]]>

Intel Optane 900P SSD

Discussion in 'Solid State Drives (SSDs) and Flash Storage' started by tilleroftheearth, Oct 27, 2017.

  1. jclausius

    jclausius Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    876
    Messages:
    2,317
    Likes Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    131
    LOL! He's going to need a whole lot of them to make up for how much drive space he uses.
     
    alexhawker, Vasudev and Papusan like this.
  2. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,308
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    231
    im using server 2012 but on that front shouldnt matter too much, it is essentially windows 8. fastcopy bypasses os cache and means it will only do direct I/O so it is entirely devices's capability. but i am on ddr4 dual channel 2400mhz, at 4.8ghz 8700k. if you're on ddr3 and value ram it might make a big difference though it should still easily outpace 960 pro.
     
    Vasudev likes this.
  3. Papusan

    Papusan BGABOOKS = That sucks!! STAHP! Dont buy FILTH...

    Reputations:
    8,344
    Messages:
    16,651
    Likes Received:
    23,183
    Trophy Points:
    931
    @Phoenix Yeah, I TAGGED you:D He hate desktops!!
     
    Vasudev likes this.
  4. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,308
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    231
    these reviews barely shed light on 900p and shows underwhelming results. for software to fully take advantage of hardware most program needs recoding and restructure from ground up.

    optane doesn't have any DDR where as most flash based SSDs have DDR2/3, though not all used as buffer they still store file, so the write speed is masked up, even if OS cache is by passed, it is still a masked speed. especially the 960 evo where it has DDR AND SLC caching, double layers to mask the poor write performance of TLC nand.

    optane not only gives a ton of random read performance over traditional nand, it also gives much more performance in mix workload (irl workloads) where flash numbers quickly degrade to that of 10-15% of only read or only write performance.
     
    Vasudev and Prema like this.
  5. Papusan

    Papusan BGABOOKS = That sucks!! STAHP! Dont buy FILTH...

    Reputations:
    8,344
    Messages:
    16,651
    Likes Received:
    23,183
    Trophy Points:
    931
    All depends on your usage, but all should stay away from TLC nand if they do some serious workload.
     
    Vasudev and ole!!! like this.
  6. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,308
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    231
    i'll get TLC for storage but prob not QLC unless performance is any remotely good and not masked up by some cache. i dont wanna store my files and shutdown, only to find the files corrupted when i boot it back up that would defeat the purpose of storage.

    i'd rather see poorer numbers and know that it is the actual speed with no fake/masking numbers.
     
    Vasudev likes this.
  7. jclausius

    jclausius Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    876
    Messages:
    2,317
    Likes Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    131
    @ole!!! - Because it was bugging me, I ran a similar copy ASDF/ test, but this time on the Linux side of things on the very same machine.

    For this test, I just:

    - Created / mounted a 512MB ramdisk
    - Extracted your rar file to an 'ext4' partition on the first M.2 disk (located on my 'm2a' mount).
    - Ran 'time cp -R /path/to/ASDF /path/to/ramdisk/test/'

    Better results to report here.

    [​IMG]

    What a difference!! The speeds are just under 207MB/s copying from a Samsung 960 Pro NVMe to a newly created ramdisk. I have no idea why Windows 10 Pro has such horrible performance. And this was run on the EXACT same hardware!

    ------------------------

    Edit - I thought perhaps there might be some caching in play with the files after the extraction. So, I reset the system to the state I was in before (except leaving the ASDF/ directory on the 960 Pro), rebooted, re-created the ramdisk, and ran the copy test again. It looks like I was correct.. file caching. In any case, results are less, but still not anywhere as bad as the Win 10 test:

    time cp -R ASDF/ /mnt/ramdisk/test/

    real 0m1.463s
    user 0m0.164s
    sys 0m0.685s

    This is about 74.9 MB/s on the ASDF/ group of files.

    -----

    I wonder if there's something wrong with memory within Windows (see sig)? Does this benchmark against the ramdisk seem too low? -
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
    Vasudev and hmscott like this.
  8. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,308
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    231
    yea the OS is using memory as cache and buffers. I have tested so many software tool and fastcopy is the only one that I can use would be near 99.99% no buffer unless files are smaller than 1kb. basically set the size to 1kb and have all the files be greater than 1kb will ensure OS caching never used with fastcopy.

    even though i dont use linux, OS have reasons to use ram if it's available, caching will spread out the read/writes so it doesn't bog down your system. original OS/system is designed with hard drive in place, at old times they didnt really have consumer SSD (15+ yrs ago) and Harddrive are obviously extremely slow when comes to small files, and OS is designed with HDD in mind and probably hasnt changed even with newer version of OS revision.

    there might be something real wrong with your windows 10 lol
     
    Vasudev likes this.
  9. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,010
    Messages:
    14,544
    Likes Received:
    17,649
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Intel Optane 900p : Our Initial thoughts and Testing
     
    Vasudev and jclausius like this.
  10. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,308
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    231
    theres no way to power the 900p btw, only real way to get it to work internally is through a unused fan (2ndary GPU fan if unused that has 12v/grnd) even then not sure how much current we can pull through it, might damage the mobo i dont even want to try it.

    waiting for 800p.
     
    Vasudev likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page