Intel Optane 900P SSD

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by tilleroftheearth, Oct 27, 2017.

  1. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,781
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    331
    atto.jpg

    writing small files as much as possible at lowest QD possible (QD 2 with ATTO). notice how first 2 picture both are 961 or 960 EVO oem.. but 2nd picture shows pure trash performance vs the first. in comparison look at sandisk extreme pro.

    its likely read is not stored in the SLC layer so that pure junk read performance is likely true performance of TLC flash at small block size file level. which also explains why my hyperx 3.0 is pure sh!t too, just like many people reviewed the drive also mentioned slow files copy into it is slow as hell.
     
    Vasudev likes this.
  2. jclausius

    jclausius Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,362
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Trophy Points:
    181
    What is the PM961 page size? If it is 4K or bett than that may explain the read performance, but other than Atto's .5K to 4K, the rest of the numbers on the Samsung look good compared to the other two.
     
  3. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,781
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    331
    this is all single drive, if you're talking about default format size its all 4k, same with Hyperx 3.0 and sandisk extreme pro. if you mean the page size by samsung its likely 16k or 32k, this is something im not too familiar with however my understanding is that increasing this page size via firmware on the flash would increase performance, but lower endurance.
     
  4. jclausius

    jclausius Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,362
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Trophy Points:
    181
    No. I'm talking about the size of the resting place where the SSD controller stores actual data within its group of NAND cells.

    Do you know if the disks were secure erased before the ATTO test? Furthermore, do you enough about the ATTO test's timings? It has to put files on the SSD, correct? If pages are dirty, there's a write amplification problem to worry about. Does ATTO take things like that into account?

    [ Note, this is a bit dated (as it won't cover some of the newer technology like TLC, 3D vertical, etc.) , but for anyone wanting a primer behind on the technology behind SSDs I *strongly* recommend this entire article, but one can start here - https://www.anandtech.com/show/2738/5 thru https://www.anandtech.com/show/2738/14 ]


    What is strange, if you look at WRITE speeds the PM961 has better numbers hands down. It is READs that are interesting, but only until the file size reaches 8K. At that point, PM961 equals and then gets better performance numbers. My post above questions if it is something to do with the NAND page size, the ATTO test, or perhaps testing against a non-secure erased SSD.
    -------

    Read Speeds

    PM961
    .5K = 527 MB/s
    1K = 1062 MB/s
    2K = 2103 MB/s
    4K = 4161 MB/s
    8K = 38,060 MB/s
    16K = 271,302 MB/s
    32K = 323,649 MB/s

    Sandisk
    .5K = 14,123 MB/s
    1K = 19,726 MB/s
    2K = 22,740 MB/s
    4K = 26,820 MB/s
    8K = 43,892 MB/s
    16K = 91,799 MB/s
    32K = 145,244 MB/s

    Kingston
    .5K = 3170 MB/s
    1K = 5881 MB/s
    2K = 9633 MB/s
    4K = 13,811 MB/s
    8K = 18,071 MB/s
    16K = 20,103 MB/s
    32K = 30,736 MB/s
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2018
    Vasudev likes this.
  5. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,971
    Messages:
    17,556
    Likes Received:
    21,559
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Actually I came here to post that video, to show that so far Optane in this form is worthless...and SATA is still "fast enough" for real-time 99% use.
     
    Vasudev, Dr. AMK and jclausius like this.
  6. jclausius

    jclausius Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,362
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Trophy Points:
    181
    I was hoping @tilleroftheearth would've had some kind of comment.
     
    Dr. AMK and hmscott like this.
  7. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,971
    Messages:
    17,556
    Likes Received:
    21,559
    Trophy Points:
    931
    He seems to have taken an NBR "New Years Resolution"...he hasn't posted here in 2018... yet. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
    alexhawker, t456 and jclausius like this.
  8. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,781
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    331
    the issue is this performance can be duplicated on clean drive or dirty drive. needless to say we shouldnt be testing it on clean drive let alone secure erase, because drive are meant to be used so it should always be tested with files in it.

    PCIE has lower latency, not to mention PM961 is TLC drive so it has SLC caching. so once SLC filled up TLC write is only 600MB/s and thats with multiple channel TLC writing at the same time (kinda similar raid 0 with SSD controller being the raid controller, more channels flash = faster sequential output, also another reason why optane memory m.2 is only 300MB/s because only 1-2 channels where as optane can max at 7 with 900p)

    it should go like this if my guess is correct (tho i have no idea if this is how ATTO works)
    ATTO --> SLC --> many TLCs flash for write
    many TLCs --> SLC/no SLC --> ATTO for read

    wrhite test: 32M OR 64K writes into SLC so write performance same, however it goes into SLC to TLC soon enough that its no longer stored within SLC cache, so that means when read test happens, it wont come from SLC caching, it'll come straight from TLC.

    read test: assuming the page size is 16K, then a small 64K would be broken into 4 * 16K which is either 4 channels at QD1 or 2 channels for QD2 (and so on) dependent on the firmware how controller reads it's flash. assuming it is 2 for QD2 for 64K, then 32M would 512 * 64K which would put this to multiple channel and multiple QD, thus increasing the speed drastically (saying QD here isnt the right term but idea is the similar)

    perhaps this is the reason behind it and shows true TLC performance, or at least samsung's TLC performance.

    thats like saying intel 2 core at 5ghz is faster than ryzen 8 cores 4ghz because a software only uses 2 cores. Optane hardcore destroys any other flash based SSD, at this point its software not taking full advantage of it, heck software isnt even taking full advantage of traditional HDD/SSD.

    if i were to recommend to a friend yea i won't bother telling them to buy optane, a PCIE based SSD is good enough for them.
     
    jclausius, Vasudev and Dr. AMK like this.
  9. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,781
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    Trophy Points:
    331
    copying almost 70k files, only 120MB in size. 1/3rd of files less than 1k, 1/3rd is 3KB and 1/3rd is 5KB. writing to Z:\ which is a ramdisk to remove any write bottleneck so read speed will be the bottleneck here per device. Fastcopy 2.11 use 1 thread read, 1 thread write mode, bypass OS cache so its not device writes into OS cache (ram) then into ram disk again.

    fastcopy.jpg
     
    Papusan, Vasudev and Dr. AMK like this.
  10. jclausius

    jclausius Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,362
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Can you zip up that file bundle and make it available somewhere?
     
    Vasudev likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page