understand the way DNS or AD work if you think this is a viable solution, or frankly that it will even work.

Sure you know what a bridge is...so, if you are using a bridge to access the internet, why hasn't your computer been compromised 30 different times already?

You claimed that you use bridges "to get around Slashdot's posting limits", which is categorically false, as a bridge does not have the ability to do that.

Perhaps you should go buy a book on networking. You seem to be confusing Router/Firewall with a Bridge, which are totally different functionally.

Re:Topic was adblock vs. hosts stupid

[Coren22]

Aww, now you have to jump to me being brain damaged. So, since you lost the argument, you have to try insulting yet again to make your point? Asperger's Syndrome, and Autism as it is now called is not the result of brain damage, so perhaps you should rethink your attacks, as they make you look ignorant.

So, where is your consideration of the impact of name resolution of every entry not in the hosts file? Where is your consideration of the impact of directing hosts file entries to 0.0.0.0 (as you recommend) and the timeout wait of this (or the impact of running a web server that returns a blank page for every possible query)?

You like to slam adblock, but you don't have to wait for adblock to timeout items that aren't even attempted to retrieve.

With domain name system, you don't have to wait for every query to step through 200k records to have a cache miss that finally times out to public dns, so you get that improved performance. You also don't have to wait for however many records to be stepped through to get to every 0.0.0.0 entry. Domain name systems use a branching tree algorithm (you know, a programming term?) to look up entries, so it doesn't have to process all of the records every time you do a lookup, just the one you are looking for.

Re:Coren22, hosts are about networking

[Coren22]

You have proven, yet again, that you know nothing about how network stacks work, and that you can only insult and lie about me.

I am not stupid, despite what you try to say.

I am not a ne'er-do-well or a menial.

I have done things, my refusal to demonstrate them is more about you than me. I don't feel like you stalking me in real life like you do here.

I have proven your lack of knowledge in networking repeatedly in this thread and others. You still persist in your assertion that you use a bridge without understanding the first thing about them. You still claim to get around Slashdot's AC limits by using a bridge, as if that is a possibility.

No, I have not contradicted myself, that you think I did points to a serious read comprehension issue on your side. Keep it up, keep the insults coming. I know I am getting to you with my truth when you are forced to break out all the insults.

Re:Topic was adblock vs. hosts stupid

[Coren22]

I was as much off topic as you APK. Why do you try and claim I am off topic when I am responding to what you posted?

Re: Question

[Coren22]

Aww, poor APK had his feelings hurt when I proved him wrong.

What does the topic have to do with hosts files that you just had to bring them up? What did the topic have to do with APK that you had to pitch in about how you are superior

You are just mad that I get up modded while you get down modded. I participate in the conversation, while you troll.

Re:You're off topic trolling + failing

[Coren22]

Oh yeah, running away. Is it running to just give up on explaining the same thing for the 100th time? You don't get it, because you know so little about networking. You don't understand how the hosts file works, but still believe your solution is so much better.

It is not offtopic to respond to what people post about.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

So, since you brought it up, I responded. You bring up how no one has ever proven you wrong, so I point out that I have proven you wrong numerous times. You, yet again, still don't even understand enough of the technology you are dealing with to understand why you are wrong, so, instead of admitting your mistakes, you insult me, and call me a liar. Keep it up, I am sure one of these days you will catch me being wrong.